Interpretation Bill. [31 AuousT, 1898.] Ivanhoe Venture Lease. 1827

DUSTOMS DUTIES AMENDMENT BILL.Received from the Legislative Assem-

bly, and, on the motion of the COLONIALSE3CRETARY, read a first time.

BEER DUTY BILL.Received from the Legislative Assem-

bly, and, on the montionl Of the COLONIALSEcRETARY, read a first time.

JURY BILL.Read a tbird time, and passed.

PAPER PRESENTED.By the COLONIAL SEcRETARy: Report

of enquiry held into the management ofthe Depot at Mount Eliza by Mr. A. S.Roo.

Ordered to lie on the table.

INTERPRETATION BILL.SELECT comiTrEE' s REPORT.

HON. R. S. HAYNES brought up the re-port of the Select Committee appointedto inquire into this Bill.

Report received. Ordered that it betaken into consideration on the nextWednesday.

ADJOURNMENT.The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until

the next day.

IV~dnesdaq, 31st. Augyust, 18.98.

Motion (urgency): Ivanhoe Venture Gold-MlineLease, Forcible Removal of Ore (negatived)-Question: Public Works, Salaries and Re-dnetions-Question: Departmental Offices,Expenditure in Rents -Quesigon: Work-shops at Midland Junction, Cost-Ques-tion: Railway Department and CoalSupply--Question: Public Schools andInsufficient Attendanee--Question: Kings-ley Hall Reward Gold Mine, and Non-forfeiture-Question: Mail Service, Albanyand Esperauce-Duties of Customs andExcise, Revised Schedule: Resolutionsadopted-.Customs Duties Amendment Bill,first readine : Standing Orders Suspension,second reading and remaining stages-BeerDuty Bill, first reading and remainingstages-Motion: Leave of Absence-Returnordered: Fremantle-Kalgoorlie Railway,Receipts and Expenditure-Motion: Kings-ley Hall Reward Gold Mine, Papers as toNonforfeiture -Return ordered: PublicDepartments, Particulars of Liabilities-Motion: Tick in East Kimberley, Inocula.tion and Quarantine; Amendment moved;Division on adjournment - Motion:Orchards and Vineyards; Tax to Exter-minate Pests (adjourned)-Motion: FruitImportation, Inquiry into Restrictions(negatived)-Motion: Company Promotersand Reports by Crown Officers-Adjourn-ment.

THE SPEAKER took the chair at 4-30

o'clock, p.m,

PRAYERS.

MOTION (URGENCY): IVANHOE VEN-TURE GOLD MINE LEASE-FORCLBLEREMOVAL OF ORE.MRs. MONGER (York): I rise to move

the sdjournmentof the House, in orderto bring certain information under thenotice of the Government. Shall I bein order in speaking upon it now?

MR. SPEAKER: What is the mattorthe hon. member wishes to bring beforethe House?

MRs. MONGER: I wish to bring underthe notice of the Government that thereappear to be serious troubles occurringii. connection with the Ivanhoe Venturelease at Kalgoorlie. According to tele-graphic informatidn received in Perthto-day, I understand that some 200 menare taking away the ore that hag been

1328 lvankog Venture Lease : [ASSEMBLY.) eoa fOe

bagged by the company. I do not knowany more particulars than that a bigbody of men are there taking away theore which has been raised at the comn-pony's expense, and I believe they atetaking it away with the intention of de-voting any return to their own un~.Considering that a special inquiry is novbeing held by a. Select Committee -fthis House into the circumstances con-nected with this mine, and conaderingfthere are a, lot of legal points still inldispute, it certainly seems very hardthat the company who have gone to theexpense of raising this ore should beplaced in the very peculiar and awkwardposition that any person or body of mencan go to their mine and take away theore which the company have raised. Iam quite certain that the Governmentnever contemplated that any lbody ofmen would ever resort to, the extrememeasure which the particular crowd ap-pear to be taking in connection withthis lease. I a~m certain that if anattempt were made to go on to any bigmnine about Kalgoorlie, and take awayeven a bag of stone--not stone baggedby the company, but going there withtheir own bags1 and toking away the ore-there would be a tremendous outcryraisfed from onel end of Kalgoorlie tothe other. It seems to me, under thecircumstances, that it is more than hardfor a body of men to go on the mineand treat this company in the way inwhich we are informed by telegrams to-day these men axe now doing. I be-lieve the ore in question is very valu-able, and it really is about the only as.set the company have for meeting theirmany obligations which the alluvialminers have inflicted on the company;and if the Government are going to allowsuch a course as this, without action ontheir part, I say it will stand as a. re-cord in the history of Western Australiaas being most unfair, to say the least.I would like to know from the Govern-ment whether it is their intention totake any steps to prevent these men fromremoving the ore which has, been raisedat the company's expensel or whetherthe Governmeiit intend to allow a. crowdof men to rush that lease, and take awaythe ore 'which has been raised hy thocompany, without making an attempt to

prevent such an unfair proceeding. Jbeg to move the adjournment of theHouse

Ma. RIGHAM (Fremantle): I secondthe motion.

THE PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir T1Forrest): I was informed this morningof the matter referred to by the hon.member, but I have not any detailed in,formation in regard to it. Instructionihave been issued that the police are teprotect the property, and also the orebelonging to this company; and in th-event of trespassers or offenders refutring to obey the directions of the police,those persons are to be arrested. I amquite in accord with the hon. memberthat persona who have any grievance, itregard to the possession of any propertyin dispute, are not to be permitted fora moment to take the law into their ownmhands. The courts of the colony areopen to litigants, and any persons, hay-ing grievances must be taught, if neces-sary, that they must conform to the ordi-nary and proper way of asserting theirrights; and I can only assure the hon.member and members of this House thatthe Government will do everything intheir power to protect the property andrights of individuals, whether it is in onepart of the colony or in another. I hopethat reasonable and moderate counselswill prevail, and that nothing seriouswill happen; but on this the, Governmnentare determined, that the law, and therights of people, whether they belong toone section of the community or another,shall be respected.

SEVERAL MEMHERS:' Hear, hear.Ma. VOSPER (North-East Coolgar-

die): It appears to me that there is alack of information, both on the partof the member who moved the adjourn-mnent of the House and of the Premierwho has just spoken. I am entirely inaccord with what the right hon. gentle-man has said with reference to the neces-sity of reasonable and moderate counselsin this matter; and I hope that the Cov-erment will not prejudice any case whichis sub judire by any arbitrary action nnthe part of the police. I agree thatwrhern any person's nronertv is jeopar-dised or encroached upon illegally, itshould be protected to the fullest ex-tent; but it is very desirable to see

Bevzoval of Ore.

IvahoeYeaureLeae 2 [31AUGST,189.] Removal of Ore. 1329

whether what is asserted is correct ornot. At present we have only an erprie statement; and now I have tomuake a series of other statements, whichcan be confirmed by Mr. Moorhead, whohas been counsel for the men, who tellsmec in reference to this case that somelittle time ago an injunction was appliedfor by the Ivanhoe Venture Company tothe warden at Kalgoorlie, and it wasirranted, pending the hearing, of a plaintwhich at that time existed between them-selves and a man named Burke, who issupposed to be primarily responsible forthis removal of ore. After the plainthad been heard, the injunction was con-tinued, hut no decision was given onthe points raised in the plaint. Thebench decided that the facts were infavour of the Ivanhoe Venture Company,and they were asked to state a. specialcase for the coxnisance of the SupremieCourt. That case was brought beforethe Supreme Court, and all the ques-tions put were. answered in favour ofthe alluvial miners.

MR. MONoERa: Is that Burke's case?Mz. VOSPER: Yes.Mn. Mowoan: It is perfectly wrong.MRt. VOSPER: I amn only speaking on

hearsay information. It appears also itis contended on the pat of the alluvialdiggers who are working on this lease,that anything in the shape of a lode, reef,vein? or dyke does not exist upon theground. flat is their contention, whichthey ay is suppiorted by the GovernmentGeologrist, and by every other expert whohas reported on it. It is alleged thatwvhat are called reefs are not really so,but are what are termed "cfloaters."~ Inpursuance of this, Burke and his partyhave taken up the Ivanhoe Ventureground, including the shaft. Section 36of the Act provides that they mnust notgo within 60 feet of a lode or reef; butif there be no lode or reef on that lease,the 50 feet restriction does not an~plv toit. Regrardingr the action in the SupremieCourt, the court has expressed opinionsin favour of the miners. During the in-tervatl between the hearing before theKalgoorlie bench with the warden, andthe decision of the points in the specialcase, Burke applied for forfeiture of theIvanhoe Venture CompnyT's leasze as awhole. He also applied for an injune-

tion to restrain the Ivanhoe VentureCompany from taking any of this parti-cular ore, or doing any work upon thelease.

Tnn PasMI41a: Who raised the ore?M. VOSPER - The company, I under-

stand.Ma. MoitAx: Was that injunction

granted?MnH. VOSPER : No; it. was applied

for, but not obtained. The -injunctionwas refused. The company went onworking; but it is to be rememberedthat the men have now been in pea ceablepossession of a large portion of thisgrouind for some months. In connectionwith the removal of this ore, I am in-formed that the old dump belon-ging tothe Ivanhoe Venture Company has notbeen tampered with in the slightest de-gCrree, but that the stuff taken awvay isstuff raised quite recently, and it was notraised in the ordinary shaft in which thecompany do their work. A hole has beenstink in anotber portion of the ground,and this ore which is the subject of dis-pute, and has been seized by the alluvialminersa, has been taken out of the pro-perty, comprised within their four pegs.If m-y information is correct, the corn-pany are no more entitled to this than Iam myself. The application for forfei-ture previously alluded to as having beenbrought before the warden was dismissed.It was then brought before the notice ofthe warden that the conduct of the corn-pany in taking this ore, which was. tosay the least of it, a. disputed inatter,would he likely to lead to serious trouble?and then he, without being formallymoved in court, granted to Burke an in-junction as far as the forfeiture wfacon-cerned.

MR. MORAN: He granted it againstBurke.

Mit. VOSPER: I am giving informa-tion received from a source which ougzhtto hie reliable. The warden granted aninjunction in favour of Burke, as long asthe question of forfeiture arplication ex-isted. When the forfeiture rnroceedinrsceased, this injunction lapsed, and thecompany resumed operautions. I aim in-formed that as soon as the points raisedwere decided by, the Supreme Court infa~vour of Burke and party, thev cne' auedMr. Moorhead, Who issu~ed a, writ against

Ivanhoe Venture Leme - [31 AuGusT, 1898.1

1330 Ivanhoe Venture Lease: (ASSEMBLY.)]eoa fOe

the company for redress end to restrainthem from using this ore; and this morn-ing Mr. Moorhead obtained an interim in-junction against the company, returnableto tire Supreme Court on the 14th Sep-tember. I run also told, as I have al-ready said, that the original dump hasnever been interfered with.

Txx PIWBrrR.: The mren are carting thesluff away.

a.VOSPER: Exactly; but in. thisirstance I am informed that an interiminjunction has been issued to prevent thecompany fromn using or taking this ore.many. The injunction granted against thealluvial miner prevents his dealing withproperty said to belong to the IvanhoeVknture Company; but it is asserted thatthie ore the miners are taking away is notthe company's property, but belongs tothem.

Ma. MONGER: Bags too.MuE. VOSPElI: I am speaking about the

or.!, and I dare say if bags have been takenn*ay they will be returned. In any caseit i. said that the dump, which is allegedto belong to the company, has never beeninterfered with, and that the ore takenaway is cement. I am told that the allu-vi i men are in legal possession of theground from which the ore was taken, andin legal possession. of the ore itself;- andthe attempt on the part of the IvanhoeVenture Company to usre it is aninvasion of the mniners' rights. I am ajlro)told that the Ivanhoe Venture Companyare, in taking it out, acting indefiance of the Supreme Court, andalso in defiance of the interim injuac-tior granted this morning. I have alreadysaid that this statement can be confirmedby Mr. Moorhead, and it is open to anymiember of the House or the Governmentto ascertain whether what I have stated iscorrect or not. On the whole, I believethat I am substantially accurate; but inan 'i case, correct ar incorrect, it appears tome there are two sides to the question,anJ therefore I would urge upon members,tenS more particularly the Government,the necessity of exercising extreme cau-tiousness in dealing with this matter,whilst the Select Committee is sitting, andall these questions to which I have referreare su b jwdice; or else serious troublesmay arise on the goldfields.

TasE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Ron. RW. Pennefather):- The hon. member whih L$ just spoken informed the House thatpractically, the company on the one hanihaveo had an injunction gran ted againsthe alluvial miners, and the alluviaminers on the other have had an injunetiara granted against the company.

Mn. VOSPER: They do, not refer to thsame thing, though.

Tim ATTORNE)I GENERAL: They refer pretty well to the whole, of the groundso far as I can understand from the statewent made. If it be true that eithe

party has done, something in defiance of ainjunction, the proper course of the partwith the grievance is to apply to the Stpicie Court, and have those who. hayacted contrary to the injunctiapunished for disobeying the order of thcourt.

MRt. VOSPER: You cannot prevenpeople removing their own property.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: You cahave people attache& for defying an iy.junction. What right, has the alluviEminer to go and take away, by force, ron another man's property? That is thinformation we ha-ve received. The Goierr-rnent are right in taking such steyas they can to prevent any forcible actioof that character, which is in defianceIlwv and order, and I hope the bouswill support us.

MR. MORAN (East Coolgardie):- WhethiA hiatter has come, before this. Aisemrbly on previous occasions, I ha'alwatys refrained from speaking ait, notwithstanding the fact that thmember for North-East Coalgardie (it!Vosper) has on both occasions, when t~has spoken upon it, been incorredethis statements. The statements he hijust made are absolutely groundless anuntrue. They may, have been givenall good faith, but they would coma mucbetter from any other member of the Asembly who had not, in the earlystagiof this affair, taken a, part which t1warden at Kalgoorlie says led up to titrouble that occurred.

A 3.fnrasa Anid ran away the day bfore.

MR. MORAN: I think the hon. menher is right. He got away before tltrouble burst. I do not blame him f(that,

Bemoval of Ore.

.Ivanhoe Venture Lease: (31 AUGUST, 1898.] Removal of Ore. 1331

MR. VOSPER : Mr. Speaker, I askwhether the hon. member has any rightto impute actions of a dishonourable andillegal character to me. Surely I amentitled to some protection from remarksof this kind. If I had an opportunityto speak again, I would not appeal toyou.

TEE SPEAKER: I do not know thatI can call the hon. member to order. Hesaid that the warden at Kalgoorlie madecertain statemnts in regard to thismatter.

MR. MORAN: I am awfully sorry thebion. member is so touchy on tis point.He has publicly abused me through thepress, and accused me through thecolumns of his paper of absolutely hav-ing had a hand in the passing of certainregulations, as if I were a member of theCabinet; and he should not get up, atthis hour of the day, when the last re-source of the company, of which I ama director, is being removed by force.The proper and lawful method to adoptis to go to the warden's court an d applyfor an injunction against the company.The Ivanhoe Venture Company have beenthe victims of unforeseen misfortunes;and, although so much interested, I havenever said a word, notwithstanding thatI have been reviled by gentlemen likethe member for North-East Coolgardie,who ought to have more esprit decorps with regard to members of thisAssembly than to have done Such athing.' This is the second time in thehistory of the colony that the law whichwe all respect has been flouted, by menentering by force on the company's leaseand removing the ore that has beenraised, after they had been forbidden bythe warden to do so. That ore waspledged to the bank for costs incurred infighting the applications for injunctionsagainst the company, who had spent over£4,000 on the mine. It is due to thisHouse that I should make some authen-tic statement. The hon. member SaysMr. Burke applied to the warden sometime ago, and that the warden gave hisopinion in favour of the company; but,as a matter of fact, Mr. Burke was notheard. The company, who have spent£4.000, worked the property for a yearand a half and found gold. They workedit for some considerable time before they

were interfered with, and they did notpeg out any alluvial claim, making nosecret of what they possessed. At theend of that time, from information fromsomeone working in the mine or frommen around the Shaft, a man namedDaly applied for an alluvial miner'sclaim. We went before the wardenncourt lawfully, and the warden gave averdict in favour of the company. Mr.Daly was, as any ordinary alluvialminer would have been, satisfied,and he did not fly in the faceof the warden's decision. Two othermen, named Macaw and flutter,applied to have a case stated uponthat decision ; and although the mat-ter was what legal gentlemen termres judicata, still the warden openedup the case again, and took the precau-tion to have the Government Geologistand both Government inspectors to ex-Ntiie The property. Thel GovernmentGeologist is the authority of the alluvialmoiner, and I will quote him to show bowmuch truth there is in the assertion ofthe member for North-East Coolgardie.The Government Geologist has distinctlystated in the warden's court, and alsobefore a Select Committee of this House,that there are in the Ivanhoe VentureCompany's mine four quartz veins dis-tinctly showing. The warden again,after having had the evidence of Mr.Fowler, Chief Inspector for this colony,who showed that the stuff was not allu-vial, gave his opinion again in favour ofthe company;3 but Mr. Jones, the counselfor the Alluvial Miners' Association, ap-plied in the meantime to state a specialcase for the Supreme CouAT. That wasdone, and when the case was argued be-fore the Supreme Court, the Companywent down on it ; for Mr. Justice Hens-man gave his ruling, that their reef wasso far below the surface that they couldnot claim to have proved the existence ofa reef. Speaking as a director of thecompany, I say we did not resist thatdecision, nor grumble at it, al though wehad spent £4,000 on the property, as thebooks will show, in trying to prove theexistence of a reef; and on that decisionby Mr. Justice Hensman, everything wastaken from us, except 50 feet round themain shaft, and even this has been cut

Iinto from all directions. It is said the corn-

1332 fIanhoe Venture Lease: [ASSEMBLY.] Remoival of Ore.

pany are not working their shaft; but Isay the. shaft is simply tumbling down,and is absolutely unsafe for men to worktn-so unsafe that the manager, Mr. Car-lisle, resigned rather than work it. Thecompany have kept on hauling water,night and day, right through the litiga-tion; for if they had not have done so,their mine would have become useless.The company did not take any illegalaction at any stage of the dispute ;butthey struggled on, and spent £500 inconnection with that dispute. Mr.Burke made a claim on the company'sdump, and went before the warden tosupport his claim ; but his applicationwas not granted. Since then he has ap-vlied for the forfeiture of the lease, onthe round that the company are notworking the mine ; but the reason whythey are not working it is that the shaftis absolutely unsafe, and upon theevidence given in court, the warden refusedto order the forfeiture of the lease, for hesaid, "How can the company work it whentheir shalt is in an unsafe condition?2"Notwithstanding all this, the companyhave had three men hauling water nightand day, so as to, prevent the shaft fallingin. Now, what do we find to-day? Thecourse advocated by a newspaper, withwhich the member for North-East Cool-gardie is connected, and the actiontaken or advised by the bon. morn-her in addressing the men on the fieldhave been the real causes, in theopinion of the warden at Kalgoorlic,which brought about the rebellion againstthe laws of this colony, and against theautnority of the courts. Here are the do-liberate statements made by that news-paper on several occasions while thetrouble was first nending, in words to thiseffect: "The men of the fields will rise.They cannot stand it much longer." Thenreference was made to the British tax onten in the American colonies and the firingon Fort Sumpter. The men were also toldto "remember Bendiro, and the Eurekastockade" It will be evident that suchlanguage, used in a newspaper circulatingamong an excited body of men, must haevearipeared to any lawm-abidinq citizen aSpalpably urging the men on to violentcourses of action, such as they after-wards took. The member for North-East Coolgardie (Mr. Vesper), addressing

a crowd of men from the dump, andspeaking in the presence of the mem-ber for North Perth (Mr. Oldham),as recorded in the newspapers, andas I will prove by* the records of papers

published on the fields and filed in theColonial Secretary's office in Perth, gavethis advice to the miners: -" Gentlemnen,my advice to you is: Accordingly as youare taken off, put fresh men in yourplaces." I challenge the hon. member todeny that, if he can. I say he was the in-stigator, the prime mover, in the breakingof the laws ; and now we have him askingthn Government, in this House, to beleIricnt, and trying to palliate the serious-ness of what the men have done. He saysin this House: "Let us palliate these evils,because if you do anything else it will beworse for you. Never mind the company,but don't irritate the mnen." That beingthe hon. member's language here, I ask,are we a British colony or a South Ameri-car. Republic? The hon. member hashad experience of both; and if he prefersto work under the laws and practices ofSouth America, I prefer to work under theBritish constitution. As far as the com-pany are concerned, they have taken theirbeating in the courts; and now they areasking a Select Committee of this Houseto ay, upon evidence given, that theyhave suffered injustice before the law.I will not have it said that they arebreaking the law, for they must kee1,their mine free from water, and indoijug- so they have raised a certainamount of ore, and that ore is the onlyasset they have got. We have the hon.miember asking the Government not toexcite these poor, law-abiding citizens. Itell this House, as member for the dis-trict, that I know the gentlemen who areat the head of this affair, and they are notalluvial miners. Were it not for thecourse taken by the menmber for North-East Coolgardie (Mr. Vesper), and thecourse taken by the editor of the Ea/goor-lie Miner, there would not have been airytrouble over this matter. The alluvialminers would have respected the shaft ofthe company and would not have broknth- law. The hon. member Paid, in OtisChamber the other nighit, that the alluvialminers had the advice of their counsel inbreaking the law.

Ivanhoce Venture Lease: [1AGS,19. Rmvlo r. 13

Mat. Vosraan: No. I said they hud his4advice in their interpretation of the, law.

MRf. MORAN: The counsel referred to,Mr. Jontes, has asked me to tell thisHfouse that it is absolutely untrue. Thealluvial miner put himself outside the law ;and when he abandoned law and resortedto force, Mr, Jones refused to have nuiy-tlhing to do with such ab course of action.A-1 that has been proved before the war-den at Kalgoorlie. Had Mr. Jones notgone on with the special case, what wouldhave been the consequenceI The companywould have won the day, and the menwould have been, shifted off the lease.But what has been the consequence ofthe action takenl Those men who werebreaking the law at that time, and havegone on breaking the law, have nowtaken a further step by forcibly enteringupon the lease and taking away thecompany's ore. No injunction has yetbeen granted against the company; orif it is said that an interim injunctionhas been applied for in the SupremeCourt to-dahy and granted, how could thatinjunction have got to Kalgoorlie to-day?Does anyone think the comnpany are goingto disobey the law, or in any way palliatewhat the other side have been doing?The company discovered the gold, andnow they are told they are not even en-titled to their main shaft. If the courtsays so, the company must go. Have thecompany ever said they will not obeythe court? Is this House to stand quietlyby, knowing the warden has sent downa telegram to-ay, stating what has berndone in fulfilment of a. threat made bythe Kalgoorlik Ab-iner newspaper a fort-night agro? That newspaper said, on the13th August:-

There is a prospect of further and very gravetrouble in connection with the Ivanhoe Ven-ture lease. 'A move was lately made by somemen to obtain a, forfeiture of the lease, on theground of failuire on the part of the companyto fulfil the labour conditions. Since the lodg-ing of the application for forfeiture the comn-pany, it appears, has been working in the shaft,and raising and bagging ore to a considerableextent. The men who made the application,iii consequence, asked the warden for an in-junction pending tjse hearing, requiring thecompany's employees to cease their operations;but this was refused.Consequently Air. Kirwan, the editor ofthat paper, does not agree on this pointwith Mr. Vosper's statement. The editor

of the Kalgoorlie Miner goes on tosay--

Ma. A. FonREST:' He is a. justice ofthe peace, is he not?

Mnf. MORAN: Yes, He was appointedby this Government., some months ngo,and he has since bean principally en-gaged in breaking the lawA. He Says inthia paper:

It is now feared that if the company endea-vour to remove the ore raised under the cireum-atnees mentioned, there will be organisedresistance.

That is the threart held oat by this paper.Did the company endeavour to removeit? No. But the men are not contentwith that, for they backed their draysin, this morning, and took away the oreby force. As far as I am concerned, Iam for law and order at any cost and anyhazard. I know it will be an unhappyday for Western Australia, if every liti-kgant cam turn round in the Warden'sCourt and say, after a, decision is given:"I am not satisfied with your decision,and I am going to rush the works." Isit lawful to do, that.? Theise men aredoing a double wrong, for they are rob-bing the company of the only asset theyhave got, and are breaking, the law ofthe colony. This is no sudden effusion.It might have been expected, fromn whathad gone before, and from the way inwhich. these persons have been advised ;because, although the Mephistopheles ofthe trouble was not to be seen on thatoccasion, yet his deadly work had beendone; and now the men may think that,having Pinched the authorities on oneoccasion, they can do it again. So wefind that the threat published in thatnewspaper a fortnight ago has come topass. If the company are declared law-fully to be in the wrong, they are notguiltily wrong; and, if they are to losctheir mine, let them lose it; but, forgoodness sake, let us have law and Order,and let the interests of all parties be pro-tected while the matter is pending. AnyGovernment that. will not uphold thelaw of the colony will not get my sup-port. They should have the law obeyedfirst, and let the matter be looked intoby the courts afterwards. Let us haveauthority first, and let us look into thejustice of the matter afterwards. I saythe Government nire unworthy of the con-

Bevzoval of Ore.[31 AuctUST, 1898.] 1333

1334 Ivanhoe Venture Lease; [ASSEMBLY] Removal of Ore.

fidence of this colony, or of any memberof this House, if they allow any numberof men to publicly flout and break thelaws in open daylight. The company arelaw-abiding. They have lost everything,save and except their main shaft; andnow the ore they have raised from thatshaft has been carted away this morning.I ask this House to remember the charac-ter of some of the leaders of this move-ment ; and are we to see the same thinghere as was perpetrated at ChartersTowers, when a body of excited men wereinstigated to resist the law in Queens-land?1 The past history of the memberwho has been engaged in such actionsin another colony, and is repeating themhere, will not bear enquiry, and I will notattempt it. It is too vile.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. member mustwithdraw that expression.

MR. MORAN: I have great pleasure inwithdrawing it.

MA. VOSPER (North-East Coolgar-die): I rise in personal explanation, tosay that with regard to my alleged oar-ticipation in the riot that took place inKalgoorlie, I was present two days beforethe riot took-place. I went to the comn-inittee of the Alluvial Association, andI advised them to take a certain course,which, if followed, would have renderedthat riot impossible. My advice was nottaken, and the matter was done anyhow-by rule of thumb. The result wasthat a riot took place. There is a mannow in Perth, who can still be examinedby the Select Committee, who can provethis to be true. I deny in the most em-phatic manner that I assisted in any wayin the disturbance at Kalgoorlie ; and Irecognised, as soon as I received informa-tion concerning it, that it was a most un-fortunate thing. As regards the remain-ing insinuations made by the hon. mem-ber, they are not worth replying to. Myrecord is open and public, and I havedone nothing to be ashamed of in theslightest degree. Whatever I have done,I have done according to my conscience;and according to my actions I am willingto be judged.

MR. LEAXE (Albany): The motionwas to bring before the House a matterof urgent public importance, not togratify the desire of any particular mem-ber to get rid of a few spiteful observa-

tions against another member. As Iunderstand the question-it is all newtomre-there has either been some actualviolation of the law at Kalgoorlie, orsome violation of the law is in contempla,tion; and it is stated that certain per-sons have, by force, taken away the pro-perty of other people, or lproperty whichother peopl claim. Well, if that is thecase, speaking for myself--I do not pro-fess to voice the opinions of memberswho sit on my left-I can only say, ifsuch a breach of the law has been com-mitted, I will support the Government inseeing that the law is enforced, and thatthis sort of thing is not allowed to con-tinue. The last thing I should care tosee is anything like disorder or disre-gard of law on any portion of the gold-fields. Unless order is maintained-ifthere is any relaxation oil the rigour ofthe law-then we may look forward tohave a time of lawlessness, and possiblyto a reign of terror. I shall do nothing,I asure lion, members, to hamper theGovernment in discharging their dutiesand seeing that the law is administeredswiftly, fearlessly, and justly. It is idleror me, as at present advised, to saywhether the leaseholder or the alluvialman is in the right; though I do not hesi-tate for a moment to say that my sym-pathies, as a general rule, where prin-ciple is concerned, are with the alluvialminer. But this is only when the inengo about it in a proper, constitutional,and legal manner. If they are fightingfor their rights, they have my support;but I will not support them, nor would Isupport anybody, in carrying out theirobjects in a. high-handed, offensive or im-proper manner. I do not think hon.members will expect me to express a de-finite opinion upon such an importantsubject as this; but I urge the Govern-ment-and I know they will do it-to in-quire most closely into this matter, andto act fearlessly and promptly, with theassurance that they will receive the sup-port of the majority of hon. members inthis House.

MR. ILLINOWORTE (Central Mur-chison): I think there is no member inthis House who has a stronger sympathywith the alluvial men in their desire toobtain their just rights in the colony than1. When I express that sympathy I as-

Ivecidoc Vent are Lease [ 31 AUGUST, 1898.] Riemoval of Vie. 1335

sume that they, and all others, will atall times obey the law. I am neitherprepared to affirm nor to deny that inthis case the alluvial men have in anyway broken the law or that they are act-ing under the law. I do not know any-thing at all about it; but I hope that thisGovernment, and any Government, willmake it the paramount duty of the de-partment of which the right hon. thePremier is the head, to see that the jawsof this country are maintained intact,and that, when wrongs are to be righted,they shall be righted in a proper, legalmaniner, in the courts established bythis colony for the purpose. No man, 1trust, need fear, in a British colony, toput his case before his fellow-men-be-fore at jury, if necessary, or before ajudge or justices in this coutry-andmaintain his rights. I am satisfied hisrights will he respected if he places hiscase fairly before the proper tribunal.The present duty of this Government, asfar as I can see it, is to maintain. Iawv andorder with calmness and steadiness ofpurpose, and with a, clear desire tomaintain justice and righteousness to allIpersons, and do it without fear or favour,with the full confidence that every mem-ber of this House will support them inthe purpose which they have in view.

MRt. OLDHAM (North Perth): Thelittle information I possess upon this par-particular subject would prevent me fromexpressing any, definite opinion upon thedispute which at present exists betweenthe alluvial miner and the Ivanhoe Ven-ture Company. I rise for the purpose ofsaying-and I took some little part in theagitation by the goldflelds with respect tothat loft, regulation which the Govern-mnent issued-I rise to say this most em-phatically, and I heard most distinctlyevery word that was uttered upon theoccasion, that, all through the speeches ofthe hon. member for North-East Coolgar-die (Mr. Vosper), I did not hear one wordoi n inflarnmatory nature.

Ma. MORAN: Are all the newspaper re-ports wrong?

Ma. OLDHAM: I do not know whethe rFill the newspaper reports are wrong uinot. I am given to understand that thepublished reports were supplied to tLeFour newspapers by the hand of one man.

Ma. Moan: To the four newspapers?

MR. OLDHAM: I heard the statementsmade; and, if I had a full knowledge ofthe dispute, I would not have the slightesthkcsitation in repeating every word whichwas said by the member for North-EastCoolgardie.

Ma. Moa&N: Why didhe not contradictthe reports?

A MEimion: He had not the time.Ma. OLDHAM: May I be permitted to

suggest that the Government should actcautiously in dealing with this matter?Upon the previous occasion I was withthe alluvial miners. I believed that theywere right, but I believe also that when aawan sinks a shaft upon a lease and findsgold and brings it up to the surface,then such gold belongs to the owner4 the mine, whether that owner be anindividual or a company. If the infornm-tic-n nowv in possession of this House isecrrect-that these men are taking awaythe ore which has been raised by the coou-pary-I say that undoubtedly they areacting, if not illegally, at least immorally.Upon a previous occasion I believed that,had they taken the advice of the warden,tiey would certainly have placed them.seives at a disadvantage ; hut in these pre-sent circumstances I say it is the duty ofthe Government to rigourously enforcethe law as we understand it. I say thatas a friend of the alluvial miner. Themen% are making the greatest possible mnis-take, and are alienating the sympathyof every right-thinking man in the metro-polis upon this matter. If it is neces-sary to have this question threshed outproperly in this House, then let us have itthi eshed out; kut let it go before theproper authorities in the meantime. Letthe alluvial miner and let the companyouey the law. So long as this is done, Ifirmly believe that if any injustice is per-petrated, this House will be glad to reetityit.

MR. WILSON (Canning): I do notthink this is a question of the alluvialminer's rights or the leaseholder's rights.So far as I understand from this after-noon's discussion, the warden bad issueda certain injunction, and certain minershave taken upon themselves to defy thatinjunction by going on to the claim andremoving certain bags of ore. That is asI understand it.

1336 Public Offices Rented. [ASMY. RalyWokkos

MR. MORAN: That is quite correct.Mu. WILSON: I will qualify my state-

nment by saying that, if this is correct,these men have openly defied the law;and I do not think we will find one hon.meomber in this House who will supportthemn in their action. That is the posi-tioni. I think we are all unanimous thatwe will support the Government in enforc-ing the laws of this land, no m atter who isat fault. Whether it is the miners orthe company who are at fault in breakingthe law, we shall all he as one to see theyart punished for doing so. I hope theaction of the Government will be prompt,dehpite. any fear of trouble. No matterwhat the cost may be, I hope they willtake such steps as will teach these men,if they are in the wrong, that. they will -naut be permitted to go on in the way theyhave begun, and that they will be pun-ished for their action.

Question-that the House do now ad-journa-put. and negatived.

QUESTION: PUBLIC WORKS, SAILARIFSAND REDUCTIONS.

MR. QUINLAN asked the Director ofPublic Works,-l, Why no reductionswere proposed upon the Estimates in thesalaries of the bigher officials of his de-jpart-ment. 2, Whether it was a fact thatplenty of competent and reliable menwere available for employment at a muchlower salary than thoem now employed.3, Whether he was aware that the salariesof branch bank managers throughout thecolony average from £250 to £,400 perannum, with quarters.

THEo DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS(Hon F. HI. Piesse) replied -:-1, Becausethe Government have not considered itnecessary to reduce expenditure by apro) r~da reduction of salaries through-out the civil service, of which the PublicWorks Department is merely a part. 2,I am not aware that plenty of competentand reliable men are available for em-ployment at much lower salaries thanthose now paid. 3, I do, not know whatsalaries the various bankis pay to theirofficers.

QUESTION: DEPART' XENTAL OFFICES,EXPENDITURE In RENTS.

MR- QUJINLAN asked the Premier,-1, What amount of rent each of the follow-

ing departments was paying per monthin Perth for offices and storage accom-modation : -Premier's, Public Works,Colonial Secretary's, Attorney General's,Lands, Mines. 2, To whom paid. 3, Thenumber of offices, the amount of rentpaid in each case, and the accomimoda-tion in each instance. 4, What werethe lengths of tenure agreed upon ineach instance. 5, Whether each de-partment would take steps to reducethis expenditure as soon as possible,

TaE PREIER (Right Hon. Sir J. For-rest): This is really a motion rather thana question.

THB SPEAKER: It is.THx PREMIER: I have much plea-

sure in laying upon the table of the Housethe information asked for in paragraphs1, 2, 3, and 4; and, in regard to No. 5,I may inlorni the hen-. member that stepswvill be taken to reduce this expenditureas soon as possible.

Tax SPEAKER:- The next questionalso ought to have been put in the shapeof a return.

QUESTION: RJUhWAY WORKSHUJ '1AT MIDLAND JUNCTION, COST.

Mn. SOLOMON asked the Commis-sioner of Railways,-1, What was thetotal cost of land purchased for the Mid-land Junction Workshops. 2, The amiountof cost of preparing land. 3, What hadbeen done in the way of building shedsand other improvements. 4, What wasthe total cost to date of everything thathad been done, including cost of land.5, What was the estimated cost to comi-plete all works necessary.

Tax COMMISSIONER OF RAIL-WAYS (Hon. F. H. Piesse) replied :-1,£2,000. 2, £e5,018. 3, An office, a, resi-dence for the engineer-in-charge, and aspare gear store, forming part of theequipment of the proposed shops havebeen erected;- also temporary workshopsand further levelling of site, and boxdrains to carry off the water from thelevelled site. 4, About £26,000, whichincludes (in addition to items mentionedabove) plant and machinery of variousdescriptions; also material for the erec-tion of other portions of the works. 5,About £80,000 to complete the portionnow required. If the whole design, asrecommended by the Commission is car-

[ASSEMBLY.] Bailway Workshops.

Norfofetue o Ain. 31 AVeUST, 1898.] Ouseorns DutieS Bil. 1337

ried out ultimately, the cost, includingmachinery, is estimated at £180,000.

QUESTION: RAILWAY DEPA~RTMEN iAND COAL SUPPLY.

M&. HIGHEAM asked the Commissionerof Railways,--Whether, in view of thefavourable report of the Locomotive En-Pgineer on No. I sample of coal, fromWaratah Colliery (wherein ho states.-"I shall have no objection to the inclusionof the colliery supplying same in ourschedule of pits from which coal may bereceived by our coal contractors") he wasnow prepared to place this colliery on theschedule.

THE COMMISSIONER OF RAIL-WAYS (Hon. F. H. Piesse) replied: -Thedepartment is not prepared at, the pre-sent time to place Waratak coal on theschedule. A representative of the Wars-tah Company has, been seen and arrangre-ments are made to accept delivery of bulklots in order to more fully test the coal.It is proposed to obtain supplies in thismanner until the department is satisfiedthat the Waratah coal is equal in evapora-tive effects to the other schedule pit coals.

QUESTION: PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ANDiLNSUFlFIOIENT A~rtENDANCE.

MR. SOLOMON asked the Premier,-1, Whether provision was made on theeducation Estimates for the upkeep ofall schools now opened. 2, What schoolshad been closed during the last threemonths, and for what reason. 3, Whetherit was the intention of the department tore-open any of the schools, provided itcould be proved that a, sufficient numberof children were found to be residingwithin the school district.

Tim PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J. For-rest) replied:-1, No. Thle present ex-penditure on salaries is at the rate of£36,500. 2, (a) Coogee, Irishtown, andDwalganup. (b) Number in attendancehas sunk below that required by the regu-lations. Seven more schools are beingclosed for the same reason. 3, It is thedesire of the department to do so.

QUESTION: KINGSLEY HALL REWARDGOLD MINE, AND NONFORFEITURE.Mn. MORAN asked the Minister of

Mines,-1, Whether he had refused theforfeiture of the Kingsley Hall Reward

Gold-mine to the West Australi-an share-holders. 2, Whether he would delaybringing the matter before the Cabinetuntil the papers had been laid on thetable of the House.

THE M!,INISTER OF MINES (lion. H.B. Letroy) replied.-1, The Governor-in-Council has refused the forfeiture of theKingsley Hall Reward Gold-mine. 2,The matter has been already dealt with.

QUESTION:t MAIL SERVICE, ALBANYAND ESPERANCE.

MIR. CONOLLY asked the Premiet-1, Whether he was awvare that the Gov-ernment mail steamer on the Soluth coasthad, to the neglect of her contract mailservice, been taken to tranship the cargoand passengers of the ses. Adelaide andtake themn to Fremantle. 2, Whether hewas aware that this mail steamer was, onthe night of the 30th inst., due at Espe-rance, and was instead at that time onher way to Fremantle. 3, Ao whetherthis had been done with the sanction ofthe Minister.

Tax PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J. For-rest) replied: -1, Yes. 2, Yes. 3, No;the Postmaster General acted without an-thority in a case which he considered wasone of emergency. Instructions havebeen issued which will prevent a recur-rence, without due Ministerial authority.

PAPERS PRESEBNTED.Biy the Psimu: Departmental offices,

Return showing rents. Woods andForests Depiu-tment, Report for 1897-8.Mount Eliza. Depot, Report of Inquiryinto management.

Ordered to lie on the table.

DUTIES OF CUSTOMS ANTD EXCiSE.REVISED SCHEDULE.

The resolutions passed in Committee,on the revised schedule of customs andexcise duties, proposed by the Premieras the basis for Tariff Bills, were nowadopted, on the motion of the PsnimR.

CUSTOMS DUTIES AMIENDMENT BILL.Introduced by the Pnnnnn, in accord-

ance with resolutions of the Honuse, andread a first time.

Xonforfeiture of 3fine.

1338 RUailway to Ooldflda. [SE BY] Nnof~r JLae

STANDING ORDERS atUsPnNSIOa.

On the motion of the Pasman, theStanding Orders were suspended, to en-able this Bill and the Beer Duty Bill tobe passed through all stages at one sit-ting.

6ECOND READING, ETC.

Bill read a second time, without debateor amendment.

Passed through remaining stages, andtransmitted to the Legislative Council.

BEER DUTY BILL.Introduced by the Pitnuss, in accor-

dance with resolutions of the House, andread a, first. time.

SECOND READING, ETC.

THE PREMIER: I beg to move thesecond reading of this Bill. I may say itis in exact accordance with the law as itexists in South Australia, in Tasmania,'anad also I think in Victoria. I have beeninformed that the Act works very wellin those colonies, being simple, and cost-ing very little to administer. I had atelegram yesterday from the Premier ofSouth Australia, telling me that they didnot find it any expense at all to adminis-_ter. I hope that will be our experience.Of course, if we can collect money with-out expense, it is all the better for therevenue of the colony.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.PaSsed through remaining stages

without debate or amendment, and trans-mitted to the Legislative Council.

MOTION: LEAVE OF ABSENCE.On the motion of M& LEAaa, a further

leave of absence for one fortnight wasgranted to the member for Geraldton (Mir.Simpson)-

MOTION: RAILWAY itCECEIPIS ANDEariENSES, FRENLANTLE TO KAL-UOORLI8 LINE.

Ma. GREGORY (North Coolgardie)moved : -

'That a return be laid on the table of theHouse, showing-(1) The gross receipts fromthe Fremantle to Kalgoorlie railway for themonths of July and August, 1898. (2) Theworking expenses of the above-mientioned lineduring the months of July and August. (a)T'le profit required to pay interest on construc-tion and sinking fund.

There was an impression, he said, that thegoldfields railways were being charged un-fair rates, as compared with other lines ;and it was desirable that this informationshould be furnished to the House, so thatpersons might see whether particularrailways were being treated unfairly ornot in the increase of rates lately made.

THE COMMISSIONER OF RAIL-WAYS (Hon. F. H, Piesse): There wasno objection to lay this return on thetable; but it would take some time toprepare, because if the information wasto be brought up to the end of August,the return could not be completed till to-wards the end of next month, that beingthe time usually required for making upthe monthly returns relating to the work-ing of the railways. He would endeavourto get the return prepared and presentedas soon as possible.

q~uestion put and passed,

MOTION: KINGSLEY HALL REWARDGOLD MINE, NO.SFURFEITURE.

Ma. MORAN (East Coolgardie) moved:That there be laid on the table of the House

all the papers relating to the application forforfeiture of she Kingsley Hall Reward GoldMine, and aLl correspondence connected there-with.In giving a brief resumd of the circum-stances of this case, he said the Ministerfor Mines had. refused to recommend theforfeiture of this lease, although the war-den had reconmmendcd that the lease beforfeited. For some reason not stated,the Minister of Mines disagreed with thewarden in this matter. This propertywas floated by the original prospectorsand workers, and those who sold it re-ceived from the purchasers the bulk oftheir payment in shares of the companywhich was formed in Adelaide. Soequestionable tactics took place in Ade-laide, where the shareholders called ameeting without allowing time for thenotice of such meeting to come beforethe shareholders in this colony; and theshareholders in Adelaide resolved at themeeting to re-construct the company inSuch a. manner as to exclude the WestAustralian shareholders, who were thusdeprived of their interest in the property.This kind of proceeding had been prac-tised by other companies ; and he tookthis stand, not because he differed from

[ASSEMBLY.] Nonj'orfedure qj'Leaee.

KingleyHai Min: fl Acwsr 188.] Nonforfeiture of Lease. 1339

the, Minister of Mines on the particularcase, but in order to bring this practiceunder the notice of Parliament ; for hequestioned whether we were justified inrobbing the people who had gone throughthe labour of opening up mines in thecolony, and having sold them to outsidecompanies, bad been deprived of theirshare in such mines by the kind of opera-tion hie had described. The same hadbeen done to himself as a shareholder inthe Water Trust Company of Northern,which had spent something like £100,000.He was the original promoter of thatcompany, and his interest in it consistedin a large quantity of shares handed tohim in payment, end for which, at onetime, he might have obtained 13,000 or£4,000. The meeting was called amongthe shareholders in England, and beforethe shareholders in Western Australiacould be informed of what was being done,the company was re-constructed in sucha way that his interest was confiscated.The case he had brought before the Housewas, a glaring one, and yet the Ministerof Mines, with his large experience, hadseen fit to disagree with the warden's re-commendation, although it was provedby evidence given in the warden's court,and which must have come before theMinister, that the mine was left uni-worked for a long period. The share-holders in the colony, having been robbedof all interest they held in the mine, ap-plied for the forfeiture of the lease, inorder that they might take it up and workit. The warden recommended that thelease be forfeited, but the Minister dis-agreed with him. Was it right, just, orproper that the Minister should see fitto disagree with the warden's ruling,when the effect of the Minister's actionwas top rob those persons who held sharesin this colony, and were taxpayers init? If this mine were of no value, thepersons who had applied for the forfei-ture would not be willing to take it up ;hut they had shown their faith in it bygoing on with the work, and they oughtto be the best judges. Knowing the cir-cumstances~ of this mine, and that nearlyall the the shareholders who had beenrobbed of their rights were Kalgoorliepeople, he submitted to the House thatthe warden's opinion, based upon localevidence, was more reliable than the

opinion which the Minister had formedas to the merits of this case. He didnot know what grounds the Ministercould have for his act-ion, unless theMinister was relying upon representa-tions made by Adelaide shareholders, asagainst those in this colony. TheA-]linister of Mines knew perfectly well thatthe Western Australian shareholders hadbeer, deprived of their interest in themine.

Tnz MnMsnmR Or MLNSs said he had noopj-ortunity of seeing Adelaide shr-e-holders,

MR, MORAN: Although the papersmight be laid on the table of the Housenow, the Minister had hurried the matterthrough the Cabinet; and the laying, ofthe papers on the table would not do theunfortunate West Australian shareholdersany good. The Minister had been badlyadvised in concluding that the warden hadno ground for recommending the forfei-ture of this lease, seeing that the wardenknew the mine and knew the shareholders,and having taken evidence on the spot, nodoubt he gave his decision after carefullyweighing the evidence.

MR. GREGORY seconded the motion.THE MINISTER OF MINES (Hon. H.

B. Lefroy): Thiough the haon. member'spiocedure was somewhat unusual, he hadno objection to laying the papers on thetatble. The motion really amounted to acensure on the Minister, before the evi-desnce had been considered.

Mn. MORAN said he did not look at it inthat light.

'Tha MINISTER OF MINES: Thesepapers bad been before 1dm for a con-siderable time.

MR. MORAN: And the Minister hadgiven his ruling without waiting for theevidence.

Tu MINISTE R OF MINES: Yet thehon. member said this case had beenhurried. This was a, case sent down bythe warden, who recommended the forfei-ture of a, certain lease. The warden,under the Goldields Act, could not forfeita, lease. The Act provided that thewarden should send a copy of the evidence,with his recommendation, to the Governor-in-Council.

MR. MORA&N: Why did the Ministerdiffer from him?

Kingsley Hall Mine. [31 AUGUST, 1898.]

1340 Kingsrley Hall Afine: [ASML.-ofretr fLae

Tns MlNIS8TEII OF MINES: Why wassuch evidence to be sent down? Becausethe warden's decision was not final. TheGovernment let the lease-, and decidedwhether the lease should be forfeited. Ifthe2 Minister of Mines was never to con-sider these matters, why did not the Actpermit the warden to give a final deci-sionT No ; these matters were submittedto the decision of the Governor-in-Council,and in this case he considered he wouldnot be justified in recommending the Gov-ernor to forfeit the lease. He was quiteprepared to take the responsibility of hisaction, in spite of anything the hon. mnem-ber might say.

Ma.~ LEAKS: Was the lease forfeited?1TimE MINISTER OF MINES: The lease

waa not forfeited. The warden recom-mended that the lease should be forfeited,and the Governor-in-Council decided thatthis should not be done. The hon. mem-ber (Mr. Moran) had spoken as if theHouse knew all about the subject; butthe papers were not here.

Ma. Mo.Asx: When was the recoin-mendation Jto the Governor-in-Counlcilin ada-yesterday?

THE MINISTER OF MINES: tong be-fore he had heard from the lion. memiberon the subject;. and did the fact that thehon. nmembher asked a. question in thisHouse constitute any reason. why proceed-ingsh should be stayedl No. Hfe (theMlinister) had taken action, and wouldabide by it. The lion. ineniber seemedto think it required a ining expert todeal with such mnatters; but 0it only re-quired a man with at certain a-mount ofcommuon-sense an id justice in his composi-ti 1, to decide questions of this sort. Theonly questionuwas, whether the conditionsrequired by the law were being carriedoult.

MR. MonAuii: The, warden was thejudge of that.

Tni MINISTER OF MINES: If thewarden were the judge, why did the lawprovide that he should send the papersto Perth for the decision of the Gover-nor-in-Council It was distinctly theduty of the Minister to look into suchmatters. It was a great pity that peoplewere in the habit of interviewing theMihister when such cases "ire 'beforehim. He would like to see, a law pro-

hibiting anyone- approaching the Minis-ter in the circumstances. The mattershould be. decided on the evidence. Cer-tain persons bad interviewed him, buthis recommendation was made purelyon the evidence, which would be beforethe House. He did nort approve of thebon. mnembers action in practically pro-posing a vote of want of confidence on amnotion to have papers, of a. purely ad-ministrative nature brought before theHouse. If such practices were to be-come common, they would prove very un-desirablet. If the lion, -member hadsimply asked for the papers withoutmaking a long speech, they would havebeen brought down; but he had enteredinto the merits of the case, of which heknew nothing. Had the hon. member acopy of the evidence?

MR. MOANq: Yes&Tnx MINISTER OF MINES: But

the bon. member did not tell us that inhis speech. The evidence, however,would be laid on the table.

MR. MORAN: Why did the Ministerdiffer from the warden 7

THE MINISTER OF MINES: Thefacts before him were quite sufficient tojustify the action he took. The manage-nient were trying to work the lease;- andpeople who lived out of this colony andowned properties in it should be givento understand that their leases would nothe forfeited on purelf technical gropnds,while they were making proper attemptsto work such leases. The Western Aus-tralian sharehdlders, were in the colony,and were able to give evidence; hut theAdelaide shareholders could not giveevidence.

MR. LEAKS:- What were the groundsof forfeitureI

THE MINISTER OF MINES : Non-fulfilnient of labour conditions. Threemnonths' exemption had been granted tothis property. The time had expired,and the management applied for anotherthree mnonths' exemption, which the war-den would not recommend. In the mean-time, lie granted three weekWd protec-tion, pending his recommendation, whichwas sent down to the Minister, to be up-held or not as the case might he. Themanager, in his evidence, stated that hetold certain men to go on the propertyand be in readiness at the end of the

[ASSEMBLY.] Monforfeiture of Leitse.

Kingsley Hall Mine: [81 AuLIGUST, 1898.] Nonfoifeititre of Lease. 1841

three weeks to go to work, if the exemp-tion was not approved of. The Ministerdid not approve of the three months'exemption. As soon as the three weeks'protection had expired, the manager'sevidence showed that he himself wasthere; that on certain days he bad threeplen, on another day two, and on anotherone, and so forth ; that he had a tele-gram from his principals in Adelaide re-initting money to pay for labour, show-ing that they were making a bona fieattempt to work the lease.

MR. LExn Substantial performance.TnsE PRE-VIER: How much had they

spent upon itiTm MINISTER OF MINES: They

were supposed to have spent Z4,500. Hedid not know the owners of the property,and it was not his duty to know them.He would rather not know who theywere. He had )simpily to ninsiderwhether the evidence was sufficient towarrant the forfeiture. The originalshareholders might have been badlytreated, for aught he knew ; but, on theother band, the Adelaide shareholdersmight have considered themselves badlyused. That, however, was not the ques-tion. There was a. bona fie -attempt towork the lease.

Mn. MORAN: ThE warden found it wasnot a bona fide attempt.

Tyr MSTER OF MINES : Thehooks of the company showed thatlabour had been employed as he handstated. Certain men were told to be inreadiness to work, one of whom was other-wise engaged, and could not get away atthe exact time he was required. It wasnot a case for forfeiture. He would nothave said a word on the subject, had itnot been for the long speech of the hon.member. The matter had been dealtwith loinT before any question was askedin the Rouse.

Ma. VOSPER (North-East Coolgar-die) : As member for the district inwhich this mine was situated, though nota. shareholder in the company, he mightstate that he received a letter urgingupon him the sam1e view as was taken bythe member for East Cooleardie (Mr.Moran). He wrote to the Minister ofMines, and in due course an answer wasreturned, which confirmed what theMinister had just stated. He (Mr. Vos-

per) believed the Western Australianshareholders had been hardly dealt with,as far as could be judged; but thatshould not in any way affect the ques-tion of forfeiture, which should be de-cided on the evidence brought before thewarden. The shareholders were evi-dently aggrieved because of some defectin the workiing of the Act; and, if thelion, member (Mr. Moran) adopted somemeans of remedying such defects, hewould have his support, But the ordi-nary course of justice should not be in-terfered with because certain share-holders had been aggrieved. Hre per-fectly agreed with the Minister.

HON. H. W. VENN (Wellington) :Un-less there was some substantial reasonror believing that a great injustice hadbeen done, the House should pause be-fore passing a, motion asking for papersin respect of a matter already dealt withby the Minister. It was questionablewhether the House would not be goingaI little too for by reviewing the verdictgiven upon this question of administra-tion. If the papers were broughlt beforethe House in pursuance of the motion, aresolution might be carried which mightturn out the Government, or which wouldamount to a vote of censure on theMinister.

Mn. GEORGE: If it were deserved, whatwould it mattter?

HoN. H. W. VENN: The Houseshould pause seriously in asking for de-partmental papers of this sort. We shouldnot go into little details and adopt aninquisitorial process. We ought to becontent with the explanation of theMinister.

M. GEORGE (Murray): This Assem-bly consisted of representatives or thepeople, and if any or the people felt them-selves aggrieved by the action of theMinister, they had a right to call forpapers which would set aside any doubtsthat existed upon a question. If the actsof the Minister were clean-and so farthere was nothing to show they were not-why should the production of papersinjure him? If they were not clean, andwould not bear the light of day, membersought to he permitted to have the miner%and examine them. If the papers werelaid upon the table and were examined,we could acquit the Minister, and in do-

1342 Kingsley Hall Mine: [ASSEMBLY.] ofret~r fLae

ing that, we could help him to the estab-lishment of that backbone to which re-ference had been made. Papers shouldbe produced in their entirety, but it hadbeen his experience that papers broughtbefore a Commission had been manipu-lated very grossly.

THE PREMIER: Oh, no.

MR. GEORGE: The Premier knewthat such was the ease Members had theright to ask that papers should be laidon the table in justice to the Ministerand the Government, and the wisestcourse that the Minister could adoptwould be to accede to the wish expressed.

THE) Pntmint: The papers could beproduced.

MR. MORAN (in reply): The Ministerof Mines might have known it was some-thing unusual which led him (Mr. Moran)to take this action; but he was notmoving a vote of censure con the hon.gentleman. The company committedperjury, for they put in a time-book, andthe warden round that it was inadmis-sible, accounts, having been falsified; butthe Minister of Mines received this time-book a correct. Those were the factsof the case; so he (Mr. Moran) was justi-fied in bringing the matter before theHouse. In August, 1896, the mine wasfloated in 100,000 shares of 10s. each,60,000 fully paid up going to the ven-dors as payment in full for the mine. InSeptember, 1897, the company issued abalance-sheet for the year ending 31st,August, 1897, showing £200 cash overand above liabilities in hand, and an un-called capital of £14,750. A call of 3d.per share was made, and realised about£260, and three months' exemptionwas obtained. No balance-sheet badbeen issued since. On 10th Janu-ary, 1898, a. meeting was held inAbdeaide, and a scheme of reconstructionpassed, in which the mine, machinery,mioney, etc., wvere transferred to a newcompany called the "Kingsley Hall Re-ward Gold-mining Company." Holders ofcontributing shares in the old companywere to have the right of taking up thesamne number of shares in the new com-pany on payment of 6d. per share. Allpromotcrs! shatres, which the vendors hadtaken in good faith as payment in fullfor their mine, were cancelled; the said

vendors to have the privilege of applyingfor contributing shares in the new com-pany and to receive one paid-up share forevery two contributing. shares allotted tothem, but subject to the proviso that thepromoters were to be allotted what numbert tic liquidators might deem advisable; andan intimation was given by an official ofthe company that certain West Australianvendors would not be allotted any. WestAkustralian shareholders knew nothing oftho recon struction scheme until three daysbefore the meeting was to be held in Ade-laide. Afterwards a. meeting was held atKalgoorlie, and a. wire was sent to thesecretary of the company asking for parti-culars, which. were refused. A furtherwire sent from a, meeting at which 30,000shares were represented, asking for an ad-journment to allow proxies to get through,was without effect,. This was all put be-fore the Minister of Mines. These matterscame before the warden, who found thatthe company were misrepresenting facts.He found the company were falsify-ing their books, aind that the mine -wasabs-olutely forfeitable on the ground ofnoncompliance writh the labour conditions.The bulk of the shareholders in West Aus-tralia aponinted a man to "jump" themine in their interest, because the labourconditions were not being complied with.The warden recommended forfeiture. Headjourned the claim three weeks for evi-dence to be put in, and at the end of that

Itimre he found that the mine was absolutelyIforfeitable. Acting in his judicial capa-city, the Minister found that the share-holders in this colony, a, large majority ofthe whole company, were absolutely de-

*prived of any interest in the mine b-y themalpractice of the company in Adelaide;yet against the interest of his own fellow-colonists, the Minister said he would givetht-. mine back to persons who -om.

*mitted. perjury and also had notcomplied with the labour conditions.fT was not likely that he SMr.Moran) would bring a. trivial matter for-ward, nor was it likely that he would beput off by any lofty assurances of inde pen-dence by the Minister. He did not carehew it affected the Minister.

THn Ms'Era OF Miyss: There was noobjection on his part to the production oftha- papers&

Nonforfeiture of Lease.

Kingsey Hll Mne. 31 AuotusT, 1898.] Departmental iabiiteies. 1343

Mn. MORAN: The Minister disagreedwit~h the warden in this matter, and peoplewlw. had worked the lease for three yearswero robbed of the fruits of their laboursby his action. He would not have mindedif the warden had not found the mine for-feitable.

THE Pusumit: They had a, way of doingthat.

THE MiNIsTRR OF MINES: The peoplewho found the money wcr0. Adelaidepeople.

MR, MORAN: The original promotersfound the mouey, and worked the minefor three years, and having done so theydid not receive back a penny of the amounto- 'i for the 60,000 shares, but were robbed

of their money. Those who held 40,000in Adelaide robbed the 60,000 out- of allinterest in the mine, and they did notwork it.

THE MrsTsm op MINES: If the Jaw hadbeen brokien, why was not an effort madeto obtain a remedy I

Mn. MORAN: There was no remedyagainst the decision of the Minister. Thismotion was introduced as an'indication ofdisagreement with the Government, andnot as a vote of censure. It was a bigmistake to give the decision until thematter had been gone into. Why was itnot kept in abeyance?

Tan PEIIR: Were they working it?Tan MnuaTRn OF MINES: It was under

forfeiture.MR. MORAN: The Minister had given

it back to the comnnany and the companywere not prepared to work it. It thepapers were laid on the table of the Househa~ would have the pleasure of going intothe subject. He did not intend to let thematter drop, and he camne to such decisionnot only on account of this case, but be-cause what was complained of had gone onfor a long time, companies having been inthe habit of doing it. In this particularcar~e the papers in Perth and on the gold-fields had been full of the subject, the ideaexisting being that people had beenwrongly treated, and that the Minister ofMines, instead of righting them steppedin and disagreed with the warden, takingaway the only opportunity of doing whatwas required.

Question put and passed.

At 6.32 P.M. the SPEAKOR left the chair.

At 7.30 the SPEAKER resumed the chair.

RETURN: PUBLIC DEPAIMENTS, PAR-TIUULAES OF LIABflATIES.

Mn. %VOSPER (North-East Coolgar-die) moved:

That there be laid on the table of the Rousea return, showing the total liabihities of thevarious public departments at the end of thelast financial year, together with particularsof the same.He said this information bad not beenmade up in any document accessible, tomembers, and it was desirable that theinformation should be available, as itwould be useful.

THE PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J. For-rest): This return, so far as it related topublic works, was unnecessary, becauseall the inform ati on which it asked for wasto be found in the annual Estimates,which were now before hon. members.Where there was a liability on any par-ticular public work, it was shown in theEstimates, which set forth the expendi-ture on each item for the past year, theamount proposed for the present year,and the total cost of the work when com-pleted. What more did the hon. memberwant? To prepare this return wouldcause some considerable trouble and ex-pense, and the information was alreadysupplied to members; therefore, unlessSome good object could be shown by thehon. member, he must oppose theMotion. Take, as an example, the ex-penditure on the Perth branch of theRoyal Mint; the amount of the vote lastyear was £915,000, and the amount ex-pended was £20,854 is. 6d. ; showing anestimated liability of £4,950, and thatamount was asked for in the estimatefor this; year's expenditure. The samesyvstem appeared all through the Esti-mates, and hon. members could see,generally, whether a work was finishedor not. In no other Australian colony,and in no part of the British dominions,was so much information given in theannual Estimates, as was supplied inthese Estimates. Hon. members weirein a position to criticise the items, byhaving all this information furnished.Ite hoped, therefore, the motion wouldnot be pressed, as he could not see anypractical necessity for it.

Kingsley Hall Mine.

1844 Departmental Liabilities. [ASSEMBLY.] iki atKmely

MR. WILSON (Canning): The objectof the motion was to obtain a correctstatement of the liability of the Govern-ment at the end of the, financial year.The transactionsa of the Government werecash transactions; and the system ofbook-keeping was not such as wouldenable. members to see the actual finan-cial position at the end of the financialyear. If the information could be ob-tained, it would be most valuable.

THE PRENMRne All the informationasked for in the return was shown in theannual Estimates.

Mn. WTL)SON: But there might beliabilities which had not. come in whenthe accounts at the end of the year weremade up; and, unless these were known,a correct statement of the financial posi-tion could not be. obtained by looking atthe Estimates.

Tan Pwaunma: The hon. membermeant the amiount of accounts which hadnot come in at the end of the financialrear?

Ma. WILSON:- Possibly £2,000 or£3,000 of that liability had been ex-pended since the end of the financialyear.

Tn PREMIER: In other words, thehon. member wanted the, accounts thathad not come in.

Mat WILSON: Yes. Possibly somehad come in since aind not been paid.

Tire PiREMiER: It would he difficult toascertain that, in all cases, because someitems were kept back or were not ad-justed until some time after.

MaR. WILSON: Yes; such as the reten-tion money on contracts, some 10 percent. Still the work had been done, andthe expenditure was incurred during theyear. Every private firm, in balancingits hooks, tooik into consideration everypenny it owed up to date.

Tym rREMIIER:- So did the Government.Ma. WILSON: The right hon. gentle-

man did not understand the argument.According to the Financial Statement,there was a deficit of £186,808 l8s. 3d. ;whereas if all liabilities incurred up tothe end of June had been liouidated, thedeficit might possibly he £300.000.

THE Pasmin: There were, lots of ac-counts due to the Government, whichwere not included in the statement.

MLIR WILSON: Qute so. The prin-ciple applied on both sides of theledger.

Ma1. GEORGE: What was wanted wasthe same system as was carried out by,bon. members in their private business.

Tan PREMER: It was useless to com-pare a private business with the busi-ness of the nation.

Question put and passed.

MOTION: TICK IN EAST KYMIERLEY.QUARANTINE AND INOCULATION.

Mit. HIGEIAM (Fremantle) moved:(1) That as it appears inevitable that tick will

sooner or later reach the various districts ofthis colony, provision should be at once madefor the inoculation of cattle. (2) That in viewof the urgent necessity for an increased supplyof beef for our southen markets, cattle should

he permitted to he brought from WynMdham toFreman tle and there held for slaughter withinaL rigidly quarantined area ; and to render thisscheme complete, an ithattoir, with chillingcompartments attached, should he at once pro-ridid. (3) Pending the erection of abattonirsand chilling chambers, cattle, after thoroughinsuection and on being certified as clean hya stock inspector, be permitted to leave thequarantine area for immediate truckage to theeastern goldfields.He said: In common, I hope, with everyother member of this House, the subjetof the motion of which I gave notice hasengraged my most earnest considerationsince last year. when I felt it m~y duty,on receipt of the report that the EastKimberley district was infested with tick,to join with other members in quan-tining that district. I have watched thesubject carefully from that period to thepiresent day. and it was my privilege tosit on the Select Committee that has£rone very carefully into the matter, andthe report of which is now before us, to---ether with the evidence taken thereon.On careful contideration, I am forced tothe conclusion that this motion is p~er-fectly justifiabl. and I hone hon. mem-bors will carefully consider the reportand the evidence, and will be preparedto do Justice to the two interests whichI admit are in conflict on this question.On the other hand, we had the premiercattl-breedincr district of the colonyquarantined and closed, so far a thesouthern portion of the country is con-cerned. I am prepared to admit thatthe action I advocate may involve some

Tick in East Kimberley.

Tick in East Kimaberley: [31 AuGusT, 1898.] Inoculation and Release. 1345

risk to the comparatively small numberof cattle now in the southern districts,but at, the same time I also maintainthat the risk is much less serious thanwould the opening to the colony ofthis source of meat supply be benefi-cial. On the evidence submitted to us,I think it, must be granted that not onlyis East Kimberley infested with tick, butthat the greater portion of West Kimber-ley will soon keep it company, and thatultimately the whole of the Kimber-leydistrict will be as seriously infested asthe eastern portion is now. Ample evi-dence of that can be found by everyonewho cares to peruse the report. Weknow how tick has travelled throughQueensland. We have had the evndenceof M.%r. Pound and others, that tick hastravelled for a distance of over 500 mileswithin a. period of one year, We havealso evidence that, notwithstanding thefact that an infested district may bestrictly quarantined, tick will graduallybecome dissemninated throughout thesurroundingr districts by means of birdsand reptiles. Looking at the action ofthe other colonies, I think it must beadmitted that the very stringent attitudeadopted by New South Wales is to someextent prompted by sell-interest; thatto at very great extent that colony has,exaggecrated the gravity of the position;and Queensland, in order to keep open amanrket for a portion of her stock, hasbeen compelled to yield and fall into linewith the action of New South Wales.Mr. Hancock in. his report points to thisfact, and distinctly says that Queenslandhad to form this quarantine line for thatreason; because, had they not done so,the southern and central districts ofQueensland would have been shut outfrom the New South Wales market, andwould thus have lost one of their bestcustomers. By our present policy we areatlso closing our doors to another pos-sible source of supply, the northern ter-ritory of South Australia, where there isa, large number of stock running on goodptisture. If the tmotion is carried,such stock will he admitted; a certainAmrount of revenue by way of importduty will accrue to the colony, and theimports will go a. long way, togetherwith the Kimberley districts, to meetthe demands of our present market. The

stock in the north-west and Kimberleydistrict comprises nearly 65 per cent. ofthe total stock of the colony; and we arebound to admit that those outside, butcontiguous. to the quarantine area, willsoon. become infected.

MRt. MUI-HLL.: How do we know that?There is a range of mountains betweenthe two to keep the cattle back.

HR. HIGHtJM: Yes; but they will fiotkeep the tick back. Taking the 1886figures, there are in the Kimbherleydistrict 130,000 cattle as against 69,000in what may be called the central dis-tricts, including the Victoria, the Mur-chison. and the Yalgoo districts. Weknow too that South Australia, is gradu-ally breaking the quarantine line, so asito admit infected stock to districts wherethe conditions are not favourable, to thepropagation of the pest. But it must be

:tiitdthat the tick will certainlyspread, and that, sooner or later, theprognostication that tick will reach fromthe Gulf of Carp entaria to Bas's Straitswill be verified. There is one bird alonewhich is reputed to be a. fertile means ofcarrying tick all over the. colonies-thestraw-necked ibis;- and I have it on theauthority of Mr. Pound that this birdhas been known to carry tick from onedistrict to another. I take it that thefirsft paragraph of my motion will begenerally accepted by the House. It can-not be denied tha~t, as it appears inevit-able that the tick will sooner or laterreach the various divisions of this colony,provision should be made at once for theinoculation of all cattle. There is notmuch room for contention there, thoughpossibly the member for West Kimber-Icy (Mr. A. Forrest) may dispute thefact that it is inevitable. There will beno desire to render it compulsory thatpeople should inoculate their cattle. Ifthbey do not in their own interests chooseto protect their property, then they muttake the risk of neglecting to do so, and.as a matter of fact, they will he the onlyneople injured by their neglect, and thefact of their cattle dying with tickwill simply mean that these cattle willceatse to be agents for the pronaeation ofthe disease among, those of their neigh-bours. I will now proceed to a moreimportant item in my mnotion-thesecond paragraph -

1346 Tick ini Bast Kimnberley: [ASSEMBLY.] IocionadRlae

That, in view of the urgent necessity for anincreased supply of beef f or our southern mar-kets, cattle should be permitted to be broughtfrom Wyndhamn to Fremantle, and there heldfor slaughter within a rigidly quarantined area;and to render this Scheme complete, an abattoir,with chilling compartments attached, shouldbe at once provided.I think this is perfectly justified by thepresent position of the meat market, andI hope hon. members will consider it in allitsi bearings. Rememnbering that here wehave a very large population depending onthese cattle, or upon imported cattle, fortheir meat supply , and that this item ofmeat is comparatively the moat expensiveitem of their food, until some such nee,sure as this is passed, the conditions whichobtain now in the meat market must con-tinue. I take it, if this motion is passed,the cattle will be brought down from Cock-burn Sound to somewhere near Woodman'sPoint. It has been suggested that cattleshould be slung ashore from the vessel,and conducted straight into the quaran-tia~e reserve, with the additional precau-tion that there should be a neutral zoneoutside to prevent any possibility of con-tagion. This round would be cleared ofal growth of every kind, and if these con-ditions are complied with, there is not therlightest possibility of the mirend of tickfrom this area. The cattle would bestored until killed, and on being killedwould be distributed in the storagevans of the railway, to, the different townswithin a reasonable distance. So far asthe shipping phase of the question is con-cerned, there is a place where the steamerscans go close to the shore, and the, Govern-inent have ground on which they couldarrange quarantine yards, and erect neces-sawy buildings, If an additional safeguardbe thought necessary, cattle on beinglanded could immediately go through adip which would render them absolutelysafe. But I take it these cattle wouldbe brought down for slaughtering, andthere is very little fear many tickswould be brought down that way. Thecoi-ditions of the yard would be such thattick would not propagate, even grantingova. might be deposited there. As to thethird paragraph of the motion, everyonewh', has goneL through the evidence givenbefore the Tick Committee knows that thepractice suggested obtains in America,'fi,, cattle are brought to the yard fromn

what is known as the "Salmon line," orquarantine line, and from Chicago to theexport ports.

MR. ILLINowoirT: There are bettermeans of transport in America.

AIn. HI1GRA.M: There is no reasonwhy our trucks should not be fitted in asitrilar way to, those in America.

MR. ILLINOWOETH: Other cattle wouldbe put into the trucks.

AIR. HIGHAM: But the trucks could bed isinfeoted before other cattle were put in.

MRf. MfITCELL: According to thu evi-dence given before the Committee, dip-ping does not do any good.

MR. HIGHAM: No doubt dipping doesniio kill every tick, but the practice Ihave mentioned is carried out largely inAn: -erica, and I do not see why it couldmt,& be cardied out here. I 'would like toread one or two, paragraphs bearing onthe subject from the Year Book' of theDt-partment of Agriculture of the UnitedStates for the year 1897. In that weread:-

Another danger threatened the cattle industryin connection, with this disease. Our exporttrade in live cattle, which was giving an im-portant outlet for our surplus stock, was lookedupon by foraeg Governments with suspicion.It was feared that Texas fever might be intro-duced among the cattle of Europe end addedto the numerous plagues that they lied strug-gled with from time immemorial. The limita-tion to the spread of the disease, due to thefailure of the sick animals to transmit theinfection, and the eradication of the disease innewly infected districts by the frosts of winter,were characteristics so unusual that they wereriot accepted as correct. As a great cattle-piodi cing nation, we could not affoard to allowthe foreign markets to he closed against us.The Texas-fever question was, consequently,one of the most momentous ones which con-fronted the bureau at the time of its organisa-tiers.Further oa we read:.

The scientific study of the disease had notbeen neglected, and it was found that the in-fectious cattle could be shipped to marketwithout endangering other animals, providedseparate pens were set apart for zhemn at thestock-yards were they were unloaded, and pro-vided the cars in which they were shippedwere properly cleaned and disinfected. Thesettling of the Western States and the con-struction of railroads led to the marketing ofcattle from the infected districts without muchdriving, end the trail was gradually abandonedexcept during the winter months. The regu-lations of the bureaus hastened this solutionof she diffictiltv. The border line of the in-fected district was made a quarantine line. No

Inoculation and Release.

Tick in East Kimberley: [31 AUGUST, 1898.] Inoculation and Release. 1347

cattle were permitted to cross this line betweenFebruary 12 and November 15, except for im-mediate slaughter. The cars carrying suchcattle ad the waybills accompanying themwere marked to show the origin of the stock,and when the destination weas reached theanimals were unloaded into quarantine pansand the cars were disinfected under the super-vision of an inspector. From November 15 toFebruary 15 (chianged to January nl for 1898),cattle were allowed to be shipped or drivenwithout restriction. Bly these comparativelysimple measures the dissemination of the diseasewas almost entirely prevented, and the cars andstock-yards used for northern and export cattlewere kept free from the contagion.Cattle from infested areas are allowed,under conditions similar to those sug-gested in the motion, to go into the Eng-lish market. I am sorry the newspaperarticle from which I got my information,is not available at present; but it is notlong since I read an account of theabattoirs on the wharves on the Mersey,where Argentine and even United Statescattle are brought in for the, use of thepublic. These cattle walk straight fromth., wharf into the byres, and are thereimmediately slaughtered and sent intoconsumption, care being taken to disin-fect the hides, and so on. If this is done inEngland, I see no reason why it cannothe done here. A great deal more hasbeen made of the tick trouble in EastKim berley than circumstances warrant.We admit that tick to a certain extenth-is been there, but it is a very peculiarthing that the serious outbreak we wereafraid of a few weeks ago Simply amnountsto the fact that at the present momenteven our own stock inspector-who hasbeen praisred, on the one hand, for his out-spoken reports, and blamwed on the otherfor magnifying the danger of the disease-is compelled to send to his chief a tele-gram which I shall shortly read. In-spector Stevens. was expected to find abeast recovered from a serious attack, soais to obtain material for carrying out ex-perimental tests. in inoculation. Thetelegram I have referred to reads:-

Up to date have not succeeded in getting afit subject for blood to inoculate. Most of thecattle in padilock reserve had fever, and wererecovering before I could possibly arrange forsteers for Carlton. Since that only a fewhave had fever in a sub-acute stage. I doubtat present if it will be possible to get ananimal fit for our purpose. The fever seemsto have run its course here ina from thre~e tofour weeks. Those that had it are improving.

Have travelled over 450 miles looking for fitsubject. Still camped here. Think it advis-able to try blood from recovered animal. Ityou approve uf this, please wire.Tn which (lie Stock Inspector replied atsfollows: -

No use inoculating steers unless you can ob-taini blood of beast recovered from acute attack.If this possible, inoculate, but no necessity toapply' camphor to blood in such case.There is one phase of the question -towhich I would like to, draw attention. _N odoubt tick has developed in seven oreight localities in the colony, It is be-yond doubt that we have had tick in Fre-mantle; at the old anchorage at Wood-man's Point and at flavilak's paddock.Tick-infested cattle have also been foundat Hameraley's paddock in the ouaran-tine paddock at C-eraldton, and also inCoolgardie. Notwithstanding the recentgreat efforts made to discover signs ofticks or their progeny, nothing has beenfound. It must, therefore, be fairly evi-dent that the conditions of our climate,or herbage, are not suitable for the pro-pagation of tick. So far as the easte-ngoldfields are concerned, I granit that tickcould be carried there in the quarantinecars; but the vegetation there and theclimate are altogether adverse to the pro-pagation of the pest. We miust come tothe conclusion, therefore, in the true in-terests of the large numnher of consumers,as compared with the small number ofcattle owners in the southern districtslikely to be affected, that the cheapeningof meat overrides in importance anyf con-siderations. so- far as the stock owner isconcerned. T do not like to take anyaction to injure any portion of the comn-nmunity, even in the slightest degree, butmy duty here is to show that the interestsof one portion of the community are over-whelming, as compared with the interestsof another. In accepting the motion,members would he doing the conmmnitya real and flating good. 'The evidencebefore us proves, that inoculation is effi-catious, and that the risks when theoperation is properly carried out-andthere is. no reason why it should not beproperly carried out-are nractically nil.in the early sta~res, when the subject wasnot quite, as well understood as now,the losses from inoculation did notamount to more tharn five or sixper cent., and norw large herds am

1348 Tick in Bast Kimberley: [ASSEMBLY] Inoculation and Release.

inoculated without any loss at all.There is one instance, in the evidencebefore us, where 4,000 head of cattle wereinoculated with the blood from four in-fected bullocks, without a single loss;and I take it that our southern stock-owners and the owners of all the cattlethroughout the colony, would be studyingtheir own interests by availing them-selves of inoculation at the earliestmoment. Once inoculation is introduced,it is simple enough to be carried on. Ihope that all1 hon. members, whether in-terested in stock or not, will go into thisquestion, and consider it in all its bear-inigs, and consider what would be .est toadopt in the interests of the country;and I amn sure that they will come to thesaute conclusion that I have.

MR. KINOSMILL: I second the motion.HoyN. H. W. VENN (Wellington): I

rise to say a little on the subject, havingbeen, in common with the hon. memberwho moved this motion, one of the mem-bers of the Select Committee; and I mustexpress my surprise that any hon. mem-ber, being a member of that Committee,should be the father of this motion. Icannot imagine anyone whose mind isopen, after reading the evidence as it isbefore us--evidence which has come fromAmerica and from Queensland, and evi-dence by the expert here-being thefather of this motion. It seems to meastonishing. The hon. member must havedrawn contrary conclusions to thosewhich were drawn by the other membersof the Committee. The hon. member hasnot entered into this question with thatspirit of conscious faith in the subjectthat one might have expected on so im-portant a matter as this. If he had doneso he would have carried more convictionto the minds of hon. members than hehas done. I was prepared to hear thehon. gentleman speak much stronger thanhe did, and he has not dealt with thetick question in that exhaustive mannerin which I thought he would have dealtwith it, although I think the evidencebefore the House, taken before the SelectCommittee, is sufficient in itself to conveyto every member of the House a conclu-sion which they may fairly arrive at with-out any long speech from any hon.member. The evidence is before us forthose who wish to read it, and upon which

members can form their own conclusions-I desire, to say a, few words in regard tothie condition of the tick fever of America.the pest in Queensland, and the remarksof the hon. member for Fremantle. Thehon. member says that as it appears in-evitable that tick will sooner or laterreach the various divisions of this colony,provision should be made at once for theinoculation of all cattle. We have it inevidence from Mr. ,Hancock and fromAmerica, and fromt Tifr. Pound, that theybelieve in the course of time the tick willpermeate over the whole of Australia.But the conditions on which they basetheir conclusions were not the conditionsprevailing in Kimberley. The countryfrom the northern portion of Queenslandto the Northern Territory of South Aus-tralia is uninterrupted, without a naturalboundary of any kind from Port Darwinto Brisbane. I know the country-I havepassed over a portion of it-and I saythat it is almost uninterrupted country,with no impassable barrier. The sameremark would apply to America; and thisdisease has been known in America for120 years. Its first appearance has beentraced hack as far as that. and thecountry the tick have gone through inAmerica very much resembles the countryfrom the northern portion of Queenslandto the northern portion of South Aus-tralia. There is the same uninterruptedstretch of country. The condition ofWestern Australia. in the Kimberley dis-trict is different. We have an almost im-passable barrier, a range of huts abso-lutely untenanted by, anyone exceptnatives, and very few of them. The Pre-mier has told us that there is a naturalbarrier that absolutely prevents the inter-course of stock between Eav~t and WestKimberley. We shall be told that thereis a road from Hall's Creek; but, lookingat the settlement as it stands, and look-ing at the map, it will be seen that thepresent line of settlement in East andWest Kimberley is very meagre, and hon.members will be forced to the conclusion,if they have open minds, that in the Kim-berley country cattle can be quarantinedmost effectually. It is said that the mar-supials and the birds carry" the diseaseabout. Of course they cannot be quaran-tined. That is a condition which wecannot help, but it is a. remote con-

Tickin astKitberey: [31 AvuGST, 1898.] Inoculation and Releaae. 1349

tingency. The only thing we can do is tohave a rigid quarantine, and the Govern-ment have kept very rigidly to the quaran-tine, which has had the effect of keepingback the disease, which is very much tobe dreaded. When a. comparison is madebetween the spread of the disease on thecoast of Queensland and the spread of thedisease in our country, a comparison ismade which is not fair, because the con-ditions are not the same ; and with theconditions existing in East Kimberleyand the southern portions of the colonyit is possible to arrest the spread of thedisease, if not for ever, certainly for agood number of years. We have verystrong evidence from Mr. Hancock him-self.

MR. ILLIINOWORTH: Have we not tickfever now?

HoN. H. W. VENN: We have tick, butnot the tick wvhich spreads Texas fever.

Ma. ILLINGwoaTu: Have we not tickin several places down here already?

HoyN. H. W. VENN; Such evidencewas not before the Committee, and theCommittee must be credited with havingexhausted the whole of the informationon the subject. The Committee obtainedevidence from every imaginable quarter,and therefore, if the lion, member saysthat we have tick fever in different partsof the colony, I say that evidence did notcome before tue Committee.

MR. ILLI ZwoRTH: I am asking forinformation; I did not state it.

HoN. H. W. VENN: The hon. mem-ber was speaking about fever. I willdeal with the question of ticks having-been found in different parts of thecolony directly. I agree with the hon.member for Fremnantle (Mr. Higham) sofar as to say that provision should bemade at once for the inoculation of allcattle. The members of the Committeewere absolutely unanimous in the ideathat the whole of the cattle in the south-ern portion of the colony-in fact, overthe whole of the colony-should be in-oculated.

MR. ILuiNoworrE: What for?HON. H. W. VENN: As a preventa-

tive. We inoculate against small-pox.MR. ILLzw~woRTH: You are afraid of

its spreading.HON. H. W. VENN: No; but because

of the immunity it gives against the

disease. We should inoculate ourcattle now for immunity from thedisease. We believe that in the courseof time the disease may come, but I con-tend the natural barrier between Eastand West Kimberley will prevent itspreading for a long period. At thesame time I, in common with other mem-bers, do strongly recommend the inocula-tion of cattle. Before I have done I shallmove an amendment to the motion, whichI shall endeavour to get members tosupport. The second part of th motionmoved by the hon. member for Freman-tle says that in view of the urgent neces-sity for an increased supply of beef forour southern markets, cattle should bepermitted to come from Wyndhiam toFremantle, there to be held for slaughterwithin a rigidly quarantined area, and torender this scheme complete, an abattoirwith chilling works attached should beat once provided. A very good recoi-mendation indeed, as far as it goes; butwe have had one hon. member who hasgreat knowledge of the subject telling usthat animals waste to the amouut offrom iQO1bs. to lb0lbs. in coming fromWyndham to Fremantle. If it is desir-able that the Government should buildchilling works and abattoirs anywhere,surely those abattoirs should be built atthe place whence these animals come,and not at the other end. You are goingout of your way altogether to bring tickdown among the cattle. If it would bewell, and no doubt it would, to increasethe meat supply to the people of thecolony, the proper thing is to minimisethe risk of tick as far as possible. bykeeping the cattle where they are andkilling and chilling them there. I havebeen told that cattle can be killed andbrought from Queensland and sold at arate which would almost. wipe out allour squatters. I have no doubt that isso, but we possess territory equally asgood as any in Queensland, if not better,and we have cattle as good too; and see-ing, moreover, that there would be achance of drawing supplies from Queens-land and the Northern Territory, it wouldbe far wiser to have abattoirs and chill-ing works there than to bring animalshere for the very purpose of introducingthe tick with them. The cost of build-

2Vck in Eaet Kimberley;

1350 Tick in Eat Kimberley. [ASSEMBDLY.] ncd~inzadRlae

ing abattoirs at Wyndham is a verysmall matter.

A. Mzsaa: What would it belHON. H. W. VENN: I cannot say.

We have had many figures on the sub-ject; one amount mentioned by somepeople being £10,000. Members assertthat it will be £60,000, but I do not be-lieve that, and I have bad some evidenceon this matter, because I foresaw thatit would he inevitaible in the Derbydistrict that we must have chilling andfreezing works to deal with the stock upthere. I feel satisfied the cost of chill-ing works will not enter into anythinglike such large figures as some havestated, my opinion being that from£10,000 to £15,000 will absolutelycomplete all the works necessary.

Mna. Guoo: You could not get theplant.

lion. H. W. VENNJ: Probably not, butI have allowed a large margin. There isevidence that £10,000 would be sufficient,but I put the sum at £15,000, and surely£15,000, considering not only what weshould get frwip Kimberley, but from theNorthern Territory, need not stick in ourgills. I cannot see why those memberswho are objecting to it should do so ifthey desire that chilling works and abat-toirs should be provided at Fremantle.We come to paragraph 3, which s~ys:"Pending the erection of abattoirs andchilling chambers, cattle, after thoroughinspection and on being certified am cleanby a stock inspector, be permitted toleave the quarantine area. for immediatetruckage to the eastern goldields." Ithink there can hardly be two opinionson that point. To truck these animalsall over the colonies in the face of theeviderice we have of the ravages andmortality created among cattle by ticksin other parts of the world, would seemto be tempting Providence to put themthere, and have a sort of tick farm allalong the route.

Tnm PUnIeR: We do not see verymany cattle on the roads

RON. H. W. VENN:- No. The righthon. gentleman knows there is no cer-tainty with regard to the life of the tick.Ticks may remain inactive for a periodof one or two years. We cannot tell,but we have evidence that where the tickfirst puts in its appearance, nothing is

beard of it for one or two years, and theall at once, there is a virulent outbreal-We do not know where it goes in twyears. We know that the tick is ver'much hardier than the camel. It seemto remain in a sort of waiting positio!until it gets hold of some animal, an,then it commencer. to, breed. We hayevidence to show that a tick might diin three months, or it might be a, longeperiod, but we do not know how man;might put in an appearance in one otwo years.

Trm Pmnir: What about the Unite'States?

Ho-s. H. W. VENN:- They have rigilquarantine.

The PnvnnR: They take tbemi abouby train.

HON. H. W. VENN: After passin;through a certain rigid quarantine regulation, and after also vaasing through a, rigiiwinter enough to freeze them out; b uwe have no chance of freezing then, oilhere. Reference was miade to Englandbut the tick had to pass through a rigorous win-ter in America before they got t,England.

KR. HwGHAM: T did not ay that.HON. H. W. VENN: I repeat that the:

piass through the winter. Whether th,House accepts the amendment I shalmove or not, I feel satisfied that members would not at any rate deliberateljpass paragraph No. 3, which suggests thaianimals should be trucked from one exitof our colony to fife other. r, in commorwith every member of this House, haxithe greatest possible sympathy with thileaseholders in Ebe Kimberley districtand desire to help them. We cannot atauncidly and see these leaseholders, who, hav(borne the heat of the day here for yearand years, quietly ruined; but we musido something for them. And when Ispeak strongly with regard to tick, it isnot from any hostility towards thossgentlemen who are interested, but fi-ojhostility towards the tick itself. Whikon the one hand we do not wish the tickito spread among the clea~n flocks in thesoulthern districts, we desire to do all wecan to assist pastoralista in a proper way,which I take it is defined in the amend-w~ent I shell move direofly. Our desire is

to help them all that we can. We are aware,or at any rate I am, that the country

InocuWion and Reteme.

Tick in East Kimberley: [31 AUGUST, 1898.] Inoculation and Release. 1351

ou the Ord River cannot be excelled inany portion of Queensland. With theterritory 'ye have, it would be badpvltcy for us to ignore the capabili'ics ofthat district; and with regard to food sup-plies, it is our aim, ambition, and desireto produce our own. We desire to helpto build up the colony in which we live,and not favour outside countries. Indealing with the tariff last night, we de-cided to introduce cattle with a duty of15s. per head, and frozen meat with aduty of id. per lb. We have no wish tofreeze out the pastoralists of this country,1!cr have we any desire in regard toquarantine regulations to bring ruin tt.tbe leaseholders in the East KimberLydistrict. We desire to assist thenm inevery way, and the axnendarents Ibring forward are prompted by anhenuest desire that we should move in .heright direction. The hon. member inmoving the motion before the Houbesaid, in a light and airy way, that theremight be a few ticks. To speak of a fewticks is like a main talking about a fewsmall-pox. He said thh.1 a few ticks maydrop on the way to Owen's Anchorage orSomewhere. When it is known that onetick will breed 2,000 in 21 or 22 days, itis treating the matter altogether toolightly to talk about a, few ticks, It isalso said that the conditions are notfavourable for the propagation of tick.W~hat conditions are favourable?

A MEMB3ER: Malarial country.lBs. H. W. VENN: Malarial grand-

mother! They wvill thrive anywhere- in acemparatively humid climate which isnot too cold, and to my mind wye have :,Ithe conditions in West Australia. for thepropagation of tick.

MR. Mo~si: We have not the cattle.HoN. H. W. VENN: We have south of

the Kimberleys, at any rate; but whetherwe have a great number of cattle or not, 1do not see the necessity on the part ofleg~islators or anyone else to introducedisease among healthy animals. Thbe

Stock owners in the southern portion ofWestern Australia will not thank the hors.member for thinking that the food supplyA (., temporary relief is going to overridethe importance of the question of introduc-i ng tick that will last in the colony for alltime, and probably create no end of loss to

stockowners in country that is at presentfree from disease. I cannot understandthe hon. member speaking in that lightmnanner, and saying the benefit to be de-rived from his motion would counter-balance the fact that the tick would beintroduced all over the southern portionof this colony. I find the hon. membertripping in his own argument, for he firsttold us the tick would inevitably spreadall over the colony; that place or dis-tance had nothing to do with it; thatvarious animals, such a~s marsupials andth2 straw-necked crane, would carry itabout; and that it would spread on itsown account, no matter what precautionswere taken. But, in advocating thequarantining at Frenmantle of cattle frominfested districts, the hon. member toldus there wa~s not much chance of the dis-ease spreading from there. He tells us,in the first place, that it is bound tospread over an immense area; and, in theSame breath, he says, if you bring itright down to your own home, as it were,and take it in railway trucks throughoutthe country, there is no danger of . itsspreading. Now, if you wvant a diseasevery much, you have only to cultivate it,and then you will get it; and the how.member's argument is therefore abso-lutely "Tong. I think we had betterkeep) this little animal as far off as Nepossibly can. The hon. member says tickswere here before, and certainly we havehad some sort of evidence to that effect-not much evidence, but hearsay evidence.We have seen them in bottles, but we didnot know where they came from. Wehave evidence they 'were at Owen'sAnchorage ; but with regard to the state-ment that they were found in somebody'spaddocks at flong~ra, at Northam, andelsewhere, we have no direct evidence tosupport it. No witnesses have come for-ward to say they have seen the tick there,and we have only the indirect evidencethat the tick-infested cattle were dis-tributed in those neighbourhoods, fromwhich it is presumed tha~t the tick wereintroduced. But, even allowing they havebeen seen there, it is a notorious fact thatthis little insect can lie, in statu quo-ina quiescent state-for a period of one ortwo years before it becomes vigorous.

MaI. GEORGED: There were some in thePremier's carpet-bag.

1852 Tick in East Kimberley: [ASSEMBLY.) Inoculation and Release.

HosN. H. W. VEINN: Yes; I saw somemyself in a box that camne out of the Pre-ziier's bag. I do not know whether thebag will suffer from it, whether it willhave an attack of tick fever. But thepoint is that those little animals were thetrue tick. We know that the true tickhas been found on the cattle in the Kim-berley, and the hon. member gives, as,one reason w-by there is not much to fear,the fact that the last telegrams from theinspector there stated that he had to goso many miles before he could find a beastthat had recovered from the fever in itsacute stage. But it is just possible alldied, or that all those which had the feververy badly died.

MRs. EUHm No; the cattle are therestill.

Hos. H. WV. VENIN: I do not knowwhether every facility was given in theKiimberley district to the inspectors ofstock in this matter but whether that"'as done or not is beside the question.Ibelieve the gentlemen interested in thisbusiness are as sincere as we are in theirdesire not to injure this colony by spread-ing the disease; and if we can, in their in-terests, formulate some scheme for givingthen, relief, they, will join with us heartilyin supporting that scheme. The merefact of not being able at this stage to finda recovered beast-a, well-authenticatedcase-for the purpose of obtaining bloodfor inoculation, has not much to do withthe question, because the evidence showsthat considerable numbers of cattle havedied from the tick fever; and they would,in all probability, have died in stillgreater numbers had they been movedabout and driven, instead of being kindlytreated. As we know, if animals are totdisturbed very much, it is just possiblethey may recover; and we know that inmany instances they do, recover. I nowufove, as an amendment to the motion,that all the words after "that," in the firstline, be struck out, with a view to insert-ing the following paragraps:-

(1) That, in the opinion of this House, theGovernment, through the stock department,should take such stops as to secure or enforcethe inoculation of all cattle throughout thecolony which may produce immunity from thefatal effects of tick fever, in cases of the tickpest reach~ing the districts of the colony otherthem the East Kimberley, the only district atpresent infected by tick.

That is an amendment, I think, any mem-ber can agree with. It enforces the inocu-lation of cattle throughout the colony.and I think that is a very desirable pro-vision, to which there can be no objec-tion. The next paragraph of my amend-ment is: -

(2) rulat, in order to prevent the spread ofthe dreaded tick insect, and thereby causingimmense loss to new and clean herds through-out the colony, this House is of opinion thatthe present quarantine regulations app lying tothe East Kimiberley district be rigidly adheredto.Air. Hancock, in his evidence, said die.tinctly that he could not recommend thebringing down of stock to the southernparts of the colony from the infected dis-tricts. If there is anything in that evi-dence, the second paragraph of myamendment should commend itself to theHouse, for the expert upon whom we relyso much was absooIuely and distinctlyadverse to any relaxation of the embargoupon the importation of such stoc-, andsaid that, in his opinion, it would be Ilsestarting a tick-farm right in our midst. Ithink my first and second propositions caneasily be piased by the House.Finally, I propose, as the third pars'-graph:-

(3) That this House is therefore of opinion,to meet the necessities of the East Kimberleyleaseholders, who sustain serious loss by reasonof the same quarantine, and in order to msa-terially increase the meat supply of the colony,that the Government should take immediatesteps to secure, the erection of freezing orchilling works at Wyndham, which would Dotexceed the cost of £15,000.

Mat GRunGE@: Where ii the money Iccome fromi We are hard up now.

HON. H. W. VEINN: It does not mat-ter whether we are hard up or not; wewill have to find money for this purpose.It would be far better, instead of spend-the money in erecting freezing works atFremantle, as proposed in the motion, tospend it at Wyndham, where the ani-mals are fresh and in a healthy condi-tion, rather than bring them down withthe tick on them to spread the diseasein these southern districts. I have. notthe slightest doubt it is as easy to bringthe stock from Wyndham to Fremantleas it is to bring it from Queensland toFremantle. Surely if it is possible forthe Queensland people to ship theircattle some thousands of mites, we can get

Tick in Eas1 Kimberley: - [31 AUGUST, 1898.] Inoculation and Release. 1858

vessels to bring them from Wyndham toour local port. By passing my amend-ment we will be opening a larger marketfor ourselves than we at present enjoy.We could import cattle from Nor-themn Queensland, and from the northernportion of South Australia; and, if thereis a really honest and straight desire toreduce the price of meat in this colony,there must also be a, desire to establishchilling works in that district fromwhence our supply is derived. I submitthat the hon, member who moved theoriginal motion can very fairly supportthe amendments I am now proposing, inpreference to his own. They will havethe same effect as his proposals, but itwill be brought about by a bettermethod. They provide that the Govern-ment shall enforce inoculation, and thatthe Government shall erect freezingworks, not at Fremantle, but at the otherend-the port of shipment. The onlyquestion is, whether they shall be erectedat Fremantle or at Wyndham, and I donot think it requires many words fromme to show the advantage of killing andchilling, the meat at the source of supply.That is a. much cheaper plan than bring-ing the animals down here with the pos-sibility, and a very great probability, ofspreading the tick disease throughoutthe colony, flow appalling would he theresult if these ticks were, to. spread fromEast Kimberley throughout the Aahbur-ton, the DeGrey, and other portions ofthe colony from whence a large supply ofmeat now comes. We would not be ableto get any animals down at all, unless wewent in for inoculation in a wholesalemanner. And what. possible objectioncould there be to havinii chilling worksat the source of supply rather than atFremantle, where the animals would ar-rive in a weak and exhausted conditionfrom their journey? With regard ton)aragraph 2 of the, amendment, I pr'--pose that the quarantine regulations ap-plying to the East Kimberley district beadhered to long enough to enable theGovernment to erect chilling works. Id o not suppose that would take more thana few months. After their erection, theloss now sustained by the leaseholderswould probably, cease. I commendthese amendments to the House. Icould 9peflk very strongly nu this ques-

tion, and could, if necessary, give thewhole history of the, tick from my ownreading. I -am pretty well posted up onthe subject, and I do not think Ihave made a statement to-night that isopposed to the evidence we have taken,or to the authorities I have read on thissubject. Our great object should be tokeep this pest away from us as long aswe can.

Ma. MORAN (East Coolgsrdie): Themember for Wellington (Hon. H. W. Venn)does not often make an effort so sus-tained or so enthusiastic as he has madeon the tick question this evening. But Ipropose to take the report of the SelectCommittee on this question as my guide.Expert evidence has been obtained fromexperts& in Queensland, and from authorit aE-t ive l iterature from all parts of the world.The Committee bring in certain findings,one of which is, "'That, so far, humanagency has been powerless to either ex-tcrliinato or to prevent the spread of thisparasite." That is paragraph 2 of thereport; and paragreob 3 reads: "Thatthose best qualified to judge state, tatvigourous quarantine laws will doubtlessmaterially check the spread of the. disease,although they will not prevent itreacingall parts of Australia." I p~resume theh on.member for Wellington does not differfrom that finding.

Hlox. H. W. Vzxy-,q: No.Mn. MORAN: I ami glad the hon. mem-

ber admits the fact. Then he admits thattick will get amongst his own cattle, andthe cattle of his constituents?

Hox\. H. W. VEvN: I think the wordought to, be "~may."~

MR. MORAN: I am~ dealing with thereport of the Select Committee. I noticethe hon. member uses the word "may" inhis amendment ; but the Cominittee, whogive their finding according to the evi-dence, use the word "will." What isthere,prevent thle membkr for Wellington, 4r

the few people in his neighbourhood whoown cattle, from inoculating their stockat oncel The evidence as to inoculation,referred to in paragraph 10 of the SelectCommittees report, is just as definite asart- paragraphs 2 and 3. Paragraph i1)reads: " Experiments in, Queenslandhave conclusively proved that inocu-lation with blood from a. beastrecovered front the acute form of

1354 ick in Bast Kimberley: [ASSEMBLY.] IouainadRlae

tick fever creates immunity." I ask hon.members who represent constituencieswhich are starving for want of meat, whyshould we wait one day or one weeklonger?3 Funds can be provided for thefew people who own the fewr head of cattlethreatened, to inoculate their stock. Mr.Hancock, the expert, says that ittakes the cattle about six weeks to recoverfrom inoculation. If that be so, in twomouths from this very hour every beastin Western Australia might be inoculated,if virus were available, and thus, renderedimmune from disease. But the memberfor Wellington says "No, we will lock upthe only available cattle." If the ideaof the hon. member be carried out, thepeople in Perth and on the goldfieldsmust do without fresh meat, simply andsolely because he is unwilling to inoculatehis cattle yet. But, are the hon. member'sherds not going to increase? If they are,and he says they are, the desolation fromthe fever will be greater then thanit would be now ; whereas if the cattleare inoculated at once, they will be im-niune. We are told by the Select Com-mittee that the disease cannot beprevented from coming here. We can,however, prevent fatal injury; and inQueensland it has been proved that inocu-lation creates, imamunity. Mty advice ist hasten with the inoculation remedy,and thus render our cattle secure, wvhenthey are few in number. But the memberfor Wellington insists that the quarantineshould Estill be kept up around East Kim-berley, and his suggestion is that freezingworks should be erected in a, torrid zonewhere tabour is not procurable for thisclass of work. That is a part of thecontinent where, if a beast is left on ho'iralter killing, it is useless, and is a. plu,.swhere there is no water at all. The Is a.member seems to forget that, if the !!ecz-ing works are established at Wyndiu,we cannot do without receiving wores .at

Fremantle.by~o-. H. W. VBNNx: How do they do in,

Queensland?MR. MORAN: There are receiving.

works at every one of the ports.Ma. Gionos,: Is it as hot at Townsville

as it is here?Honz. H. W. Vuyy: Much hotter.Ma. MORAN: Townsville is a city with

a large population of, say, 26,000, and

labour is easily procurable. But do theiconditions prevail at Wyndham? Tlwhole of Queensland is a cattle-growir.colony, and people are not starving Ione part because strict quarantine regilations are kept in another. Whatthere to be afraid of in the proposal iinoculation? Where are the vast her(that have been spoken ofI Even if 0cattle were there in vast numbers, ttreport of the Committee says there is aabsolute remedy in inoculation, whiucould all1 be, completed in two monthsand we know that freezing works couJnot be established within two monthIthe resolution be passed as to the freeing works, the cattle could not possiblhe let in under Rix wreeks, or twop monthsand by that time every beast in the colorcould be inoculated, and danger thus disip atecl. The spread of the disease cannilie prevented, but it is possible to prevezthe mortality, which cannot occur aftiinoculation. If the House do not accelthe report of the Tick Committee, whireport are we to acceptT In the me&time, meat is being forced up in prigbecause we have not a go-od supply:- ameven if we could get ai good supply, whoiare we endeavouring to a.9sist? Are vigoing to shut up Kimberley for ever bicause the member for Wellington domnot see fit to dispense with his milch coyfor a week or two while they get over ttinoculation? Are we going to say thiwhile we cannot prevent the tick commrin, we will not do as they are doingAmerica every day? In that counticattle are taken from infested districtand other parts of the country, along tirailway lines. Every precaution is takeiand the people exercise common-senseegrappling with the question. They dnot start, as we have done here, by ]ociing up the only part of the colony whic

icattle-producing. The motion on]asks that the cattle should be sent dowwith a. certificate; and Eturely the Go'era ment inspectors would take every prcaution. We have inspectors in whoa, "ought to have confidence, and if they giia certificate that every precautiontaken, that certificate ought to be nceived. After all, the cattle could Iplaced in trucks, as in America, and thewould be sent to a part of the countrwhere a. tick would die of broken hear

Lwcukdiou and Relme.

Tick in Eat Xirnbe-Jey: [31 AUGUST, 1898.] Inoculation and Release. 13b55

What is there for the tick to live on inthat part of the country?

MtL ILLINowoETH: Rabbits,Mp- MORAN: But the Government

shut out rabbits on the one side and cat-tie on the other; and the consumers arebetween the devil and the deep sea, andcannot get any meat. We know the, feel-ings of the consumers. It is a cruelthing to starve our own people here, andthe proper method would be to adoptthe motion of the hon. member for Fra-mantle (Mr. Higham). Let the Govern-ment be empowered to issue instructionsto inspectors to allow cattle to come inunder the most rigid quarantine, andunder thorough disinfection on the boats.it is quite certain that people whocould afford to buy fresh meat would notb)0) frozen mneat, and that statement isparticularly applicable on the !roldfields.Consumers should not be debarred fromtfresh meat, because there are a few herdsin the neighbourhood of Bunbury. Theproper plan is to inoculate the cattle -itonce and render them immnune; and theevidence given before the Committeefurther is to the effect that, alter thefirst two or three years of inoculation,mortality ceases altogether. As in thecase of the measles in a family, if we areto have tick, let us have it as soon aspossibl0 and get it over. The tick isbound to come, but there is an absoluteremedy against harm resulting. Do notaccelerate the disease, but do not keepback the tens of thousands of cattlewaiting to be brought dawn to the mar-keta Loet the people have meat, and givesome encouragement to those who havegone into the country ad rendered thewilderness fertile. The people in thecattle districts of the colony are return-ing a large revenue to the colony, andare raising meat there for the people.No harm will ever result from allowingthe cattle to. come down under properrestrictions; and a certain portion of thepopulation of the colony would hiave rea-son to be grateful to the Government ifthe question were dealt with as in Amer-ica, by allowing the cattle to come downunder reasonable conditions. The hon.member is afraid that this, disease,- mayget amongst the few cattle in his dis-trict.

HON. H. W. VsENN: YOU are imputingmotives now.

Ma, MORAN: Thle hon. member mustnot break out in that manmner. He isrightly afraid of the tick spreading tohis district, but he must not expect peopleto become vegetarians because the hon.member will not inoculate his cattle andrender them immune. The report of thisCommittee has been carefully arrived at,and we know that the gentleman who waschairman of the Committee has the re-spect of this House. I say the memberfor Beverley is an authority on this sub-ject, and when. he arrives at a conclu-sion, we may depend upon it that, he hasgood grounds for arriving at that con-clusion. We ask the House to give usthe meat. We will pay for it. But donot allow the restrictions to be kept upany longer

Ma. MITCHELL (Murchison): I amnnot an expert in tick, and secondly I maysay that I sympathise sincerely with thcowners of cattle in the Kimberley dis-trict. I also sympathise with the con-sumers in the southern and eastern dis-tricts. In this debate we have been toldthere are no cattle besides those in theKimberley district.

MR. MORN.&: I never said that.Mt. MITCHELL: But it has been

sid. I have some figures before mewhich Show there are something like127,107 cattle south of the Kimberleys.In the Kimberley districts there are117,864 head of cattle; and, speaking ofthe East Kinherley in particular, the re-port which I ha-ve in my hand shows thatthere are 7,102 beasts, that is in theEast Kimberley district which is now inquarantine. There is another entry inthis report which says that on the Kim-berley goldfields there are 64,405 cattle.[ do inot know the meaning of that entry ;I do not know whether those cattle arein the tick district or not.

MR. CONqoR: The same district.Ma. MITCHELL: The question arises

as to whether it would be good enoughto liberate the cattle with-the chance ofaffecting the cattle in the other districtsof the colony. I say we shall run a greatdanger by doing so. I am quite in favourof having chilling works both in Kimber-lay and at the port, because if we havechilling works at Kimberley we are bound

1356 Tick in East Kimnberley: IASBEMBLY.] lncat ndRes.

to have a. receiver for the chilled meatwhen it comes, down here. We have beentold by the mover of the motion that wemight get the cattle down here, putthem in quarintine at Fremantle, andalter some time carry them away to no-body knows where. The hon. memberdid not tell us whether there would beany restriction placed on the cattle alterthey leave Fremantle in the train. Ihope the Government will try to devisesome plan by which meat chilled atKimberley can be received here in aproper way. One hon. member said thatchilled meat will not come down here; butif we can get live beasts we can certainlyget chilled meat. Representing what isknown as a squatting constituency, notonly am I not in favour of removing thercd.sriction, but the people in liy districtaire not in favour of it until it is provedthat the cattle are clean and that thereis no chance of contaminating otherflocks in the other parts of the country..Me risk is too large for us to take,- toopen. the Kimberley district, and let theztattl e rwi. free all over the colony, wvith thechance of contaminating the cattle inother districts. I am not in favour of re-mioving the quarantine that prevails.

Tus PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J. For-rest): This question has come round to-s again alter nearly a year, but we havethis advantage over what we had lastyear-we have had an interval of experi-ence. I am glad to see we are dealingwith the question to-night. under differentconditions from w'hat we dealt with lastsession-in a critical aspect. Last yearthere was a good deal of political feelingbrought into the question which at pre-sent to a large extent, if not altogether,is absent. flat is a very good thing, be-cause we can. deal with the matter an asubject which we know is of great im-portance, and we can deal with it all thebetter by not mixing it up with politicalfeeling. Hon. members know ray views-I am not an expert on thia question, andI have not had, perhaps, the experiencethat many others have had; but I takea practical view of the question, and Iam bound to say that the view I took ayear ago remains the same, and I havehad no occasion to change my opinion inregard to it. I look at the matter from

apractical point of view. From the

*amount of experience we have had I cometo tho conclusion that, as ivg have had10,000 cattle brought from East Kimber-ley, and there was sufficient evidence be-fore mne that there was tick in that die-

Itrict, not to a large extrut, I knowthat no harm has come to the Colonythrough these 10,000 head of cattle beingbrought down to the southern portion oftho colony; and when I know that theChief Inspector of Stock alter searching thecountry found tick, not in large numbers-in fact he did not find many cattle in-fected with tick, but still he found some

I-and that I also know that there is noevidence of mortality from the tick in theKiimberley district, certainly there is noevidence of mortality in this part of thecountry, I come to the conclusion thatthis, part of the colony diiwn here is notcountry that the tick will thrive in. Itseems to me that the conclusions arrivedat from these facts are pretty near themark, because after nearly a year's, ex-perience we hove no evidence of mor-tality in this part of the country,although we know tick has been importedfrom the East Kimberley district. We haveall been very much disquieted by the re-porte of the inspector, Mr. Hancock, andalso by the reports of the inspector, Mr.Stevens, since Mr. Hancock left the Kim-berley district, and we all expectedgreat mortality in the East Kimber-lcy district. It was thought thatafter all we were wrong in theconclusion which we had arrivedat, and that there was - a gooddeal more in this tick question than wesupposed. My opinion is,-and I havehad a good deal of conversation withthose who know a great deal about theravages of tick-that tick only thrives inlow country where it is well timbered andwhere there is plenty of shade-low-lyingcoast country-and that when they geton the high land, the open country,the tick is not so virulent, in fact it doesvery little harm. That, I believe, is thecase in the Kimberley districts. Wehave on the low lying flats of the OrdRiver, where the river enters the, sea,magnificent alluvial flats, with grass 10or perhapsa 15 feet high, with many shadytrees, and we all know that when thegrass is rich and, as I have said, from 10or 15 feet high, there is plenty of shade.

Inoculation and Releaae.

Tick n Eas Kimbi-l 31 AUGUsT, 1898.] Inzoultion and Release. 1357

It is low, marshy country, with plenty ofwater about and well within the tropics,being 16 degrees or 17 degrees southlatitude. I think that is the countrywhich, in my opinion, is thoroughlysuited to the growth of the tick at thattime of the year. When we get into thehigh lands of the Ord River, we find thetick does not thrive. I think it is grati-fying too that there has been njo mor-tality even in the low-Lying parts of theOrd River. There has not been thatgreat mortality amongst the animalswhich we expected. We thought thatthey would die in large numbers, but theanimals are recovering~ from the malarialfever, and 1.when the inspector cannotfind animals which have recovered fromthe sub-acute stage, sufficiently inorder to obtain blood to, inoculateothers, and that he travelled 450miles looking for beasts, it seemsto me that there is nothing veryserious in that part of the country, Wewere led to expect that the fever wouldbe bad all over the place. We were ledby Mr. Hancock to believe that all thecattle would die in a few weeks.

MRt. A. FoRRtEST: No; later on.THE PREMIER:- When is later on IMnt. A. FORRESTr: In the summer time.Tus PREMIBR: It is pretty hot there

now. I understand the malarial feveris over now, and that the cattle are im-proving-in fact, that they are in goodcondition. I think that what we shouldtry to do is to take advantage of theopinion of Mr. Hancock, and inoculateour cattle, and make them immune fromthis disease. It would not take longr toinoculate nll the cattle in this part ofthe country. I do not agree with thosewho say there are not many cattle inthis part of the colony, and that all theoattle are in 'the Kimberley distriots.There are many cattle in this part of thecolony. At the same time it would nottake long to inoculate all the cattle inthe South-western part of the colony.and those are the cattle we are afraidof being affected. by the introduction ofanimals from East Kimberley. Weshould set about that as quickly as pos-sible, and thus to a large extent, ifnot altogether, protect the cattle in thispart of the colony frpm being infectedthrough coming in contact with those

from East Kimiberley. I nam not so in-terested, at the present time at any rate,in doing anything to introduce cattlefrom the Northern Territory of South Aus-tralia. I will tell you why. If we onceadmit cattle from North and South Aus-tralia, we. open our doors to all thecattle from Northern, Australia-fromQueensland in the Gulf of Carpen-taria to the Roper River, and all thoseplaces.. They would, if peraonsknewitherewas an opening at Wyndham, drive theircattle in that direction, so that we shouldhave all the chances of getting cattle notonly fronm the whole of South Australia,but also from the whole of NorthernAustralia.; and I am not prepared to goso far as that. I am desirous of look-ing after the interests of our own people;and if we decide to do anything now, weshould restrict it to East Kimberley, andnot go further. When we assembleagain next year, we will perhaps havemore experience ad more knowledge ofthe subject, and then it will be timeenough to consider the people of Northand South Australia. I have no ill-feeling towards the people of South Aus-tralia, I leave them to look after themi-selves.

A MEMBER: What about our timber?Tn PREMIER: That is quite what

we might expect from them. They aretrying to help their own people ratherthan the people of West Australia, andw-c can follow in the Bmine lines by tryingto help our own people and our owncolony rather than theirs. Memberswill notice, from the report of the SelectCommittee, that I forwarded to the Pre-mier of Queensland a report of Mr. Han-cook's evidence, or the substance of it,on the 14th of July last, and after nar-ratingr what Mr. Hanncock said I addedthis:

I shall be much obliged if you will referthis report to Mr. Pound-, and askc him toreport on it. The msain questions that Jshould like his views upon are the absence ofmnortalityv in the East Kiioberlev district, andalso whether tick is likely to be destructivoin the southern part of the colony.I went on to say that ticks had beenfound in Fremantle which had beenbrought down from East Kimberley, butthat no bad results had followed. Mr.Pound, who is I suppose a great author-ity, says this in reply to that question

Tick in East Kimberley:

1358 Tick in East Kimberley: [ASSEMBLY.] iwokoaadRlse

of mine as to the mortality in the EastIKimberley district, and also whethertick would be likely to be destructive inthe southern. part of the colony-be-cause that is the muan point we wish to0-et at: -

Not being familiar with the southern partof Western Australia, especially the Fremantledistuict, where ticks were introduced )somesix months ago, it is extremely difficult forme to express an opinion as to whether theconditions iii those parts are favourable to ticklife; also, if ticks became established, howlong it would be before the acute form ofdisease made its appearance. However, toto be on the safe side, I would strongly recom-mend that all cattle which are compelled tospend their life, or any length of time, inthese districts should be inoculated as a pre-ventative against tick fever ; but the operationshould be carried out in a judicious and syste-matic manner.You will see that Mr. Pound did not giveany decisive answer in reply to a plainstraightforward question.L He is not cer-tain about it.

A MEMBER: Was it abt Fremantle?THE PREMIER: I understand it was.A MEMBERL: There is no tick there.

THE PREMIER: I got them given tomne in a little box which I took away, andI ami justified in saying that tick havebeen round in Fremautle. Long heforothis came about I spoke to persons rela-five to it, and although it was very muchagainst their interests, they told me thatthey had seen one or two ticks there.

MR. MONGER: There "-as no authorityfor saying so. The Chief Inspector ofStock admits it.

Ma. ILLINOWORTIH: Where did you getthe ticks from? Did they comte from theNorthern Territory?

THa, PREMIER: I do not know where(hey came from. Thor were gwiven to mein my house.

A Mzwima: Where they grown inWestern Australi.?

Ti PREMIER: We w-ere told theywere found in Fremantle. With regardto the question before the House, I amlnot in accord with the proposal in someparticulars. To 1place upon the Govern-ment at the present time an obligationfor providing abattors with chilled com-partments attached, would be a consider-able undertaking- which I do not thinkshould be cast upon, us, and I fal to seeany necessity for it. What I should pro-

pose is that No. 2 should be altered toread, "That in view of the urgent neces-sity for an increased supply of beef forour southern markets-

A -MEMBER: There is plenty of beef.THEu PREMIER: It is too dear.SsEERAL MsMBEMSs Hear, hear.Tns PREMIER: We ought to get it

chteaper somehow. People cannot affordto keep paying this high price. I thinkthe motion should read thus-

That in view of the urgent necessity for anincreased supply of beef for our southernmarkets, cattle should ho permitted to bebrought from Wyndhama to Fremantle andthere held for slaughter within a rigidlyquarantined area,I have no wish to introduce any diseaseinto this part of the colony, and I do notthink we should do it if we took precau-tions of that sort. If cattle were in-spected before leaving any ship, and inthe event of their having disease uponthem were compelled to swim ashore tothe quarantine grounds, and were notallowed to be removed from any truckuntil again inspected and reported clean,and if they had only to, go to the gold-fields, and all those others which were re-quired at Fremantle or any other marketwere compelled to be slakughtered in thequarantine ground, I really think thechances of infection would be very small.I would not mix them up with other yardsor sheds. I would make them swimahore, and if there were any ticks theymight be drowned in the process. Ifthese precautions were taken, the chancesof infection would be minimised. Agood deal has been said a~bout Americab y the member for Welling-ton (Hon. 11.W. Vann). I have the 'rear Book for1897 before me, and I find that during1896 there were received into the yards42,869 cars containing 1,154,235 cattle,and that those cara. were all cleaned ainddisinfected. As members have alreadyheard, they have dealt with this questionin the United States, and I do not seewhy we should not deal with it here.We have not been considering East Kinm-herley only. I do not agree with thosewho say there are ticks in West Kiraber--ley. There are cattle on the MargaretRiver up to Hall's Creek, and also onMount Barrett. I know that the LeopoMd'Range would formi.a barrier up to thenorthern parts of the Ord river; h-ut if

14weittation and lZeleaoe.

Tick in East Kimnberley: [81 AUGUST, 1898.] Inoculation and Release. 135.9

,' some accident, which we should allgret, and which I hope and believe will>t occur, the tick did spread, we wouldwve the whole of that country closed3, and then our trouble would be twicestgreat as it is now. Are we goling toand stilt and play into the hands of theock owners. of the eastern colonies, andrt all our stock at a high rate; or shalleo take some practical means to deal withir own territory, so that -whatever hap-ans we will utilise products belongingPourselves? This trouble has occurredthe United States, and in a ten times

reater degree than with us. In fact,*ing there are so many cattle graz-ig in the United States, where they haveililions of animals, it wag a great sourcer anxiety to them. But what do weud? They did not shut up the wholemuntry, hut quarantined every tick-in-sted area, and made regulations byhich cattle would come from those areasader the strictest precautions; hut theyid not hesitate to move cattle from thosereas.A ME2MBER: TIhey did hesitate.Tax PREMIER: But they did it. The

riter of the. article on the subject says:The scientific study of the disease had not

ven neglected, and it was found that the in-ectious cattle could be shipped to market,ishnut endangering other animals, provided-parate pens were set apart f or them

bthe stock-yards where they were un-aded, and provided the cars in which

,iey were shipped were properly cleanedod disinfected. The settling of theY'estern States end the construction of rail-Dads led to the marketing of cattle from theifected district without much driving, andhe trail was gradually abandoned, except

urin the winter months. The regulationsf the bureau hastened this solution of the.ifficulty. The border line of the infectedistriet was made a quarantine line. Nosttle were permitted to cross this line he-steen February 15 and November 15, exceptor immediate slaughter. The cars carrying;uch catifle and the waybills accooi yinghem were marked to show the origin of thetock, and when the destination was reached:he animals were unloaded into quarantineecns and the cars were disiofected under theupervision of en inspector. From Novem-Per 15 to February 15 (changed to January lbor 1898) cattle were allowed to be shippqd or[riven without restriction. By thes cinuaratively simple measures the disseminationof the disease was almost entirely prevented.Lnd the cars and stock-yards used for northernhnd export cattle were kept free from the con-.agion.

IF the United States can make suchefforts in this direction, I think we mightmake some effort in Western Australia.1 am one of those who believe that, ifwVe took proper precautions at both ends,and restricted the transport by rail t,the goldfields, where we know that cattleare killed shortly after they aive, andprovided that all oth~er cattle should beslaughtered in, the quarantine area, andthat they should not come in contactwith any of the jetties or yards whereother stock are dealt with, very little.danger would result. At any rate, Iam prepared to take that risk, becauseI foresee great danger to the colony ifwe persevere in, shutting up our territory,and do net make some eff ort to deal withthe difficulty. What is happening now withregard to East Kimberley might happento any other district in the colony.Some stray ticks might get into theherds of the De~t-cy or West Kimberley, orany other district, and then, where wouldwe be? Are we to shut up the wholecolony in order to help the people ofother colonies, who would. be delightedto again take possession, of our market,as they have done in yearsa past? Theyhope and pray that tick may always re-main in the Kimberleys, in order thatthey may have our local market to them-selves.

Mn. ILLINGORTH : They are not sovindictive as that.

'u PREMIR: It is not vindictive-ness; it is business. The more tick wehave here, the better market they willhave for their stock;- and, s I can showyou from the work I have just quoted,the same thing has occurred in America.It states:-

The cattle-raisers of Texas--

You might as well transpose the wordsi,and say, the cattle-raisers of limber-ley-were indignant at the charge brought againsttheir herds, which they asserted were ashealthy as any in the world, and not having adisease could not convey one.

But the passage I want to quote showsthat it was all done as a matter of busi-ness, as follows-

This action was resented by the southernmen, who still were not convinced that theircattle caused disease, and who looked uponthese restrictions as efforts to avoid cosopeti-

1860 Tick in Bast Ximberley: [ASSEMBLY.] Inoculation and Release.

tion and prevent the marketing of thb herdsfrom the prolific ranges of the south.

That is the case in Australia, There isno doubt that in all these colonies tothe east, the cattle-owners have had agreat deal to do with the retention ofthe restrictions. They know very w'ellthat if they can shut out the Queenslandcattle from South Australia, Victoria,and New South Wales, they will have abetter market. If anyone tells me thatthe ordinary man is not influenced b)such considerations, I can only say thatI do not believe him.

MR. OLWiAM: That is very hard onthe member for West Kimberley (Mr. A.Forrest).

THE PREMIER: I am not saying any-thing about him at all, and I am notlikely to say anything about him ; butI believe that he is even more generousthan the member for North Perth (Air.Oldhami), and certainly would not bemore eager to loolk after his own inter-ests than that hon. gentleman.

Ma. OLDUAM: I am crushed.Tun PREMIER: No, no.Ma. A. FORREST: We cannot crush you.MR. GEORGE: He is like a tick.Ths PREMIEBR: In view of the experi-

ence we have already acquired, and see-ing that all these anticipations of grea~tmortality have not been realised even inthe Kimberley district, and believing, asI do, that cattle shipped at Wyndhamand reported clean to the inspector, andtaking ten or twelve days for the voyagedown, wvould land at Fremantle understrict supervision and in quarantine, Ido not believe that we would have anygreat cause for fear; and I think theevidence Shows that, unless this tick canbe communicated from one animal toanother, it cannot live. The evidenceI have been able to gather Shows that if,in a paddock full of ticks, no animal ofthe bovine species were present, the tickswould die.

A MEaMBER: How long would they live?THE PREMIER: I cannot say how

long they would live; but they cannotlive unless they attach themselves tocattle. Therefore, if due precautionsare taken not to bring these cattle intocontact with other cattle, if the calvesare disinfected and other proper mea-sures adopted, I think the risk wrill be

very small. Take the case of a mob ocattle put into trucks somewhere nea,Owen's Anclhorage or Woodmnan's Poinand shipped to Coolgairdie; how man.,cattle would they come in contact wit)on the waylI

A MEMBER: They would drop theiticks on the way.

THE PREMIER: They would drolltheir ticks on the way after having comntfrom Kimberleyl No; I believe the tic1

does not attach itself to an animal tomore than 9 or 10 days.

MR. MONGER: 21 days.A MEMBER: They would breed all thi

way down.Tir PREMIER: I think they woulc

probably drop off before leaving thineighbourhood of Fremantle.

MR. HOLMES: They do not breed orthe animal.

Tins PREMIER: The animals on leaving the ship would be examined. Ithere were any, ticks visible, the iaspectoawculd not allow them to go anywhereThey would be slaughtered on the spot:br-t, if reported clean, they would be seniaway; and in a few hours would havmpassed through the agricultural district,o! the colony to the goldfields; and Iwould like to know how much danaa &they could do there. I speak on thi,matter only with the view of trying tcutilise the country we have mnd the stocF,wL have. I would rather try to do sometiring, even at some risk, to assist our owise, lers in opening up and developing ouittrritory. Rather than see all the nione)t4r the country sent away, to supportpeople in other parts of the world, I a r.wifling to take some 'little risk. [ do notwont anyone to be guided by me. I - i Ihon. members to form their own opiDPf.I have had just as mueDi to do withthis question as many hon. membersbecause I have Iad a great responsibility upon me in connection w-ithit, and I have seen no reason ftchange the opinion I formed morethan a year a go. If I am wrong.I will very much regret it : but it will beour duty, whatever course this Houseagrees to, to loyally caurry it out; and;vb must hip careful, too, that the strictest

1 ,recautinng are taken. AS I said, I amnot prepared to neree-I do not think itis necessary-to bind the Govern nent te

Tickin Est Kmberey; (1 AUGUST, 1898.4 Inoculation and Release. 1861

build abattoirs, or do the other thingssuggested at the present time. The Gov-ernment wrill do what they can. I thinkthA ways and mneans of carrying out Ourobject, can be ld~tto thlo Government, andI am not prepared to agree with the pro-posal of the hon. Member (Mr. Highain).I will tell you another reason why. Ifihiesre abattoirs are built, they ought to hebuilt not only for tick-infested cattle, butfir other cattle as wvell. I do not pro-pose that the cattle from the north shouldlard at the jetty at Owen's Anchoragelet thern~gofur&*lE south. I do not thinkthat would be a suitable place to buildthese abattoirs, and I hope the House willnot insist on this part of the motion.I am quite convinced that, seeing the diffi-culties. we have before us, and seeing therisks we niay run in regard to a shortage!in the supply of stock in our own colo-ny,we ought to grive our close attention tothis matter, to weigh it carefully, and to.take care that we do not intcur too muchrisk, but, at thessame timne, n5tto run thisprohibition altogether to death. My ideais not prohibition.

Mat. A. FORREST:' We might just aswell take similar steps with regard to theshortage, of flour.

THEs PR1EMIER : We will soon growflour if our supply is short. Next year,1 think we will grow enough locally For onrown requtirements. lDo not let us haveprohibition; let us have strict supervi-sion-strict quarantine; and I believe,if we follow that plan, we will run intono great dangrer, but will do, very greatgyood to the colony.

Mnt. HOOLFS (DeGrey): It must beinteresting to sonic memhers of this.House to note that those hon. memberswho, sp)oke in favour of admitting theEast Kimberley cattle to the southerndistricts do. not, I suppose, possess a milk-ing cow amongst them.

Ma, GEORGE: That is entirely wrong.Ma. Thfonx: I have got two.MR. HOOLEY: This question of the

tick disease in East Kiinberley is maderthler light of by several hon. membersi.I would just say that I am in favour ofthe amnendment proposed by the memberfor Wellington (Hon. ff. W. Venn) ; anadif I stood here for ain hour I could not saymore.

MnR. LOCKE (Sussex):- As. I come froma district where there are a, good manycattle, I have given this tick question aconsiderable amount of care and atten-tion, and have come to the conclusionthat the cattle might be brought downwith safety under strict quarantine, andthe careful supervision of qualified men.I have not. come to this conclusion in ahurry, because I know it is a matterwhich would affect my own district prettyconsiderably. If the tick -were to getdown there, it would mean very greattrouble to us. -But I firmly believe, hrornwhat I have read and learnt from mennow in the Colony who are qualified togfive an opinion, t hat there would not bemuch danger in this. proposition, if theGovernment insisted on careful and strictquarantine. I think we would he morethan compensated for the risk we wouldrun by the good we would be doing- tothe settlers in the Kimbherley district,and to the working men on the goldfields.I will support- the motion.

MR. A. FORREST ( West Kimberley):I beg to move the adjournment of thisdebate until Tuesday next. An impor-tant amendment has been moved by themember for Wellington (Hon. H. W.Venn), which we have not seen in print.This is a very important question, and Iwould ask leave of the House to adjournthe discussion.

MB. MONGER (York): I intend to o-no0se the, motion of the hon. member, andI must express my surprise that he shouldresort to tactics of this kind. Herewe are with almost. a full House;- and Ifail to see what reason the bon, memberhas for adjourning the discussion. I donot think we will ever see more membersPresent on. a dehate of the kind, andthe meniber for West Kimberley is goingout of his war. in moving the adjourn-ment. Most hon. members have, spoken.

'MR. A. Fonnss'r: No. they have not.MaNf. MONGER: Well, the bon. mem-

her will hare' an onpnrtunitv to speak.It may be sa-id that the amendment isimportant, batt I do not look upon it asimnortant. at all. If it were said an mnortant amendment had been moved hrthe Premier. T might have felt inclinedto agree. With a comparatively fullHouse, the least we can do is to finishthe debate. As the member who ct-i-

Pick in East Kimberley.

1362 Tick in East Kimberley: [ASSEM-BLY.) lwiato n Rlae

ginally brought forward this question be-fore the House, I may be expected to saysomething, especially after the allegationswade against me by certain hon. mem-bers. The member for the DeGrey (Mr.Rlooley) informed the House, on one oc-casion, that I was totally ignorant on thisquestion. Why I should be accused ofignorance on this question I really failto see. I might tell the hon. memberthat, when he lived his life on a stationthis insect was practically unknown, sothat my exp~erience, though I have neverlived on a, station, may, so, far as this

-insect is concerned, be equal to his. Butthat is apart from the question now be-fore the House. I hope the member forWest Kimberley will withdraw his motionfor the adjournment of the debate, andwill aet in the way for which he is notedwhen he thinks he and his party arelikely to be defeated on a division.

MBR. A. Fonasa'r: I do not at all admiswe are likely to be defeated. I simplyask for anu adjournment.

Ma. MONGER: It is only ten o'clock,and we have heaps of timne to, go into thequestion, on which I think nearly everymember has something to say. Evidencehas been laid before the Select Committee,and it is only fair that the question shouldh,! settled one way or the other. Are weto allow these cattle to comue down here,or are we to exclude them? Surely thereare enough members in the House to settlethat question :and the motion of themember for West Kimberley is one whichthis House will not accept at so early anhour in the evening.

'm OLD)HAM: I beg to second themotion for the adjournment of the debate.

IUfn MoON: I may inform the Housethat I shall press for a, division.

MAlf. MoruiN: Surely the hon. memberwill not press for a division. He has had

very fair innings on this question.Trni SPE AKER: There cannot be any

debate on this question. Hon. membersmust express their opinion at once.

Motion put, and a division taken withthe following result:-

Ayes . . --- 20

Noes

Majority for ..

Ayes8. Noem.Sir John Forrest Mr. ConollyMr. A. Forrest IMr. ConnorTMr. George Mr. DohertyMr. Harper Mr. EwingMr. Holmes )1r. Gregory

Mr. Boobey Mr. BaliBMr. Bubble Mr. EigimMr. Dhlingworth Mr. KinpamillMr. Let roy MAr Monger.Mr. Locke jMr. MoanMr. Qidhium Mr. RasonMr, Mitchell Mr. SolomonMr. Pennefatber Air. WallaceMr. Piese Mr. KennyMr. Tbrossell (Teler)Ron. B1. W. Vena

Mr. VesperMr. Wilsoh

-Mn. WoodM Ir. Quinlan (elr

Motion for adjourn ment thus niamed.Turn SPEAKEII: I think it is deshj

able I should point out the position iwhich the question stands now. Iquestion is, "That the words proposed tbe omitted stand part of the question.Judging from the debate that has takeplace, there are several members wh,would like to emend the original queEtion ; but if the question is carried in itpro sent form, no amendment can be mad(except the addition of words at the en'of the question.

TimE Pnxmmit: Could we move anamendment on the, amnendment?

Tugz SPEAKER: No. If the amendment is carxried, words can be added tithe question; but no amendment can bmade to the question already agreed to.

Tim. Pnamnn Could we not givnotice of a, further amendment?

Tne SPEAKER: That would not geover the difficulty. The only way I seiis for the member for Wellington to withdraw his amendment until the originsmotion is amended. I would advise thaeach motion be ta-ken separately.

HoN. H. W. VE9NN: What is the motioibefore the House-that the debate be adjourned I

TuB SPEAKER: That motion icarried now; but, bofore we go furtherI think it best to put the position beforithe House; and the position is rather aiawkward one. From what I have beetable to grather from the debate, there sansieveral members who would like to amencthe orig-inal motion. But, if the questiox

1=cuWiw& and Belease.

14

... 6

Tick in East Kimberley. [1AUUT18.]hdPei.86

is carried in the way I must -ut it, so-cording to Parliamentary practice, it willbe impossible to amend the originalmotion, because the question decidedwould be "That the words proposed to beomitted stand part of the question."

HON. H. W. VENN: I think it very pro-hoble I shall carry my amendment by a,large majority.

A MEmBER: Don't build any castles.HoN. H. W. VTENN: I am not build-

ing castles at all, but I am not tobe defeated by any trick of the House

THE PREMIER: I would like to pointout that there is no trick intended, sofar as I am concerned. I do not wvantthe motion carried in its present shape,but desire to have an opportunity ofdealing with the motion as amended. Ithink the hon. member for Wellingtonwill help me to do that.

MR. HICHAM: As the mover of theoriginal motion, I san prepared to acceptthe amendment of the Premier.

Tan SPEAKER: That is all very well;but I am pointing out that it cannot bedone.

M. MONGER: In order that thematter may be put on a Proper basis-

THE PREMER: ft is right enough.THE SPEAKER: I do not catch what

the hon. member for York is Saying.THE PREMIER: Would it not be

possible for the mhember for Wellingtonto withdraw his amendment for a while,until we amend the original motion? Wecould then take a vote on the whole ques-Coon.

THE SPEAKER: That is what I sug-gest-that the member for Wellingtoncan withdraw his amendment for a time.

HoN. H. W. VENN: I am willing to dothat.

MR. ILLINGWORTH: You cannot test thequestion in any other way

HON. H. W. VENN: It is, perhaps,the most convenient way; but I shouldhave liked a vote to be taken on myamendment straight off, althougrh that,I think, would be impossible. When thedebate is resumed on Tuesday, shall I bein a position to move my amendmentthen?

THE SPEAKE2R: Yes.Tim PREMIER: Thie hon. member

can withdraw his amendment for thetime.

TaE SPEAKER: It would not be inorder to do it now, but in the rntantiinethe member for Wellington can considerwhether or not he will withdraw hisamendment for the purpose of allowingthe original motion to be amended, whenthe debate is resumed.

HON. H. W. VENN: In the meantimethe amendment stands as it is?

T)SH SPEAKER: In the meantimethe amendment stands as it is.

Ma. A. FORREST: Then, the debateis adjourned until Tuesday.

T1'a SPEAKER: I did not put themotion that the debate be adjourneduntil Tuesday, but that the debate beadjourned.

Me. A. FORREST: I moved that thedebace be adjourned until Tuesday.

THE SPEAKER: Then I shall have toput the question again.

MR. OLDHAM: As seconder of themotion for adjournment of the debate,I did not understand that the debate"-as to be adjourned until Tuesday. Iseconded the motion because I thoughtthat, after the speech of the Premier, enopportunity should be given for Study-ing the question. I am willing to allowthe matter to be adjourned until to-Morrow.

THE SPEAKER: This question willstand on the Notice Paper for to-morrow,and if there is a wish that it should befurther adjourned, then a motion. willhave to be wade.

MlOTION: ORCHARDS AND VINEYARDlS,TAX TO SUPP1RESS PESTS.

MxR. HARPER (Beverley) moved:-'That, in the opinion of this House, it is

desirable that a tax be levied upon orchardsand vineyards in the colony, with tht objectof supplying funds for the administration oflaws necessary for the suppression or exter-mination of pests injurious to the same.He said the necessity for something althis kind had been forced upon him byexperience of the absence of power todeal with any invasion of a. serious kind.For instance, if pbylloxera were discov-ered in the colony, and this might occurat any time, there would be no powerto deal with the extermination of thedisease, and at present the extermina-tion of the disease could be accomnliahedonly by passing a law. It was dangerous

[31 AUGUST, 1898.) 1363P%-uit Pals.

1864 Fruit Pests: [SEBY]Tzt upes

that such a position should continue,because the contagion might spread inyoung and promising vineyards to a seri-Qua extent before any measure could beadopted for eradicating the disease. Itwould be within the remembrance (.fhon. members that in Victoria and New

South Wales. this occurred, and a. largesum of money had to he spent to eradi-cate. the disease. This did Dot only ap-ply to phylloxera, but to other diseases ofa more or less serious and dangerouscharacter. These diseases might appearat any timne codlin inc'th, for instance-and until the country was. possessed ofmachinery so that we could step in andstamip out the disease, we should beleaving the door open to seriously en-danger some of our most promising" in-dustries. The, necessity for a, tax beinglevied upon orchards and vineyards wasfurther forced upon him in consequenceof the retrenchment proposed by theGovernment to do away in a large mea-sure with the small mnachinery we hadfor checking these diseases, which mighbtattack orchards and vineyards. Theprinciple had been fairly well establishedin the past in dealing with sheep. Asbon. nierars were aware, the scourge ofscab once invaded the flocks of this col-ony with serious danger, and a tax wasthen levied on the sheep-owners to findfunds to deal with the disease. It mightbe fairly said that those who were tobe protected from this disease should,to a large extent, find the means of pro-tecting themselves. He could not see

what objection there could be to a fn~xof this kind on any reasonable groundswhatever. Even if we passed a law todeal with this question, the la~w would beno good unless there were funds to carryout that law. In the various changeswhich took place, in Ministries it mighteasily occur that, although the law wasin force, and Parliament had voted asum of money for carrying the law intoerfect, another Ministry might comeinto power and entirely wipe out thevote which had been granted, andleave the Act inoperative, to the seriousdanger of one of our most important andg-rowing industries. In the matter ofthe growth of apples, for instance, in thiscountry-especially that portion fromPerth southwards, and more particularly

from Bunbury to the Great Southern lineand towards Albany-there was a, magni-ficent area, of country suited to the pro-duction of this fruit to an almost limuit-less extent, When we noticed that theexportation of apples from our next-doorneighbour1 South Australia, had provedto be so satisfactory in the Londonmarket, it was an indication that a fewdays less carriage was a very importanttact. This fact applied to our owincolony. We had a magnificent cli-mnate and soil, and all the neces-sary surrounding&. If Fremantle werethe port of call in the future for vesselicarrying fruit to the home country wewould ha-ve a week's advantage over theeastern colonies. There would not onlybe a, shorter trip, but the fruit would readlthe market a. week earlier. Thereforewe had a. great advantage over theeastern colonies. Hon. members wouldsee that this was a, most deserving in-du stry to wh ich authority should be giverto protect itself, and to encourage. TherEwas no reason why there should. not he avery large export of fruit in the future.If we did not take some means to protectthis growing industry, ihe danger was thatthe disease might attack the orchards hereas it had done in the other parts of Aus-tralia, and largely injure the industry foiall time. As far as codlin moth was con-cerned, there had been no proof gXiven olthe possibility of extermination. This diecounted very seriously the productionsof the land. We had proved it was quiteca-pable of being kept out, but is was quiteii'possible to eradicate the disease. Hon.mnembers would recollect that when wefirst took step to prevent the introduc-tion of diseases of this kind we stoodunique in Australiai. We knew thatother colonies had attempted to preventthe introduction of disease, but they ha dbeeii unable to succeed. We were ableto insist on regulations and laws beingmade for the prevention of the introduc-tion of the more dangerous diseases, andit was extremely gratifying to us to findthat, although the legislatures in theother colonies had been trying for manyyears to prevent the introduction ofthese diseases, they did not succeed indoing so until we set them the example.The reason was obvious. The interests,of the middleman and the trader were

[ASSEMBLY.) Taz to Suppreps.

Fruit Pests. [31 AUGUST, 1898.] Fruit Importation. 1365

itrongly pitted against the producer. Theniddleman did not care what became of the)roducer. He made a profit, and if he didaoz get his stuff from one person he got it.rom another. The unfortunate result hadbeen that most of the colonies suffered a"mormous loss through not having takenrevautionary steps in the early days. It

was quite essential that some furtheregislation, enabling us to cope 'with thisliseaso-which might appear at any time-and also to cope with the diseases that,vere at present hero, should be passed.If we relaxed the vigilance we had exer-3ised in the past, the diseases wouldifpread, and the labour which had been-xpended, to a large extent, would haveseen thrown away. Young beginners,v'ho had, worked hard for the last fewmears to establish orchards and vineyards,yould be disheartened. He (Mr. Harper)iadl every reason to believe that withinine or two years the production of fruit.m this colony would be greater than thelemand, and if there was not an outletamv secured for these products the in-lustries would go down; people wouldaeglect their orchards and the industrygvould be destroyed.

Ma. ILLINGOoa: How did the hon.nemnber propose to collect the tax?7

Ma. HARPER: The way proposedsas to put ain acreage tax on vines and a:ree tax on trees. This would have anost salutary effect on one of the mostlifficult matters in connection with thenaintenance, of orchards and vineyards.:t often happened in and around cities,vhere land was cut up for sale in build-ng blocks, that trees were neglected and)ecame hotbeds of disease; which spreaduto surrounding districts. The taxvould not amount to any considerableurn to anyone, when spread over the whole)f the colony; and he would suggest thatca boards% deal with it, and that expert

widence should be obtained by means ofhe Department of Agriculture. The;ystem could be thus worked very cheaplymn4 efficaciously. We had anm instance)f that in the working of our Scab Actn the early days. That Act was, many-ears in operation before it had any ef-'ect, and it was only through a goodnany pastoralists urging the Govern-nent to establish a board to deal with

the matter that any satisfactory stepswere achieved in the direction of its ap-plication; hut then very good progresswas made, and ultimately the diseasewas stamped out. He did not believethat the result would have been broughtabout to this day it the matter had beenleft to the Central Department and thelocal secretary. He desired that an Actshould be introduced embracing thespirit of this motion, and also conferringfurther powers than were in existence atthe present time to deal witb diseaseswhich might occur. New Zealand hadat present before her Parliament whatappeared to be a most admirable Billdealing with this very subject, a copy ofwhich was in the hands of the Coinmis.sioner of Crown Lands, He hoped thatthis House would support the motion.

MR. KENNY seconded the motion.Mu. MITCHELL (Murchison) moved

that the debate be adjourned until the14th September. There were manyorchards and vineyards in his district,and be wished to have an opportunity ofcommunicating with tbe owners of them.He did not rise to oppose the motion.

Motion for adjournment put andpassed.

MOTION: FRUIT UIIPORTAflON, IN-QIRY INTO RESTRICTIONS.

Mn. LYALL HALL (Perth) moved:That, in view of the fact that the present

restrictions on the importation of fruit to thiscolony are causing serious inconvenience toconsumners generally, a Select Committee of thisHouse be appoint~d to inquire into the wholequestion.He said he approached this questiontotally unbiassed as to the merits or de-merits of the restrictions on the importa-tion of fruit. He simply desired to findout how the matter stood with regard tothe consumer, also not forgetting the in-terests of the producer. It was a genu-ine hardship that fruit in this colonyshould be a luxury, when it was really anec~sity, having regard to the healthof the people. At the present time fruitwae entirely out of the reach, of personshaving an ordinary income. He desiredto have this Select Committee appointedin order that the House might obtainsuch information as would enable mem-lbers to decide whether it was necessary

1366 Fruit Importation: [ASSEMBLY-] Inquiry into Restrictions.

to any longer prohibit the importation offruit. He took it the principal reasonalleged for placing the restrictions uponthe importation Af certain fruits was thefear of the codlin moth; but he was in-dined to thinkt that was rather a bug-bear raised in the interests of the fruitgrowers. No doubt the codlin moth wasa troublesome peat, but with proper pre-cautions there would be no fear of itsbeing introduced to this country. Applescame into the colony every day, and ifthere were any solid ground for fearingthe introduction of this pest, we wouldhave had tbe disease long ago. The re-otrictions on the importation of fruit wereimposed at the ihistance of the Agricultu-ral Bureau, a, body of gentlemen directlyinterested in fruit culture ; and thoughevery one knew that the members of thatbureau were men of high principle, still,as they were directly interested in thematter, they might be unconsciouslybiassed. It was desirable that the sub-ject should be thrashed out by a SelectCommittee, so that both sides might berepresented, and he would suggest thatthe Committee should consist of gentle-men totally unconnected with the fruitindustry of this colony.

Mafp. GEORGE: One could not be foundin the House.

MR. HALL: This colony was going tobe a great fruit producing one. He hadbeen chrough a considerable portion a9the fruit growing country, and felt surethat in a very few years we should beable to hold our own with any of theother colonies. Therefore the growers offruit here need not be afraid of competi-tion in the other colonies.

Ma. GEORGE: Put a duty on fruit, butlet us have the fruit.

MR. HALL: Fruit was almost as muchan article of diet as bread and meat. Itwasna necessity in this colony; yet a manwith a small income and a large familycould not affora to buy it. Apples costas much as Is. 6id. a pound, which was amonstrous price, and it was about timesome enquiry wvas made into the matter,to see whether it was necessary that thepresent restrictions should be continuedany longer. T~ere could be no harm, inhaving this Select Committee to enquireinto the matter, nor was. it apparent whythose members directly interested in fruit

growing should oppose the motion ; forif it could be shown that it was necessar)for the welfare of the colony, and foithe consumer, as well as the producerthat these restrictions should be continued, no change need take place. Buhis object was to find out whether it w&advisable to continue them. If the SelecCommittee reported in the affirmativethen the House would hear no more fronhim on the subject. If it wvere advisabliin the interests of the consumer, theithe public should know why it was advisable. Such were his reasons for moying the motion.

MR. SOLOMON (East Fremantle) seeonded the motion. It was quite time thiHouse woke to the fact that the peopliwere suffering for want of this wholesormarticle of diet.

THE Panasa: Let us grow it thenDo not send more money out of the colony to foreign countries.

MRs. SOLOMON: It was time it wagrown here, the local farmer having h9aplenty of opportunity. The restrictionhad been in force for some years, an(what wvas the conseqjuencel The price ofruit was almost prohibitive to the pooman. Apples, for instance, were Is. 6ida pound, and the purchaser perhaps gotwo to the pound, at 9d. each. He woul(cordially support the motion for the appoiatment of a Select Committee to enquire, into the whole subject.

Tim PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J. Forrest)Itva a common occurrence t,hear everyone talking about the big!price of everything in the colony, and thprohibitive price of fruit. But, after allthere were only three kinds of fruit wvhic1were practically prohibited by the rcguilations; namely, apples, pears, an,quinces. Every other kind of fruit cam,in at about 10 per cent, ad valorent.

Mn. WILSON: Oranges were practicallprohibited, inasmuch as they had tobdipped.

THE PREMIER: That did not increas'the price much.

MR. OLDHAM: No; but it spoilt themTHE PREM1IER: It was necessary t

take precautions against insect pests, amour local fruit-growers were rapidly reaping the benefit of the prohibition in regard to apples. Some of the best aipplein Australia were grown in this colony

tFruit Imnportation; [31 AuOusT, 1898.] Inquiry into Riestrictions. 1367,

and our local oranges were far betterthan the imported article. It was to behoped the restrictions would not be re-moved for a little while longer, until thelocal supply had overtaken the demand.

MR. IJEORGE: Why not land them inquarantine, as the cattle were proposed tobe landed?

THE PREMIER: At the present timethe colony had almost attained the posi-tion wei were aiming at, and becomeself-supporting with regard to fruit. liewould not object to the appointment ofthe Select Committee, but it was to behoped it would not be constituted entirelyof persons who had no interest inorchards. It should be composed, tosome extent at any rate, of people whoknew something of the subjet-some-thing about the industry, and who coulddeal with both sides of the question. Ifthere were any members in the Housewho were experts on fruit, be hoped theywould find a place on the Committee.His own opinion, however, was that therewas no great necessity for this Com-mittee. 'lhe colony was getting on verywell in this respect. The fruit industrywvas progressing as rapidly as any etnerin the country, and every member knewthe magnificent fruit to be obtained inthe refreshment-room of the LegislativeAssembly. Nowhere in the world coulda better class of fruit be found, and tneprice was not very high either. It wastrue that, in the better class of shops, ahigh price had to be paid ; but by pur-chasing from the cheap shops or fromhawvkers, fruit could be procured at verylow rates indeed. It was the same inLondon, and, in fact, everywhere. itwould be most disastrous to relax theserestrictions, so as to leave the door opento the codlin moth. He had seen theravages of that insect in Tasmania; and,although that colony was a great exporterof apples, scarcely an apple could be ob-tained there which had not a codlin mothin it. Its orchards were decimated, andmore than decimated, by the codlin moth.Western Australia had been most fortu-nate in being able to keep out this de-structive pest, and should continue tokeep it out.

MR. GEORGE: The whole machineryof Select Committees was ridiculous. In thecase of the Select Committee appointed

Ito consider the timber question, noticeswere not sent to the members to attend.At any rate, he himself got his notice at

Itwenty minutes to three o'clock on theafternoon, when a meeting had beenarranged for. A Select Committee mightdo some good, if it were composed of menwho knew something of the subject in-volved. In the Murray district there hadbeen tens of thousands of fruit treesplanted in the last few years, but whetherthe consumer was going to get anybenefit, he wvas not at all sure. Whenhe came to the colony eight or nine yearsago, good grapes could be bought for 2d.per lb. ; but gapes could not now be pur-chased for that price. That was due, *notso much to increased population, as tothe middlemen, who came in and got theprofit. Mr. Weidenbach, who possessedone of the finest orchards at the Canning,sent a lot of fruit to the market throughmiddlemen, and the price was greatlyincreased; and in the case of French beanssent from his (Air. George's) district, theoriginal price paid to the grower hadbeen 6d. for 2cwt. The Select Committeemight do some good ; but it was vain tohope that the whole question could besettled by a Committee.

ma COMI~SSIONER o1r RAm_-WAYS (Hon. F. H. Piesse) said he hadno intention of opposing the appointmentof a Select Committee, but, at the sametime, he was afraid there would not bevery good results, The hon. member whointroduced the motion seemed to considerthat all fruits were a luxury; but, if thepresent restrictions were not continued,fruit would become a greater luxury thanever. Indiscriminate importation mustresult in the introduction of disease andthe destruction of our orchards, as in Eomeof the easterni colonies. The dire resultof indiscriminate importation. of fruit

Ihad been seen in Tasmania and New SouthWales, and the efforts put forward thereto protect the different orchards appearedto come rather late in the day. Every-body would like to see fruit sold at lowprices; but, if there had to he cheapfruit in the future, the present restric-tions must not be interfered with. Thoseinterested in the business knew that theremoval of the restrictions would meanthe destruction of the orchards, whichthey were trying to build up. Some of

1368 Fruit Importation 2 [SEBY nuryit etitos

the orchards had cost as much as £5,000to prepare and cultivate, and as yet noreturns to speak of had been received.Hundreds of orchards were being planted,and he took it that those interested inthe colony's, welfare desired to encouragethe cultivation of these orchards, with aview of providing cheap fruit in the future.Unless the planting of orchards was en-couraged, that desired result could notbe attained. Grapes, cherries, and othersimilar fruits could be imported into thecolony under the ordinary restrictions ofthe department. The duty was verysmall, something like 10 per cent on thearticle, and that was not a. bar to its beingobtained here. The only fruits entirelyprohibited were apples, pears, and quinces,which would convey the codlin moth. Hewas quite agreeable to the Committeebeing appointed, and he hoped the resultwould be satisfactory. He did not opposethe motion, because he did not wish togag an inquiry. If an inquiry was made,we might elicit information which wouldprobably be of advantage to fruit-growers.After the remarks which had been made,hon. members would agree, no doubt, thatthe present resitrictions should be con-tinued, and the necessity for the appoint-ment. of a Select Committee might notexist.

MR. OLDHAM (North Perth): H.on.members opposite, and the fruit growers,would recognise that Is. Gd. per lb. forapples was a fairly reasonable price;and notwithstanding that the codlinnmoth existed in other countries, theywvere able to export fruit to the old coun-try and have plenty for home consump-tion, The dire results of the codlin.mnoth which had been spoken of permit-ted other countries to export apples toEurope and have plenty for themselves;yet in this colony it was impossible forpeople to buy apples at a less price thanIs. 6d. per lb.

Ma. WOOD.: It was September now.MR. OLDHAM: Had the hon. member

for West Perth ever bought apples inPerth at less than Is. 6d. per lb.

Ma. WOOD: Yes.MR. OLDHAM: Were they local ap-

pleaIMa. WOOD: Yes.MR. OLDU[AM said be had never seen

apples at that price. Like the Comn-

missioner of Railways, he did not mindthis motion being carried. If it werecarried, the Committee might elicit someinformation which would have the effectof reducing the price of fruit.

THE CoutmiioNnn or lA1LWAr'That would act do it.

MaR. OLDHA.M: Then the motionought to be opposed.

MR. MORAN (East Coolgardie): Thebon. member was wrong about the priceof apples. No doubt the price was Is.6d., but that was for 2lbs. Ninepenceper lb. was a fair price for apples.

Tim CouMMISSoE op RAILWAYS:

The price for apples in Adelaide to-daywas 7d. per lb.

Mn. MORAN said he bad bought ap-pies in Adelaide for a penny per bushel.Anyone could go out to the bills justaway from Adelaide, and buy apples ata penny per bushel, but the codlin mothwas in them. Every passenger broughtabout 20 or 30 lbs. of apples, and he hadseen any amount of codlin moth intro-duced into this colony in that way. Hehad never come ashore without havinga, few apples about him. An enthusi-astic man who went to Adelaide madeit a point to secure a6 good-sized codlinmoth, which he chained up and broughthere;- his view being that if there werea good supply of codlin moth we couldget apples at about 2d. a lb. As he(Mr. Moran) had developed a strongpenchant for protection, he did not advo-cate a course which would not be en-couraging to our orchardists; hub noamount of evidence would be sufficient toconvince some people that the restric-tions should be removed.

MR. Locke (Sussex) :Very Lu anythousands of pounds had been spent inthe colony during the last few years infruit trees, and it would be a, very seriousmatter to introduce the codlin mothhere. We had introduced nearly everydisease from the other colonies andeverywhere else, as far as heo knew, andnow it appeared that the inert move,would be to introduce disease amongfruit trees.

Question put and negatived.

[ASSEMBLY.] Inquiry bito Bestrictionz.

Oomfpany Promoters: [31 Aucuar, 1898.] Using Official Reports. 1369

MOTION: CO',WIAN-Y PROMOTEW ANDREPORTS BY CROWN OFFICERS.

MR. VOSPER (North-East Coolgardie)moved: -

That, in the opinion of this House, it isundesirable that officers of the Crown shouldfurnish reports on any of ton natural resourcesof the colony for the use of promoters of publiccompanies.During the last session, he brought in amotion, which was in some respects onall-fours with the one he had now moved;his objection then being as to the pre-sence of Ministers of the Crown on thedirectorates of public comapanies; and itwould be remembered how that motionwas dealt with. Though that motion wasnegatived, the discussion elicited somestrong expressions of opinion even fromMinisters, including the Premier, as tothe inadvisableness of Her Majesty'sGovernment being in any way mixed upwith the objects and purposes of comn-pany promoters. As this practice ofgranting reports from Government offi-cials to company promoters seemed tobe on the increase in the civil service,it was about time a check was put uponit. Some twelve months ago, a companycalled the "Peak Hill Goldfields,Limited," was floated in London, andfloated mainly on the strength of reportsfurnished by an officer at that time iiithe Government service, Mr. FrankReed, the chief engineer of the Mines De-partmnent. During the debate last ses-sion, he (Mr. Vosper) had intended toproduce evidence to show that the nameof the Government had been dragged inthe dirt in connection with the formationof that company; but the evidence wasnot at that time forthcoming. He wouldnow, however, show the House the way inwhich this practice had been carried on inthe past, and that it was still going on,though perhaps in other departments ofthe public service. When the Peak HillGold Mines Limited wvas floated, thedirectors published a voluminous massof documents, together with a prospectus.The prospectus commenced with the an-nouncement of a new goldfield of "pheno-menal riohnaess" -"proved by Governmentreports, statistics, and returns to he oneof the richest goldfields yet discovered.See reports herewith." With that pros-pectus was published a foe simite of theObver*mzent CazettO of Western Austra-

lie, dated Friday, March 19th, whereinthe Governor proclaimed the goldfield.There was also published a scientific, oralleged scientific, report to the Ministeror Mines on the Peak Hill goldfield, writ-ten and signied by Mr. Frank Reed; andthey wvent further and published a letterfrom Mr. Reed, nddressed to Mr. Darling-ton Simpson, dated 27th May, 1397.This fac simtile, which was open to theinspection of hon. members, had the usualcoat of arms at the top of the sheet ofnotepaper, which was, in fact, an exactcopy of the notepaper used in the every-day transactions of the Mines Depart-ijient. Mr-. Reed explained, in the courseof the letter, that he had previously re-ported to the, department on the purelyscientific aspect of the field, and that hewas willing to report, for Mr. Simpson'sbenefit, on its commercial aspect; andhe indulged in a series of prognosticationswhich he (Mr. Vosper) earnstly hopedwould be justified. Hut the matter wentfurther, for not only was Mr. Reed per-mitted to make that report, but he 'vasallowed three months' leave of absencefrom the Government service.

TRn PREMIER: Without pay.MR. VOSPER: No doubt without

pay, but he was still in his position as aGovernment official in charge of themines described in that prospectus.

MR. G~ofton: Where did the Ministercome in?

MR. VOSPER: Where the Ministercame in he did not know, but the conductof the Mines Department with regardto this prospectus was of a most extraor-dinary character. It was not right thatofficials of the department should be al-lowed to aid the schemes of company pro-moters. no matter how legitimate the ven-tures might be in themselves; for, ifsuch a company were to turn out a fail-ure, the same argument he had appliedlast year, as to Ministers of the Crowntaking seats on boards of directors of pub-lic companies, would apply here withequal force. If the company had beenfloated through the agency of the reportsof Government officials, the Governaient,rightly or wrongly, would be held re-sponsible, in London and elsewhere, forthe statements contained in the pros-

Ipectins in respect of such report. It washighly undesirable that public officials

1370 Company Promoters: ASbBYJ UuyOfca epre

should be allowed to commit the Govern-ment to statements of the kind; andthere appeared to be something peculiar-about the whole affair. Mr. Reed waspermitted to not and speak as no otherGovernment official was allowed to actand speak. He made reports which werewritten. on denartmental paper, and, bysome means or other unknown, he ob-tained leave of absence to look afterthese very properties. So far as he (Mr.Vosper) knew of Peak Hill, which he hadvisited, Mr. Reed'sp report was substan-tially correct. But, correct or incorrect-whether Mr. Reed's estima~teof thegold-field was correct or otherwise-the Gov-ernment had no right to lend his nameto that report.

Mn. GEORGE: X~hat caused the Govern-ment to do it?

lila. VOSPER said he did not know andcould not suy. He wished he could dis-cover the mofive. which led the Govern-ment to take the step. If he could findout, he should not hesitate to expose what-ever there might be to expose. He badth prospectus of the Westralian JerrakForests, Limited, issued so recently asthe 12th. of July last. In the midst ofthat prospectus there, was a report fromMr. Ednie Brown, Conservator of Forests,so that once again the name of a Got.erment official was brought in to supporta company. In the eighth paragraph ofM 7. Brown's report it was stated: -

A load of timber contains 50 cubic feet, andas this is worth about £6 per load in London,after paying all expenses in connection withhauling, sawing, tail, skid ship tio market(about £3 per load), it follows that the ma-tured marketable timber upon your lease isworth about £1,500,000.Wa~i that not a nice statement for theGovernment to be committed to in re-garu to a, timber concesion? He wasgin. i to see that the company promoterwho was responsiole, blushed at thethought of Putting such a thing beforethe public, and said:-

It will be seen from the report of Mr. J,Ednie Brown, tbat he puts the, profits at £3per load. Taking, however, the profit atonly half this amount, viz., £ 10s. per load,a production of 20,000 loads ler annumwould yield a -profit of £30,000.Then came the following statement.:--

Since the above estimate was made by Air.J. Ednie Brown, the price of jarrah has risen

from £06 to £,6 10s. per load, the current priceon 4th July in London mark-et.Here was a case where the Lands Depart-weat were committed to a statement issuedfor the purpose of raking In money; Enthere was Air. Reed's statement to theeffect that a certain area contained un-told wealth. Whether Air. Ednie Brownspoke the truth or not, the House wouldagree that it was highty undesirable thatsuch reports should be tolerated anyfurther. We had no right to allow theCrown to be responsible for the promo-tion of private companies. There was awell-founded objetion, not only on oneside of the House but on the other side,and on the part of Ministers generally,against public officers making reports forprivate companies.

THEB PREMIER (Right Eon. Sir JohnForrest): Being quite in accord with.J;t:motion, he would say, with regard to theConservator of Forests giving reportsand these reports being used by the pro-moters. of companies, action had alreadybeen taken to prevent this officer givingreports in the future. The Governmenitwere desirous of placing before the peoplein England, who were willing to investin any industry in this colony, reliableinformation; but afl that the Govern-ment could do was to allow thos inter-ested in any particular industry to makeuse of public reports wade by Governmentofficers, and which were published forgeneral information. The Governmentcould not go further than that. Thi,Conservator of Forests mnade his reportsperiodically to the Government, andanyone could use them. The Govern-

meat Geologist made his reports in thesame way, and anyone could use them toserve ainy object a person might have in.view; but for public officers to make re-ports for the promoters of public comn-panies, and for special matters, was un-desirable, as it would not do any good,and migrht lead to the Governent being-placed in an awkward position., Hewas quite in accord with the views ex-pressed in regard to this matter, and ivregard to~ the opinions expressed lastyear, that in matters connected with thrindustries of the colony, Ministers of thrCrown should not appear as directors, ofany company about to be promotedWe should always be careful to remeinbei

[ASSEMBLY.] Using Official _Rcporls.

ComanyProotes. 1 SPTEBER 188.3 River Steamers. 1871

it was not the individual the promoterwanted as &. director, hut it was the poli-tical position the Minister occupied thatwas of value. While our names wereour own, the, political positions we occu-pied were not our own ; therefore the3should not be used for promoting publiccompanies and ausiuting individual in.terests. He was quite in accord with themotion, and he would give it his support.

MR. GEORGE (Murray): Not know-ing anything about the merits of thePeak Hill goldfields he would leave thatmatter to the goldfields members to dis-cuss; but he did know something aboutthe timber resources of the colony, and Ihe said emphatically that the positiontaken up by Mr. Ednie Brown was suchthat the Government should dischargethat officer from the position he occu-pied.

THin Pnssnsa: Mr. Ednie Brownwould not give any more reports.

MR. GEORGE: Mr. Ednie Brown hadreported as to. Millar's Company, and alsothe Canning Jarrab Timaber Company, andno doubt received. at fee for so doing. Butrecently Messrs. Miller wished to cut tim-ber on certain timber land which had beenreserved for the sole use of farmers. andsettlers in the South-Western District;yet permission was. given to Messrs. Millarto out this timber. If the Commissionerof Crown Lands -were present, he wouldhave to corroborate the statement he(r.George) wvas about to make.

THE Plmssn: The settlers were allright.

MR. GEORGE: They would be aslong as the present member for theMurray represented them. Mr. EdnieBrown supplied a report to Messrs.Millar, who wished, for their own pur-poses, to get a, timber reserve made inthe district;j and when spoken to byhim (Mr. George) about the rights of thesettlers, that officer simply laughed atthe matter. The people were robbed oftheir rights by an official of the LandsDepartment, who acted without any con-sent from the Commissioner of CrownLands. People were not going to paythe Government to do work, and thenhave an officer turned into an agent topromote companies.

Question put and passed.

ADJOURNISENT.The House adjourned at 11.28 p~m.

until the next day.

Th~ursday, let September, 1898.

Paper presented - Motion: Swan RiverSteamers and Boats lpostponed)-CustomsDuties Amendment Bill, second reading(moved); Division ont adjournment-BeerDuty Bill, second reading and remiainingstages (Standing Orders suspeaded)-PireBrigades Bill, third readingm-Rivers Pol-lution Bill, third reading - DivorceAmendment and Extension Bidl, secondreading, debate concluded; division onAmendment (passed), Bill arrested-PublicEducation Bill, in Committee ; postponedclauses considered ; Bill -reported ;alsorecommitted and reported - MinisterialStatement: Loan (balance) floated; GoldYield in the colony-Adjournment.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at 4.30o'cock, P.M.

PRAYERS.

PAPER PRESENTED.By the COLONIAL SECRETARY: Agricul-

tural Bank, lleturn showing loans granted.Ordered to lie on the table.

MOTION: SWAN RIVER SThAUM ANDBOATS.

HoNq. It. S. HAYNES moved: "Thata.-return be laid on the table of the Houseshowin-1, the number of Governmentsteamers and other boats on the, SwanRiver and at Fremantle ; 2, the cost ofeach steamer or boat; 3, the annual cost,including crew, repairs, etc. ; 4, the pur-poses for which the same are used 5, th enumber of days a week each boat hasbeen in use since I1st January, 18 98." Hesaid the Government some time ago pur-

Company Promoters. [I SEPTEMBER, 1898.]