THE POLITICAL CRISIS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12405, 29 December 1909, Page 5

THE POLITICAL CRISIS.

HOUSE RES9UMED YESTERDAY.

THE BATTLE COMMENCED

PRELIMINARY SKIRMISHES ON POINTS OF ORDER AND

PROCEDURE

DEBATING THE CONTESTED VOTE

(By Telegraph.)

j (From Our Special Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, December 28

v The House met.at 2.30 this afternoon, ;uid the proceedings, naturally being { looked forward to with unusual inter- '' est, thy galleries were full. Some ref ports from Committees were brought l up. These matters having been dealt with, the vital question of the day came up just before 4 p.m. Mr Massey k raised the question whether it was competent lor the House to reinsate on the Supplementary Estimates a vote already j struck out on the ordinary Estimates. The proper way, he held, to deal with ' the matter Avas by recommittal. He ' quoted the Standing Order of the New ■ t Zealand House, No. 118, and the Parlia- . mentary authority May in proof of his ' statement. He also showed that in the ! House of Commons the practice. was as ;ho had stated. Of the many votes . struck out in the House of Commons he could find absolutely no record of any case in which a vote so struck out was reinstated on the Supplementary Estimates. He quote dother authorities in support of his contention, including the lat6 John Ballance. Mr Bali lance, he said, could never have imagin- | ed that a Liberal Government would ! ever have adopted such a course as was how being attempted. He also stated that Mr Mitchelson, under similar circumstances, had/ withdrawn certain ' items with a view to their recommittal. i The .Premier argued that this was :an emergency grant, and, according to May, such a grant could be reinstated .in the Supplementary Estimates. In . regard to the case during Mr Mitchel- '• son's leadership, one of the items was ■ for the salary of a Judge. The salary ! was struck out. Mr Massey : But they did not put it back. Sir Joseph Ward: For the reason that the law of the land did not authorise an extra Judge. He agreed with Mr Massey that the vote could be re- * considered by recommittal, but it could also be dealt with in the present way. ! Mr Massey: Why didn't you do it by recommittal. Sir Josepn Ward: Because I think this jis a good way—a better way. Mr Mhssey: No; it is not. j Sir Josepn Ward quoted a case in 11880, when a vote was reduced, and I on August 27th the amount was reinstated on the Supplementary Estimates. Mr Massey: But the question was '[ never raised then. j The Hon. Mr Millar suggested that I the present proceedings were out of order, and raised the point that there had been no reference from th Committee to take Mr Speaker's ruling. The letter, therefore, could not now give his opinion on Mr Massey's point of order, 1 The Speaker upheld Mr Millar's point j of/order, and said he could not rule j on Mr Massey's original point of order. I The House went into Committee. Mr Massey then raised the question as to the legality of the reinstatement of the item on the Supplementary Esti- | 1 mates, also the question of whether j such a vote came within the scope of the Supplementary Estimates. Mr James Allen showed that the invariable practice in the" House of Commons was that of recommittal. He also showed that recommittal had been I adopted previously in the New Zealand Parliament..*-? • , The Chairman of Committees ruled that the present procedure was correct. : It was unanimously decided to take the Speaker's ruling on the point. I Tlie Speaker upheld the decision of the Chairman of Committees, giving his reasons for doing so at some length.