PARLIAMENT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3346, 15 November 1871, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

<. . HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TtTiSDAY, 14tll NOVEMBER. The Speakee took the chair at one o'clock. GOLDI'IELDS TEES. Mr BRADSHAW aßked the Government whether they are prepared to give to Provincial Governments t.'io fees and fines paid inte Resident Magistrates' Courts within Goldfields, in order to enable them to meet a portion of the salaries payable to officers of those courts ? Mr YOGEL said the revenue received into the Treasury, whether by fees or fines, or by taxation, or in any shape whatever could only be disposed of according to law, and the Government were not disposed either to overrido the law or to introduce any fresh measure during the present session. Therefore they would dispose of these fees and fines in the manner provided by law. In no shnpe did tho Government see llieir way to add fresh taxation for the purpose of adding to the amount to be paid to the provinces. CASE OF MR J. 8. JUCFARLANE. Mr CURTIS wished to ask a question in reference to a petition which he had presented a day or two ago with reference to the case of Mr J. S. Macfarlano. Tho committee had reported on the case, stating that the petitioner was entitled to aome compensation, and recommended tho Government to make enquiry into the case, also stating what the amount of compensation should be. Ho wished to ask the Government whether they would be so far prepared to act upon the recommendation of the committee as to appoint a commissioner, so that some action should be taken in the matter. Mr GISBORNE said he had not seen the petition or the report, but it was clearly one of those claims which should be considered by the House. He was not prepnred to say how the Government could deal with any claim which would have to be eatisfled out of the land fund of a province. He would look into the matter. THE CLUTHA RIVJJE. Mr MURRAY asked the Government whether they would during the recess take any steps to have the Clutha river surveyed for the purpose of improving the navigation. Mr GISBORNE could make no promise in the matter. AGRICULTURAL LIEN BILL. A message from his Excellency the Governor on this bill, providing that it shall come into operation on the Ist January next, was agreed to. CASE OF JOHN MARTIN. Mr GILLIES moved that the report of the select committee in this cbbo be agreed to He thought hon members who read tho report would see that the committee had given sufficient attention to the facts, which clear Improved that the petitioner was entitled to some further consideration. The committee did not recommend any special payment to Mr Martin, but recommended that he should be placed in the same position as if he had paid the penalty of £1,000 for the non fulfilment of the contract by Smith. MrT. KELLY moved, as an amendment, " That there is not sufficient evidence before the House to enable it to concur in the report of the select committee on the petition of John Martin, especially as the reports of the two committees were in direct contradiction, and that the Government should appoint a commissioner to inquire into the matter." He thought that would be a fair compromise. It would be unadvisable to reverse the report of the Petitions Committee. That committee had examined witnesses and had recommended that he should bo allowed, in accordance with his own desire, to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Government consented to that being done, and now the petitioner declines doing the very thing he had requeeted to be allowed to do. Now another committee had recommended that he should be allowed to refer to arbitration. They all knew what that meant, because arbitrators always wont against the Government. He thought the whole subject. Bhould be gone over by a commissioner. Mr GJSBORNE seconded the amendment. Mr GILLIES wished to point out that the amendment assumed that tho House had really had an opportunity of judging of the case. The evidence taken before tho select committee was very voluminous, and it was only the late period at which the session had arrived that prevented its being printed and placed in tho hands of members. The evidence taken was much in cxceß9 of that taken by the Petitions Committee, which had not examined the documentary evidence submitted on both sides. The, reports wtre not so much in opposition as the hon member seemed to think. It did not absolutely propose that there should be arbitration ; it would only be a carrying out of the principle laid down in the resolution — namely, that the Government should be placed in the same position to the petitioner as if tho petitioner had forfeited the penalty to which he had bound himself. He thought the proposal to appoint a commission of very little use. It was, in reality, saying to the petitioner, " You will have to submit to a one-sided report," because the commissioner would be tinged by the views of the Government, and tho Government having expressed such strong views on the subject his report would be most unsatisfactory. It would be much more fair that the petitioner should have an opportunity of submitting the whole matter to arbitration, as it was simply a question of settling the amount. Mr M'LEOD said delay of this kind would have the effect of preventing skilled workmen taking contracts on account of the difficulty of getting the money, but then the payment of tho whole amount recommended by the committee would pluce the competing contractors in a wrong position. It was nothing but right that he should bear tho loss of the £1000 penalty, but over and above that he thought it was hardly right that he should be subject to loss. The hon member for New Plymouth had elated that the arbitration would be sure to bs against the Government. That spoke very little for the characters of the citizens of the colony. It appeared to him that there was not too much askdd. Possibly there was something in the matter which hud not come to light, and that might bo the reason why tho Grovernment did not consent to settle the matter in that way, but as he saw nothing unreasonable in it, ho should support the report of the committee. Mr BRANDON" could not see how any injustice could be done to any of the other competitors. That argument, might have had some force if Mr Martin had been tho original contracter, but his liability under tho contract was restricted to the sum of £1000, and he only took the contract in the hope of saving some portion of that amount. Then ho had been recommended to finish the contract by the Colonial Architect 5 it was not expected he would have been confined to any stated price. If another contractor hud taken up tho contract he would have had to be paid whatever the amount of the unfinished work amounted to, and therefore it was unfair to put Mr Martin in tho position of having taken the original contract. It had been suid that there was no evidence before the House. Ho submitted that there was ample evidence taken before the first committee; the statement of the Colonial Architect was in itself quifco sufficient to substantiate the claim of Mr Martin. That committee did not deny that the work had been done, but they had decided the case upon a legal point, in which they had no right to interfere. What tho committee said, in effect, was — " Wo know he has a claim, ho has incurred liabilities, but don't allow him to go to arbitration," but what said tho other committee ? If the reports of tho two committees were compared the report of tho last one must bo admitted to bo the most fair. Was it fair to employ a man to build tho Governor's house, and then shirk the question whether they were liable for the exponso ? Were they going to shelve the question because the document was not signed, and, bohind a legal quibble, say that they should not pay what was justly due? It might do

for a private individual to sholter himself and say he wu* not legally liable, but it was not such a pobi;i>n as a Government should take up. The G wniment said they had given tho petitions 'ill ho asked for, but he said they had not. Lo had asked that some one should be named on whom to serve process, and they had refused. They had put the petitioner to great expense, and it was unfair now to say " wo will appoint some one to examine your claim." That was a most undignified course for any Government to take up when the proposal made by the committee was so reasonable and fair. They said "If he has expended money in excess of the contract let him be at the loss," but the committee said " Let him be at the loss of his £1000, and refund any amount he may have expended beyond that." If a commissioner wore to inquire into tho case ho thought he should be in Btrucfced to inquire into it on the basis of the report of tho committee. Then, he thought, the commissioner should be appointed with the consent of the petititoner. Another injustice to be felt would be that the matter should be deferred till next session. It would be a manifest injustice that, if any amount were found to be due to him, he should be kept out of it till next session, and then have the matter brought up again for discussion. He should vote for the original motion, because he did not consider the amendment a proper one. Mr O'NEILL said it seemed very clear, from the evidence of tho Colonial Architect, that Mr Martin had been paid only about £14,000 by the Government, while it had been proved that the value of the building erected whb £16,000. Ho thought the Government should act the part of a private individual, and what a private individual would do would be to go to arbitration. Mr GISBORNE would support the amendment on the ground that tho House had now the opinions of two committees, the evidence of one being printed, and that of the other not printed. It was impossible, he thought, that the members could come to any decision. The Government did not accept the position of being compelled to go to arbitration. The petitioner was at perfect liberty to have said that ho would forfeit his contruct, but his proceedings showed that he had voluntarily proceeded with the work. It was quite at his own option whether he proceeded or not, nnd he was not prepared to say that the Government should now be called upon to say to him, " Oh, pay your £ICOO and we will not expect you to pay any loss that may exceed that," They must proceed on the presumption that he had taken the work with his eyes open. Mr Martin was a shrewd mau of business and know what he was about at tho time he elected to proceed with the work. The Government admitted that there should bo further inquiry, and the question now was, what that inquiry should be. It bad been decided that he should not not go to law, although he had asked to be allowed to do bo. The correspondence showed that that was all he had asked for, and that some one should be appointed to represent the Government. Now it was a question between arbitration and a commissioner. The experience of the past showed that arbitral 101 was an exceedingly undesirable tribunal for the Government to resort to. People generally looked upon it as a question between a private pocket and tho public purse, and the private pocket was only considered, but it was the duty of the Government to be as economical with the public funds as they ivould with their private pockets, and he thought that was tho principle on which any Government as wellaa any private individual should proceed. What the Government understood by the appointment of a commissioner was that he should make inquiry ; ]not that he should bo a judicial tribunal. The effect of arbitration would be the giving of a final award, but the report of tho commissioner would still be open to tho House to decide upon, so that there might be further inquiry when they mot next session. The Government would appoint a wholly independent person — independent of the Government or of local or personal feeling. Instead of taking th c decision of arbitrators, it would bo better that the Government should take evidence upon oath, and appoint counsel to appear on both sides. Ho thought, in the interests of the public service, and in the interests of justice, no better course could be adopted.

Mr SWANSON" observed in the report that it put on a percentage of 10 per cent on the amount stated to be due. It rathor struck him that if ho went into a transaction on the same terras as Mr Martin had in this case ho would consider he had done very well if he got out of it with his own money, but there were many doubtful matters connected with the oaso. When Mr Smith, the contractor, failed, there was a thousand pounds worth of material on tlio ground and a good deal of work put into the building. That material, he was informed, bad never been paid to this day ; neither had the workmen been paid for the work done. All these things had been put down in the report as part of the moneys due to Mr Martin, and ho gets credit for it, with ten per"cent added, while the workmen had not yet got their money. If he had elected not to go on with the work he would have had to pay the £1000 down, and the Government would have had the benefit of what material there was on the ground, together with the work done, instead of letting Mr Martin get the benefit of it. Re did not doubt that Mr Martin had been induced by the Colonial Architect to go on with the contract, but clearly the workmen's wages, which were never j.airl, and the material, that was also never paid for, could form no part of Mr Martin's claim against the Government. Whoever that belonged to, he hoped Mr Martin would not get the benefit of it. Mr Fitziiebbert supported the motion, while Mr Caldeb would rather have seen the committee arrive at some amount to be awarded to Mr Martin. Altogether he did not think ho was entitled to anything whatever. Mr EOX was Borry he could not concur with the lion member for City West. The first point in the report which appeared to him to be not satisfactory was that portion of the report which said that the petitioner was induced to carry on the work. The committee were particularly careful not to say by whom he was induced to carry it on. They cautiously abstained from stating it aB a fact, and he believed it was not a fact at all. If the truth of tho matter were known, he thought it would be found that Mr Martin had been "induced" to go on with tho work by tho prospect of making a profit out of it. If there was any inducement at all, it was that he hoped either to make a profit or to save himself the £1,000, and surely that was not a ground on which he could Btand in order to expect to be refunded by the colony at large. There were now two courses beforo them. One was to keep the case open to the consideration of the House, and in tho other the decision would be final, so that ho thought they should adopt the course which would allow the case to come on for final decision by the House. Ho thought tho Government Bhould have had something to do with the appointment of the select committee ; then they might have been content to accept its decision. When it was proposed to appoint a committee, he was spoken to on tho matter, and ho marked the names the Government would consent to see on that committee, but only ono of those names was placed on it. Ho happened to be absent from the House when the matter came up, and ho regretted that it was so, because ho should have taken caro that both sides were better represented. It must be acknowledged that the Government would have more confidence in a committee in which it had some voice. Mr PEARCE thought it right to give some roasou for not voting for the amendment, and that was that it gavo no finality to the matter. If the amendment were carried they would have tho wholo matter up again next session. He wished to have an absolute and final decision in tho matter, and unless the caso went to > arbitration they could notcomo to any definite

conclusion. He thought it must be clear that the petitioner hud spent more money than he had received, and he knew of no other course by which they could arrive at a decision bucli as he desired to see. He did Hot desire that the arbitrators should be left to fix absolutely what amount should bo paid, but he thought the arbitration should be in terms of the report, the amount not to exceed the actual loss. That would give finality, and would bo doing nothing more than justice to all parties. Mr Shepherd and Mr Yogel opposed the motion, which was put and negatived on a division, the numbers being 24 against 20. The amendment was then put and carried. THE BTEAMEKB. Mr YOGEL announced that an arrangement had been made for tho return of the Wellington from Nelson for the purpose of conveying the Northern members to their homes. She would then, in all probability, leave to-morrow for the Manukau direct, merely culling at Taranaki on her way. The steamer for the South would probably leave next day at noon, but he must remind memberß that it depended wholly upon their gotting through the business. At a subsequent stage Mr Yogel announced that as the Upper House had committed great havoc in the Railways Bill there was a possibility of two or three days delay ; indeed, he expected that a call of the House was not at all improbable. CASE OF THOMAS CBAIG. Mr W. KELLY asked the Government if it was their intention to carry out the recommendation of the Petitions Committee in the case of Thomas Craig, namely, that the Government should make inquiry into the merits of the case with the view of compensating him for the loss of timber. Mr FOX said the Government had not had time to consider the report and the evidence, but he had no hesitation in the matter as the recommendation was merely that they should make inquiries into the case, but it must not be understood that the Government in any way countenanced Craig in taking the law into his hands as he had done. INDUSTRIAL ADVANCEMENT. Mr MURRAY moved that it ie desirable that the Government, during the recess, should take into consideration measures for the advancement of agriculture and legitimate industrial pursuits, and for developing genera 1 ly the resources of the colony, by aiding enterprise with advances of public money and otherwise, and should embody such measures in a bill to bo submitted to Parliament at next session. Mr FOX said the lion member had called the attention of the Houee and the country to an important subject ; at the same time he might as well have talked to the wild waves of the sea as to memberß who were anxious to leave for their homes. It was impossible that the Government could devise schemes for the advancement of the industries of the whole colony, many of whioh must be left to their own resources. The Government, however, might help to develop industries which were in a struggling condition — such as mulberry and silk culture. There were many exceptional cases, but the Government were not inclined to extend their actions as desired by the hon member. NATIVE BESEEVE9, GBEYMOTJTH. Mr HARRISON moved, that this House doth concur in the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee upon the petition of the leaseholders of the native reserves at Gi'ejmouth. He understood it was the intention of the Government not to oppose the motion, and he would therefore content himself with moving it. Agreed to. The samo reply was given to a similar question put by Mr White, with reference to the native reserves at Aruhura. GBEY.MOUTH AND HOKITIKA. Mr TBIBE moved that, prior to the next session of Parliament, tbe Government cause to be prepared plans and estimates of railways from Greymouth to Hokilika, and from Hokitika to Ross ; and obtain such information as will assist in forming a correct judgment on the merits of such undertakings. He proposed the motion in the hope that in the next session the House would take those works in baud. They would not only be an advantage to Westland, but would be the means of adding vastly to the wealth of the whole colony. The county had great wealth in her timber, which, if it could only be rendered marketable, would preclude the necessity for sending to Western Australia or to tho Seventy Mile Bu9h for timber for the railways. Mr FOX could not absolutely undertake to say that the work should bo done before the next session. The House had been pleased to give the Government so little time that they would have very little to spare, but he would promise the hon member that enquiries should be made. He trusted fchat some member of tho Government would be able to visit the West Coast Goldfields so as to judge with his own eyes of what was required in the district. LIBEAEY COMMITTEE. A Library Committee, to take charge during the recess, was appointed. ■\VANGANUI SETTLEBS COMPENSATION BILL This bill (the M'Gregor and others claim), was read a first, second, and third time, and passed. RICi'UND TO PROVINCE OP MAELDOEOTJGH. The resolution in this matter was ordered to be read that day six months.