GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 389, 10 September 1875, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Elbctbio Telegraph.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, September 8. The House resumed at 7.30. CHBISTCHTJRCH DISTRICT DRAINAGE BILL. The House went into committee upon the Christchurch District Drainage Bill. Mr Stout suggested that the second clause should be amended by leaving out all provisions respecting plurality of voting, which he objected to as wrong in principle. The Hon E. Richardson hoped the member for Caversham would try his experiments upon some Bill of his own district. This Bill was drawn up in consonance with the wishes of the people of Christchurch. Several members spoke against the amendment. . Mr STOUT demanded a division, which resulted in three voting for the amendment and thirty-four against. Mr Stout, Sir G, Grey, and Mr G. McLean voting for the amendment. The Bill was reported without amendments, the third reading being postponed for that day week. HIGHWAY BOARDS EMPOWERING ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr SHEEHAN moved the second reading of the Highway Boards Empowering Act Amendment Bill. ["No."l His principal desire was to enable the people to increase the rating upon the annual value of property. Mr Andrew moved that the Bill be read that day six months, but this was negatived, and the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed that day week. WELLINGTON TOLLGATE BILL. Mr Bunny moved the second reading of the Wellington Tollgate Bill. A good deal of objection had been taken to the third clause, which gave the Bill a retrospective character, but that, he said, would be amended. The Bill was read a second time. BILL PASSED. The Kakanui Harbor Board Bill was passed. OAMABU TOWN HALL BILL. The Oamaru Town Hall and Gas Woxks Bill was passed through committee. TELEGRAPH MESSAGES COPYRIGHT BILL, Mr HARRISON moved the second reading of the Telegraph Messages Copyright Bill. Its object was to protect newspaper proprietors, and other persons who incurred considerable expense in procuring telegrams. It was only proper, he thought, that persons who paid for property of that kind should be protected as much as they would be with any other description of property. In Victoria the necessity of laying down the law upon this question had been realised and acted upon. There were newspapers in Melbourne who subscribed as much as two thousand a year for European telegrams alone, and they were frequently robbed of these by country papers, who paid nothing but what it cost them to transmit the news from Melbourne, and they thus injuriously affected the circulation of more enterprising journals. A great deal of this kind of thing was done in New Zealand. His only object in bringing the Bill forward, was to ask the House to affirm the principle that telegrams bought by a newspaper or an agency should be protected for forty-eight hours. He was quite willing to accept of amendments in certain directions. Mr Reeves said he was not aware the hon gentleman was speaking in the interest of newspaper proprietors, and though the Bill affected their interests materially, it was uncalled for. The title should have been " a Bill to protect the press telegraphic agency monopoly." He was not going into the mode in which the telegraphic business was carried on, and in all probability by the time this colony was connected with Europe and America, another mode more in accordance withtherequirementsof the New Zealand press would be adopted, and when the colony was connected by cable with the other colonies, perhaps it would then be necessary to protect newspapers in their rights. As far as regarded these telegrams at present, it was entirely premature, unnecessary, and not called for by the newspaper interests of the colony. He found among the penalty clauses in the Bill the smallest was ten pounds, and the highest £2OO. These penalties would fall almost entirely upon the minor newspapers, and he felt he expressed the wishes of the larger newspapers of the colony, that no law should be parsed that pressed heavily upon the minor newspapers. The Bill was contrary to the wishes of newspaper proprietors, who were chiefly interested, and who would be sufferers by the Bill. He moved that it be read that day six months.

Mr Reynolds did not take the same view j as the hon member. He thought it wouUl be a protection to the press, and might be amended in committee as to meet the views MrT. L. Shepherd was puzzled what to say, as one press representative said the Bill was necessary, and another said it was not. The time must soon arrive when the chief newspapers of the colony must go to a large expense for Australian telegrams, and the more papers subscribed the less would be the cost individually. It would be unfair for non-subscribing papers to copy from those which procured expensive telegrams. As there seemed to be insufficient information on this point before the House, he would like the Bill referred to a Select Committee. Mr STEWABD said the principle stock-iu-trade of newspapers was news, and the most valuable of that was telegrams. In Victoria they legislated upon the subiect, and he thought it would be well for us to ascertain the exact provisions of their law upon this subject. He agreed with the member for Selwyn that there was no immediate necessity for the passing of the Bill, but in a short time, when we were in telegraphic communication with London, there would be a necessity for a Bill like this. He would not like the amendment carried, as that would be as much as to say the House declined to interfere in the matter. He thought the mover should have consulted the newspaper representatives on the matter, and he might even do so now with advantage. In order to extricate him out of a dilemma, he would move that the debate be adjourned for a week, In the meantime he (the mover) might avail himself of the suggestions, and be prepared with such amendments as would make the Bill acceptable. Mr Stout said if there was to be a copyright in telegrams why not also in reports, paragraphs, and leading articles, as all of these were paid for, and it was only a question of costs. It might be necessary to encourage papers in procuring early and valuable news, but the Bill was in the nature of a monopoly, and could only be excused by strong and pressing reasons. There was

an important principle underlying this question, and the House should be careful in dealing with the matter.

Mr O'OoNNOB wanted to know who asked for the Bill, and who was interested in it. The Bill provided for a contingency not yet arisen. The press of the colony was conducted on the system of reciprocity, and they copied from each other. News would come to the country, and would be paid for, and the House had no occasion to interfere.

Mr Luckte considered it impossible to make a copyright of news. It had been attempted in England, and had failed. He could not see how you could copyright what passed from mouth to mouth, though he believed it had been done in Melbourne. [Mr HARRISON—Yes, and a perpetual injunction granted against paper piracies."| While admitting the heavy cost to newspapers of telegraphing, and that it might be argued they ought to be protected, still news was a kind of imponderable property you could not protect. What was its value 48 hours after it first appeared 1 What was to prevent him luggiog into his speech some information obtained from Europe, and then getting it sent where he liked ? There was nothing to prevent a team of coach and horses being driven through the Act. He strongly objected to the Bill, as the time had not arrived for it. His own opinion was the member for Grey Valley represented the Press Association in the matter.

Mr Ballance thought the mover ought to have had a conference with the newspaper proprietors, so that their united intelligence might have produced what was really required. The hon member was quite right as regarded copyright, and he thought that persons who spent large sums of money in obtaining property of that kind should have some protection that their properly should not be appropriated feloniously. The member for Nelson said it was impossible to establish copyright, but it was well known that Reuter had a copyright, and though several attempts had been made to test the question the judgment of the Court had maintained it. The member for the Buller had said there was a system of reciprocity here, but it was only to a limited extent. No newspaper man would admit the principle that one paper should take telegrams from another without paying for them. There was no hurry for the Bill, as the cable would not be laid for twelve months, and in the mcantimenewspaperscould confer with one another, and frame a more comprehensive measure. With regard to Victoria, telegrams were wired there from Europe at very great expense ; and though the member for Caversham was opposed to a monopoly, he still admitted there ought to be protection where cablegrams were obtained at great cost. He (Mr Ballance) agreed that the principle of the measure was exceedingly just, but he would like it postponed for the present. The debate adjourned to that day week. BILL PASSED.

The Timaru Corporation Waterworks Bill was read third time and passed. The House adjourned at 12.30. (From a correspondent of the Press.) Thursday, September o. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PETITION. Sir George Grey presented a petition, signed by 1250 residents of Auckland, praying that they might have an opportunity of considering after a general election the proposed alteration of the constitution. PRINTING OFFICE. Mr SIIEPUERD brought under the notice of the House the supply by the Government Printing-office of copies of their speeches, issued in a pamphlet form, and Mr Steward explained that on enquiry he found such copies had been supplied at the cosh of producing them to the'members for Buller and Tuapeka, and issued through the post; as a supplement to newspapers. Mr Steward was proceeding to explain the action of the reporting debates committee in the matter, but the Speaker ruled that he could not do so until the committee had reported. Mr O'CONOR contended every member should be at liberty to obtain copies of his speeches from the Government printing office by paying for them, and gave notice of his intention to move in that direction. After further discussion the matter was postponed till to-morrow, when the reporting debates committee will bring up an interim report, when the whole matter will be reopened. The feelings of the members who spoke seemed to be that the printing office should issue the speeches of members if paid for. After explanations by Mr Stafford and Mr Stout, the following questions were asked :

(1) Mr Rolleston asked the Government if they have any information as to whuu Sir Julius Vogel's return may be looked for. (2) Mr J. C. BROWN asked the Minister for I'ublic Works what steps are being taken to open the first section of the Lawrence and Tokomairiro railway (tmiin South line to Glenore), and when it is likely that a portion of the Tuapeka railway will be opened for traffic.

(3) Mr Macandeew asked if the Government possess a copy of the despatch No 5 of 10th January, 1575, from the Agent-General, and if so, if there is any objection to lay the same before the House.

la reply the Government stated—(l.) That all correspondence had been laid on the table with the exception of confidential communications, which every Government made between themselves. Ho far as they were at present iuformed, Sir J. Vogel intended, if his health permitted, to leave for the colony some time this month, and so far as the Government knew, at the end of the present month. (2.) As soon as the line is ready for opening, they would have it handed over to the province. (3.) Had no copy of such a letter. THE ABOLITION BILL.

On the chairman taking the chair in committee on the Abolition Bill, Mr KOLLESTON put a question to the Government, the answer to which would greatly determine the action of himself and others. It had been currently stated in the lobbies by members presumably in tho confidence of the Government, that the Government were perfectly satisfied if the first four clauses of the Abolition Bill were carried, and would drop the rest ii they found a difficulty in carrying the financial measures connected with them. It was also reported that they would insist on those four clauses being reported to the House and abandon the rest. Before going further on with the Bill, it would be very desirable for the Government to state what was their intention on the subject. Sir D. McLean replied that the member for Avon should not listen to everything he heard in the lobbies—a practice he was too fond of. Government had no intention of doing anything of the kind. Their intention

was to carry out what they proposed in the first instance, and would not deviate one whit. They would not be satisfied with only three or four clauses. They would be satisfied with nothing short of the Bill itself. Sir G. Grey wished to understand exactly the action the Government intended to take. Sir D. McLean said it was their intention to go on with the Bill to its final termination. They could not be answerable for the assertions made in the lobbies. They had not iutimated anything to any of their followers in reference to the financial proposals. Mr Eolleston then went on to criticise the Bill. Referring to the speech of the Commissioner of Customs, he said his statement that they required a strong Government to watch the Superintendents was really something very good, and one of the pleasantest things that bad ever fallen from him. He pictured to himself that honorable gentleman watching the Superintendents during the recess. It would take him all his time. In the first place he denied that Superintendents or the representatives of the people required looking after by the hon gentleman or by Ministers ; but who were they that they should watch Superintendents 1 Under his centralist proclivities the hon gentleman's form was visibly swelling daily, but if he had to watch the Superintendents he would soon become attenuated. He should like to know what power they had to watch the Superintendents of Otago and Canterbury. In reference to the four million loan, he asked whether .in the whole Parliamentary history of the colony there was such an example of plundering and blundering as existed in those papers. The real interest of the colony had been sacrificed in the matter of the confiscated land. At home the Government were meddling and muddling with immigration. It was not a creditable spectacle that they had tampered with a member of the Assembly in dealing with the native lauds. It was madness to hand over the control of their affairs to men capable of such things. The danger was of handing over the affairs of the colony to banking influence and jobbing rings. The system of finance proposed by the Bill was false and rotten. Take away the Treasury Bills and the Bill fell to the ground. The system of provincial charges was utterly rotten. He intimated his intention of opposing the Bill at every stage. Mr Dignan, in calling upon the Chairman to read the Bill clause by clause, intimated his intention of opposing it line by line. He asserted that the public works policy had failed to answer its intentions. They had got no settlers in the country. They had got some few lines of railways, but none finished, and those that were ran parallel with roads and rivers. So far as he was personally concerned he would resist this attempt to deprive the people of their rights ; and every settler with the slightest degree of spirit Wuuld resist it. When men rose to affluence by public moneys it was time to resist attempts to deprive the people of the only happiness men can en joy—their liberty. That liberty would be maintained and fought for. On the other side was the question of pounds shillings and pence, acquiring territory and seeking to get power. It was painful to hear such narrow-minded views expressed on the floor of the House. Mr O'RORKE decided that the Bill could be read clause by clause. Mr Sheehan in moving that progress be reported, characterised part of the press as hireling. He did not apply that term to the whole of the press favoring abolition, becanse he knew some supported it independently, but he was speaking of a portion of the press who advocated anything, from abolition to attacking private character, for money.