Gerald/on Jetty. [14 DECEMfBER, 1897.] Extension of Tomneites. 1007

T1uesday, id/h December, 18.97.

Message: Assent to Bills-Papers Presented-Q..es.He.: Estesion of Gernidtom Jctty-QnestOnEsteo..Ion. of Broad Arrow, Kalgoorlie, ad Bouldertossites-setio, Rewards to discoverers ofCue and Peak Hill goldliolls-Maotio.: East Cool.gardie goldfield; change of Iianie-EnlployunentProbers Sill: third rezUlig-3fines Rcgulation ActAmendment Bill: third reading; div'ision onAnndnc.t-lireacli of Prielege-Cireni Courtsaill; third reani-ng-oond Labour Reistryll thid rdig okensLieII B third

reading-Sale of Liquors Act Ancendinecut Bill:secnd reading; diison - RScanti StreetsClO.""e Bill: first eadiug-Noxious Weeds Bill :

Sm atting CrutinalApIteal Pill : in co.n;mitteo-Culninies Act Anhendinent Bill: in cocuntittee-Adj ouroinent.

THE PRESIDENT took lime Chair ait

4830 o'clock, 1)111

PRAYERS.

MESSAGE-ASSENT TO BILLS.

A Message front His Excellency theGovernor was received and read, assesingto the following Bills:-[, "An, Actto conl-ftinm cartain1FXpenditure for the year ending3oth Jusne, Otte thousand eight htondredand ninety-siX.'' 2, ''An Act to amend theLan, relating to Hawokers and Fed/are."3, " An Act to provide for the issue to the

4, " An Act for the reappropriaiion ol por-tions of certai Ahucey8 a'ppropriated by theLoan Act of 1896, and by the Loan Consoli-dation Act of /896, respectivefly." 5, " AnAct to apply out of the ConsolidotedRevenueFund the su II of 'Three hundred and fiftythousand pouinds to the service of the yearending 80th Jvne, 18.9'

PAPERS PRESENTED.By the PRESIDENT: Public Accounts

for 1896-7, accomnpanied by the AuditorGeneral's Report.

By the MINISTER OF MiNES: Reportof Perth Public Hospital.

Ordered to lie upon the table.

QUES'IJON-EXTENSION OF' GERALD-TON JETTY.

HON. G. RANBELL, for Hon. W.Alexander, in accordance with notice,,asked the Minister of Minies-Whent theGovernment intend to proceed with theextension of the jettyv at, Geraldton"

Tnn INISTER OP M1INES (Hon.E. H. Wittenooi) replied: Not at pre-sent. The Government are aware thatthey promised to do this work, but findit would] be very inconvenient to proceedwith it just now, and venture to hope theresidents w~ill not he impatient, espe~ciallyas there is a large pulIic expendituregoing on in that town.

QUEST[ON-EXTENSION OP B3ROADARROW, KALCIOORUTE,ANI) BOULDERTOWNSLTES.HoN ,HR. G. PARSONS, in accordance

with notice, asked the Minister of Mines:I.Whether lie is aware that the Lands

Department has extended the area of theBroad Arrow Municipality to include

Ithe whole of the Broad Arrow town-site. z. Whbether the Broad ArrowMunicipal Couincil has not protestedagainst such extension, alleging that itinterferes with both alluvial workingsand leaseholds. 3. What is the objectof including mines within municipalities,when both mines and municipalitiesobject to sUch inclulsion? 4. Whetherthe previous extensions of the Kalgoorlieand Boulder townsites, protested againstby the corresponding- municipalities, havebeen yet rescinded. 5. Whether theMinesDepartmnent or the Lands Department is,in the opinion of the Minister of Mines,the better qualified to administer theauriferous districts of the colony.

THE MINISTER OF MINES (Hon.E. H. Wittenooin) replied: s. The boun-daries of Broad Arrow Municipality havenot been extended by the Lands Depart-ment. 2. The Municipal Council ofBroad Arrow wrTote to the Lands Depart-mnent with reference to an extension,and boundaries were suggested by thedepartment, which the council objected to.Nothing has been settled uip to the pre-sent. 3. Municipal boundaries are onlyamended ait the request of municipalcouncils, through the Colonial Secretary'sdepartment, and in this instance thesuggestion was made by this department,as the council had written to the Ministerof Lands; but in any case no amendmentwould have been made without referenceto the Colonial Secretary's department.There was no particular object in in-cluding mines. 4. Not vet, but it will

Ibe shortly.

1008 East Cool yardie Goldfild: [COUNCIL.] CThange oq Name.

QUESTION - REWVARDS TO DIS-COVERERS OF CUE AND PEAK HILLGOLDFIELDS.

HON. G. RANDELL, for Hion. W.Alexander, in accordance with notice,asked the Minister of Mines if it is theinten tion of the Government to grant anyrewards to the discoverers of the Cue andPeak Hill goldfields, bearing in mindthat a sinilar course has heel] followed asregards similar discoveries in other partsof the colony.

THE MINISTER OF MINES (Hion.P. H. Wittenoom) replied ais follows:The Government propose dealing witheach case on its merits. I have receiveda letter from the alleged discoverer ofCue, and it is now having careful con-sideration. The Government do notpropose to grant any reward to the dis-coverers of Peak Hill.

MOTION-EAST COOLGAROJE GOLD.FIELD: CHANGE OF NAME.

HoN. HI. G. PARSONS, in accordancewith notice, moved:

That in the opinion of this House, owing tothe misunderstandings still prevalent in Lon-don in consequence of the gold returns beingmade under the offcial heading of East Cool-gardie goldield, it is desirable that the name"East Coolgardie goldfield" s)hould be changedto " Kalgoorlie goldfild."He said he simply wished to point outthat it was now recognised as more con-venient to name each district after its par-ticular central town; and, in the case ofthe district of Kalgoorlie, that name was11ow as wveil known in Europe as her-e.Within his own knowledge the name "EastCoolgardie goldfield " had given rise toinconvenience in London. The represent-tative of Renter in this city told himthat he had had comIplaints mnade, to himby his principals in London that theynever received returns from Kalgoorlie,which meant that the ordinary Londonerdid not keep separate pigeon holesfor Coolgardie and East Coolgardie.In certain quarters, separate returnswere published from the Boulderand Kalgoorlie, which was splitting upthe returns from the East Coolgardiegoldlfield, making worse confusion of whatwas already confounded. The principlefor which the motion contended wasalready admitted iii the East CoolgardieRoads Board, of which lie lately was thechairman. The name " East Coolgardie

Roads Board " was without any trouble,and withi a, great deal of advanutage topublic convenience, changed to the "iKal-goorlie Roads Board." The tendency ofall departments was mn that direction.The people interested in Kalgoorlie werefavourable to the chanige. and the presentwas an opportune time to make thischange'

THE MINISTER OF MINES (Hon.E. H. Wittenoorn): There was noofficial objection to the district being calledEast Ooolg-ardie, whatever objections theremight he fromn any other souIrce; and,although he was prepared to admnitthat so many Coolgardies were a littleconfusing, it would require very carefulconsideration before a change shouldbe made. In the first place, if itwere called *Kalgoorlie instead of EastCoolgardie, other portions of thatdistrict might object. Possibly theBoulder might object to its being calledKalgoorlie, because East Coolgardie in-cluded the whole district. If any othergold districts were to arise in that partof the colony, they, might object to beingcalled after Kalgoorlie. Further con-sideration should be given before adopt-ing this suggestion. This portion of thecolony was namied East Coolgardie for thevery purpose of making it more importantin the eyes of the world. Coolgardie wasthen in the zenith of its famne, and to getsome of the reflected famie of Coolgardiethe new district was called East Cool-gardie. In the fortnnes of gold miningKalgoorlie, he believed, was rather ahead ofCoolgardie. We were told that the resi-dents preferred to call it Kalgoorlie, and todo away with the Coolgardie name. If itwas the general desire of the whole peoplethat the change should be made, lie didnot think that the Government wouldstand in the way at all. It would meana little alteration in the Governmentbooks, but that would not be of verygreat importance; but we should be sureit was the general desire of all partiesinterested before making such a change.The district had been known now so longas East Coolgardie that people recognisedthat this included Kalgoorlie, and if wremade a change now it might lead to furtherconfusion. He thought it would be wiseto defer the change for a short time, untilwe heard whether it was the unanimousdesire of the people that it should be made.

East Coolgardie Coldfield. [14 DEcEISBER, 1897.] Mines Regulation Bill. 1009

Hox. A. P. MATHESON: The motionwas merely an expression of opinion. Itdid not bind the Government iii any way.It simply affirmed the fact that we wereof opinion that the time had come whena change should be made. TheMinister ofMines had clearly pointed out the reasonswhy thegoldfield was firstealled EastCool-gardic, and why others were called NorthCoolg'ardie and N orth-East Coolgardie.One of the reasons was doubtless that ofgetting mioney introduced into the country.As Air. Parsons had pointed out, circumn-stances had completely changed, and Kal-goorlie was now a very important gold-field. The greater partf, at any rate avery large portion, of the gold returnsof the colony came from this particularfield. It wa .s called East Coolgardie, andthere was no doubt that it did lead to avery large amount of confusion in theminds of people in London, because theywere always accustomed to think of it asKalgoorlie. They did not draw the finedistinctions which they should betweenall those places which were called afterGoolgardie. it was interesting to knowwhich of the goldfields had been namedafter Coolgardie, and which went by theirown proper names, in order that membersmight see how thoroughly justified Kal-goorlie was to have its goldfield namedalier itself. Ashburton had its fieldnamed after the individual spot, and sohad Broad Arrow, which was a separatefield including other mining centres.

HON. R. S. HAYNES: What was Dan-dalup named after?

HoN. A. P. MATHESON: There wasno warden down on the Estimates. Hewas not aware that it was an existinggoldfield. Dundas, Kimberley, i~tur-chison, Yilgarn, Yalgoo, Pilbarra, and anumber of others were all named afterdistinctive localities of their own, and asa matter of fact the only goldfields thatwere named after Coolgardie were EastCoolgardie, North Coolgardie, which wasthe Menzies district, and North-EastCoolgardie, which hie believed includedeverything up to the frontage of SouthAustralia. Then there was East Mlur-chison, which took in Lawlers. Hehardly' thought it was necessary toelaborate the claim that the Kalgoorliedistrict should be called Kalgoorlie. TheLands Department had made no difficultywhatever about altering the title of the

*Roads Board, which used to be. called"North-East Coolganlie Roads Board,"

but, on application to the Minister ofLands, lie changed it in a week withoutthe least trouble to Kalgoorlie, and thatof itself was pretty strong presuniptiveproof that liehad satisfied himself, outsidethe official comnunications of his de-partmnent. that the majority of thepeople iii the district preferred tohave it called Kalgoorlie, instead ofCoolgardie. It might be true that theMinister had not received a petition from

smayhundred people requesting thattechange sh"db idbtwhen

the members from the goldields districtstold the House that a change wasdesirable, as Mr. Parsons did, that initself should be sufficient evidence thatthe change was a reasonable one to askfor, and that the majority of the votersin the district were desirous of having itmade.

Question put and passed.

EMPLOYMSENTr BROKERS BILL.

Read a third time, and passed.

MINES REGULATION ACT AMEND-MNENT BILL.

THhIRD READING-

THE MINISTER OF MINES movedthat the Bill be now read a third time.

HoN. A. H. HENNING moved, as ananmendment, that the word " now ' beStruck out and the wvords "'this day threeweeks " be inserted in lieu thereof. Itwould be remembered that, when theMinister introduced this Bill, he plainlytold the House that lie desired to estab-lish a, record of the workings of themines throughout the colony, and heparticularly stated, with regard toabandoned mines, that it was absolutelynecessary for the safety of subsequen~towners that there should be plans of theworkings made. In addition to that theMinister had told the House, wheneveran amendment had been suggested, thatif it were carried it would spell ruin tothe Bill. The object of moving forthe omission of the word " now" was topoint out that, notwithstanding thisstatement by the Minister, the Bill hadbeen ruined with the Minister's ownsanction. On reference to Clause 8, hon.members would find that all these plane,

1010 Mines Regulation Bill: [COUNCIL.])hr raig

and all information under this Bill, whichit was compulsory for the mine-owner tosupply at his on expense, and atexorbitant expense, was to be absolutelylocked tip in the Mines Department, andnot used for any purposes beyondstatistical purposes.

THEs MINISTER OF MINES: Uniless theowners agreed to it.

How. A. H. HENNING: Solely forofficial and statistical purposes. Therewas no mention, so far as he could see, ofthe consent of any ine-owner beingrequired. The Minister would notthink that he (Mr. Henning) was ob-structive because lie had taken hispresent action, since the fault of whichhe complained could be remedied at thisstage of the Bill, These plans, in genera-tions to come, would be looked upon asChinese puzzles. Clause 8 was absolutelya dead letter, because the plans could nothe inspected by anyone except the officersof the department.

THE MINISTER OF MINES: If the Billdid not work, it could be amended.

HON. A. H. HENNING: Now wasthe time to put the Bill in proper form,and not on any future occasion. The Bill,hie supposed, was to be operative, and nota dead letter. He moved that the word.now" be omitted with a view to the in-

sertion of "this day three weeks.'HON. D. McKAY moved that the

Council do now divide.Motion (to divide) put and negatived.Amendment-that the Bill be read a

third time this day three weeks--put, anddivision taken with the following result:

Ayes ... ... 4Noes ... ... 10

Majority against ... 6Ayes. I NOE.

The Hon. A. P. Matheson i The HOn. D). K. CoogdonTh. Hon. HI. 0. Parsons IThe Mon. F. T. CrowderThe Hon. J. Hf. Taylor 1The Hon. J. W. Hackettrie Ifon. A. If. Hen.ning The Hon. R. S. Harnes

(TOWe). ThelHon. A. B~. eThe Ho.' D. MeKyThe Hon' E. Me~artyThe Ho.. G. HendeonThe Hon. E. H. WittenoonThe Hon. J. H. Richarson

(Tele).

Amendment thus negatived, and debatecontinued on the motion for the thirdreading.

RON. A. P. MATHESON desired tospeak to the motion, in order that bemight make the reason clear to the Hfouse

as to why the Hon. A. H. Henning tookthe unusual step of endeavourring topractically shelve the Bill. The goldfieldsmembers intended to table an amiendmnentwhen thle Bill was in committee, but,owing to some inadvertence on the part ofthe mover of the intended amendment, hewas not in time to move it. Therefore,the goldfields members thought, to save aa long debate, it would be better to moveat the third reading stage that the Bill bepostponed for three weeks. That wouldeffect the object they had in view. Hewanted to point out to hon. members thatthe goldfields members had all been sentto this House to represent the views ofthe whole of the people on the gold-fields.

How. R. S. HAYNES; Of theCoolgardiefields.

HoN. A. P. MATHESON: The wholeof the fields the goldfields members repre-sented.

How. R. S. HAYN ES: But there wereother goldfields in the colony.

HON. A. P. MATHESON: That wastrue; but the majority of the returnscame from the goldfields he represented,and the goldfields members were returnedto the Council because it was believedthey were competent to speak in theHouse, and to convey to members fromother parts of the country the viewswhich their constituents held. Therecould be no doubUt whatever as to theviews of the whole of the people on thegoldfields upon this particular question.The matter had been discussed in thepublic press, and by every' representativeinstitution on the eastern goldfields, andthe verdict had been, without exception,that the clause as to surveying by under-ground surveyors was nmost objectionable.He did not propose to move an amend-ment because it would be a wvaste of timeto do so, but hon. members could negativethe motion for the third reading if theychose, and he hoped to be able to inducethem to take that course. Surely ifmembers were sent to the House to re-present a particular district for which theHouse was proposing to legislate, in thatcase the House ought to be guided bythose who represented that district.

THE MINISTER OF MINES said he wasa goldfields member himself.

Flow. A. P. MATHESOIN: Thelinis-ter of Mines was a goldfields member,

third reading.

Mines Regulation Bill: [14 DECEMBER, 1897.] thrredn. 11

but people were goldfields members whoknew little about the golields.

THE fNNSTRai OF MINE7S: The hon,member was right there.

HON. A. P. MATHESON: Some lion.ihtembers who represented the goldfields'knew nothing about the goldfields or thepeople who lived there. The other dayhe told hon. members that a mine manager,Mr. Callahan, of the Lake View, wasgreatly opposed to this Bill, and theMinister of Mines then said that lie hadthe namies of two managers who thoughtthe Bill a very proper one. He (Mr. Mathe-son)asked for the names of the two man-agers because, in dealing with matters inwhich hion. mnembers were going to be in-fluenced by the opinions of individuals, theHouse should know who the individualswere, but the Mlinister of Mines would notgive the anes. Since then the MineManagers' Institute at Kalgoorlie and theMine Mlanagers' Institutes in other placeshad met, and with one accord had con-deinned the nhjectionable clause in theBill.

THEE MINISTER OF MIXES: Because itwould give them a little trouble.

HoN. A. P. MATHESON: It was notbecause it would give trouble, but becauseit was absolutely unnecessary that plansshould be prepared in the way theGovernment wished them to be prepared.The opinion of the associated b6dy ofmine managers on the fields was placedagainst the opinion of two mine managerswhose names the Minister of Minesrefuksed to give. That was how thematter stood at the present time. Surelythe opinion of the mine managers . atKalgoorlie was worth considering. Ifhe (Air. Matheson) were to take eachmember of the House individually andsay to bin " Do you believe So-and-so isa good man," he would answer "Yes ;"and if he were to further ask, " Do youthink his opinions are worth receiving,he having been placed in charge of such-and-such a, mine and receiving a largesalary," members would say "1Yes." Butwhen members were taken collectivelythey, for some unknown reason, refused tobe influenced by arguments which wouldinfluence them when taken individually.Having settled that point, let hon mem-bers take another.

HON. R. S. HAYNES: It Was notsettled at all.

-Ho-. A. P. 'MATH ESON: Whbat werethe qualifications of the hon. gentlemanby whomi members wished to be guided FLet them look over his record as Ministerof Minles.

Tnn INISTER OF MINES: The hion.member must not be personal.

Ho;%. A. P. MATHESON said hie hada very long statement prepared, but itwouldt simply weary the House for himto go through it piece by piece and topoint out the various mistakes which thehon. nieniher-n had mnade, unintentionallyhe said, Lecause hie gave the Ministerevery credlit for good initenitionis, but themistakes which lie had made duirig hiscareer in his ualpacit ,y of Minister ofMines luid been many. Rhon. nmemberswould remember that the hon. gentlemanwas appointed Minister of Mines in 1895.

Ho-N. R. S. H&.YNEs: Wam die hon.member in order in travelling from theobject of the BillF

THE PaiSmDNsnr In the hon. memi-her's allusions to the Minister, he wasgoing at little too far.

HON. A. P. MATHE SON: It was im-possible to deal with the question, if hecould not argue as to the qualifications ofthe lion, miembe.r who was influencing theHouse.

HON-. H. S. HArE ES : Was not the hon.member bound to debate the questionbefore the House, which was that the.Bill be read a third time. He had noright to debate the question as to whatthe Minister had done in the past or whathe proposed to do iu the future.. Ts couldnot affect the Bill.

THE PRESIDENT: The hon. umemnbermust speak to the principle of the Bill.

HoN. A.P. MATHE SON said he wasgiving his reasons why the Bill shouldnot be read a third time, and amongstthose reasons lie said that he did notthink the hon. gentlemnan's record entitledhim to advise members to take a certaincourse.

THrE MINISTER Or MINES: Hon. mem-bers would follow their own opinions.

HON. A. P. MATHESON said hie didnot know whether the Minister of Mineshad been in Kalgoorlie or Coolgardie be-fore his appointment, but in the earlypart of 1898 thle lion, gentleman visitedthese fields and was, immensely struck bywhat lie saw; and he made a proposal-and no doubt hon. gentlemen would

thirdreading. 1011

1012 Mines Regulation Bill: [O lCL]tidraig

laugh when they heard it-to remove thewarden's court from Kalgoorlie toKanowna.

A MEMBER: That was not in 1896.HON. A. P. MATHESON believed it

was in 1896. He wished to establish thewarden's court at White Feather, whichwas now known ats Kanownia.

HON. ft. S. HAYNES: What had thatto do with the Bill?

THE PRESIDENT: The lion. mneniberwas now exceeding the right of debate.

THE MINISTER or MiNes: The hion.member must not be personal.

HON. A. P. MATHESON said he wasin somne difficulty, because hion. memberswere being influenced by the statementsof the Minister.

THE PRESIDENT: The lion. memberhad no right to make a statement thaltmiembers were being influenced by anmy-one.

HON. A. P. MATHESON said hemeant by the arguments of the Minister.

RON. ft. S. HAYNES: It was his (Mr.Haynes's) arguments that influencedthem.

HON. A. P. MATHESON: The argu-nient was that the Minister of Mines hadmade so miany- mistakes in the conirse ofhis career, that this Bill was his finalmnistake, and it was hoped this would behis last. He (Mr. Matheson) asked thePresident to re-consider his ruling nowthat the position was placedI clearly be-fore him.

THE PRESI[DENT: The lion. member didexceed the rules of debate in his personalremarks %bout the Minister.

RON. A. P. MATHESON said hiewanted to point out the mistakes the lion.gentleman had made.

THE PRESIDENT: That had nothing todo with the present Bill.

RON. A. P. MATHESON: It had aneffect onl the capacity the Minister hadfor dealing with the bill.

THE MINISTER OF MINES: It wasnot a mistake. It was never carriedout.

Hon. A. P. MATHIESON: If it hadbeen carried out, it would have been amistake.

THE MINISTER OF MINES: They hadnot found gold at Kalgoorlie then.

THE PRESIDENT: The House was notdiscussing the mistakes that had beenmade by the Minister, but the Bill.

HON. A. P. MATHESON said if hewas ruled out of order, he would bow tothe ruling of the Chair.

THE PRESIDENT: That portion of theremarks of the hion. member, referred tojust now, were certainly out of order.

How. A. P. MATHESON: Tint madeit impossible for him to carry on hisargumnent. The Minister of Mines, whowas carrying hion. members by his elo-quence, had made many mistakes, andprobably hie would make many more,There were other mistakes whichl theMinister had made, to which lie (Mr.Matheson) intended to refer, but on theruling of the Piresident he was debarredfrom doing so. He would only move, ifit was in order, that the Bill be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT: Tile hion. membercould vote against the Bill.

How. H. G. PARSONS: There wasan honest feeling in the mninds of his con-stituents that this Bill was not required.and in those circumstances the time ofthe House would not be wasted if he wasable to gain one or two votes for his side.Last Saturday hie w~ent to Coolgardie andconisulted with the mnemlbers of thleChamber of Mines, and ait the same timeat spontaneous deputation fromn Coolgardiewaited upon the Kalgoorlie Chamber inreference to this matter. The sameposition was taken up by these twochambers as "'as taken lip hy the Imisti-tute of Ain e Managers. He hadl mentionedthat it would cost £1.60 to stipply theplans of a, mine as required b 'y the Bill,and the president of the Chamber ofMines at Kalgoorlie had stated to himthat the cost would be more like PA4O0.Even the surveyors themselves had putin anl Objection to this provision in theBill. They did not want any kindof trades union business which wasoppressive to the mining industry, andwould only re-act upon the surveyorsthemselves. The mine managers beingagainst this provision was sufficient proofto cause lion, members to pause in theirconsideration of the measure. Clause 8simply stultified the whole Bill.

THE MINISTER OF MINES: The hion.member and the Hon. A. P. Mathesonhad assisted in amending the clause.

lion. A. P. MATHESON said lie didnothing of the kind. The amendmentwhich lie moved provided that, by thepermission of the mine owner or manager,

third reading.[COUNCIL.]

Mines Regulation Bill: [14 DECEMBER, 1897.] third readinag. 1013

plans were to he inspected, but thisamendmient was found to be unsatisfactoryand it was struck out by the Minister ofMines himself.

Box. H. G. PARSONS: According tothe Bill, under no circumstances could theplans be shown to anyone except an officerof the Mines Department, and the wholeof the mines were to he put to the greatexpense of £160 or £200 each for no goodresult. It was wvrong to make any pro-vision which would harass and oppressthis industry. He (Mrt. Parsons) wasassured by the president of the Chamberof Mines at Kalgoorlie that in regard tohis (the president's) mine, he wouldgive a plan not only once, but four timesa year, if necessary, to the department.Al~l big mnines would be willing tosupply plans, but it would not hofair to make all mines provide them.It was not for the House to put itself inopposition to the declared feeling of allthe responsible bodies on the goldfields,because sonme of the representatives of thegoldfields had been unable to utter theirprotests till a late stage. He asked theHouse to consider the point. It had beensaid over and over again that the mineowners dlid not want the Bill at the presenttime, and he hoped the House would bearthis in maind and would not pass the thirdreading.

HoxN. R. S. HAYNES: Sufficient tunehad already been wasted over the Bill.One hon. mjemiber had accused him ofhaving insulted some association in Kal-goorlie. He dlid not know that he haddone so, and if lie had done so it wasdone unwittingly. How he could insulta chamber of whose very existence hewas unaware, he did not know. Hedid not think the members representingthe goldfields were reasonable in theirdemands on the House. He was withthem to a certain extent, but, whenthe House had expressed its opinionfirmly, what was the good of trying byside-winds to frustrate its will ? Hehad voted for the Bill because he thoughtit a necessary one. He did not agreewith the first principles of it, butt in itsamended form he had voted for it. Butwhat would the country, what wouldthe world, think, if the Chamber wentback on itself in the way recommendedby the goldfields niembers. The properstage to have urged upon the House to

*throw out the Bill was when the Bill wason its second reading. All that time themnemb~ers for the goldfields had been idle.Tt was only now, when the third readingcamne on, that lie had an intimation fromt

Ithem that they dlid not approve of someOf the principles of the Bill. He Wouldsupport the third reading.

HON. J. H. TAYLOR said hie wouldenter another protest against the Bill. Hedid not think the time wasted over theBill in the House would be ai tithe of what

Iwould be Wasted if it were carried intoeffect. Not five per cent, of the gold-mining leases were worth having plans of.Who would be benefited by the money, ifit was to be spent on all these plans ?

A MEMBER: The iin~g surveyors.HON. J. H. TAYLOR: All the leading

mines prepared plans, and splendid plansmany of them were. Some of these planshad been published for the inspection ofthe general public. The Bill would bealways inoperative. He was surprisedthat the memibers of the Council placed solittle reliance on the opinion of gold-fields members. Nobody in the Househad given more attention to the Bill thanthe four members representing the gold.fields, and all these members were deadlyvopposed to it.

THE MINISTER OF MINES (Hon. E.H. Wittenoioni) said he was sorry therehad been so much fighting over this Bill;but they were all fighting for a principle,and he was sorry to see there was a littleannoyance On the part of goldfieldsmembers because they, had not got theirown way. There was no annoyance onthepart of the other members of the House,because they recognised that it was aquestion which the majority bad to decide.That portion of the Bill to which Mr.Taylor objected contained the essence ofthe Bill. The question was as to thmecost. Hie thought everybody admittedthe necessity of the returns being made.[A MEMBER: No.] Everybody admittedthat it would be advantag eous to thecolony to have these records made, andthe only question in dispute was whetherthe records should be. or should not be,absolutely accurate. The mining mnem-lbers claimed that the records and planssupplied by the mining managers weresuifficient. On behalf of the Mines De-partment lie said that unless these planswere certified to by a professional man,

1014 Mines Regulan Bill. rO N ILBrchoPive.

reliance could not be placed on them.He was quite prepared to admnit thatmany of the mining manmagers were cal).able men, but they were not necessarilymen who understood underground sur-veying. It came down to the one pointwhether the plane were to be accu-rate or not. If the plans werenot to be accurate, it would beno use putting people to the trouble ofsending them in. At present the MinesDepartment could compel inle-owners tofurnish copies of their plans. Under thepresent Mlines Regrulation Act the de-partment had power to send inspectors tocopy these plans, but it all amounted tothe same thing-whethier the plans wereaccurate. In many cases hie had nodoubt die plans that wouild be suppliedwould be accurate, but in miany othersthey would not be accurate, If thisbranch in the Mines Department was tobe established with any probability ofsuccess, it was necessary that thle planisshould be accurate. He did not propose.to say anything further. This House haddecided, and in his opinion they haddecided wisely. Other people mighthave different opinions. He thought agreat deal of credit was due to themembers who had placed the views of thegoldfields so ably before the House. Hecould not, however, congratulate tlieni oilthe spirit of compromise which they hadshown, because they had held out ag-ainstthle Bill throughout; on the other hand,he had met themn in every way lie could,and he had even gone so far as to sacri-fice the principle of the Bill a, little inorder to meet their views. He hopedhon. members would support the thirdreading.

HON. D. McKAY said he was notopposed to the gold-mining members, buthe thought they ought to be satisfiedwith the verdict of the Rouse.

HOrN. W. ALEXANVDER said he hadno interest himself in laining, but herespected the opinions of those who were

-sent hei-e to represent the goldfields, andhe sympathised with them iii this matter.Hie had acted according to his own con-victions throughout, and he felt sure thatthis Bill would cause a' great deal ofannoyance, a, great deal of trouble, and agreat deal of expense to mine-owners.If the Govertnent were so anxious toget these records, hie thought it would be

better for them to appoint Governmentinspectors to go round, and let theGovernment pay for having these plansCertified to bjy a suirveyor. He thoughtit was rather hard onl mine-ownlersth-at they Should be compelled to eniployan undergm-ound surveyor The cost ofsupplying these plans had been putdown at £150 to £e430 a year. £10would be aI good deal to pay, if it couldbe avoided. He should certainly be dis-posed to give attention to the views soably expressed by those representing alarge number of people on thle golddields,as also the Chambers of Commnerce andMines, and although at this late stage hecould not consistently vote against thethird reading, his sympathies wereentirely with the goldfields members.He felt sure that tlic Minister wasactuated by an honest desire to improvethe department, and to establish areliable office, but he regretted that thisBill had not been allowed to stand overfor further consideration till someamnicable amrangement had been arrivedat between thle Minister and the gold-fields representatives. That would havebeen a great deal more Satisfactory thanto pass the Bill now.

THEM INISTER OF MIrNES: The antic-ablearrangement the hou. member Spoke ofc-ould only be arrived at by a sacrifice ofprinciple.

HON. W. ALEXANDER said he(could not get away from the fact that theBill was going to put the mine-owners. toan unnecessary expense.

Question- -that the B3ill be Hmow read atthird time-put and passed.

Bill read a third time, and transmnittedto the Legislative Assembly.

BItEAOH OF PRIVILEGE.

During the foregoing debate, the HON.0, RANDELL rose to a point of oi-der,and said a breach of the privileges of theHouse had occurred, by a, policemanentering the precincts of the House forthe purpose of delivering a mnessage tosomeone.

Tnur PRESIDENT said the fact re-ferred to was a br-each of the privileges ofthe House. No stranger had at right tobe in the Chamber while the Hfousie wassitting; but time officers hind been] busilyengaged in taking a division at the time,

'COUNCIL.]L Breach q Privilege.

Sale of Liquors Bill: (14 DECEMBER, 1897.] second reading. 1015

or no doubt the Stranger would have beenprevented fromt entering.

CIRCUIT COURTS BILL.Read a third time and passed.

15MPORTED LABOUR REGISTRY BILL.Read a third time and passed.

WORKMEN'S LIEN BILL.Read a third time and passed.

SALE OF LIQUORS ACT AMENDMENTBILL.

SECOND EEADiWG-IDEBATE RESUMDIE.

HON. P. T. CROWDER: The Billbefore the House, if passed into law, willadd another amendment to the basketfulof amendments already in force on theWines, Beer, and Spirits Sale Act of1880. 1 would like to point out that in1880 it was thought fit by the Govern-ment of the colony to consolidate thedifferent Acts already in force, and a Billwas brought forward to do so. That was17 years ago. Since then there have beenvarious amendments to the Wines andSpirits.Act, such as the Acts of 1884,1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1893. Theoriginal Act passed in 1880 was quitesufficient to govern those who were trad-ing in the colony at that time, but sincethen the conditions of the wine and

spiit trade have altogether changed. It'hasrbeen shown over and over again, andproved by the courts of this colony, thatthe amending Acts contain over 100different amendments to the principalAct, and are mn such a complicated con-dition that those trading uinder thesedifferent Acts cannot with any securitycarry on their business. This has beenpointed out time after time, and I thinkI am right in saying that the Govern-ment have promised that these Acts shallbe consolidated. I can assure theMinister that it is with no feeling ofantagonism to the Government in anyshape or form that I take up this position.If the Bill were one that the Governmentcould not do without, I would certainlysupport it; but I intend to move thatthe Bill be read this day six months, inorder to force the hands of the Govern-ment, and compel them to consolidatethe already existing Acts. We have inthis House at the present time several

legal gentlemen, and I do not think oneof them will say I am wvrong when Iassert that no hotel-keeper or license-holder can tell where he is, owing to thenumber of Acts which regulate his trade.Mr. Haynes, at great pains, publisheda book trying to give some insight intothe workings of these Acts; but even hewill admuit that, after all he has done,the Bill is not one which a largetrading community, such as we have in ourmidst, should be asked to trade tinder.These Acts form such a conglomeratedmass that the Licensed victuallers of thecolony do not know exactly where theystand. Considering these ats have beenin operation about seventeen years, we havethe right to demand that the Governmentshall consolidate them; and I trustthe House will vote with me on thisoccasion in postponing the second readingof the Bill. It is proposed to raisethe licenses of some public-houses to.£76.It seems to me that the clause is a, mostridiculous one, for it distinctly statesthat within the electoral districts of Perththe license fee shall be £76, but withinmagisterial districts the license shallonly be £60. I do not know whetherhon. members have ascertained whatthe electoral district of Perth is. Imay tell them it takes a line fromKingston Road to Melbourne Road.It simply means that all the hotels thatstand on a street running from KingstonRoad to Melbourne Road shall pay£76, while the Governor Broomne and theGreat Western Hotels, and other largehotels, standing side by side with otherhotels paying £75, will be only calledupon to pay £60. It has been pointedout by some leading men of WesternAustralia who have visited the othercolonies that the great disadvantageUnder which we Labour at the presentday is that we have no good hotels, thatthey are simply drinking bars. itseems to me that, by this Bill, theGovernment are trring to legislate inthe same bad way in which the cor-poration of Perth are legislating, thatis by taxing- the man who makes the im-provements. In order to do away withthe undesirability of having nothingbut drinking bars, I would be inclinedto say to Mr. De Bann, and to men suchas he, who have spent nearly £60,000 to£70,000 in a building which is a credit

1016 Sale of' Liquors Bill: [COUNCIL.] second reading.

not only to the colony but to Aus-tralia, that his license should be madeless and not more. It may seem logicalthat Dle Bain's Hotel should pay morethan the Governor Broonme or outsidehotels; but a hotel in the Centre of thecolony pays three times more i rates thanthe others do, its up-keep is also threetimes as great, and I think that whenlthese hotel-keepers are paying £250 for alicense they are paying equal to what theothers are paying outside. I wish toimpress on lion. members that it is amost ridiculous idea ropass this Bill, fixingthe license fee for hotels in the electoraldistricts at a higher rate than those in themagisterial districts which are alongside.The Great Western Hotel sand all thelarge hotels will have to pay a licensefee of £70, while other hotels only a fewyards away will have to pay £50. Thatis not fair and just. Then again thereis an Act in reference to colonial winelicenses, allowing colonial wine to be soldin the colony. Although we shouldendeavour to have colonial wine sold inthis colony, the holders of licenses underthis Act at the present day sell importedwines, and I believe that most of thesecolonial wine houses are sly-grog shops.

HoN. G. RANDELL : The police give avery good account of them.

HON. F. T. CROWDER: 1 wish topoint out why the whole of these smallamending Acts should be consolidated.There is one point about the hotel-keeper.He canl sell a bottle of whisky, but hiecannot recover for that whisky. If hesells half-a-dozen of wine, he cannotrecover for it. Then, again, the botell-keeper has to pay duty oin a cask ofspirit; and no matter- whether the spirit is25 per cent, underproof or whether it isproof, the Government allow no rebatewhatever. Knowing something aboutthis matter myself, I maintain that spiritwhich is " broken down " in the colonyv isnot equal to spirit whichl has been "brokendown " before it is bottled. People im-port spirit overproof and " break, it down "themselves. The Government should dealfairly with the class of men who pay moreto the revenue than any other class.

HON. G. RANDELL: Does not the con-sumner pay ?

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: Indirectly.The publicanis should have sonme law sgoverning them wvhiclh are fai~r and

just. If the House will agree with mnethat the Bill be read this day six months,it is mv intention to-morrow to move"That, in the opinion of the Legisla-

tive Council, the Government shouldat the earliest possible date consolidatethe Wines, Beer, and Spirits Sale Act."I. say that the hotels should be kept openat certain hours on Sunday. I havewvatched this trade carefully, and I say we

1should do well to allow hotels to be keptopen for certain hours on Sundays, aswas the case in South Australia beforeKnox's Act camne into force. We mightallow the hotels to be open f rom 8 am.to 9 a.m., from 1 p.m. to 2 p~n., and from8 to 9 in the evening. Working peoplehave not the same conveniences as well-to-do persons who are able to keep) theliqunor in the house, which working peoplecannot do ; and it is not right that aman who works all the week and wholikes his pint of beer at his meals shouldbe prevented from obtaining it on Sunday.At the present time the working man hasto do without it. In London, with itsfive or six millions of people, the hotels areopen all day and night; and if we are tobelievewhnt we read, there is less drunken-ness there than anywhere else.

HON. J. W. HACKETT: What do youmean by " open day and night P"

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: Well, nearlyall night.

HoN. 3. W. HACKCETT: The. hotels nearthe theatres are allowed to remain openuntil twelve o'clock.

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: They areopen on Sundays also. I have seen inPerth on Sunday men going along thestreet to a hotel, and they stand and lookaround, and if there is no one about theypop in at the back door of the hotel. Aworking man should have a right to gethis beer on a Sunday. Many workingmen, being unable to obtain liquor onl

ISunday, take it home onl a Saturdaynight,and they are tempted to drink it beforeSunday comes. All these questions couldbe fully debated if a Bill was brought fo-wai'd to consolidate the various amendingActs. It is pointed out in this Bill, in re-gard to inspectors, that anyone canl enitera public-hiouse and demand a sample ofliquor. That is most unjust. A great

i deal has been said against the hotel-keepers of the city, jut in my opinion-andI have had 20 yeats' ex perience of them -

Saleof iqurs ill (1 DESSIER,189.1 ecoad readingy. 1017

taking them as a bod 'y, it would be im-possible to find at more respectable classof men. It has always struck me that thehotel-keepers in this colony are looked uponas so much dirt, who are trying all theycan to swiudte everyvone else to make 'aliving, yet the merchants who supply thelicensed victualer wilth liquor-the whole-sale men -are gentlem en, and ride in theircarriages.

Jiou. A. B. KIDSON : 'IlIiat is the forceof circumstances.

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: I shouldhave no objection to the appointment of

illsetors by the overnmen2It, but Iobjlect to anyone being able to eniter ahotel and demtand a sample of liquor.I may 'be at pu'blican, for instance, andhave fallen out with one of mny servants.That servant may hare doctored somestuff in my cellar. He can come innext day and demand a sample of thisdoctored stuff, and I, the publican, shallbe fined. Then there is some complaintin reference to supplying bond fidetravellers. The onus is placed upon thepuimlican of proving that the person towhom hie supplies the liquor is a bond fidetraveller. That simply means this, andit is occurring every' Sunday- -there arehundreds and thousands of people comingfrom the goldfields to the other colonies,and they come to Perth or Fremantle andgro to a hotel to have refreshments. Whilethey are there a policeman mar come inand take their names, and the publicanwill be sunmmoned. The travellers whosenames have been taken leave the next dayfor klelboture, and the publican finds it

impossible to prove that the persons towhom he sold liquor were bond fidetravellers.

HON. A. B. ]KIDSON: These travellerscan be made to prodnce their tickets tothe publican.

HoN. G. RAN DELL: The publican canget the travellers to sign a boo0k.

HoN%. F. T. CROWDER: I want thewhole of these amending Acts consoli-dated, so that we can deal fairly With allthese questions. I ask hon. membhers tosupport me in this motion. If for the lastseventeen years this colony has beengoverned by these Acts, it would make nodifference to wait for another three orfoitr months. It. is a, most important(lUeStiolL to consolidate all these amendingActs. I want to see the licensed victualer

Iplaced under some straightforward legis-lation. It seems to me that the Govern-ment believe that this business is too big,to tackle; but lion. members must forcethe hands of the Government, and compelthem to do what is right and just in regardto this one class in the community.

THE MmNISTERtOF MriNES: The G~overn-moent are going to do that.

{N.F. T. CROWDER: If the Gov-ermnent are going to do that, then surelythis ameucneat can wait for three or fourmonths longer, I move that this Bill beread a second time this day six months.i HoN. R. S. HAYNRS: As there

Tappears to be no disposition on the partof lion. miembers to discuss this Bill, I1

Irise to second the amendment, because Iconsider that the alterations in the IlawWe are asked to make are not in theinterests of the people, and are not ofsufficient moment to warrant us in pass-ing what I may call an intermediate Bill.The subjects dealt with in this Bill arenot of such pressing importance as to call

ifor immediate amendment. I can under-stand a Bill boeing brought forward toconsolidate the whale of the Acts, but Icannot understand a small Bill of thisnature Ibeing Ibrought forward to make

sh minor amendments. A portion ofthe Bill deals with adulterated liquor.

I The~ present Act has several clausesdealing with the1 adulteration Of liquor,and that law has been on the statutebook for ten or twelve Years, but it hasnot been put in force.

A Mthn-RR: No inspectors have beenappointed. I suppose.

iHoN. R. S. HAYNES: Then thereino reason for amending it. For the

past ten or twelve years there has beenan Act in force for dealing with all theSubject matters brought forward in thisBill, and the clauses of this measure orsome of them are almost identical with theclauses now in the principal Act. Butthme'. have never been enforced. It hasbee'n said that the reason for this is thatno inspectors have been appointed. Ifinspectors were not appointed under

1the old Act, they will not be appointedunder thie new. If ten or twelve yearshave been. allowed to go by withoutamending these defects in the old Act,why go in for a Bill of this kind now?The Minister of Mines has said that theGovernment intend to consolidate the

Sale of Liquors Bill. [14 DucE iSEIC, 1897.1

1018 Sale of Liquors Bill: [ONI. eodraig

various Acts next session. I should beglad to assist the Minister in passingsuch a measure, Iblt I Will ask himto withdraw the Bill now beforethie -House, and if lie does not I shallhave to vote against some of the clauses.I shall vote against increasing the licensefees. Why should a person who hasbeen paying £50 a year for a number ofyears for a license be called upon now topay £20 more?1 Some mnost importantprovisions have been left outoof the littleBill which is now before the House.There should be somie amnendmenit dealingwith the renewal of licenses. I think itOught to be compulsory for the licensingmagistrates to renew licenses. Let ustake De Baun's hotel, for instance. Mr.De Bairn may sell out to-mnorrow, and Imay pay £20,000 for the lease of hishotel. I should have to go to a licensingcourt for a renewal of the license, andthe magistrates if they think fit mayrefuse that renewal, and perhaps I havenot broken the law at all. I am notspealking of what thle licensing benechhas done here in Perth, but what alicensing bench elsewhere has done, andIn the instance I refer to the lessee ispaying £25 a week rent for the hotel.I should like to see a law carried hereas in England, that where applications forrenewals of licenses are made, if the law hasnot been broken the license must be re-newed. If a, licensee breaks the law, he hasto produce his license and it is stamped.Then when he goes tip for a renewal, hislicense is produced, and if it is cleana renewal is granted. but if it hears evi-dence of breaches of the Licensing Act,then the magistrates can ref use the re-newal. If 1 saw that I could introducean amendment into the Bill which wouldrelieve that difficulty, I should be only toohappy to vote for the Bill to try andamend it in that direction; but on lookingthrough the measure I ami afraid I shouldnot be able to alter the Bill in the dhree-tion I have indicated. Six or seven newclanses would have to be introduced. Itis no use tinkering writh legislation of thiskind-the whole subject should be placedbefore hion. members to be dealt with ina comprehensive mneasure. While Iapprove of the principle of the Bill, I donot think thle Bill should pass in the pre-sent session. I think it would be betterto have a consolidation Bill before us next

session, and We could then discuss all thequestions that have been brought up. Ihave no hostility to the principle of theBill--I beliceo it is good.

Hon. A. B. KLDSON: I hope theHouse will not agree to the amendmentwithout giving it due consideration. Ithink it has not been intentional, but theeffect of what the Hon, F. T. Crowder hasstated has been to draw a red herringacross the track. The lion, gentlemangave four reasons why the Bill should beread this day six months, and I say thatthose reasons are not sufficient in mnyopinion, and I think not in the opinionOf thle House, to thrTow out the Bill. TheHon. R. S. Haynes did not go muchfurther than the Hon. F. T. Crowder.I will refer to the reasons given by theHon. F. T. Crowder why the Bill shouldbe read this day six months, and when Imention these reasons I am sure theHouse will agree that they are notsufficient to throw out the Bill. The firstreason the hon. member gives is thatthere are a number of amlendments-ithink he said a basketful-to the Winesand Spirits Act.

RON. F. T. CROWDER: I think thereare a htundred.

HON. A. B. K[DSON: And the hion.miember oblects to add another to thatnumber. The next reason was that theBill provided that certain licenses were tobe increased in price. That was thesecond reason. The third reason wasthat wine shops were really sly-grogshops; and the fourth reason was that aconsolidating Bill should be broughtforward next session, and had beenpromised, so that there was no necessityfor this amending Bill. I intend to dealwith these reasons seriatim, and toshow that there is nothing in them.I may say that I think the Bill as broughtbefore the House requires certain amend-ments, and I think these can be madewithout impairing the efficiency of themeasure. As to the firist of the reasonsgiven by the Hon. F. T. Crowder, thatthere were a number of amendments tothe present Act- [HoN. F. T. CROWDER:I said the Act had been in force for 17years] -I have been through the principalAct, and I have found that it is on allfours with the English Act. I have takenthe trouble to compare the two Acts.The lion. mtember objected to the Bill,

[COU-NCIL.] second reading.

Sal ofLiqorsBil: [4 DCEMER,189.] econld reading. 1019

because there are so many amendmentsto the original Act, but I shall endeavourto show that thle neudmaents in the Billbefore the House Will make, terv littledifference,' because we haLve the assuranceof thle Attornev General that the wholeof the old Acts will be consolidated nextsession, I will ask lion. mnembers to con-sider what the object of this Bill is. Theprincipal object is to d14 -away with theIevil which is. known to exist, and whichis a very bad one, and that is the adul-teration of liquor. Yet we have. the Hon.R. S, Haynes and Hon. F. 'T. Crowderadvocating that this Bill, which has forits o1)ject the doing away of such ain evil,should be postponed for another sixmionths. These lion, members desire to seethe sale of this vile stuff continued foranother six mionths. If this Bill is carriedinto law now, there will be no more dliffi-cunity in consolidating thle Act next session.I would like hont. ineni hers to rememberthat if the principal object of this Bill isto stop adulteration, why should we waitanother six months to stop adulteration PI think the House should pass the Bill asquickly as lpossible.

BRo'. R. S. flavN s: Does not theprIesent Act stop adulterationi:

Hov. A. B. KIDSON: I do not thinkkit does.

HoN. R. S. HAYN ES: Adulterationcould he stop~ped tinder it.

fibs. A. B. KIBSON:- I disagiewithithe hion. member, so we see that lawyersdisagree somietimes. This Bill gives thenecessary machiniery to stop adulteration,and if it is carried into law it will bet agood thing. The Hon. F. T2. Crowderwent a little wide of the mark, inspeaking about opening on Sundays.I do not think the hon. inem er's con-stitnents are advocates of total abstinence,because the hon. mepiuber said that hotelsshould be opened for certain hours onSunday, and] he stid that the people whoget their drink now On thle Saturday nighitdrink it all before Sunday comes.. I saythat I am not in favour of opening. thesehotels cii Sundays. I think it is a wiselaw that is in force now. The lion. inem-ber would open onl a. Saturday night andon a Sunday as well, to enable people toget more drink.

HON, F. T. CROWDER:- YOU haveit on a Satnrday night and Sundaytoo.

HON. A. B. KIDSON: Everybody hasthe samle opportunity of obtaining iquoron aL Sunda 'y as I have. They can buy itonl a Saturday and keep it tillftbe Sunday.

At 6-30 pm. thle PRESIDENT left theChair.

At 7-40 p.m. thle PRaSIDnan' resumedthe Chair.

HoN. A. B. KIDSON (resuming) said:Mr. Crowder has objected to the increaseof fees for certain hotels. I am also infavour of that patrt of the Bill dealingwith license fees being a-mended, and Ishiall propose at a, later stage, if thesecond reading lstsses, that it be sent backto the Legislative Assemnbly with thesuggestion that that part of the Bill bestruck out, because I think it is not fair.The insertion of that clause in the Billwas perhaps done somiewhat hastil y, andwithout sufficient consideration. Mr.Crowder further objected that wino shopsare also sly-grog shops. I do not knowif that is so or no, but the Bill does notdeal with wine shops in any shape orform, so 1 do not see what we7 have to dowith it. Mr. Crowder's next re-ason wasthat thle Attorney General had promisedto consolidate the Acts next session. Ido not see that that is any) reasonwhy this Bill should miot pass into

la, ecause int the event of the Actsbeing consolidated, this Bill will alsobe embodied in the consolidated Act;so there is no reason wvhy it shouldnot pass into law now. If it 1)e passedinto law, it cannot prevent the consolida-tion of the Acts at anl early date. I donot think one of the reasons given b yMr. Crowder was good and valid why thesecond reading of the Bill should not1piss. The hon. member dealt with anumber oif miatters that arc outside thepoint at issue, such as bonfi fide travellers,and the onuis of proof. These are notmatters with which the House needtrouble itself. The section merely em-bodies the state of the law at present,and does not alter the law at aUl.

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: Why put it inhere"

HON. A. B3. KIDSON: Because it isusual. The Sale of Goods Act is an-other instance in which the decisions ofthe couirts are embodied in a statute. It

Sale of Liquors Bill: E14 DEcEmBER, 1897.]

1020 Sale of Liquors Bill: [ONI. eodraig

is frequently dlone, I do not understandhow Mr. Hlaynes could vote against thesecond reading of the Bill, because hiemo1st distinctly said. he agreed to theprinciple. I have always understoodthat the passing of the second read-ing of a Bill affirmis the principle.If the lion. mnember agreed to theprinciple, he should vote for, and notagainst, the second reading. The prin-ciple of the Bill is a good one. Theobject is to Stop adulteration. If itcan be done legitimately and withoutinjuring anyone, I think it is the duty ofthe House to do so. I have reason tobelieve that neither tile wine and spiritmnerchanits nor the hotel-keepers object tothe Bill. Why should they, if they areconducting an honest tradeP Whatreason have they to fear the passing ofthe Bill? The Bill only strikes at thosewho are conducting a dishonest trade;who are selling bad liquor unfit torhuman consumption. So far fromn object-ing to the Bill, honest dealers are infavour of it. I happen to know they arein favour of the Bill. There are certainamendments which will render the Billsatisfactory, not only to those who vendliquors, but to those who consuine themi.One or two tings require amendmuent.In the first place, at the conclusion of Sec-tion 7, the Bill states it shall be a gooddefence to prove that the adulterationhas not reduced the strength of the spiritmore than -25 degrees for one class ofspirits, and 85 for another. The personwho drafted the clause had not a. verywide knowledge of the liquor trade. Hfehas drawn no distinction at all betweenthe liquor that Is imported in bottles,such as Usher's whisky, and whisky inbulk. It would not be wise to reduceUsher's whisky to -25 uniderproof, whenit ,is well known that this class ofliquor is already 14 degrees unmderproof.To pass this clause would he assistingfraud. The clause should only apply tospirits in bulk. Then, what are " grainsof paradise ?" I have inquired, lbut havebeen unable to find out. They areprobably somewhat expensive, and adul-terators would not be likely to adulteratetheir liquors with them. It seems to mnethat the Bill falls short in one point: itdoes not provide for preventing the saleof new liquor-liquor mnanufactured with ina very recent period. I have very good

reason to believe that a, large percentageof bad liquor is really new liquor, not fitfor htuman consumption, owing to thefact that there is a greater amuount, off usel oil in new spirit than in old spirit;the new spirit in consequence being abso-

lutely poisonous. Far more harmn is doneby the sale of new,6 liquor than by the saleof old liquor. This Could be preventedby the introduction of somie clause in theBill, either now or when the Acts areconsolidated. I believe that a largeamiount of the insanity in this colony iscaused] throughi the sale of reall-Y badliquor, and that miost of this bad liquoris imumature liquor, which has too large apercentage of this fusel oil which we knowto be an absolute poison, and that it is this,rather than the adulterated liquor, thatdoes the hiarmn. The complaints as to badliquor comes fromn all round the colony.I ami not in at position to say whetherthis is from the sale of bad liquor or im-miature liquor, but the comiplats areuniversal, and they have caused a verybad impression. The complaint appliesto at number of hotels. The complaintsiare continuous, and they have been takenup, not only by the puiblic, but by the

prs;and I do not thiink the Councilwol begig very far wrong in en-

deavouning to ].it a Stop to the adultera-tion. I shall vote against Mr. Crowder'samnendmient.

HoN. D). XcKAY: I amn going to sup-por the second reading of the Bill. I donot think it even goes far enough. Ishould like to see some clause by whicha person obtaining a conviction under theAct should be renumerated in some wa y.That would keel) people alert to obtainconvictions. Most of the insanity, I be-lieve, is caused through adulteration.

HON. A. P. MATHESON: I supportthe amendment of the Hon. F. T. Crowder.If the Bill stops short w-ith the clauses usreference to adulteration, it would be avery different thing. A large number ofamiendmients have been tabled, and thereis not the least chance of the Bill re-ceiving lengthy consideration if it goesback to another place. There is no doubtwhatever that the Bill will have tohe very much cut about if we considerit.

Tant MI[NISTka OF MINES: Do you saythere are at large number of ainen~dments

Itabled ?

[COUNCIL.] secomd reading.

Sale of liquors Bill: [14 DECEMBER, 1897.] second reading. 1021

HON. A. P. MATHESON: T ]lave alist of them here.

How. A. B. KrnsoN: There are onlytwo.

HoN. A. P. MATHESON: I do notthink itis necessary to read them, butthereare a large number of amendments in theNotice Paper I have here. The Hon.R. S. Haynes has several to move, andthe Hon. A. B. Kidson has to moveone. In addition to these, before theBill goes into committee, I shouldcertainly urge upon the Hon. Rt. S.Haynes to move in the direction hiehas indicated in reference to the renewalof licenses. A very great hardship arisesin this connection. If a person requiresat license renewed, he has not only toadvertise it as if a new license were beingapplied for, but there must be an appear-ance in court, and the application is sub-ject to anew decision by the magistrates.

Hou. A. B. KInsoN: Where do Youfind that?

HON. A. P. MATHESON : It is withinmy own experience. I have a gallonlicense. and I have had to advertise it andapply for a renewal.

1o6. A. B. Rmnsou : I do not thinkyou hlave had to advertise it,

HON. A. P. MATHESON: I may bewrong onl that point, but I had to apply forit, and onl one occasioni when the court waspostponed I had to apply' a second tine.

[IoN . A. B. KiDSoN: You have gothold of the wrong end of the stick.

HowN. A. P. 'MATHESON: Not onthat point. I may have been wrong instating that I have had to advertise it.The licensing bench should not have thepower to refuse a renewal. The Hon. R.S. Haynes has pointed out that he knewof one case in which the magistrates hadexercised their power of ref usal, and Ishould join with that bon. member inframing an amendment, before the Housegoes into conmnittee onl the Bill, to pre-vent magistrates refusing, renewals. Then,again, in regard to the amendments ofwhich the Hon. R. S. Har' nes has givennotice, I see points on which furtheramendments would, in my opinion, bevery valuable. In ordinary circumstancesit is extremely unlikely that the Bill willbecome effecti ,ve during the present ses-sion, and I hold that it could be moreefficaciously dealt with if an entirely newBill were introduced, as I understand it

is proposed to introduce one next sessiondoing away entirely with the old Act andits amendments, and substituting for it a

I new one. The Hen. A. B. Kidson, inIcommencing his speech, said that theamendment now proposed in the Bill be-fore the House would make very littledifference. I quite agree with him thatit will make very, little difference, andthat being so the Bill can well be post-poned until a comprehensive measure isbrought in dealing with the whole ques-tion.

HoN. G. RANDELL: I do not wishto detain the House with any lengthyremarks, but I agree with the Aon. A. B.

iKidson that a very valuable provision isproposed in this Bill, and it is desirablethat we should add it to the statutebook at the earliest possible moment, andconsolidate it with the existing Actshereafter. The Hon. F. T. Crowder'sremarks were made onl the assumptionthat this hotel business should be free

-front all restrictions. [HoN. F. T.CROWDER: Oh, no.] The bon. membersaid that the hotels were kept open nightand day in other places, and he also saidthat the hotels should be opened here onSundays. The histo-v of these hotel

*licenses at once shows ;is clearly that inanal places and at all times, since the tradedeparted from the original intention, ithas been placed under the strictest sur-veillance by and in all countries, and it iswise that it should be so. The business isnot carried onl at the present time for theadvantage of the community at large, but

Ifor the interests of those engaged in thetrade, who do the best they possibly canlto make money out of it. The amend-mnent proposed is valuable in this re-spect. We have here an amendment oftlie section of the principal Act, providingfor anl analysis of liquor; and I believethe clauses in this Bill are much betterthan the provisions of the Act we havenow. A valuable feature of the amend-inent will be the appointment of inspec-tors. The present Bill is, therefore, analteration in this respect, that there was nomachinery for carrying into effect the pro.vision as to inspectors. According to thepresent measure, inspectors are to be ap-pointed to visit houses in the interests ofthe public, to see that pure liquor is dis-pensed. That injurious ingredients are

Imixed with liquor has been proved beyond

1022 Sale of Liquors Bill: [COUNCIL.] second reading.

alldoubt. I do not know what" grains ofparadise " are, but I know some of the in-gredients which are mentioned in this Billare dangerous chemicals. They maty bevaluable medicines if taken in proper doses,hut in large quantities they are verv dan-gerous to health. If liquor is adulteratedby water it does not injure anyone, and Ido not much care whether that takesplace or not. If the liquor is tooweak, people will take care to liave itstronger, and the landlord Will findthat it is to his interest to give apure beverage. The clauses in referenceto adulteration, I believe, in the firstinstance were taken from the Acts inforce in the eastern colonies, aud I thinkthe clauses referring to the analysis ofliqnor are valuable and desirable. Con-sidering we are approaching a time whenParliament will ibe prorogued, it is desir-able not to table too many amendments.Some of the amendments which havealready been tabled are valuable. Thereis one by the Hon. A. B. Kidson, inreference to the licensing bench desiringto put a stop to speculative applications.As to compulsory transfers, I am not ableto speak. The introduction of this Billgives members an opportunity of bringingforward miany amaendments, but theseamendments can be considered when theconsolidation Bill is brought forward nextsession. The Ron. F. T. Crowder mayhave put his hand on a blot in the Billwhen lie referfed to increasiug the fees incertain districts. I do not think sufficienttime was given for the consideration ofthese license fees, when the Bill was beforeanother place. I am strongly of opinionthat the lessees of every hotel in Perthand Fremuantle, Coolgardie and Kalgoor-lie, can well afford to pay £0100 a year,and I do not see why they should not.When we read of instances in which thetransferror of a license has received £8,000or £9,000 for a hotel, after having en-joyed the occupancy of that hotel for ashort time, £100 does not seem a largeamount. For persons with large hotels,£100 a year would be only a drop in abucket. Considering the lateness of thesession in which the Bill has reached thisHouse, I hope many amendments will notbe proposed to prevent its passage. Acertain relief is given to hotel-keepers byClause 22. Magistrates will be able toinflict a fine in accordance with the merits

of the case. That is a great concessionto the publican. I need not detain theHouse with any more observations. I amnIentirely in accord with the proposed new

Iclause' sulbmitted by the Hon. A. B3.Kidson. I hope it will ineet With theapproval of hon. members, when theyremember the speculative business which~icone in provisional certificates. I do

otthink the Hon. R. S. Haynes intendsto go on with the a mendmnents which hehas tabled. They will introduce- a newfeature into the Bill altogether. and ifproposed will create a lengthy discussion.I should Ibe opposed to enlarging tmeBill, aimed at by the amendmientsstanding in the name of thme Hon. I?. S.Haynes. The wvhole thing is entirelyopposed to the best interests of the people,and it is our duty as far as we can tokeep the business under proper super-vision, so as to minimise, as far as wepossibl 'y can the difficulties of the positionon the one hand, and dangers to thepublic interest ontme other. I would notlike to see any interference with thepresent Sunday closing. I would hike tosee the 1)11bhic-houses closed and the barslocked up on a Sunday. Never mnmdabout the traveller: let him find someother means of satisfying his inordinatewants. If the bamrs were kept under thecontrol of the police on a Sunday, thetrading that is carried on upon that day ofthe week would be stopped at Once.

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: By Act of Par-liament, hotels are kept open on Sunday.

EoN. G. HANDELL: They' are keptopen to supply travellers, but 110 one canshut his eyes to thme trade that is carriedon upon Sunday. People go in and out ofhotels on a Sunday, especially if thehotels are situate iii some out-of-the-wayplace not subject to the close surveillanceof the police. It is in the best interestsof the community that we should en-deavour to prevent this trading on aSunday. I shall vote for the secondreading of the Bill.

HoN. E. IfcLARTY: There are oneor two clauses in time Bill with which Icannot agree. I cannot see the force ofcharging a publican on one side of thestreet a license fee of £70, and charginganother publican on the other side of thestreet only £50 for his license. It seemsto me to be unfair and likely to lead todissatisfaction. I think the object of the

Sale of Liquors Bill: [14 DECEMBER, 1897.] second reacting. 1023

Government and the licensing benchshould be in the direction Of seeing thatsuitable and proper accommodation isprovided for the public. I do not seewhy the publican should be hampered inthis way. If a publican spends £260,000in erecting a house and providing accom-modation, I do not see any reason why heshould pay £100 a Year when otherpeople can enter into trade without payinganything. I do not think the fee shouldbe raised above £50. I do not think itwould be fair to saddle those persons whohave gone to an enornnous expenditure inbuilding an up-to-date hotel, with a heavylicense fee. I shall support the secondreading with a view of trying to stop theadulteration of liquor. I quite agree withthe Ron. F. T. Crowder that the principalAct has been so amended that it issomewhat difficult to understand. It istime that a Bill were passed consolidat-ing the many Acts now in force dealingwith the liquor traffic. We have theassurance of the Attorney General thatsuch a Bill will be brought forward nextsession. In the face of that proniise Ishall support the second reading of theBill before the House.

THE MINISTER OF MINES (Hon.E. H. Wittenoom) : In reply, I hopelion. members will not support theamendment that the Bill be read thisday six months. I may at the outsetsay that the only reasons the Governmenthave for introducing this Bill wvere thatit was brought so forcibly under theirnotice that it was necessary to bring for-ward some remedy in connection wviththe adulteration of liquor. It is notproposed that the Bill shall remedy every-thing wrong in connection with thelicensing laws. I quite recognise that,many amiendmients might be introducedinto this Bill, but I can give hon. memi-bers the assurance that a Bill is beingprepared to consolidate aUl the Wine andSpirit Acts, and every amendment of im-portance will be included in thatBill. If ithiad been attemipted in this Bill to introduceall necessary amendments, the measurewould have been a large one; but theGovernment only desire now to deal withthe adulteration of liquor, and that is whythe Bill has been placed before hon. mnem-bers. The Ron. R. S. Haynes has askedwhy should the Government bring for-ward such a small Bill atall? There has

been a great deal of feeling about thisadulteration question, and in spite of theremarks of the Hon. F. T. Crowder, Imay say I have heard a great deal aboutadulteration, and it is as well to bringforward a Bill to stop it at once, so that itcan be discussed. This amiendmnent canbe included in the mneasure which will be1)rought forward to consolidate the Acts.As to the price of licenses, that provisionI think was not contained in the Bill as

origiallyv introduced by the Government:thle clause has been inserted since. Hon.miembers must all agree that a very rise-fl provision is inserted in the Bill inreference to the reduction of penalties,making it pernissive with the mnagis-trates as to what the amount should be.I hope lion. members will not introducetoo miany amendments into thme Bill: ifthey do so the Bill will not pass, as therew411 not be time in another place to con-sider them. The introduction of a largenumber of amendments will be tanta-mount to throwing the Bill out. To thosehon. members who are opposed to the Billbecause it is not comprehensive enough,and who desire to move amendments, Iisill say, all those amendments can be goneinto when the comprehensive measure isbrought forward next session. I maypoint out to lion, members that this Billhas received the consideration of bon.members in another place, and it has metwith the approval of a majority of hon.members who are interested by theirconstituents in the measure. I hope theBill will be carried. With one of theamendments of which notice has beengiven, I entirely agree: the other noticesof amendments, I understand, are to bewithdrawn, therefore it is not necessaryfor me to express any opinion uponthem.

Tnn PRESIDENT (referring to aninaudible remark): The hon. membershould not make such a remark aboutstonewalling, in my hearing.

HoN. F. T. CROWDER: The Presi-dent should not bear the remark.

THE PRESIDENT: But if I hearsuch a remark I cannot help noticing it.

HON. F. T. CROWDER: I made theremark to the Minister.

TUE PRESIDENT: I cannot helpthat.

Ainendnient-4hat the Bill be read asecond time this day six months-put,

1024 Crimninal Appeal Bill. [COUNCIL.] Coalpavies Bill.

and division takenresult:-

Ayes..Noes..

Maj .ority ag:

The Ron. A: S.1 Hay.,esThe Ho. A.. batho,The Hon. F. T. Crowder

Amendment thutsQuestion put and pBill read a second

ROADS AND STREETS CLOSURE BILL.Received from the Legislative Assembly,

and read a first time.

NOXIOUS WEEDS HILL.Received fi-onm the LegislativeAssembly,

and read a first time.

CRIMIrNAL APPEAL BILL.IN COMMITTEE:

Clause 1-agreed to.Clause 2-Right of appeal in reduc-

tion of sentence:HTON. A. B. KIDSON moved, as an

amendment, that the following words beinserted between the words " court " and",in," line 2: " Of over and terminer orgaol delivery, circuit court, or court ofgeneral sessions of the peace within thecolony, hereinafter called and referred toas the court of trial."

Amendment putt and passed, and theclause as amended agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 16. inclusive-agreed to.Schedule:HON. A. B. KIDSON moved, as an1

amendment, that the words " Sectionthree " in the first line be struck out, andthe words "dihe whole Act' be insertedin lieu thereof.

Put and passed.HoN. A. B. KIDSON moved, as a

further amendment, that the words " thewhole Act" in the third line be struck out,and the words " Section three" inserted inlieu thereof.

Put and passed, and the schedule asamended agreed to.

Preamble and title-agreed to.

with the following i

.3

.7

ainst ... 4

The Hon. A. H. HenninigThe H.n. A. B. KidsonThe lo. 1: 1101ayThe Ho. B.DiLutyThe Hon. G. RadellThie Ron. E. H.Wittenoon

Te HMo. . E. Richaardsou

negatived.assed.time.

Bill reported with amendments, andreport adopted.

COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

IN COMMITTEE:

Clause 1-Interpretation:HON. R. S. HAYNES asked if be

would be in order in moving the amiend-nients proposed by the select committeewhich had considered this Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN said the bon. inein-her could more the amendments proposedby the select committee, if the committeeof the whole House had no objection.

HON. R. S. HAYNES moved, asamendments, that in line 2 the word"1herein " be struck out, and the word"hereinafter' inserted in lieu thereof;also that the following words be added tothe Clause :- ' Principal Act' shall meanthe Companies Act, 1898; 'Court' shallmnean the Supremie Court or a judgethereof; Attorney' shall include agent,director, manager, and] secretary, or anyperson for the time being discharging an%of such offices."

Amendments put and passed, and theclause as amtended agreed to.

Clause 2-Local register to be kept bcforeign companies:

BON. R. S. HAYNES moved, asMiLnendnlts, that all the words down to,and includfing " mnembher," at the end ofsub-clause 8, be struck out, and thefollowing inserted in lieu thereof:

Upon tho application of a shareholder inanyforeign company, and upon proof to the satis-faction of the Supreme Court or a. judge

thereof that at least five per cent, or theshares actually issued in such company areheld by shareholders resident in the colony,the court or judge shall order and direct thata register of shareholders tinder this Act, tobe called a colonial register, shall be openedand kept in the colony within such time asshall to the court or judge seem expedient.

'[he attorney of any such company shall,within the time specified in such order, openand keep, or cause to be opened and kept, atthe registered office of the said company inthe colony, a colonial register of all its meni-hers who may apply in writing to suchattorney to he registered thereon. Every suchregistr shall be kept in the manner providedby Part III. of the Companies Act, 1803, andthe court shall be entitled to exercise thesame jurisdiction of rectifying the sme as isby Section 36 of the said Act vested in suchcourt with respect to a register of a companyincorporated in the colony.

Compaies ill: [14 DECEMBER, 1897.] onmllt. 12

Also, that after " every," in the firstline of the last paragraph, the word"such " be inserted - and that the words"director or manager," in thle fourth line

of the same paragraph, b-e struck out, andthe word " attorney " be inserted in lieuthereof; and in the same line, that thewords -in the colony " be inserted afterthie word "who."

Amendments put and passed. and theclause as amended agreed to.

Clause 3-Notice of trust not to beentered in register:

RON. i. S. HAYNES moved, as anamendment, that the wvord "1register,", inthe last line, be struck out, and that"companky" be inserted in lien thereof.

Put and passed. and the elause asamended agreed to.

Clause 4-Cetificate to be priind fadceevidence of title:-

TH9E iRON. R. S. HAYNES moved,as an amendment, that the followingwords be prefixed to this clause:- Thereshall be kept at the registered office ofevery foreign company having a localregister a. colonial seal and."

Amendment put and passed, and theclause as amended agreed to.

Clause 5-Inspection of register:HON. R S. HAYNES moved, as

amendments, that the word " which" beinserted iii line 4, between the words"upon'' and '' the"; that in line 10,

after ' thirty" the words " of the prin-cipal Act" be inserted; also that in Sub-clause 2, line 6, the words " director,manager, and secretary" be struck out,and the word "attorney" inserted inlieu thereof.

Put and passed. and the clause asamended agreed to.

Clause 6-agreed to.Clause 7-Validity of transfer of sharqs

of deceased person:HON. R. S. IHAYNES moved, as an

amendment, that the words "registeredon a colonial register" be inserted be-tween "interest" and "of," in the firstline.

Put and passed, and the clause asamended agreed to.

Clause 8-Local register may be rec-tified:

Honv. It. S. HAYNES moved that theclause be struck out.

Put and passed, and the clause struck

Clause 9--Notice of rectification to hegiven to registrar:

HoN. Rt. S. HAYNES mioved. as anamnidnient. that the words 'of com-panies under the principal Act " he in-serted after " registr-ar," in the thirdline.

Put and passed. and the clause asamended agreed to.

Clause 10-agreed to.Clause 11-Re dividends:HRon. Rt. S. HAYNES moved, asamendentsthat the words '' there pay-

able" in line 6 be struck out, and thatthe words -payable -at the registeredoffice of the compan 'y in (lhe colony " beinserted in ieu thereof: also that, i n line9, all the words after "companly" bestruck out.

Put and passed. and the clause asamended agreed to.

Clause I 2.-Register of mortgages. etc..to be kept:

RON. It. S. HAYNES moved, as,amendments, that in line 1 the words " atits registered office in the colony " bein~serted between the words I- keel)" and-a ;" also that in Sub-clause 2. line 1.

the wvord " suich " be inserted after theword "any ;" and that in the same linethe words "1 registered iii the colony " beinserted after " company ;" further, thatin Sub-clause 2, fine 4, the words " direc-tor, manager, secretary" be struck out,and the word " attorney "inserted in lieuthereof ; also that in Sub-clause .3, lines 2and 8, the words " member or creditor ofsuch company " he stnmck out and theword "Persou" be inserted in lieu thereof;also in Sub-clause 3, line 4,. the words;" director, manager, or secretary" bestruck out, and the word " attorney' beinserted in lieu thereof.

Put and passed, and the clause asamended agreed to.

Clause 13-Re penalties:HoN. Rt. S. HAYNES moved that the

clause be struck out.Put and passed, and the clause struck

out.Clause 14:HoN. It. S. HAYNES moved, as

an amendment, that the words "PartVIII. of," in the first line, be struckout.

Amendment put and passed, and theclause as amended agreed to.

New Clause:

in cojinnittee. 1025Conipanies Bill:

102 Companies Bill. [ONI]iac~fh~te3

I-oN. 11. S. H AYNES m)oved that thlefollowing, to stand ats Clause 4. he addedto thle Bill : -

Any sharecholdur'in a, foreign conipany havf-ing a. colonial register may apply, in theformt in the 1st Schedule hereto, toi be reg'is-tered in Sitc] colonial register, aul4 upondelivery of thle saine, together wvith the sharecertificate in respect of which hie desires to beregistered, to the attorney of the sitid comi-pany, at its registered office in the colony,shall be entitled to receive froml such attorneya deposit-note, in the fuirm of thle 2nd Schedulehereto, and the maniager, otc,, shall, with allclue diligce, forward such share certificateto the principal registered otffie of such comn-pany, where the register of shiares is kept;and if it Shall there appear that no oemi-branccs or unpaid calls are registered againstor due upon the said shares, such shares shallthereupon bo transferred to the colonial regis-ter, and upon notification iif such transfer theattorney shall, up-- *nrduction of such deposit-note, issue to such applicanit a certificate for asimilar number of shanos in the coulpanty, ill-dorsed, " Colonial Register," hearing the sameprog-ressive numbers, adsuch certificate shallbe of the satue force and effect. ais such super-seded certificate.

Put and passed,New Clause:-HoN. RI S. HJAYNES moved that the

following, to stand as Clause 5, be addedto the Bill

A colonial register shall, as regards thepauties entered therein, be deemned to be apart of the company's register of members,'and shall be rrimdr faicia evidence of all par-ticulars entered therein.

Put and passed.New Clause:HON. A. P. MATHESON moved that

the followig, to stand as Clauses 15, 16,and 1 7, hie added to thle Bill:

15. Every foreign comtpany shalil lodge, in aspecial account with its bankers in WesternAustralia, as a, deposit, at suill equal to one percentmn of its issued capital, to he held by thesaid banker as long its the said foreign coil-pany shall. contintu to transacet business in thecolony, and in thle manner hereafter pr-ovided.

16. If by reason of the absencet of remnit-tances, or fromt anly other causeu, the attorneyof any foreign company shall he unable to paythe wages owing to the servants or employeesof the said company in time colony as theybCcoYme clue, he- shall forthwith atilise the saiddeposit for thlat purpose, and thereafter itsill not lie lawful for such foreign comniuyto carry on its business until the sumn So ex-pended on wages shl Ii have hecen replaced ondeposit at the bank.

17. Aniy foreigni company carrying on hitusi-

11ess otitiary to this pa~rt of this it asmhall beliable b" aL penalty of 'JWenty pouRn for every

day on which it shlall so carry onl business:andI anYy attornecy for such colliiniy, or anmyothet' pCe-801i Who shall1, onl l1ehalf of Ulchcomnpany, wilfully iaid knowingly assist in I hiecarrying on of sochi husiues4 contrairy to thispart of this Acet shall incur a p~enlIty) of Fivep)ounds for every day on which hie shall soassist.

(2 ') I~f any foreign company shall carry onbulsiness contrary to this part of this Act, thevalidity of any contracts, dealings. or tnvuis-actions in relation to such I.business shall notbe affected, but such company shall not heentitled to bring or tMaintain any action,set-off, counter-claim, or legal proceedingY inrespect of any such contract, dealing, or traits-

acittion until it shall have. complied with thispart of this Act.

He said these proposed clauses were notconsidered by the select commnittee : theywere thought to be somewhat beyond theoriginal priniciple of thle Bill, and that itwould be advisable to leave themn to leconsidered by the(, House. when in com-iittee. These clauses were drafted to

protect as far as possible thle interests ofa large numiber of people in tme colonlywho worked for wages, and in the secondPlace of protecting the merchants whoSupplied thle workers with stores fromfortnight to fortnight. During the lasttwelve or eighteen mlonths, niunibers ofcases. had occurred ini whichi the maunagersof foreign companties were allowed to go onemploying lbour until the resources ofthe company wvere exhauisted, andwhen once thle mine was shut down themniners were left in debt to the store-keepers. The ininers had yen- littlechance of geatiiig, their arrears of wages,as the property was perhaps worthi littleor nothing. Matters had reachied such astage that it was decided unanimously inlthe consti tuency which lie represented thatsteps be tak-en. to prevent a recurrence ofthis kind of thing. Whlen lie camne to con-gider the question it occurred to himi thatthe samne sort of provision had alreadybeen mnade in the Insurance Act of 1889,which contained a clause providing forsomle secur-ity to people who d ealtwith illsurance companies. Tha~t clau1seprovided that every insu rance coi-pany carrying onl business shouldpu t up a, deposit withi the Governmentaccording to thle business tranlsacted.That deposit now amiounted to £20,000;therefore, it was net considered that thledeposit was an obstacele to the investmentOf capital inl te colony, Tfle clauses

1026 [COUNCIL.] in, commiltev.

Companies Bill: [14 DECEMBEER. 1897.] 111 committee. . 1027

might not meet with the approval of lion.mnembers as they stood, but lie was 1pre-pared to accept reasonalble amendments.The deposit should, lie conside red, bebased oil the capital of the Comipainy : one(per cent, of the issued Capital of a coinl-pany seemed at reasonable amount to hebe set aside. A company with a capitalof £20,000 would have to put up a die-posit of £200. He d-id not think thatwould forn anl obstacle to any companycarrying onl business in the colony. Theclauses lie proposed to insert providedthat a Company should deposit sufficientmoney with a balnk equal to one per cent.of the ctpital of the Company. If moneywas not foilthcominrg to pay the wages oftile men eniploYe4- at a mine, the legalm anager was allowed to withdraw suffi-cient money from tire deposit in the bankto pay the wages of the men for the firstfortnight, and the mine would not beallowed to be carried on until the deposithad been replaced in the bank. In thAtway every man would be secured againstloss. Hon. members might ask why alegal nianager should go onl employ-ing labour after thle funds in the colonywere exhausted. It might seem reason-able and logical that a legal managerwould shut down the works whenx thlef unds were exh-usted in the colony, buthe did not think any legal manager wouldcare to take the responsibility. Accidentsmight happen in the place where thecompany was registered to prevent remait-tances being forwarded. Some provisionshould be- made to ensure a certainamount of money always being- available inthe colony to pay the wages as tiley,became due. lon, members mnight askwhy other creditors besides the wage-earners were not protected. Other credi-tors were generally people of meanswho could protect themselves, while theworking man could not. The provisionshe proposed to introduce were not unusual.In the Workmen's Lien Bill, the thirdreading of which had been passed that day,an aibsolute preference was given to thmeworking 'nan over everyone else to securehin his wages. He formally moved thatthe first of the new clauses be added tothe Bill.

How. G. RANlEtLLsymnpatised withthe object the lion. nieniber had in v'iew,and should be glad on some futureopportunity to assist in c-an-vin' it into

effect to protect working men. A greatdeal of difficulty and hardship hadarisen from the want of somec provision ofthme kind proposed. Oin look-lng at thepreamble of the Bill, hie founad these

1Words: so8 as to establish local registersof foreign companies." That seemed tobe the scope and object of the Bill.Therefore, he asked for thle ruling of thePresident as to wvhether thme proposednew clauses were not outside the objectof the Bill. He would suggest to thelion. inember that the proposed clausesmight be em bodied iii a miew Bill.

HON. A. P. MATHESON: If theruling of the Preident was against hin,lie would have no option hut to withdrawhis proposed ime, clauses.

TIile P1RESII)ENT said lie took thmesauie view as thle imwimhe rs of the selectcommittee in regard to thme proposed newClauses 15 and 16 ; they were ratherbeyond the scope of the Bill, but theproposed new Clause 17 wvould be inorder. But Clause 1? would be of novalue without Clauses 1.5 and 16; there-fore, perhaps it would be well for the lion.member to ask leave to withdraw hisproposed new clauses.

HoN. A. P. MATHESON asked leaveto withdraw the new clauses.

CIlauses. by, leave, withdrawn.New Schedules:HoN. R. S. HAYNES moved that the

following new schedules be added to theBill :

FIRST SCHEDULE.Ikec Companies Act Amendment Act. 2897.

APPLCmATION of Shareholder in Fo'oignCompany to be placed -upon the ColonialRegister.

I, , of becing thme person mentioned intme annexed Certificate, as the registeredlholder of Shares, numbered to in.-clusive, inthme incorporated in do here.by apply to be placed on the Colonial Registerais proprietor of the said Shires.

Dated this day or ,is

Witness:

SECOND SCFCEDULE.The Compamies Art Amendnieut Act, 1807.

CERTIFICATE of Deposit of Shares lodgedfor transfer to the Colonial Register

Tins is to certify that . of did, onm theclay of 18 , deposit with me at the

Registered Office, in the Colony of WesternAustralia, a Certificate of Shares, mn.ber-d to inclusive, in tile , for the

102&. Companies Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Port Hedland.

purpose of having the same transferred to theLocal Register under the above Act.

As witness my hand, at ,this day of'IS.

For the Company,A.B.,

(Attorney).Note-TVhis Deposit-nots must be. returned

to the Office before a Certificate of the Sharesunder the above Act can, be issued; but it isnot to be considered as a guarantee that theshares will be so transferred, and attention isdirected to Section 4 of the ahove Act.

Put and passed, and the schedulesadded to the Bill.

Preamble:HON. RI. S. HAYNES moved, as an

amiendmnent, that the words after " :same,"in the third line to "companies" in thefourth line, be struck out.

Put and passed, and the preamble asamiended ageed to.

Title-agreed to.Bill reported with amendments, and

report adopted.

ADJOURNMENT.HON. G. RANDELL moved that the

House at its rising do adjourn until5 o'clock on Wednesday.

Put and passed.The Rouse adjourned at 9-20 p.m.

until the next day at 5 o'clock, p.m.

Y*gislatxbe AssemhLg,Tuesday, 14th December. 19.97.

Meser:: Assent to Bihl-Pspers presented-NoxiousWeds Bill- third reneding-lbegitrtio of Firms

Bill: third reading.-Municipal Institutions ActAmendment Bill; Correction of clerical error-DogAct Amendment Bill) Legislative Conceil's Amend.amet; in coinmittee-lmnation RestrictionBill: Legislative Council's Amenmenhcts ; in com-mittee-Early Closing Bifll in cominittee-FublicNotaries Bill: Legislative Council's Amendments;in counnittee-Aunnal Estirmes, in Commcittee ofSupply: Statement by Commissioner of Railwayson working of Railways-mines Regulation ActA mendment Bill: first reading-Adjournuent.

THE SPEAKER took the Chair at 4,30o'clock p.m.

PRAYERS.

MESSAGE-ASSENT TO BILLS.

A Message from the Governor wasreceived and read, assenting to the follow-ing Bills :- i. " An Act to confirm certainExlpenditure for the Year ending 30thJune, One thousand eiqyht hundred andninety-six." 2. " An Act to amend theLaw relating to Hawkers and Pediar's."3. "An Act to provide for the issue to thePublic of Local Inscribed Stock, and forthe application of' the moneys therein in-vested." 4. " An Act for the reappropri-ation, of portions of certain Moneysappropriated by the Loan Act of 1896,and by the Loan Consolidation Act of 1896,respectively." 5. " An Act to apply out ofthe Consolidated Revenue Fand the suln ofThree Hundred and Fifty ThousandPounds to the Service of the Year endingB0th June, 1898."

PAPERS PRESENTED.By the COMISsSION OF GROWN

LANDS : Papers re Administration ofStock Diseases Act.

By the PREMIER: (r.) Perth HospitalReport and Regulations. (2.) LoanEstimates of Expenditure for 1897-8.(i3.) Correspondence re alleged Prosecu-tion of Water Sellers at Kanowna.

Ordered to lie on the table.

QUESTION-ROA-D CONSTRUCTION CON-TRACT AT PORT HE DLA ND.

MR. HOOLEY, in accordance withnotice, asked the Director of PublicWorks :- s. The names of the contractorsfor the road over the Marsh at Port lied-land. 2. The names of the sureties forthe work. 3 Whether he was aware thatthe work was at a standstill. - . Whetherhie was aware that the contractors were infinancial difficulties, and that they hadoffered to pay arrears of wages at the rateof 6s. in the X. 5. What steps theGovernment proposed taking in order tospeedilyv complete the work. (i. Whetherany steps were being taken to erect stockyards for shipping purposes on the PortR-edland jetty.

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICWORKS (Bon. F. H. Piesse) replied : -s. William Dunsford, Marble Bar. 2.Andrew Elliott, publican, Marble Bar;Thomas Burke, mine owner, Marble Bar.3. yen. 4. 1 am aware that the con-tractor is in financia] difficulties, but have