PARLIAMENTARY.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1131, 26 August 1882, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

[pEB UNITED PBESS association.]

House of Representatives. WELLINGTON, Yesterday. The House met at 2.30. Replying to Mr Steward, Mr Johnson said arrangements were under negotiation for a connection between Waimate (Government) branch line of Railway, and the line of Waimate Branch Company (Limited) but interim arrangements had been made to facilitate the work of construction of the line. No arrangements had yet been made in reference to the Waimate Railway section. In reply to Mr Steward, Mr Rollestou said the Otaira Cemetery reserves would be Gazetted next issue.

Replying to Mr Daniel, Mr Rollestou said the Government had instructed ijjti’ Warden for Orepuki and Longwood to report fully as to the burning of documents posted in the Court House at Riverton. The Government recognised their liability to make good these documents, and this matter would be looked into.

Replying to Mr Sutton, Mr Dick said that arrangements for taxing Solicitors bills of costs were made the subject of a special provision in the Supreme Courts Bill just passed; they wonld watch its operations, and if not satisfactory, further provision would be made during the recess. Replying to Taiaroa Mr Bryce said grants had been issued to half-castes named in the Middle Island Half-caste Crown Grants Act, 1877Replying to Mr Holmes, Major Atkinson said the caveat now standing in the Land Registry Office Napier, against the transfer of the Oamaranui Block, would, if the parties interested took no further action, be shortly removed. Mr Sutton moved the adjournment of the House to enable him to make a personal explanation. He produced the official documents in a Supreme Court action, in . which he was implicated, in connection with the acquisition of that land which fully acquitted him of undue means in obtaining signatures of the Natives to the deed of transfer.

Mr Seddon said it would be interesting to know when the Government determined to withdrawn the caveat. Was it not collative with the late No-Confidence debate, and was it not determined on in view of Mr Sutton’s vote on that motion. Mr Trimble said that the whole transaction had been carefully enquired into by the Native Affairs Committee, and he, as Chairman of that Committee, had no hestitation in saying that Mr Sutton’s conduct had been blameless, and their finding fully acquitted him of the grave insinuations made against him in conjunction with the transaction. In reply to a question put by Mr Hutchison, Mr Rollestou said that provision would be made on the Estimates for satisfying the Volunteer Land Scrip claim, as it was understood that it was the object of the Commission to provide for these claims by land appropriations. The amendments made in following Bills in the Legislative Council were agreed to Industrial Schools and Auckland University College. Mr Dick moved that the Council's amendment in the Aliens’ Act Amendment Bill enabling Chinese to become naturalised at the reduced rate should not be agreed to. The Chinese, unlike other Nationalities, did not come here to settle. They came here under offers, and having worked for a few years they returned to their own land. He named a Committee to confer with the Council Committee on the subject. Mr Smith and Mr Seddon spoke in favor of the amendment being accepted. The pointed out that an act imposing a tax per head on Chinese had already been passed. The motion for the conference was put and earned.

The Native Reserves Bill was reported, read a third time, and passed. The Drainage Bill was read a second time and referred to the Goldfields Committee. On the motion for going into Committee on the Land Bill, Mr Bathgate and Mr Seddon spoke against a measure of such magnitude being brought on at this late period of the session. Mr Seddon moved that it be not committed until Monday.

Mr Fulton said that in the Waste Lands Committee the leasing principle met with a great diversity of opinion, but it was agreed to allow the question to be fought out .on the floor of the House. He was one of those who disagreed with the proposal, still he looked upon the Bill as containing many very important provisions. Mr Macandrew also objected to. the leasehold proposals, and wculd endeavor to obtain some modification whereby provision might be made for turning these into freeholds. He also agreed in the opinion that the Bill had many important and valuable points, and it was in no respect a party question. The motion for going into Committee was put and carried on the voices. Committee interrupted by 5.30 adjournment.

The following report of the Joint Committee on the Brogden claims as read in the Council to-day : [ The Joi) Committee to which was referred the qu jtion of the propriety of giving the consent of Government to a reference of the Brogden claim under the provisions of the Government Contractors Arbitration Act 1872, have the honor to report as follows :—That the Committee find that the contracts affected by this enquiry were nine in number, and that the first six of them amounting to £560,446 were signed on the 10th of August, six days before the Government Contractors Arbitration Act was introduced into Parliament. That three other contracts amounting to £240,750 were signed on the 19th of June, 1873. Eight months after the Government Contractors Arbitration Act became law, the contracts were given to Messrs Brogden and Sons, without competition and on terms exceptionally favorable to the contractors, and allowances amounting to 32£ per cent over and above the contractors prices then current in tiie Colony, having been made to them. That before entering into specific engagement with the Colonial Government in the year 1872, the Messrs Brogden insisted upon having provision made for the appointment of a special arbitration to whom disputes arising out of their projected contracts might be referred. That the usual custom which makes the Engineer the final arbitrator in disputes arising out of contract works was in the case of Messrs Brogden, and at their instance, departed from. That it was afraid that a Judge of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction in the Supreme Court District in which a dispute might arise, should be made arbitrator, and it became therefore necessary to pass an Act in order to impose these duties on the Judges, and to give them the required powers to obtain evidence that the Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872, was accordingly passed with the knowledge of Mr J. Brogden, the partner representing the firm who was at that time in Wellington, and who conducted the contract negotiations with the Government ; that no disputes resulting in application for arbitration appear to have occurred during the whole period when progress payments were being made to Messrs Brogden upon their several contracts or agreements ; that when upon completion or other termination of the several contracts or agreements attempted to arrive at a final settlement were made disputes arose ; that it was competent

for Messrs. Brogden at any time when claims on their part were disputed by the Government, to have caused the matter in dispute to be referred to arbitration in the manner provided by their contract and interims of the Government Contractors’ Arbitration Act 1872; that the Messrs Brogden did not, within the proper time and in the manner prescribed, upon any occasion bring the disputed claims to arbitration ; that when the time within which such dispute could be legally brought to arbitration had been allowed by Messrs. Brogden to elapse, the Government expressed their willingness, both before and after the receipt of the letter of date March Sth, 1877, from Messrs. Brogden, to allow the contractors to bring their disputed claims to arbitration under the Act. That the Messrs. Brogden refused to avail themselves of the opportunities then afforded to them, ami did not, until a recent period, attempt to bring their disputed claims to arbitration in the manner originally agreed upon, and as provided by law. That owing to the action of Messrs Brogden themselves, several years were allowed to elapse, during which no effort was made by their claims to arbitration in the manner prescribed. That in consequence of this delay much of the evidence which would be necessary to enable the arbitrator to arrive at a complete knowledge of the circumstances of such disputed claim is, in the case of the words themselves, effaced ; and is, in the case of the evidence, .no longer available. That for the foregoing reasons, and after careful consideration of all the circumstances, and of the documents and evidence appended to this report, the Committee cannot recommend that the consent of the Government should now be given to a reference of the Brogden claims under the provisions of the Government Contractors’ Arbitration Act 1872.—E. J. Stevens, Chairman, Aug. 25th, 1882. At the evening sitting, The Redemption of Land for Mining Purposes Bill was passed through Committee, and also the Reserves in Mining Districts Bill. The House then resumed itself into Committee on the Land Bill. Mr Fulton moved an amendment in Clause 2 to confine the leasing provisions to goldfields. After a long discussion it was negatived on the voices. Sir George Grey moved another amendment—To require all land to be leased instead of sold. After the usual adjournment, and considerable discussion, Sir George Grey’s amendment was negatived by 49 to 33. Mr Moss moved a further amendment to throw out the leasing system altogether, but it ■was lost by 44 to 16. An amenament was proposed from the Waste Lands Committee to limit the leasing area to one-third the quantity open for sale and was carried by 45 to 18. Mr Stevens moved as a provisor—To give power of purchase after seven years’ occupation.

This was lost by 39 to 16. Clause 2 passed after 1.30. Mr M. W. Green’s motion to insert “ open for application” instead of “ put up to public competition,” was lost by 25 to 24. Clauses 21 and 22 were struck out, and the remaining Clause passed without any important amendments beyond those suggested by the Waste Lands Committe. The Bill was reported as amended, and the third reading fixed for Monday. Redemption ot Land for Mining Purposes Bill and Reserves in Mining Districts Bill were read a third time and passed. The House rose at 4.30.