GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Waikato Argus, Volume I, Issue 38, 6 October 1896, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE LIUUOK HILL. Sixtion i:> of the Act of 1803 was anicmlcil to provide that 'any person ' supplying a prohibited person with liipior, will commit a breach of the law. The following voids were added to the same section : ' And the fact of such prohibited person drinking liquor, or having it in his possession .sliail lie sufficient evidence of lii.s having proem ed it in breach of this seel ion.' A clause wss moved by Mr Masscy to enable committees to meet at the hour mo:t convenient in place of at noon only. Mr.J. C. Smith moved to add a new clause that " no license shall be granted for the sale of alcoholic liquor for the district created under the Ureucra Native Reserve Act, IS9G." This Mas errried by 32 to 11. L'apt. Russell, on the motion for the third reading of the Bill, raised the point of order that it was impossible for the House to fully grasp the amendments made, no opportunity having been given for considering them. He objected on these grounds to the third reading debate being then taken. Mr (J. Hutchison would not vote against the third reading, though the Bill was a most hypocritical one and never intended to pass and not intended to advance the cause of temperance. He believed the stonewall against the Bill had the sympathy of the I'rcir.icr, and asserted that the result of the conference was that the Bill was practically damned. Mr L:iwry denied that the Premier knew anything of the stonewall. Capi. Russell said the House was not going to swallow "bolus-bolus" or be bound by decisions arrived at by an ir responsible conference. He believed the action of the l'rein'er would prevent the Bill becoming law this session. Everyone believed that the opposition to the Bill had the sympathy of the Piemier. Why did not Mr Scdilon get up and say openly as l.e had dune, that he did not believe in the principle of prohibit : on. He (l'apt. Russell) believed in temperance but not in prohibition. A large portion of them who would vote for prohibition would not know what they were doing. Tluy were go : ng ahead of pullic opinion and instead of creating a selfrespecting, law-abiding people, the passage of such laws would, be thought, cause them to lose self respect an.l to evade the law. Mr Buchanan taunted the Premier with having come to his knees on the temperance question in order to retain bis seat on the Treasury benches. Mr Collins said if the Bid was given i fleet to, it would be most disastrous to the country. Mr Earnshaw said the Premier had stated at the Conference that un'ess rational prohibition and the clauses lefcrrng to c'ubs were passed by the Legislative Council the Government would have nothing to do with the Bill. He (Mr Earnshaw) as a member of the Ti niperance party, bad declined to be bound by the compromise, as they were giving every 1 king and getting nothin?. Mr Scddon, in reply, said it had not been the lot of any Premier to meet with the difficulties be had in pas-ing the liquor legislation. He had been accused tf being against prohib'tioii. By the sd.ince of the Opposition on the second reidug, their consent was given to the Bill, and as the Leader of the House he had been led into a fals<; position by that silence. He wished tcsettle the question. The Bill was carried b3' "20 to 4.