PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 875, 22 July 1910, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS 1 \ In the Council yesterday the By-Lawf [Bill was read a second time, and referred Ito the Statutes Revision Committee. Tho Houso was occupied all the afternoon and until 1 o'clock this morning in a [discussion of the Prime Minister antijgambling motions, reported in another |part of this issue. Tho first motion, for •the abolition of the bookmaker, was carried by 09 votes to 4; the second, for tho tabolition of tho totalisator, was lost by 10 .votes to 32; and tho discussion 011 the (third, for the reduction of race meetings and porinits, was adjourned. THE COUNCIL. BY-LAWS BILL, When tho Legislative Council resumed yesterday afternoon, The Hon; Dr. FINDLAY moved the second reading of the By-Laws Bill. At present, ho declared, many of the technical objections to by-laws were an inheritance of tho past. There was a too rigid insistence on form in our legal system. Tho Bill, was intended primarily for the protection of by-lairs against roere formal or technical objections. "he validity ,of a by-law would bo promptly and simply- tested under the Bill by an application to tho Supreme Court for an order quashing it. Such an application imight be made by any person. The Bill •was really an extension of' the law at present embodied in. tho Municipal Corporations Act, and its full usefulness would only be appreciated when it came into operation. Local bodies, had very great difficulty in regard to the making of valid by-laws. The Municipal Corporations Act had largely remedied the matter in relation to, boroughs, but it .was not so in the case. o£ connty councils. The Hon. J. R. SINCLAIR (Otago) ithought that care would have to be taken in the Bill to prevent confusion being worse confounded. The Hon. H". SCOTLAND (Taranald) iCondemned - the measure as "too much .of a lawyer's Bill.'" The Hon. /J. B. CALLAN (Otago) jthpught that : power should not be given jto local bodies to increase penalties fixed fby Parliament, or to impose penalties where Parliament had decided upon none. ■ The Hon;. J. E. JENKINSON (Wellington) suggested that a clause should.be '.inserted to provido more uniformity of jby-laws dealing with the same subjects Jin different' boroughs. The Hon. J. ANSTEY (Canterbury) jthought that the Bill would save a great '.deal of expense to. local bodies. It would ibo.much to the advantage of the public if the effect oi by-laws was published' in a simple*form, instead of all the legal language being given. The Hon. C. H. MILLS ("Wellington) thought that care should be taken to give a wide publicity to the effect of bylaws, otherwise people might be brought • .to court -without knowing that they had committed an offence. The Hon. «T. Marshall (Westland), Hon. "W. W. M'Cardle (Auckland), and Hon. :A. Baldey (Otago) expressed general approval of tho Bill. Th& Bill was road a second time and [referred to the Statutes' Revision ComThe Council rosa at 4.20 p.m., to meet /again this afternoon. .