PARLIAMENTARY.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 356, 14 September 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Pur Press Agency.) HOU«K OF UiA’RivSFNTATIFFS. WELLINGTON. September 13. After tiic House resuming at 7.30 last night, Mr Dc Latour rose to move the second reading of tiie Judicial Commission Bill, ami spoke for nearly two hours, in an elaborately prepared speech, during which he recapitulated all the ’ circumstances which led to Barton’s fracas with the Judges, and his subsequent imprisonment for one month. Mr De Latour also quoted largely from judicial records, to show that the Judges did not legally possess the power over persona! liberty winch they arrogated themselves with, and he argued that even if it could be shown that onr higher courts did possess that power, it ought to be restricted, ami that such restrictions would in no way lessen the independence of the Bench, At the request of Mr Sheehan, the debate was adjourned until Tuesday next, in order to give members opportunity of considering the case. The remainder of the silting was occupied with the debate on the Triennial Parliaments Bill. The debate was adjourned to Wednesday next. 'The House rose at 2 a m. The House met at 2.30 tins afternoon. For the remainder of the session, Mr OTiorke will occupy the chair of Speaker, when necessary, without formally obtaining permission.

In reply to Mr Murray, Mr Macandrcw said arrangements were being made for sale of railway tickets at other places than at stations, and Government would consider the question of introducing the American system of baggage checks. In reply to Mr Richmond, Mr Sheehan said Government would not deal with the licensing question piecemeal, and if they found themselves unable to bring down a general measure this session to effectually deal with the whole question, it would have to remain over to next session.

On motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr "Woolcock went into the question of the distribution of the 20 per cent, of Land Fund, and dilated on the glaring inequality of its operation. After a speech of considerable length, lie moved as an amendment, “that clause 6 of the Financial Arrangements Act 1876, Amendment Act 1877, he repealed.” This raised a discussion, which lasted till cut short by 5.30. The whole question turned upon way in which the 20 per cent, of land fund was to be dealt with by the Government. Mr Wakefield, the Premier, Major Atkinson, Mr Sheehan, and other members spoke at considerable length on both sides of the question. Mr Sheehan cautioned members of the Government party against being deceived by the machinations of the enemy, the other side, whose sole aim was to create complications, if they could not bieak up the Ministry. Several members endeavored to engraft other amendments upon MrWoolcock’s, but the Speaker insisted that it. must be disposed first. In Ihe course of the afternoon, Mr Bal- . lance read a telegram from Christchurch stating that in the case of the Road Boards against Government,- the verdict was against the Road Board with costs. The Patea County bore a conspicuous pait in the discussion raised by Mr Woolcock’s amendment. In the course of the debate, Mr Kelly referred to the way in which Government proposed to deal with Patea regarding the 20 per cent, of the land fund.

Mr Wakefield and Mojor Atkinson, in particular, protested strongly against the exceptional manner in which Government was dealing with their share of the land fund, and urged that if colonial money had been spent there largely, it had been spent in the interests of the colony, and that the district received no benefit whatever from it ; and that if it had not been for the heroic conduct, of some of the Patea settlers, who would not leave their land, though told to do so by-the Government, that district might not yet have been occupied by Europeans ; and that, therefore, the district deserved well of the colony. Mr Sheehan, on the other hand, maintained that Patea had been very well treated, and deserved no sympathy. He said that were it possible to look into the secret heart of the member for Egmont at that moment, it would be found that he was inwardly rejoiced at the arrangementsof the Government.

MR IVESS AND HIS EXPLANATIONS. In the Ashburton Mail of 3rd September, Mr Joseph Ivcss gives a column and a-half of explanations as answer to remarks made in these columns on the 24th August, and which lie characterises as “most unwarrantable and wilful misrepresentations regarding my character as a citizen and a man of business.” It is not worth while to undertake the very easy task of proving the correctness of the statements made, which Mr Ivess characterises as “wilful misrepresentations.” He himself has not attempted to disprove them, but in his letter admits sufficient to show his readers there were just grounds for complaint. Instead of attempting an answer he strings together a series of statements, in which imaginativeness largely predominates over fact. It will be sufficient for me to contrast some of the statements made a short time back with his later remarks, and set “his facts” against what he cannot disprove. Just a few examples will he sufficient to enable readers to judge of the “ character” which Mr Ivess considers has been the subject of “ unwarrantable attack.”

Mr Ivess referring to tbe Patea Mail, says, “The business yielded me a profit of Ai 1,000 for the year I conducted it.” His statement to me was that he had made a profit of £SOO during the year. Mr Ivess in his letter says, “As the lessee had no means, I consented to take bis acceptance for the first three month's rent. After paying this he made an absurd demand upon mo for £2O for rent of back portion of office in which my family were located for a few weeks, which premises were in no wa} T under his control.” In the face of tbe fact that 1 paid for sundry stock taken over, and rather than trouble anyone to go bondsmen for me, preferred to pay him a cash guarantee of £SO, and which he acknowledges to holding at the present time, there is not much ground for saying I was “lacking means.” Besides which, at his own suggestion, and to suit his convenience, I gave him my acceptance for three months rent in advance—thus giving him an equivalent to the use of £42 three months before it was due, and for which kindness I am now twitted with “lacking means.” Can assurance go further ? The “ absurd demand” of £2O was asked for by me as a refund for inconvenience I had been put to through his failure to provide “good and convenient premises,” the whole space allowed me for printing office, publishing, and the transacting of all business being one room and a part of another (used as editorial, &c.) of a small four-roomed cottage, his faini y (comprising six) occupying the remainder, and having to pass constantly through the printing office to the room which I could only get part use of. The few weeks I was thus inconvenienced extended for a period of about three months.” Yet my iequest for a refund is termed an “ absurd demand.” Mr Ivess states that I cannot have carefully read my deed of agreement, otherwise I would see that I am compelled to keep the Patea Mail office in repair. Such is the wording of the deed, I admit, hut Mr Ivess is not so foolish as to believe I could keep a place in repair that was not handed over to me in proper order.

Mr I vess says. Prior (o Mr Black opening' up negotiations,” &c., I (Black) liml every facility for acquiring all the information concerning tlie business,” &e. It pleases Mr Ivess to imagine 1 sought him, whereas he really sought me for a tenant. Negotiations were commenced by Mr Ivess himself, ami who, in spite of his invite for me to visit I’alea, desired that the negotiations should be kept profoundly secret. During the time I assisted him as employee, I never had the opportunity or the inclination to ascertain the position of his business, having nothing whatever to do with Ids book-keeping. Not knowing how to keep secret his desire to dispose of the business, and yet pay a visit of inspection, I thought it best to trust to his “true and correct statement,” in which, whac arc technically known as “ standing adverliscmcnto” were valued at £l3O per quarter, hut which only yielded £6O the first quarter of my tenancy, or a loss on the year of about £2BO in that item alone. Of advertisements represented as good in the “ true and correct statement,” several columns proved worthless, and which I onty wholly discovered on my first quarter’s accounts being rendered. The majority of the advertisements referred to had been guaranteed to Mr Ivess for twelve months, but the paper had been conducted “ in such a way,” that some of the guarantors had ordered the withdrawal of their advertisements, but were kept to their bond by threats of proceedings at law. One tradesman, who insisted on withdrawal, was summoned and made to pay. During the twelve months Mr Tvess was in possession, the paper had been conducted “ in such a way” that there was little likelihood of his making another £I,OOO profit a year. The paper had been conducted “ in such a way,” that on my arrival in the district I learned that its funeral obsequies bad been publicly performed by some of the leading residents, and that a copy of the Patea Mail was being publicly exhibited, with deep mourning border, even before it was known Mr Ivess had decided to clear out.

The total estimate of the business per quarter was set down by Mr Ivess at £317, or a total for the year of £1,268, and which the Bank-book shown to me corroborated thereabouts. In his letter of the 3rd of September, Mr Ivess says, “ Singular perhaps to remark, the business yielded me a profit of £I,OOO for the year I conducted it.” Mr Ivess must be very clever, or very forgetful. It is indeed “singular,” exceedingly “singular,” how £I,OOO profit could be made out of a business which he estimated to yield, and which his Bank-book showed the takings for the year to be, about £1,200 (one thousand two hundred pounds), and out of which all working expenses, &c., would have to be paid before the item profit could be approached. Singularly singular it certainly is. One more example will suffice. Directly after the late trial, which Mr Ivess had the satisfaction of winning, his version of the affair appeared in the Ashburton Mail, in which it was stated that “ nothing was said in the way of complaint about the business until some twenty days ago, when Mr Ivess was served with a summons calling him to appear at the District Court, Patea, on the sth June, as defendant in a suit brought by Mr Alexander Black, of the Patea Mail, for £2OO, as damages sustained by : him in consequence of adver-

fisementa in that paper having fallen beneath the estimate given by Mr Ivcss.” In his letter, Mr Ivess mentions that I (Black) claimed £2O out of the first three months rent, which I had paid in advance; that I afterwards threatened him with the pains and penalties of the law if he did not match-line the building ; that I next discovered I was paying too high a rent ; after which came the case that he won (but not at the high cost to myself which he pleases to assume). Besides which he had received and acknowledged communications from my solicitor about the business, under instructions from myself, some considerable time before proceedings at law were commenced. Yet he states that “ until twenty days” before the day fixed for the trial, “ nothing was said in the way of complaint about the business.” One and all of “his facts” can bo similarly disposed of. As to the late trial it is sufficient to state that, through a technical informality, for.which I was in no way responsible, the'evidence on which I wholly rein d was overruled. The Judge would not hear it. And for that reason I agreed to a nonsuit. Mr Ivess affects astonishment that I “ still pertinaceonsly cling to the sinking ship, although a life-boat stands by ” —in the shape of Mr 1., who, hawk-like, is ready to pounce down on me should I happen to infringe any of the covenants of the bond. Considering the up-hill struggle I at first had, on account of the “ such a way ” manner in which the paper had been conducted under Mr Ivess, and that it has now won its way to public favor, and bids fair during the eighteen months I can still retain possession to return some compensation for first outlay, there need be no astonishment at my pertinacity in holding on. Mr Ivess makes a parade of his willingness to hand back the £SO casli deposit and release mo from bis grip. Had be done so any time within six or eight months after I had been in possession, I should have readily accepted. Mr I vess had not the courtesy to send a paper containing Ids “ explanations,” and it was only by the zeal of Mr Dennis O’Sullivan, baker, of Carlyle, who appeals to have added to bis usual calling that of “ bill slicker and distributor,” that I became aware of the “ explanations ” having been made and circulated in the Patea District under the heading of “ The Patha Mail and its Landlord.” However, Mr Ivess having been enterprising enough to print and cause to be circulated throughout the district, his letter from the Ashburton Mail, has lessened the necessity for quoting from it. ALEX. BLACK.