THE MEIKLE ACQUITTAL BILL

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8875, 8 November 1907, Page 5

THE MEIKLE ACQUITTAL BILL

SHELVED BY THE PREMIER. By Telegraph- Press Association. WELLINGTON. Thursday. In the House of Representatives, this afternoon, the Premier made a further statement respecting the Meikle Acquittal Bill. He said he had not been able to see the Chief Justice as he had intended, but had written to him on the subject of the bill, more part'cularly in respect to the recommendation of the commissioners that any legislation should be general in its terms. He also asked that at the next sitting of the Court of Appeal the Judges should draft a bill which would carry out the desires of the commissioners ana also to suggest the amount of compensation. His Honour replied consenting to bring the matter before the Court of Appeal. The Premier added that legislation would therefore be deferred until next session, as the House had evidently made tip itsmind that legislation dealing with a single individual should not beallowed to go through. Mr Massey said he had listened' with surprise to the .Premier's statement. He that the committee of the House that it was proposed to set up to enquire into thematter of compensation would now have 110 opportunity of doing so, and', the bill on which the House had spent a considerable amount of time would; be dropped. He did not agree witl* the course proposed as it was clearly the du*;y of the Executive to prepare legislation and be responsible for it. He added that if the Government had shown the same firmness as it had shown on other legislation, then this bill might have been passed so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. Mr Hornsby said he concurred with what the Premier had intimated. He reiterated his previous statement that the measure should be general and not a particular one. There had been, he said, no personal feeling in the matter, but only a desire to act in the interests of the weal of the people. Mr F. M. B. Fisher, as one who had taken great interest in the case, said the Premier's attitude over the bill was a concession to six members who had opposed it, and he contended that the same opposition would be presented to the bill next year. He was pleased that the question of compensation was to be referred to a judicial tribunal ar.d not to a tribunal consisting of members of the House. Mr Remington defended his action over the bill, and reminded Mr Fisher that this was the first instance of instituting criminal appeal in the British Empire. He reiterated his remarks that he would oppose a general measure. Mr T. Mackenzie, in defending his attitude, twitted Mr Fisher with being absent from the House during the discussion of the bill and failirg to raise his voice in suppport of it. He congratulated the Premier on the action he had taken. The Premier, replying, said that a number of members in addition to those who spoke against the bill hf.d intimated that they were opposed to the bill in its particular form. He refuted the statement that the present proposal was a concession to half a dozen members of the House, and added that there were tvvenlyeight members who were opposed to the bill. It was incorrect to say that the Government could put the bill through, as, with such opposition and the forms of the House that could be resorted to, the bill's fassage would have been blocked.