Parliamentary.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1723, 11 July 1874, Page 2

Parliamentary.

HOUSE OF EEPKESENTATIVES. Electric Telegraph Bill. The Premier, in moving the second reading of the Electric Telegraph Bill, explained that its chief object was that of making more effective provisions against injury to telegraph lines, and protecting officers of the department from actions of libel for sending libellous telegrams. He thought the telegraph office should be looked upon as a piece of machinery, the same as the post office. The most important part of the bill was in regard to calling for telegrams for purposes of inspection. The act provides that a telegram should be produceable only on the consent ef the sender or receiver, with the exception of general cases, where telegrams shall be produceable on the decision of commissioner of telegraph. It was very hard to have to bring in such a measure at all, because it had not been found necessary to do so in other countries ; but it was clear that the practice had been lately growing up in New Zealand of attempting to make the telegraph office a medium for obtaining legal evidence. Notlong since a greatinnoyation was made by an order of a Judge of the Supreme Court to inspect all telegrams without particular ones being specified. The Premier referred to the case of Macassey v. Bell to show the danger of the practice o':' ordering the production of telagrains, by affording an opportunity for a legal practitioner fishing out something upon which an action might be forwarded. It was obvious by the conduct of the Judges at home, as shown in several recent cases, that they determinedly set their faces against the practice of ordering the production of telegrams, and had positively refused to grant an order for that purpose. It was unsafe to allow the matter to rest in its present ■unsatisfactory state, and the whole question should be finally put beyond any doubt by legal provision. Their principal object should be the placing o f telegrams on the sanie footing as letters. He hoped the time was not far distant when they would have facsimile telegrams by a process which should not require an operator to read the telegram at all. The plan had already been tried on a small scale successfully.

Mr. Fox hoped the Government would at once secure the public by laying it down that telegrams should not be kept. If, as tlve Premier said, they would soon not have to copy telegrams at all, it would be better to recognise „lho principle at once. It was desirable that some precaution should be taken to prevent the secresy of telegrams bein# violated. At present operators were liable to heavy penalties for divulging the contents of telegrams, but there was no penalty upon a third person outside the department who became acquainted with the contents^ of any telegrams and divulged them. He would more an amendment that would remedy that. The Coyernment should also endeavour to devise some means by which the primary offender in divulging telegram's should be traced even to indemnifying the party giving such information; as was done by commissioners appointed to.inquire into Wade's affairs at Sheffield. Major Atkinson said the House argued as to the necessity of such a bill, but; it seemed to him if the desire was to assimilate the Telegraph Department to the post-office a good plan would be to compel the operators, as every message was taken off, to enclose it in an envelope addressed to the person, and then put it in t-he post-office. . .

Mr T. B. G-illies would not oppose the second reading of php bill, but he considered the measure c •?;'ain/jfi r vco:;,-if]cr-able amount of what iiu callo.!.' logislation, and he failed to. see rtu}- gi\at necessity for legislation on such matters, Jjecapse the general practice of judges at

home.was decidedly against ordering the production of telegrams;, except in very rare_ cases. The suggestion of Major Atkinson simplified the whole question, and ought to receive the consideration of the Government.' ;