PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 304, 19 September 1919, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

HEAVY WORK AHEAD

PROBABLE DATE OF THE ELECTIONS TAXATION PROPOSALS The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. PAYMENT OF JURORS. The l'avment.of Jurors Bill was received from the Lower House and read a first time. JURIES ACT AMENDMENT. The Hon. J. MACGREGOE moved the second reading of tho Juries Act Amendment. Bill, which provides tur tho acceptance (in all criminal cases, except capital) of a 'live-sixths majority verdicl. Mr. MacGregor explained that the liill was practically in the same form in which it passed the committee, of tho Council in the short session of 1917. It was stopped, for convenience, at that stage. Ho did not propose to recapitulate the arguments ho had advanced on tho formor occasion. Tho proposals embodied in the Bill were favoured by the following Judges: The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), tho late Mr. Justice Denniston. the lato Mr. Justice Williams. Mr. Justice Chapman, Mr. Justice Sim. and Mr. Justice Stringer. Mr. Justice Edwards. Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Hosking were against the proposals. The Hon. O. SAMUEL opposed the Bill, urging that there was little need for such legislation. He considered it gratifying that in spito of tho prejudice that tended to attach to any man who entered the dock, there had not been a ereater number of verdicts of guilty in tho nast. Better that twenty guilty men should 'ao freo than- that one innocent man should suffer. If unanimity was to bo given up, the institution of trial bv jury might as well be abolished. He considered that they should watch jealously the cases that Stipendiary Magistrates were allowed to deal with, I hey should even go through the statutes and see if all the instances were justified in which a man was permitted to be tried bv other than his peers. They could not have too great safeguards in order to support and entitle to public confidence tho verdict of a jury. , , The Hon. SIB. JOHN. SINCLAIR asked whother there was in tho opinions of the Judees tho unanimity that ought to be looked for before such an important change in the law was made. Ho also asked why the case of murder was exreotod in tho proposed amendment. 1 lieanswer was that thero was a risk, lo nass tho Bill would bo to put on record that the Council was ready to take a risk with a man's liberty, though no., with his life. Moreover, once unanimity had been broken into, where was tho logical stopping-place ? Why should _ tho limit bo set at a five-sixths majority.' 1 The logical conclusion of tho process would bo arrival at a bare majority verThe Hon. J. BAEE considered that the Bill was an endeavour to avoid tho shortcomings of both tho unanimous verdict system and tho bare mnjdrity system. Ho was prepared to support it. The second reading was earned upon a division by 13 votes to 11. . •Ayes.-flell. Hardie, Aitken, Barr, Jones. Hall-Jones, Garland, Fisher, Thomson. Enrnshaw, MocGregor, Simpson. Mac Gibbon. Noes-Michel', To Houhen Tukino, Gow Hawke, Stewart, Louisson, Harris, Sinclair. Samnel, Grimmond, To Topi Pn-tuki. , , , ~, -rt The Council adjourned at 4.45 p.m. It will urcsent the Address-in-Reply at Government Houso at 10 a.m. to-day.