PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 36, 13 October 1913, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. [Per Press Association.] Wellington, October 12. The debate continued on resuming at 2.U0. At 3.15 Mr Jas. Millar raised the point that the amendment moved by Mr Rhodes was an appropriation of pubilc monies, and could not be introduced by a private member. He moved to take the Speaker’s ruling on the point. On the Speaker resuming the chair, Mr Millar pointed but that he did not wish to see power given to a committee that did not constitutionally belong to it.: . The land .was Crown land. Therefore, * all rents and fees, etc., derived therefrom must be public revenue, and the amendment should be brought in by Governor’s Message. Mr Massey said that Mr Millar was' wrong in his premises. He assumed that this was Crown land. The monies would only be handed over to the owner after the land became private property. Therefore, the clause was not appropriating public money. Mr G. W. Russell pointed out that under the lease the monies to be paic over to the owner were monies for something outside the fee simple. The only thing outside the fee simple was minerals, and therefore, the monies the owner was to get could only be monies derived from minerals, which otherwise would go to the Crown. Therefore, it was clear that the clause was an appropriation, clause. Mr J. A. Har.au argued that the clause gave to owners monies that otherwise would go to the Crown, so that the appropriation was clear. Mr J. A. Millar said that his point of order could be put in a nutshell. His Majesty the King brought down a message to the House proposing certain definite things. Could the committee go beyond those proposals and attach conditions to them which were not contemplated in the message ? The Speaker said that before he could give a decision he must first ascertain whether owners would be placed in a better position after receiving fees and royalties, etc. than before doing. /r The Prime Minister admitted that the word “royalties” should not be in the" clause. In the other respects the State merely acted as a “receiver.” Mr G. W. Russell asked what would happen to thdse inon es if the subclause was not passed ? Mr H. Poland said that without amendment the fees, etc., wpujji go to tlie Stale. Under the clause the monies would go to the owner. It was ah appropriation cl arise.

The Speaker said that the, evidence beford him was exceedingly conflicting. If it coiild; he done be jWpuld like fo' reserve 1 his decision for'further fcotisikbrhtion. Hd'liad no doubt whatever that if the fees, royalties, etc., were to he something extra to the owner, and it appeared to him that they would he, then the clause was clearly an appropriation of public monies. He would, however, like time to look further into the pointy , ~ Tlik Hyuse agreed to the Speaker deferring his decision. ; ' The’discussion' o tbe'n took '' the .turn that'it "was futije ‘to 1 scusa. the clause until the Speaker had given his ruling. As the result of certain remarks

made by Mr G. Laurenson, Mr Massey said that the charges made against Mr Rhodes were so serious that he could not allow them to pass unnoticed. He asked Mr Laurenson whether he would lay pn the table of, the House the letter he had ,Received regarding the member for the Thames. The accusations must be inquired into. Mr Laurenson agreed to table that portion of the letter he had read to the House. v Mr Rhodes characterised the letter as mean and scurrilous. He hoped that the whole matter would be probed to the bottom, and that the name of the skunk who wrote the letter would come out. The House adjourned till 7.30. Mr Speaker ruled that Mr Rhodes’ amendment would take away Man the Crown something if would otherwise have. He, therefore, ruled that it was an appropriation clause and could not be moved my a private member. Replying to Sir J. G. Ward, Mr Massey said that lie would bring down the substance of the amendment by Governor’s Message.' t Hb proposed to incorporate it in the Bill. Mr Webb contended'that the carrying of clause 25 would give awey the heritage of the people; It 'would rob miners of their rights and would enhance, to an extraordinary degree, the value of mining lands, to the absolute detriment to miners. If it became law there would be a repitition of the Huntly, Runanga, and Blackball troubles. The towns ■ would be owned by one or two people. After considerable discussion on the waste of time, Mr A. L. Hindmarsh rose and said that he considered that they would be justified in staying there fighting the clause until they forced a general election. As things shaped now, they would be parting with the national endowments next.

After the supper adjournment, Mr Speaker was called into' the House to rule on a point as to whether Mr Russell had exhausted his right to speak. The position was that the member for Avon had spoken four times during the debate on clause 25, but he contended that one of his speeches was on the question of whether an amendment should stand as part of the question. After a series of versions of a complicated position (all appearing to differ), Mr Speaker ruled that Mr Russell was not entitled to further discuss the question. From that point to midnight the proceedings continued on familiar lines, and the chairman left the chair to resume it at 2.30 on Monday.