"NOT UNDERSTOOD."

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 15000, 16 July 1900, Page 2

" NOT UNDERSTOOD."

To The Editor. Sir, — To quote the Chronicle's words with reference to myself, it would have been better for the writer of your sub-leader in Wednesday morning's Chronicle "had he refrained from attempting to explain" the Chambers of Commerce and Mines Registration Bill. I will also us'e a further extract as pertinent — I can only -advise the writer "to devote a little more attention to . Bills upon which he is" writing "before he again attempts' anything in the nature of a publio explanation." To show that I was right in my interpretation of the clause and that the writer in the Chronicle was wrong, I submitted the clause and the Chronicle's sub-leader" to the Hon. J. ,G. Ward, who framed the Bill, and have received the following, reply :' — "Wellington, July 12th, 1900. Dear Mr Willis— The sub-leader in the Wanganui Chronicle of July 11th on the operation,of clause 2 of section 8 of the Chambers ijf Commerce Bill is based upon an entire misconception of the facts. Tlie sub-clause sets out certain classe? of persons who shall not be excluded, but does not in any way limit the number of persons who may bo "admitted. It provides that tho rules of the Chamber may prescribe the qual'M'-ation-,- and admission of new members with the limitation that every person of good repute engaged in certain avocations shall be admitted. From the foregoing it will be seen that there is no restriction ; but, on the contrary, certain persons tu-e not to be excluded provided they are engaged in the occupations specified in tho Bill, and are of good repute.— Yours faithfully, J. G. Ward.'" This should satisfy tho writer in the Chronicle of the correctness of my statement, and make him more careful in future not to condemn those who are belter acquainted with the provisions of the Bill than himself. — 1 am, etc., A. D. WILLIS.[Mr Willis' explanation, notwithstanding its. Ministerial backing, does not get him out of tho hole. Tlie Bill, as it was before the Wanganui Chamber, clearly defined the qualificatiojis of those eligible for membe:--ship as poisons of good repute "engaged" in certain stated avocations. Obviously, when particular qualifications are set up, tho plain and common-sense inference is that all who do not come within those qualifications are excluded.. . Mr Willis, after consulting Mr Ward, may hold a contrary opinion, but we would remind him that when it was pointed out to him by a member of the Chamber that the effect of tho Bill would bo to exclude retired business men from membership, he (Mr Willis) first of all hesitated, then looked at the qualification clause, and ultimately admitted that while tho member's contention appeared to be correct, it was a curious thing that "the point had not been raised by any member of tho House." Does this look as if the member for the district was conversant with and understood the effect of the provisions of the Bill for which he gave a "conscientious vote" . rather than "go against his party?" The wording of the clause itself is against Mr Ward's neatlyworded attempt to get Mr Willis out of the difficulty. The clause does not provide that certain people "shall not be excluded," but that they "shall be eligible." The Colonial Secretary, in reply to the protest of the Wanganui Chamber, denies that the Bill interferes with the liberty of the subject in any way, and states that he is unable to see what grounds the Wanganui Chamber had for passing the resolution it did. If Mr Ward fails to realise that the Jiill is an interference with the liberty of the subject, he can scarcely be expected to notice what, after-all, is only one of the faults of the measure. — Ed. Chronicle.'!