Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER

m • (FeoiiOub Own Oobbbspokdent.)- . MELBOURNE, August 25. During the past week the. Premiers' Conference has been making history. The old name of this increasingly powerful accretion on the Constitution has' oeen retained, but it was oxr this occasion some-, thing more than a "Premiers'" conference. Almost all the State Treasurers were present, and most of. tbe law officers, while throughout the more important part of the conference the Prime Minister, the (Federal Treasurer (Sir John Forrest), and the Minister of Defence. iMr Joseph Cook) were also in attendance. A .special importance attached to this conference, for matters are rapidly apjnroaohing a crisis in the relations between the States and the Federation. As you are aware, the Braddon clause of the Constitution expires at the end of next year. Now that clause, as most of your readers who take an interest in Australian constitutional matters well known, provides .that for 10 yeare alter the establishment of the Commonwealth, " and thereafter until tie PaTliaraent otherwise provides," three-fourths of tie duties raised by Customs and Excise are to be returned io the States. If no arrangement was come to it would, after the expiration of next year, remain with the Federal Parliament to say exactly ■what was to be done with the Customs revenue. It" "was the need of coming to conic arrangement which called the Pramieirs together on this occasion. The. position <rf the Federal Government was rendered rather more easy this time by the fact- that the " fusion " hasmade -it' less dependent on the Labour party. *£he vrid'e franchise for both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament has made' theni much more Radical than the State Houses. In particular, the Senate, far from being the counterpart of a Legislative Council, -is really more Radical than tbe House of Representatives.* So 'the Labour party definitely strives to aggrandise Federal power at' the expense «of ' the States. In particular, they would - willingly see the -States forced into such a financial position' ,tbat they would be compelled to impose a land tax. Further, it has always to be remembered that the State leaders of 10 years ago are tine Federal leaders of to-day .» Their views as to the claims of the States have undergone some modification,- and they would. . be more than human if they could resist a temptation to give to the Parliament they now control, powers which originally they would have hesitated to give it. Still it must be admitted that the Federal representatives met t-he State representatives in a very fair spirit. The best proof of this is that the States are well satisfied with the bargain that has been Btruok. THE NEW " PRADDON CLAUSE." Starting with the assumption that the were entitled to some return from the Customs revenue, there were three courses open to the conference. Tbe first was _that the Commonwealth should return a tixed sum annually ; the second was that it should return a fixed proportion of the Customs revenue, and the third was that it should return a certain sum per head of population. Though the conference sat with doors very tightly closed, it soon became -apparent that the lastnamed would be the basis of distribution * adopted.' Tasmania thought a fair return would be 32s 6d per head, "but 6C- n the State demand got down to 30s. I t the other hand, Mr Deak in started with an offer of 235. From these two limits the one-party receded and the other advanced, until an agreement was reached at 25s per head. Under the Braddon clause the States last year received £7,927,134, and it was estimated that for the current financial year they would receive £7,841,481. Under the payment of 25s per head they will receive £5,4/14,000. This shows a very substantial drop, the ioss to New South Wales alone being £1,250,000. Tasmania is the only State that gains, and it only to ths extent of £4000, Special provision i 3 made for (Western "Australia, because, per head of population, it is the largest producer of revenue. This is due 16 the fact that a greater proportion of the population in that State are adult males as compared ■with the other States, and consequently the consumption of liquor and tobacco is greater there proportionately than in any 'other State. So Western Australia is to receive an additional special grant of $250,000 a year to commence, dropping at the rate of £10,000 a year until it disappears in 25 years. Half of this will be paid by the Commonwealth and half by the States. According to the agreement, the pro.vision as to the payment is to date from SFuly next year, so that it antedates by six. months the time when Parliament could revise the Braddon clause. In addition, a Federal Old-age, Pensions Act has just been passed, and this relieves Nes South' _Wales A VicWtu^ and jjueenj^

land from the payment' of their pensions, f These amount in New South Wales to over half a million. - The Commonwealth is to be empowered to deduct a sum equal to £600,000 from the States for this year, as the Budget statement of last week disclosed a deficiency of £1,200,000. The £600,000 is to be made up by a contribution of 3s per head by the- three pension States and 2s a head by the three non-pension States. The Commonwealth Government undertakes to include the new provisions in the Constitution. To do this it must get an absolute majority in both Houses of Parliament, and then a majority of the electors voting in a majority of the States. ! It remains to be seen whether that can j .be done. It will have very powerful op.position, both in Parliament and in thd i country, and the Government may not be I able "to do a.li that it has undertaken to do. POLITICAL LIBEL ACTION. The action of Swinburne v. Syme, the defendant in which is the Age newspaper, is the biggest political lawsuit in Victoria since the days in the early 90's, when Mr Speight, our first Railway Commissioner, sued the paper for £25,000 damages, arid got one farthing. The -present- action is for £5000, and it has , received, an added interest from a re- { niarkabje development of the last couple ] of days. The libel complained of was ] published in, the Age of September b) ; last, and related to tenders for pumping machinery to be supplied to the Government. Mr Swinburne wat at the time 1 Minister of Water Supply in. the Bent ■Ministry. - Minister* severally and collectively were at this time being subjected to fierce criticism by the Age, and the particular article, if it did .not accuse Mr Swinburne of altering suddenly and secretly and for some improper end the forms of tender, went nearer to it than Mr Swinburne liked. In his explanation in the House he was represented as " dancing dexterously along on either side of the thin line of truth," and was accused of "Jesuitical casuistry" and a number of other unpleasant things. A feature of the case as it proceeded was the number of " brushes " that occurred between Mr Justice Hodges and the counsel for tSe Age, Mr M 'Arthur and Mr Starke.. These frequent little episodes were engendering unpleasantness, and those l " in the inside running " were inclined to say the counsel were^ deliberately provoking a rather testy judge in order to create an impression on the , minds of the jury. On Monday last be- i fore the case started, Mr Duffy, K.C., i senior counsel for the plaintiff, ,said he j ■ had an unpleasant duty to perform. He . had been informed by counsel on thej other side that one of the jurors had , approached a gentleman connected with i the office of the defendant's solicitors. Counsel opposite "had suggested that lie ' v (Mr .Duffy) should ask for the discharge of the jury, but he could not do that, as ifc had involved enormous expense to get J SO far. He WOUld agree to the discharge ( .of the juryman or to the discharge of six ; jurymen. j ("The plaintiff gained a verdict for £3250- The Age is applying for a new i trial.] ' I The law clerk (Joseph Davies) was then put in the box. He said that he was employed in the office of Gillott and Moir, and that he met the juror, whom he knew personally, in Bourke street. They talked of the progress of the case, and the juror eventually said it was putting him to great inconvenience. He said he thought the judge was not treat- ; ing Mr Starke fairly, and that that was the opinion of the jurors. He said some- I thing about losing £10 a day, and added j that someone from the Age ought to tee him. The juror admitted most of the | conversation, but totally denied this last j part. Mr M 'Arthur then asked for the | discharge .of the jury, which meant that : the case should begin all over again. Mr j Duffy opposed this strongly, and the judge left the bench to allow a conference, saying that he thought the proposal to reduce the jury to six a fair one. When he returned he was proceeding with the case, but Mr M'Arlhur said that under those circumstances he and Mr Starke could no longer take the responsibility of conduct.me the case. They would therefore withdraw. j Sir Samuel Gillott, the instructing ! solicitor, then said he would like time to consider the situation, and the cojvt adjourned until 'the following day. When the court met yesterday Sir Samuel Gillott said that, having given the matter the best consideration, he felt that the action could not under existing conditions be fairly tried as between the parties. His clients concurred with him, and they could take no further part in the case. So the solioitjrs and their clients withdrew, 'tfnd the case is now proceeding with the one party only represented. A BARONETS DIVORCE. Sir Rupert Clarke was the respondent in a divorce suit decided before Mr Justice A'Beckett last week. It was known about Melbourne for a considerable time that the relations between Sir Rupert and Lady Clarke were not exactly loving. For many years past Lady Clarke had lived mainly in England with ' her two daughters, while Sir Rupert had , lived principally in Victoria. Still when Lady Clarke visited Victoria or Sir Rupert visited England the appearance of friendliness was always kept up. The grouii"ds of Lady Clarke's petition were that her husband had been guilty of repeated acts of misconduct with one Connie Waugh. This person is uell known ; about Melbourne, and was frequently seen ' at racecourses and theatres with Sir Rupert. She is credited with the possession of a beautiful figure, and was wont to flaunt herself on the lawn at racecourses in the latest Paris creations. It; j was proved in evidence that Sir Rupert j Clarke bought a house for her in St. Kilda and furnished it. It was also proved that he took out £500 worth of circular notes at Messrs Thomas Cook and Sons in 1907 in favour of " Mrs Connie Waugh." In that year the bdy ; made a tour of Europe, -

Lady Clarke in her evidence said that co-habitation cea&ed between her ancLher husband in 1902, when he visited England. He bought a home for her m Park lane at that time, but none the less ' she noticed a change in his demeanour. It was not, however, until 1907 that she first heard rumours about Connie Waugh. When he told her then that she was spending too much money, she said, " Surely il you can buy a houfae for and keep Connie Waugh you can afford the money I am spending." Matters seem to have been kept outwardly calm axter this until the marriage of Miss Phyllis Clarke in June last. The proceedings were then commenced. Mr Justice A\Beckett s^aid that as there was no defence he would make the order nisi, with costs. No order was made as to adimony, and it is understood that it will be settled 'privately. There was no order either as to the second child of the marriage — a girl of 14.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19090908.2.336

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Otago Witness, Issue 2895, 8 September 1909, Page 63

Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,034

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER Otago Witness, Issue 2895, 8 September 1909, Page 63

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER Otago Witness, Issue 2895, 8 September 1909, Page 63

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert