PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4152, 11 July 1874, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Embay, July 10. LEAVE OP .ABSENCE. On the motion of Mi\ Swanson, leave of absence was granted to Mr. Creighton, on account of illness in his family; on Mr. O’Borke’s motion, ten days’ leave to Mr. Luckie, in order to enable him to give evidence at a trial now ponding in the Supreme Court in Auckland ; and on Hr. Richardson’s motion, a week to Mr. Montgomery and to Mr. Rolleston, on account of urgent public business, lighthouse at cape wanbrow. Mr. STEWARD asked,—“Why a lighthouse has not been erected at Cape Wanbrow, in accordance with a resolution of this House during the last session of Parliament.” Mr. REYNOLDS replied that when the question came before the House last session he stated that he considered this light was not a Colonial one, but was rather a Provincial one, and the hon. member bad correctly quoted him, that he had said if the House adopted the resolution the Government would erect the lighthouse, but he went on to say that there was no doubt a light would have to be erected at Moeraki, which was not a very great distance from Oamaru. A division was taken, and there voted—ayes, 13 ; noes, 9 ; so that there were only twenty-two members in the House. Since then the department had taken every possible means of acquiring the best information, and in making the inspection and survey of lighthouses they were instructed to pay particular attention to this question, and to say whether a lighthouse at Oamaru would be considered at all a Colonial lighthouse. Seeing that he had promised if the House carried it, the lighthouse should be erected, he thought it necessary to read the report upon the subject, in regard to which the House would have another opportunity of coming to a decision. [The hon. member here read a report by Mr. Blackett on Timaru, Oamaru, and Moeraki, as sites for lighthouses.] In the face of that report he did not see how it was possible that he could recommend to the House that a lighthouse should be erected at Oamaru, hut he thought the Government would be prepared this session to propose the erection of a lighthouse at Moeraki. He trusted the hou. member would be satisfied with the ansiver. SULLIVAN’S MURDER. Mr. WAKEFIELD asked,—" Whether any steps have been or are being taken to bring the murderer or murderers of Timothy Sullivan, on the 21th of April, 1873, to justice, subsequently to those of which the House Avas informed by papers laid on the table last session.” Mr. VOGEL was understood to reply that there were no further papers on the subject than those laid on the table. The scope of the Native policy and of those who had charge of Native affairs was to hold out the ultimate result of acquiring a proper submission to the ordinary laws of the country. Those who Avere responsible for the maintenance of the peace of the country were allowed a large amount of discretion. He was not in a position to afford the hon. member any further information. THE NATIVE LANDS ACT. Mr. SHEEHAN aske'd,—“ Whether the Government contemplate introducing a Bill to amend the Native Lauds Act, 1873.” Mr. VOGEL replied that the Government were preparing a Bill to cure some obvious defects in the Act. ADDRESS IN REPLY. At three o’clock, the Speaker, attended by the mover and seconder, and by the customary officials, waited upon His Excellency at Government House, and presented to him the Address in Reply to his opening speech, adopted by the House. , BILLS. Leave was given to Mr. O’Robke to introduce the Municipal Corporations Gas Bill, and to Mr. FitzherberT to introduce a Bill to amend the Wellington Special Settlements Act, 1871. The following Bills, introduced by message, were read a first time :—Supreme Court Judges Amendment Bill ; State Forests' Bill; Civil Service Act Amendment Billce ; Post Offi Savings’ Bank Act Amendment Bill; and the New Zealand University Act Amendment Bill At a subsequent stage of the proceedings, Mr. Vogel, in referring to the Life Assurance Act Amendment Bill, said it would be found on examination of the measure that no division of the profits was to take place until ten years from the date of the establishment of the institution, which would be in 1880 ; and that thereafter a division was to take place every five years. It was proposed as an initiatory step that a report should be made by an actuary, specially appointed for the purpose ; and the divisions, whether in respect of the amount recommended or a lesser sum, would depend on a resolution by both Houses. He pointed these things out, because it was desirable that no misapprehension should get abroad as to the scope of the proposal referred to. IMPREST SUPPLY BILL, Before going into committee on the above, Mr. VOGEL referred to the desirability of amending the Standing Orders in one or two respects. In other legislative bodies it was customary to lay the Estimates on the table before the Financial Statement, and not only were they so brought down, but the House went into their consideration. But in that House it was always considered that passing a vote meant approval of the financial proposals of the Government, and consequently the Estimates were never gone into until after the termination of the debate on the statement, the result being that they stood over till the very last part of the session, and were then dealt with hurriedly. He suggested that the practice of other places might be advantageously followed here, and the Estimates brought down and considered from time to time before the Financial Statement was made. This year the statement would be made early ; but it might happen that it would be brought down late, when it would be very convenient to lay the Estimates on the table and go on with their consideration. Another point worthy of consideration was the practice introduced into the House of Commons of late years in reference to the privilege members had the right to exercise upon going into Committee of Supply. Sometimes that privilege was abused ; and they had had in that House instances of such abuse, when one or two members lengthened the business • to an indefinite period against the will of the majority of members. Occasionally advantage was taken of the every time the chairman was "asked to leave the chair, for hon. members to talk upon all subjects against the wish of the majority of members, and so indefinitely prolong the session, when, perhaps, the desire of some members was to leave for their homes. This was leaving too large a power in the hands of the Ministry. While not expressing any opinion upon the subject himself, he only wished to state that in the House of Commons and elsewhere the practice was, when the Chairman of Committees left the chair without the Estimates were being considered, for the House to ask leave to sit again to consider the Estimates ; and that order given, the Chairman left the chair in order that the Estimates should be considered. He must not be understood as denying the right of members to the amplest opportunity of considering the question before going into Committee of Supply, but when they were really upon the consideration of the Estimates, and from time to time proposed to consider them, it might fairly be a question .whether the House should not adopt the practice of the House of Commons. The SPEAKER observed that great changes were being made in the practice of the House of Commons, and were rendered necessary by it being found almost impossible to overtake tbo public business, if subjected in every respect to the traditional rules. He hoped to be able during this session to propose os nearly as possible an approximation to the practice of the House of Commons. The effect of the changes to which he had referred, had been very largely to restrict the freedom of private members, and to make it extremely difficult for them to bring on any business of their own. At home, it was found necessary to sacrifice to a very great extent tho freedom and privileges

of members to the necessities of the public service ; that would be unnecessary hero to a very great extent, but he hoped the Government of the day, whoever they might be, would at the same time maintain an ample guard over the expenditure of public money, consistent with the conduct of the affairs of the House.

Mr. T. B. GILLIES entirely agreed with what had fallen from the Premier, in reference to the practice that had grown up here, of not considering the Estimates until after the Financial Statement was made. Such a practice was unusual in other legislative bodies ; and here it had doubtless arisen from a desire on the part of successive Ministries not to open their hand to those who might afterwards be their opponents. The practice might be well dispensed with ; and whatever Ministry was in power, the Estimates should be gone on with, as must be done with one Ministry or another. With regard to the other suggestion, it would be well to consider it carefully before determining to restrict private members from bringing forward their private business. The second reading of the Bill was agreed to; and the third reading fixed for Tuesday. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT ABOLITION. The House went into committee to consider the above. In clause 1, October 1 was inserted as the date on which the Bill should come into operation. On clause 3, Mr. T. B. GILLIES said that since tho Bill was last considered, he had gone carefully into it, and was still of the opinion he then expressed, that it might be gieatly simplified and rendered more in accordance with what the Government desired it to be. He was perfectly aware that the Attorney-General having advised the Government as to the mode iu which the Bill ought to be prepared, the Government must necessarily adhere to the advice of the Attorney-General in preference to that of any member of the House ; and any criticism or amendments he or any others might propose upon the Bill could not fail to be resisted by the Government. It was one of those unfortunate things occurring from the absence of the Attorney-General from a place in the House, where his views might be debated, and the House have an opportunity of judging whether his views or those of legal members of the House were correct. He could not expect the Government to support the views of legal members as against those of the Attorney General; therefore, while he would gladly have assisted in ridding the Act of some of its defects, it would be a waste of time for him to propose amendments. He would content himself by pointing out one or two matters in the present form of the Bill, to which he thought it desirable to call the Attorney-General’s attention. In the second clause there was an exception from the operation of the Act of those who made “ default in payment of any sum recoverable summarily before a Resident Magistrate or Justice or Justices of the Peace, or Court of Betty Sessions under the Justices of the Beace Act, 1866.” Under that Act of 1866 there was recoverable a great number of really civil debts, such as road and education rates, &c., which, together with what any Ordinance or Statute said might be recovered by summary procedure, could not be recovered under the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, this exemption freed persons owing road and education rates orsums recoverableinasummary manner from imprisonment for not paying those debts, which he thought was never intended ; nor the effect perceived by the drafter of the BUL Under Section 4, a very valuable provision in the Resident Magistrates Courts Act of 1868 was repealed. By the provision referred to, debtors could be brought before a Resident Magistrate, and enquiry be made as to whether he was evading payment by fraudulent and improper means ; and in the event of his doing so could be imprisoned. This was a very just provision, which the present Bill would repeal. He hoped these matters would be brought under the attention of the law officer of the Government. Mr. VOGEL said the hon. member for Auckland City had fairly laid’ down the position of the Government in the matter. The Government were bound to adopt the advice of their properly constituted legal officer. All he could say was that he had consulted the Attorney-General on the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Auckland City on a former occasion; and with respect to what had fallen from him on the present occasion, if the House would pass the Bill through committee at that sitting, he would not take the third reading for a week, and would further consult the Attorney-General as to whether it was desirable to recommit the Bill Mr. BRANDON considered the fraudulent contraction of small debts should be equally punishable with large ones. In the latter case a debtor must go through the Insolvent Court; in the other he should he examined in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and if there convicted of fraud be punished in the same way as he would be were he in the Insolvency Court. Mr. SHEEHAN again complained of no distinction being drawn between debts dishonestly contracted and engagements honestly entered upon. Bower should be left to a Court where the debt was contracted to determine whether it was contracted fraudulently or not, and to determine whether or not imprisonment should be imposed. Sir J. C. WILSON said what the Colony suffered from was an imperfect insolvency law, which was made much worse by the very lax way in which it was administered. The fact was, that the complaint amongst mercantile men was not so much that the debtor could not be rescued from the fangs of the creditor but that the law at present enabled the debtor to cheat his creditor.—(Hear.) He would also like to bring under the Bremier’s notice the peculiar configuration of New Zealand. A debtor could be prevented by his creditor from getting anything out of him by going to a different Brovince. A debtor could only say he was going from Otago to Auckland, and he ventured to say that when the debtor did get to Auckland, it was very seldom his creditor was able to get hold of him. He would like to suggest to the Goverment that some method should be devised to meet the difficulty under which New Zealand labored in this respect, and he hoped the hon. the Brenner when consulting the Attorney-General would see if anything could be done in the matter. Mr. VOGEL promised to do so. After some further observations by Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Wales, the second reading of the Bill was passed and tho third reading fixed for Friday next.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH AMENDMENT BILL. ■ Mr. VOGEL, in moving the second reading of this measure, said it proposed to make better provision to enable offences, such as the wilful destruction of the telegraph line, to he more efficiently punished than at present. Under the existing state of the law it must be proved that any damage done to tho telegraph line was maliciously done, and it was very difficult in all cases to prove an act of that kind, so that very rarely a prosecution was successful, although the mischief might have been done in such an almost careless manner as to amount to malice. This Act went to make any injury done to the telegraph line the result of malice, unless it could be otherwise shown. Another object of tho Bill was to protect officers who transmitted telegrams from all liability to actions for libeh Hon. members would agree that an operator who in the discharge of his duty wired a libellous message could not bo subject to such liability. It was, he believed, the present state of the law that an officer would be liable for transmitting such libellous messages,—(Mr. T. L. Shepherd. Hear, hear.) — but he thought there could not be two opinions that they should be exempt from such penalties. Telegrams should be privileged in tho same way as if they had been transmitted in the shape of letters. He held in his hand a decision in a recent case to the effect that though the communication might have been privileged if it had been sent by letter on the ground that there had been no publication of the alleged libel through sending it to the person interested. But in tho case of a telegram tho same privilege would not exist, because there had been publications by the clerks and operators through whoso hands it had passed. Tho telegraph office should be regarded in much the same position as mere forwarding machinery in the shape of a post-office. It was not to be supposed that

the clerks and operators took any cognizance of the messages of which they took charge ; their work was merely mechanical. If that view were a sound one, there should he the right to claim the same privilege for telegrams as for letters. The most important part of the Bill was that which referred to the power to cause the production of telegrams in Courts of Justice. This Bill proposed to enact that no telegrams should be producible in evidence without the consent of either the sender or the receiver. He was aware that the Bill as at present worded seemed to make it optional with the Telegraph Commissioner whether messages should be produced, although the sender or receiver desired it; butthat was not meant to be the case. It was an inaccuracy in the way |in which the clause was produced, and he would at the proper time correct it. The only exception would be in criminal cases, when telegrams would be producible upon the decision of the Commissioner of Telegraphs, It might be asked, why this change ? or why it was Necessary to bring in the Bill at all ? and in order to explain that, he would need to refer to an occurrence of which he had already made mention in that House. So far as he could find out, in no other country had it been necessary to bring in a measure of the land, because he should say the manner in which the laws had been interpreted had been a sufficient protection to the telegraph office, without the necessity of a measure of the kind, but that had not been the case in Hew Zealand. There had been growing up here for some time past a tendency to use the telegraph office for the purpose of obtaining evidence for proceedings in Courts of Justice. He thought hon. members opposite would bear him out in saying that anything more contrary to the law could not be conceived than the fishing out or the roaming about for evidence for the purpose of using it for other legal proceedings. It was very clear that a tendency was growing up in some quarters to use the telegraph for such a purpose. Several orders had teen made for the production of telegrams, and in some oases it had been managed to put at the end of the subpoena or Judges’ order, “ power to inspect telegrams,” for which the order and subpoena had been given. In most cases those orders had referred to telegrams which strictly belonged to the cases under consideration, and in most of the cases also the telegrams had been specified. He might also say the department had only given consideration to orders of the kind to which he had referred where one of the parties, either the sender or the receiver, was willing that the telegrams would be produced and where they were absolutely material to the ease. It was only very recently that a great innovation was made on the previous practice, and an order was obtained from one of the Judges of the Supreme Court by a Solicitor to inspect telegrams described in the vaguest possible manner, in fact, the telegrams were not specified. In the Taunton case in England the application was that all telegrams passing between two places should be produced in Court ; which involved the simple collection of a large number of abstracts and bundles of telegrams without necessitating their examination. But the ordering the production of general telegrams relating to a certain subject; meant that some one in the employment of the Telegraph Department should go amongst a number of telegrams and form his own opinion as to their nature and meanings. It would involve this, also, that whereas in the ordinary press of business the telegraph operator, unless transmitting startling intelligence would have no actual impression of a message, left on his mind. In the case of telegrams of the kind he referred to, he would be under the necessity of his sitting down and studying them and making himself acquainted not only with those he was asked to produce, but with the whole of the telegrams passing under his revision. Referring to the order to produce telegrams, in the case Macassey v. Bell, he said that had it not been for the action of the defendant, the telegrams would have been used in the case, and evidence would have been founded upon them with the object of fishing out grounds for bringing another action. Nothing more objectionable or more opposed to the spirit in which the House regarded the Telegraph Department could be conceived. It was true that the Judge subsequently rescinded the order without costs ; but, inasmuch as it was the decision of a single Judge, there was no security that similar orders might not be made again. Since that case another had happened, and in it the Commissioner of Telegraphs was served with a rule nisi to show cause why he should not allow the inspection of a large number of specified telegrams passing between a number of parties in connection with the whole purchase of the Port Chalmers Railway, and all because of some paltry dispute about the right of persons to one of the railway refreshment-rooms. He did not wish to refer at greater length to this case, because it was still under consideration, and he had merely mentioned it ns illustrating his argument that it was undesirable that action of the kind should be continued. He would, in fact, be offering a premium to roaming and fishing out on the part of legal practitioners. At Home the judges were evidently determined to make a firm stand on the question. A later case than the Taunton one, was that at Stroud, before Mr Baron Bramwell, in which counsel strongly urged the right of the judge to compel the production of certain telegrams which were, he (Mr. Vogel) believed, specified; but Baron Bramwell declined, having grave doubts of his power to do so, adding that it was for the good of the public that the maintenance of the confidence in the secresy of the telegraph should not be violated. It was evident that something must be done by the Legislature to make the point clear, and if any doubt had arisen in the public mind as to the absolute necessity of the messages, it would be better to cause the telegrams to be immediately burnt, although to do so would bo robbing the Telegraph Department of a portion of its usefulness, ns copies of all telegrams were kept for five years, during which time they were available for any legal purpose, if so required by the sender or receiver. It should be borne in mind that the messages were only primd facie evidence of the telegrams themselves; the real legal document being that to which the sender had affixed his signature, and that under the present system was available. The time was not far distant when facsimiles of telegrams would be despatched without the necessity of operators reading them. Until that was done, it appeared to him that to give the public the largest possible use of the telegraph, it was necessary to assure them that messages would be perfectly secret. If hon. members were of that opinion they would join him in endeavoring to get the Bill passed. Mr. J. L. GILLIES said it was very desirable that the public mind should not be kept in doubt on this subject. Matter passing through the telegraph office should be kept as secret ns matter passing through the post office.

Mr. FOX only regretted that the Bill had been such a short time in the hands of members that ho had not had an opportunity of communicating with the Government in reference to some additions he would wish to see in the measure, and which he should suggest in committee. With regard to what had just fallen from the hon. member at the head of the Government, he thought it would be very well if the Government should make up its mind on the subject, and decide that telegrams for the future should not be preserved except on special occasions. The hon. gentleman had also expressed his belief that the time would shortly come.when it would be impossible to keep telegrams; why should not they anticipate that time, and at once discontinue to preserve telegrams, except such as were specially marked for preservation by the senders. Ho would suggest that some legislation should be made with a view to further preserving the inviolability and secrecy of telegrams from the blundering of interested persons who might become acquainted with messages through the pollution of the officers of the department. By the Act of 1865 operators in the Telegraphic Department were liable to very heavy penalties for divulging the contents of any message, but outside persona who, by pollution of the operators became possessed of telegrams were not poenable for publishing those telegrams in any way; such persons ■ ought to be subject

to the same consequences as the operators, and he proposed to insert a clause to the effect that any person publishing or making known the contents of any telegram improperly divulged, contrary to the provisions of the 16th section of the Electric Telegraph Act 1865, such person not being employed in the Telegraph Department, should be liable to the penalties there set down ; and if it were done without the knowledge of the sender, that should be primd facie evidence against the operator. He thought means should be at the disposal of the Government for finding out the offender. The hon. gentleman at the head of the Government had spoken of the impossibility of doing this. It certainly was difficult to trace such an offence to the primary and even in many instances to the secondary offender, and that difficulty would probably be found to exist when the telegram scandal came before the committee. It would be very vexing if, when within sight of the end they desired to get at, they should be baulked by a witness refusing, as he might well do, to give evidence which might be criminating to himself, of which there were precedents such as that of the Trades’ Unions in the great Sheffield case some three or four years ago ; and to obviate this a clause might be introduced exempting a witness fromall penalties which might seem consequent uponhis evidence when given, so that he should have no inducement to refrain from speaking the truth on receiving such an indemnity from the hands of the Chairman of the Committee. He (Mr. Eox) would not make these suggestions in the form of amendments as he had read them, but would have them properly framed. He hoped, however, his arguments had shown the desirability of some such legislation being made.

Major ATKINSON suggested that all difficulties as to the secrecy of telegrams could be obviated in a very simple way. Why should not a Bill be passed, making it imperative on the telegraph operators, immediately on having despatched a message, to put it in an envelope, direct it and post it as a common letter. He did not think the hon. member for Rangitikei’s proposition was altogether satisfactory with respect to imposing penalties on outside persons. It seemed that any person reading a telegram to another made another liable. If, as might happen, a telegraphic operator off his guard should say to anyone that such and such a Government tender for instance had been accepted, it might come to the ears of two or three persons, and anyone repeating it would be liable to the penalties. If his (Major Atkinson’s) suggestion were adopted it would much simplify business.

Mr. T. B. GILLIES said he did not mean to oppose the second reading of the Bill. • He had hardly had time to become acquainted with its contents, as it had only been placed in the bands of members about an hour before the House met. With regard to the Bill he thought there was some litttle amount of padding legislation in it. They were legislating for something which did not exist, and which they were frightened would spring up. They had no evidence that Judges of the Supreme Court had definitely authorised the production of such telegrams as those mentioned. No doubt the order was made by one Judge ; but when it was argued before him he rescinded it, thereby showing that he had been taken by surprise. He could see no ground for supposing that the order had been definitely given. It seemed to him that the tendency of the decisions in England had been entirely contrary to the production of telegrams except in extraordinary cases. He entirely approved of Major Atkinson’s suggestion, which seemed to contain the solution of the whole difficulty, that a telegram as received was no evidence of itself. Persons could keep a copy of telegrams, as of letters, and send the original by post. At present difficulties constantly arose from telegraphic messages having no means of being authorized. For instance, a merchant might fraudulently telegraph in the name of another to the latter’s agent misrepresentations as to the quantity of goods in his store, and thus turn the state of the market to his own advantage. Under the existing practice, there was no certainmeansforpreventing such proceedings, but if copies of all original telegrams were forwarded by post, it could soon be discerned by the signatures whetherfalse telegrams or not had been sent. True, the posted telegram might come too late to do good in some cases, but still it would always be admissible in evidence, which a telegram could not, as it only purported to be signed by such and such a person. He considered the several propositions of previous speakers very worthy of the attention of the Government.

Mr. VOGEL said he would wish the debate adjourned until Tuesday, as it was getting near half-past‘five, and there was no desire to prolong the sitting into the evening. Mr.T. B. GILLIES said hehad concludedhis remarks on the subject of the Bill, and would move the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday. The House adjourned at half-past five until the usual hour on Tuesday afternoon.