The Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1895. To-Day.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5337, 15 August 1895, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1895. To-Day.

The case of the convict Louis Chemis trembled in the balance at yesterday's sitting of the Legislative Council, when the debate on the motion for the second read* ing of the Criminal Code Bill, No. 2, was brought to a conclusion. The motion was carried by 17 to 16. The time in the House of Representatives was taken up with, the perpetration of one of those idiotic "no confidence " farces that seem to be inseparable from party Government. When the House met in the afternoon, Captain Bussell intercepted the continuance of the Financial debate by giving notice of a hostile amendment on the motion for the second reading of the Tariff Bill. The Government, ifc will be remembered, had expressed its willingness to accept any reasonable tariff amendments in committee. In other words, it j was willing that membera collectively should mould the tariff. According to constitutional procedure, the Premier regarded the move of the Opposition leader aa a direct challenge, and after a wordy* disoußsion, the House adjourned. In the evening, the Colonial Treasurer at once moved' the postponement of the ordinary business, bo that the House might go into j Committee of Ways and Means, thus leaving the way clear for Captain Bussell's ! amendment. This course, however, was ! declined by the Opposition, and the House ; went into Committee. Thereupon Mr Ward proposed the removal of the duty on Buoh of the mis-named "flannelette" as was to be used for " chirting," and that, with this exception, there should be an all-round duty of " 10 per cent on flannelette, imitation flannels and eoft-apun piece goods." This waa agreed to on the voices, and the interrupted Financial debate waa resumed. The jury that had to deal with the perjnry case yesterday could not, on the evidence presented, have consistently avoided returning a verdict of " Not guilty." Yesterday's presentment of the matter shows unmistakably that bnt for extraordinary looseness of method it need never have been taken to the Supreme Court, and that a considerable amount of time and money might have been saved to the country. Such trouble and unpleasantness aa have befallen Mr J. G. Bruce and hie friends they brought upon themselves. Ie wonld have been a perfectly simple thing to clear up the point at iaaue at an early stage, and the ungeneroUß process of virtually making- a - scapegoat of the solicitor employed by the Prohibitionists in the Licensing Court is certainly nob likely to win commendation. Perhaps it is not yet hopeless to hope that the Prohibitionists will bo far profit by the lessons of experience as to be more cautious in the future in their line of procedure, and exeroiae more freely than they have hitherto done the virtue of temperance in speech and action.