View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
1 December 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- PETITION : IRREGULAR
PAPERS
QUESTION
- UNIFORM MARRIAGE LAWS
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL
BRITISH NEW GUINEA
WEBSTER AND SOICH V. JOHNSTON AND ARBOUIN
QUESTION
- PRYKE AND FULLER V. JOHNSTON AND ARBOUIN
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES: REBATE OF DUTIES
QUESTION
- SELECT COMMITTEE : CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL
DEFENCE BILL 1904

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 7665

QUESTION

PETITION : IRREGULAR

Official Signature : Archbishop of Sydney

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

– I have here a petition from the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Sydney, praying that a clause be inserted in the Papua (British New Guinea) Bill prohibiting the importation of intoxicating drink from the Possession. I find, however, on reference to the Clerk, that exception is taken to the petition inasmuch as it does not include the surname of the Archbishop of Sydney. It is signed “ W. S. Sydney “ instead of “ W. S. Smith, Metropolitan Archbishop of Sydney.” As this petition comes from the head of the Church of England in Australia, according to the title by which he is recognised, I ask honorable senators to consent to so much of the Standing Orders being suspended as will enable the petition to be presented. I therefore move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be sus- t ended as will allow a petition signed “ W. S. Sydney “ to be presented.

The PRESIDENT:

– Perhaps I ought to explain to the Senate that the Clerk considered it to be his duty not to certify to this petition as being correct. The ground that he takes is that by our Standing Orders a petition must be signed by a person, and that this petition is signed with the name “ Sydney “ ; there being no such person, “ Sydney ‘ ‘ being a title. In consequence of the decision given in the Colenso case, and in other cases, by the Privy Council, it has been understood that there are no Archbishops or Bishops in this Commonwealth, in the strict acceptance of those terms, there being no established church here. But it is a question for the Senate to decide whether the Standing Orders shall be suspended or not.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I would point out that, although there does not seem to be any great objection to the acceptance of this petition in itself, to suspend the Standing Orders would be to establish a precedent, which might be very unwise. This petition is irregular. It emanates from a very important person, and one for whom we have a very high regard. But we may have irregular petitions in the future from other persons, and the precedent of suspending the Standing Orders to enable irregular petitions to be received may lead to motions of this kind being made in future in connexion with petitions concerning which there is some doubt. I think it an unwise thing to do. Personally, I do not believe that any great ‘harm will follow if the petition is not received. We all know that it is forwarded by this gentleman in a representative capacity, and, having that knowledge, full justice will be done even if the petition is not accepted.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– The only objection is that the petition is1 signed by the Archbishop, by his title ras an Archbishop, instead of in his own name. In other respects, the petition is regular.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I hope that Senator Gould, out of regard for the Standing Orders, will withdraw this petition until it is properly presented. It is only in cases of very grave necessity that we should suspend the Standing Orders. That course is usually taken for the purpose of enabling the business of the country to be carried ‘on more expeditiously. This petition will neither hasten nor delay the business of the country which is before Parliament at the present time. £0 far as concerns its influence upon members of the Senate, I think that every honorable senator knowing the circumstances will have just as much respect for the petition sought to be presented at the instance of the Archbishop as they would have if it were duly presented in a regular form. I therefore hope that Senator Gould will withdraw his motion.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

. - I should like to point out to my honorable and’ learned friend, Senator Gould, that the petition - if I may refer to it as such, for the purposes of discussion - merely brings, under the notice of the Senate a resolution passed by the Synod of the Church of England in Sydney. That resolution is conveyed to the notice of the Senate, and consideration will undoubtedly be given to it. It being within our knowledge that the resolution has been passed, it is not absolutely necessary that the petition should be formally received. With regard to the point raised by Senator McGregor, I confess that I entirely as;ree with him. We know perfectly well that no Bishops, in the sense of their having any territorial or diocesan- jurisdiction, or having the right to use the name of their See, are recognised in the Commonwealth of Australia by our Government or by the Imperial authorities. They are recognised as “ The Right Rev. So-and-so.” It is as well to adhere to that position, or we may establish a regrettable precedent.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

-If the objection to receive this petition is simply that the document is signed by the Archbishop of Sydney with his usual signature, it is very ungracious. I can quite understand the Clerk not feeling himself bound to accept a petition so signed, and he has very properly referred it to the Senate. I have no fault to find with that. But if the Senate refuses to admit the petition because it is so signed, it will do a very ungracious act. The petition practically comes from and embodies a resolution of the Synod of the Church of England in New South Wales. If the Archbishop had thought that he was contravening our Standing Orders by signing the petition in this way, I have no doubt that he would have adopted another method.

Senator McGregor:

– We all agree with the honorable senator in that.

Senator DOBSON:

– Then, what ground is there for refusing to accept the petition? Why waste time in objecting to receive it? It appears to me to be an ungracious act altogether.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to order. The honorable and learned senator says that an act of the Senate is an ungracious act. Is that remark in order ?

The PRESIDENT:

– There has been no act of the Senate yet. What I understood Senator Dobson to say was, that if the Senate refused to agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders, it would be an ungracious act. That is his own opinion.

Senator DOBSON:

– It is only my opinion, and it is a parliamentary and a very mild way of expressing it. Despite all that has been said, I think that it will be a very ungracious act on- the part of the Senate to refuse to accept the petition. T hope that we shall not introduce denominational considerations, and that the petition will be received.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I am sure that the Archbishop of Sydney is too broad-minded a man to misinterpret the action of the Senate in upholding its Standing Orders. It may appear to be an ungracious thing on our part not to receive the petition ; but I would1 ask honorable senators whether they would accept, my signature as “W.G. Queensland,” if I attached it in that form to any Bill passed by the Committee? In my opinion,, the Senate is indebted to the Clerk of theParliaments for calling our’ attention to thematter. I am sure .that no harm will bedone. The Attorney-General put thematter in a very proper form, when he informed Senator Gould that the attention of the Senate has been directed to the resolution carried by the Synod in Sydney.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Any one. can quote the resolution in the debate.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– It appears to me that the Archbishop of Sydney has not signed this petition deliberately with the intention of contravening our Standing Orders. If he had been aware of what the Standing Orders provided, I feel sure that he would have signed it in accordance with them. It -would be a wise and a gracious thing if we were to find some way out of this difficulty, it being understood that our action on this, occasion should not constitute a precedent, and that the Senate desire that the Standing Orders as they exist shall in future be strictly observed.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I hope that either Senator Gould will withdraw his motion for the suspension of theStanding Orders, or that the Senate will accept the motion unanimously. It seems to me that we are taking a very red-tapish course in this matter. We all know that the worthy clergyman who has signed thispetition has signed it in his official capacity, and without any intention to bring himself into conflict with the Standing Orders. If we carry out the very letter of the Standing Orders, we shall be departing from the spirit of them. The Archbishop will nodoubt have effected his purpose, whether we accept the petition or not ; but it has tobe remembered that the right of petition is always regarded as a very sacred one and we should not therefore refuse to any ‘ person through any mere informality the right to put his case before the Senate. It must be remembered that the Papua Bill will probably be dealt with this evening, and if the petition is not presented to-day. the full effect of it may be lost. We ought to have it before us when the Bill is in Committee. If, however, the motion of Senator Gould is not to be accepted unani- mously, I hope that the honorable and learned senator will see his way clear to withdraw it.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Quite apart from the duty of upholding our Standing Orders, it appears to me that there is a constitutional reason why we cannot accept the petition in its present form. A little while ago, there was some agitation, and some bad blood arose, between the various religious ‘organizations as to the precedence of their heads at social and political functions. The Senate should be very careful not to participate in anything of that kind. Our Constitution lays down the principle that all religions are equal in our eyes. I hold that, according to section 116 of the Constitution, if we were to accept the petition in its present form we should, to a certain extent, be defeating the object of the section, which says -

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance.

I hold that if we were to accept this petition containing the Archbishop’s territorial signature - which, I understand, is the usual way in which archbishops and bishops sign documents, instead of using their Christian and surnames - we should, to a certain extent, be establishing a certain religious observance, and giving a precedence to this Archbishop to which he is not en- . titled. There can be no denying that we should be setting a precedent, and its having been established, the petitioner in this case would in future be entitled to address the Senate over the signature “ W. S. Sydney.”

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Gould. - In the other House the signature was accepted.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives permit such a petition to be received, it is not for us to interfere. We have to maintain our own Standing Orders. I hold that the constitutional reason is sufficient to justify us in rejecting the petition in its present form ; but, at the same time, I do not believe that there is any honorable senator who has any objection whatever to the petition except on account of the manner in which it is signed.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I cannot help saying that I very strongly dissent from and dislike what Senator de Largie has said. I am perfectly certain that the

Archbishop of Sydney, who signed the petition, had not the faintest desire to establish any precedent for himself.

Senator de Largie:

– J did not say that he had.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I believe the honorable senator said that if this precedent were established the Archbishop would say so and so.

S’enator de Largie. - I really cannot allow that argument to be attributed to me. What I said was that if we were to establish this precedent the Archbishop of Sydney would have a claim for its maintenance in the future. But I imputed no such idea to the Archbishop as that he desired to establish it.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I accept Senator de Largie’s explanation at once, and I am glad that he has made it. I erroneously understood him to say that the Archbishop was desirous of establishing this precedent. I am glad that he has had the opportunity to make an explanation. That explanation I unreservedly accept. I agree with Senator Mulcahy in urging on Senator Gould to withdraw the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. There is nothing more certain than that if the Archbishop had had the faintest idea that the adoption of his usual form of signature was not in accordance with the Standing Orders, he would have signed the document in another way ; and no one more than the Archbishop must regret this debate, even so far as it has gone. Not merely for our own sakes, but for the sake of the Archbishop, I urge that the motion should be withdrawn, and the petition presented in another form.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator Trenwith:

– But in a way which would not be accepted by the House of Commons.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

– By statutory law in New South Wales, the Archbishop of Sydney is recognised as holding property, and in every other respect > and he had perfect justification for signing the petition in this way. If there has been any irregularity, I am, of course, bound to accept the responsibility. Even if there were only two or three honorable senators averse to the suspension of the Standing Orders, I should not be prepared to go to a division. I hope, however, that honorable senators will bear in mind that, if in the future, they should desire the Standing Orders to be’ suspended for their own convenience, they may find some little objection and difficulty raised. If honorable senators take up the position that the suspension of the Standing Orders shall be refused on all occasions’, I am with them. I now ask leave to withdraw the motion, and I express my regret that it should have been submitted, and that I have been unable to obtain that courtesy which I expected.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 7668

PAPERS

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON laid upon the table the following paper : -

Provisional Regulations under the Defence- Act 1903. - Amendment of the Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth, 1904 - Statutory Rules 1904, No. ?2.

The Clerk laid upon the table the following paper: -

Return to order of the Senate of 10th November, 1904 - Warrant and Non-commissioned Officers, Instructional Staffs - Reclassification of.

– I shall explain all about the matter when I move the second reading of the Bill.

Senator DOBSON:

– I should like the Attorney-General to give me the information now, if he can.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am unable to give the honorable and learned senator the information.

page 7669

BRITISH NEW GUINEA

Debate resumed from 20th October (vide page 5827), on motion by Senator Higgs -

That ‘there be laid on the table of the Senate a precis of the statements made by Mr. John Renfrew Craig, of Samarai, in correspondence with the Government of British New Guinea, and wilh the Commonwealth Department of External Affairs, containing certain charges against the Executive Council of British New Guinea, and specific allegations with regard to the maladministration of the Government of British N-:w Guinea.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– -I think the Attorney-General was very severe on Mr. J. R. Craig when this motion was last before the Senate. The chief objection of the honorable and learned senator to having a precis made of Mr. Craig’s statement, appeared to be that Mr. Craig had on various occasions applied for a position in the Commonwealth Service. The fact that Mr. Craig did not obtain such a position does not prove in any way that he is a man to whom the Attorney-General, or any other member of the Ministry, should not pay attention when he writes a number of intelligent letters, which, though not couched, in every case, in the language which the Attorney-General might use, contained very serious statements concerning the administration of New Guinea. My object in asking that a freds of this correspondence should be prepared was to make Members of the Federal Parliament better acquainted with New Guinea affairs, so that they might be better equipped for legislating in regard to the Possession. The Attorney-General has taken up a very strong attitude in opposition, to the motion, and he appears to have a considerable number of supporters-; and under the circumstances, I should like honorable senators to bear with me, while I give a short precis of some of the statements of Mr. Craig. In one of his letters that gentleman refers to certain atrocities, as he describes them, in the Louislade Archipelago. It appears that in those islands the custom is to allow the natives to obtain goods on credit, payment being demanded in gold. The accounts are kept, and if the natives fail to pay, they are charged exorbitant interest, and very harsh measures are used towards them. It appears that certain persons actually arrested natives for the non-payment of accounts, and tried them for the offence in the storekeeper’s house. In one case, they actually imprisoned a native who failed to pay, 300 feet below the’ surface in a mine, and handcuffed to a truck, 1 all night. It appears that this unfortunate native lost his reason, and for some three years he wandered about the island in a half-witted manner until death put an end to his unhappy condition. It would appear also that these people, unauthorized, ventured to administer a flogging to the natives because they failed to pay their accounts. Mr. Craig states that the only punishment that was ever inflicted upon persons guilty of these offences ,was to deprive one of the .members of the firm of his1 commission as a justice of the peace and of his authority to “sign on “ natives. Subsequent to the cancellation of his commission, as a justice of the peace, this man continued to sign on boys for his own firm. The firm had some hundreds of natives employed, and they were signed for the period of three years, which was against the law, at a rate of wages of is. a month and rations. It appears, further, that they forcibly recruited natives, and sent them to places 200 miles from their homes to work for the firm. Mr. Craig, whose statements have been challenged by the Attorney-General, is borne out by one of the Government officials in an official report, which is to this effect -

At Sudest certain abuses are cropping up, the result of the objectionable system of giving goods on credit to the natives, which was introduced by these traders a few years ago. Perhaps, when gold was fairly plentiful and easy to obtain, matters went smoothly enough, but now, when the gold is worked out, these” traders have awakened to the fact that they stand to lose a considerable sum if the native cannot meet his liability, and at times they adopt measures of an illegal character in the endeavour to urge the native to greater efforts in his search for gold. The traders who were indicated are Messrs. Mahony, Patrick Carby, and Mr. John Clyde Mahony, Justice of the Peace,’ a qualified officer for the Possession.

That is a statement by one of the New Guinea officials, and it appears to me to bear out the statements which have been made by Mr. Craig. With regard to another letter, in which Mr. Craig refers to unjust judicial decisions in appeal cases from the Warden’s Court, in reference to leasehold or dredging areas .on the Yare and Mambare Rivers, in December, 1900, he is borne out by the late Mr. J. P. Cusack, secretary to the Amalgamated Miners. Mr. Craig says -

These leaseholds originally applied for by genuine practical miners were withheld by the magistracy, with the connivance of the Executive Council, until such time as members of the magistracy and of the corrupt Customs gang were able to lodge applications and communicate with southern brokers with a view to gigantic exploitation schemes.

Let me say here that I think Craig has made a very serious mistake in his own interest in using such language as “corrupt Customs gang,” which I have just quoted. His letters would have had greater weight, as I have told him frequently, if he had not used this language. The statement above quoted appears to me to be borne out by the following extract from a letter written by Mr. J. P. Cusack, in May, 1904: -

It is strange and a painful fact that, although members of the New Guinea governing executive can get big estates around Port Moresby, and the deeds handed to them at once, we here on Woodlark gold-field - a field of some ten years’ standing, and supposed to be regulated by the Queensland Mining Act - cannot get a homestead lease of an acre to build a hut on.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– That is extraordinary.

Senator HIGGS:

– Mr. Craig has made a statement on the subject to the Department of External Affairs, and he also addressed a complaint to the Executive Council of New Guinea in regard to the matter.

I find that his statements are borne out, to a considerable extent, by individuals, and by correspondence.

Senator Drake:

– Is the honorable senator going to give any corroboration of these statements ?

Senator HIGGS:

– I propose to give the name of one of the miners in New Guinea, later. With regard to the Woodlark decisions, Mr. Craig says -

After many Warden’s Court cases, appeals were made to the Central Court of the Possession, and a date set for hearing. Legal counsel, costing over ^500, was secured from Townsville, but the corrupt gang “ influenced “ or “ worked “ the Executive Council -

Here, again, Mr. Craig indulges in extreme language, to which the Senate is not accustomed - so that the Central Court heard and decided the appeal cases before the date set for hearing, handing over the leaseholds to the corrupt gang. At a meeting of the Executive Council held that same evening on board the Merrie England, an appeal against this iniquitous proceeding was presented to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but the same was never acknowledged, and the unjust decision still remains in force.

Senator Drake:

– By whom was the appeal presented?

Senator HIGGS:

– I have no names in this case. This is one of the general paragraphs, but I now come to particular instances. Mr. Craig states -

During the year 1899 a good deal of litigation took place in the Warden’s Court, Woodlark, over certain mining leaseholds, which resulted in appeals being lodged and certain cases set for hearing by the Central Court. Some of these cases were as undernoted.

page 7670

WEBSTER AND SOICH V. JOHNSTON AND ARBOUIN

page 7670

QUESTION

PRYKE AND FULLER V. JOHNSTON AND ARBOUIN

These cases being heard in the Warden’s Court, were decided by the Warden an3 two assessors in favour of Webster and Soich, and Pryke and Fuller, in which Johnston and Arbouin appealed to the Central Court; appeal was allowed, and to enable both parties time to arrange for legal counsel, the Warden stated that the case would not be heard before a certain date.

A number of the parties interested then left Woodlark Island for Queensland for the purpose of arranging the engagement of legal counsel.

The Chief Judicial Officer arrived at Woodlark in the absence of these men about six weeks before the date indicated by Warden for the hearing of the appeal cases. The Judge gave about an hour’s notice that he was going to hear those appeals.

Mr. D. Pryke, as representing Webster and Soich and Pryke and Fuller, objected in Court to the appeals being heard, as Johnston and Arbouin had not complied with the Act, which states that notice shall be served on the other side within ‘ a certain period, which in this case had not been done, and the cases were, therefore, actually out of Court.

The Judge overruled this objection, and also affirmed that there was no appeal, absolutely refusing fo hear evidence, nevertheless giving a decision upsetting the Warden’s Court decision.

Mr. Pryke asked the Judge for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was refused, the Judge stating that there was no appeal from the Central Court. Mr. Pryke thereupon lodged a petition with the Executive Council, pointing out the unjustness of the decision of the Central Court, and requesting that the matter be reconsidered by the Executive Council. No official acknowledgment was ever received of such appeal, and the decision still remains in force.

Mr. Pryke was in Melbourne the other day, and he was asked to read that extract from Craig’s correspondence. He did so, and attached to it this certificate -

Having read this statement, I can certify to the truth of the- same. (Sgd.) Daniel Pryke, of Samarai, British New Guinea, 4’th November, 1904.

C. Stewart,

Witness, 130 Grey-street, East Melbourne.

Senator HIGGS:

– Yes. Senator Stewart witnessed Mr. Pryke’s signature to that certificate. Now, with regard to the Customs cases, I propose to read an extract from Mr. Craig’s correspondence, without giving the names. He writes -

Let us consider the notorious instance of August, 1902, as a specific instance typical of many other similar frauds during the previous four years.

In August, 1902, there was on the manifest of the s.s. Moresby the particular item consisting of 4,810 lbs. of trade tobacco. On one copy of the manifest to be lodged with the Customs, Mr. A., assisted by Mr. K., altered the figures to 2,810, thus evading the payment of duty upon 2.000 lbs. weight of trade tobacco, which, at is. 6d. per lb. duty, is equal to a sum of ^,’150, evaded upon this one particular item alone.

A and K “fixed up” certain copies of invoices from head office to suit the manifest so “ faked.” These invoices they stamped with the Government stamp, feloniously secured through the connivance of M, and fixed up everything, as usual, “ nicely “ - fraudulently - in a similar manner to what they had done so frequently during the previous five years.

Senator HIGGS:

– The quotation continues -

There were several items on that particular manifest fraudulently manipulated in a similar manner, and the total amount of the evasion of duty amounted to a sum of about ?700. Of that sum about ?100 was allowed to remain to the credit of a certain company to swell their profits, while about ^’600 was divided or shared out among various persons.

Dabu on the 10th November, 1903, to Mr. Craig, who, it will be remembered, was charged with the murder of a native -

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of yours of5th October ult., and to say in reply that-

You did not murder the native Tagege or

Tagigi, is proved by the fact of his being returned to his home, and by his having signed on to another employer.

The forging of my signature to a labour document was simply a clerical error - you forgetting to put Sgd.before my name.
As to your recruiting, I do not know of any attempt on your part to evade the law. The natives always know that they can tell me if they do not want to sign. In a few cases they have told me - but not in yours. Certainly, all the boys signed on by you were perfectly willing to sign before they did so.

After perusing at Townsville Mr. Craig’s letters of 9th September, 5th October, and 26th October, 1903, to the Department of External Affairs, Bishop Stone Wigg wrote to him on the 2nd February, 1904, in these terms -

I have read through your papers, and think that you make a prima facie case for inquiry by the Federal authorities. I must say I hope a thorough inquiry will take place.

I admit that there is a very great deal of correspondence written by Mr. Craig. He has shown an extraordinary amount of perseverance in sending correspondence to the various Departments.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Altogether misdirected perseverance.

Senator HIGGS:

– There may be a certain amount of misdirected zeal. Since he spoke to me about this matter at Townsville, in November last, I have repeatedly told Mr. Craig that he would get a great deal more consideration if he would refrain from using extravagant language. But that is no reason why his statements should be dismissed as unworthy of credence. The Attorney-General could instruct one of his officers to make a short precis ; it may be as short as the Government wish, so long as it will give honorable senators an idea of the maladministration in the Possession. “Mr. Craig points out that, through Customs leakages, a great deal of revenue is lost. Because he has happened to apply for a position in the Public Service of the Com- monwealth, and has not succeeded, surely that is no reason why we should refuse to listen to the statements he is prepared to make. I understand that he is willing to make an affidavit concerning a great number of the charges he has made, and he claims that other charges can be substan tiated by witnesses who are either in the Possession or in the Commonwealth.

I hope the motion will be carried.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 16

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 7673

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES: REBATE OF DUTIES

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Postmaster-General · Western Australia · Free Trade

– In view of the amount of business on the notice-paper, I ask that the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the motion standing in my name, with reference to the rebate of duties on natural products grown in the New Hebrides, be read and discharged.

Order of the day read and discharged.

page 7673

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE : CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL

Debate resumed from 24th November (vide page 7390). on motion by Senator Higgs -

That the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the case of Major J. W.

Carroll be adopted.

Senator DRAKE:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Queensland · Protectionist

– When my remarks were terminated last week, I was about to refer to some of the evidence given as to the qualifications of Major Carroll as a military officer. But before I proceed to discuss that point’, I desire to make one or two remarks in addition to what I said upon two points in particular, because there seems to be some dissent from my criticisms. First, with regard to the reasons advanced by MajorGeneral Hutton for having selected Major Carroll for retrenchment, I stated that the real reason that had been stated by Major-General Hutton was that he was called upon to retrench, and that Major Carroll was an officer whose services could be dispensed with, with less detriment to th<» military service of the Commonwealth, than was the case with some other officers. The statement was challenged by my honorable friend, Senator Dawson. It is a very important matter, and, therefore, I need not apologize for referring to it again. Senator Dawson said that MajorGeneral Hutton had not put that point forward as a reason. I intend to refer to certain passages in the evidence to show that he did put it forward as a reason. It is important, because it confirms the view which I take, and have previously expressed, that the statement, taken from the letter of the 14th November, did not constitute the reasons for the retrenchment of Major Carroll. I again refer honorable senators to the letter of the 14th November, and will show that that letter does not state that any of the statements made in it are reasons advanced by Major-General Hutton for the retrenchment of Major Carroll. The General Officer Commanding had been called upon in a private letter from the Minister of Defence, Sir John Forrest, to give him some particulars about Major Carroll, and in the last sentence the Minister says -

Please, therefore, let me have good grounds for my actions in Carroll’s and all other similar cases.

Major-General Hutton, in a private and confidential letter, dated the 14th November, 1902, wrote back -

With reference to your note of the 12th inst., and Captain Carroll, the case is as follows : -

Then a little further down he says -

Captain Carroll’s history is as follows : - It is under those two headings that all the statements appear which have been chopped up and alphabetized by the Select Committee. They appear in the course of the inquiry as statements lettered from A to something very far down in the alphabet. Honorable senators have been invited to take the view that these statements were reasons advanced by Major-General Hutton for the retrenchment of Major Carroll. But it is clear from the letter that they were not the reasons, and Major Carroll himself has never advanced the contention that they were.

Senator DRAKE:

– The General Officer Commanding was endeavouring to put the Minister in as good a position as he was in himself so far as information was concerned. The important point is that the reason given by Major-General Hutton was that he was called upon to retrench, and that he came to the conclusion that Major Carroll’s services could, in his opinion, be spared with least detriment to the service. On page 33 of the evidence, Major-General Hutton is reported as stating, in a letter dated 16th September, 1903: -

It became then a question of consideration which of the recently appointed officers could, with best advantage to the Commonwealth Military Forces, be retrenched. The choice rested between five or six officers who were appointed to the Queensland State Military Forces about the same time. I found that the claims of the following two officers were least worthy of consideration, and that their services could, from the information then at my disposal, without detriment, be dispensed with, namely,- and Captain Carrol).

The officer whose name I have not mentioned was dispensed with altogether, but Captain Carroll was given employment elsewhere. In a Minute by the General Officer Commanding, dated 10th July, 1903, and reported on page 31 of the evidence, there is the following: -

I do not propose to comment on Major Carroll’s statement. The whole Question is as to whether it was advisable to retain Captain and Honorary Major Carroll’s services at the time the retrenchment was effected in 1002.

That, I submit, was the only reason that the General Officer Commanding should have been called upon to give. If the judgment of the General Officer Commanding was correct on the subject that one reason was amply sufficient.

Senator Higgs:

– He based his reason on the statement in the letter.

Senator DRAKE:

– He does not say so, but, no doubt, he based his reason on the general knowledge he obtained from the sources at his disposal with regard to the incidents and particulars of Major Carroll’s career. All the information he could get from his officers and elsewhere was used by him. And, as he says, he went into the facts fully in order to arrive at a decision. There is no doubt, however, that the reason he submitted to the Minister was the reason I quoted just now.

Senator Higgs:

– What is Senator Drake’s opinion of some of the information given by officers to the General Officer Commanding ?

Senator DRAKE:

Senator DRAKE:

– I shall quote what the witnesses said. The General Officer Commanding, in his written statement, which appears on page 33 of the evidence, stated -

It appeared that in February, 1899, Captain Carroll was appointed to the Permanent Staff of the Military Forces of Queensland. The reasons of the appointment were unknown, but it was stated to me that his appointment was made by the then Premier of Queensland, acting, probably, on representations of a favorable naturemade in regard to this officer. and so on. The following is an extract from the evidence on page 35 - 356. Who is responsible for the statement that he “made himself useful to the then Premier of Queensland “ ? - The whole of the officers whom I consulted ; but their impressions may have been» wrong. I merely give the statement for what it is worth. It is the explanation which was offered for the. return of Major Carroll to the Queensland Permanent Forces. 357. Amongst those officers you include Colonel Ricardo, Lt.-Col. Aytoun, and Lt.-Col. Plomer? - Yes, they were all in Brisbane at the time of my visit, and I have not the slightest doubt but that they will tell the Committee exactly the same thing as myself. There was no imputation that anything improper had occurred in the matter of his re-appointment.

Senator de Largie:

– Colonel Plomer wasnot in Queensland when Major Carroll was brought back from the old country

Senator DRAKE:

– Perhaps Colonel Plomer had not that information.

Senator Higgs:

– This is another of. Major-General Hutton’s reckless statements.

Senator DRAKE:

– At question 373 Major-General Hutton was asked - 373. Then the statement that Major Carroll- “ made himself useful to the then Premier of Queensland “ was advanced under a misapprehension? - It was made as the result of a mistaken impression which was conveyed to me. T have no means of gauging the qualifications of. the majority of officers other’ than by relying.; upon the opinions of officers in whom I have confidence.

Lt.-Col. Lyster, who is well known as an old Queensland officer, is thus reported, on page 161 of the evidence - 403S. Did yo.u ever hear it stated that Major Carroll had made himself useful to Sir Hugh Nelson when in England? - I have heard it, but who said it, or where it was said, I do not know. 4039. Did you ever hear it said that he got his commission because he had made himself useful? - You mean the second appointment? 4040. I mean the appointment that is referred to here? - I have heard it said, but who said it, or whether since, or before, or at the time, I could not say. 4041. You cannot say whether it was in 1898, or later? - No. 4042. Was it a matter of common remark, or was it merely the expression of one individual’s opinion ? - That I could not say.

Senator de Largie:

– That is about the most we could get anywhere.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think not.

Senator Findley:

– He was “sufficiently ambiguous,” at any rate.

Senator DRAKE:

– Senator Dawson seemed incredulous when I mentioned, from memory, that Major Selheim was one of the officers who had referred to this rumour. I find that on page 167, at question 4150, Major Selheim gave this evidence -

Did you ever hear any reason assigned for his being brought back to Queensland? - Yes, hearsay again - pure hearsay.

What was the reason assigned? - I heard that somebody who had influence had arranged for him to return.

Did you ever hear the name of .Sir Hugh Nelson mentioned in this connexion? - Yes.

Was it common talk? - Yes, I have often heard it.

Is it probable that you, among others, may have mentioned the rumour to the General Officer Commanding, when he was in Brisbane in 1002, and asked questions on the subject of Major Car roll? - Yes, I may have done so. Had I been asked, I should have told him just what I have told the Committee now, but I have no recollection of being asked.

Where did you hear the rumour that Major Carroll had made himself useful to Sir Hugh Nelson? - I heard it at Head-quarters here.

Can you remember the name of any person who repeated the rumour to you ? - I cannot say that I do. There is just the impression in my mind that I have heard it.

You have only an impression that you heard it? - No. I am positive that I heard it, but I cannot say from whom I heard it.

Did you attach any importance to the statement at the time? - No, I did not. It went in one ear and out the other.

If it were True that influence had been used, would it necessarily follow that it was corrupt or wrong influence ? - No.

It might have been a perfectly fair thing to do? - Yes. I am quite sure that nobody imputed any corrupt influence to Sir Hugh Nelson.

I now refer honorable senators to the evidence of Lt.-Col. Chauvel on the same subject. He was asked by the chairman, question 4352 -

Did you ever hear that Major Carroll received an appointment in the Queensland Force because he made himself useful to the Premier of Queensland when in England ? - I have heard that said.

Did you ever tell any one that Major Carroll had made himself useful to the Premier of Queensland ? - Certainly not.

Did any one ever tell you that? - I have heard the rumour, but I cannot remember that any one specially told me of it.

Can’ you trace the rumour to any person ? - No, not at this time; it is so long ago.

Did you hear it more than once? - I think so. J have heard it lately, but I do not remember how it cropped up.

– He certainly cannot be said to have had any bias against Major Carroll, because he gives that gentleman a very high character indeed. He says that Major Carroll was in the habit of visiting at his house, and he evidently had a very high opinion of him. In answer to question 4534, he says -

Major Carroll has always been an abstemious, pure-living, clean-tongued man, and a gentleman in every sense ‘of the word.

Senator Higgs:

– Yet Dr. Thomson went to head-quarters in Queensland to try to prevent Major Carroll from getting his appointment as adjutant in 1899.

Senator DRAKE:

– That is so, and he gives as his reasons for doing so, that he thought that, physically, Major Carroll should not have been re-admitted to the service at that time.

Senator de Largie:

– Yet, he passed him to go ,to the South African war afterwards.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Neild. - He showered rose-leaves on him, and then stabbed him.

Senator DRAKE:

– I am endeavouring to exclude from my remarks all matters, but those which are dealt with in statement G, to which some honorable senators apparently attach very great importance. This is the evidence given by Dr. Thomson at question 4612 -

Have you ever heard anything -which would justify the Committee in coming to the conclusion that it had been general conversation in Brisbane, that Major Carroll’s return from England to an appointment on the Permanent Staff was due to the influence of Sir Hugh Nelson? - That was common talk ; I have no evidence of it.

Mess-room talk ? - Yes ; that was the general impression.

By the Chairman. - Can you remember the name of one person who stated that Major Carroll had made himself useful to the Premier of Queensland? - I never heard that he had made himself useful.

What were the terms of the rumour you heard on the subject? - The yarn went about that during a visit Sir Hugh Nelson made to England, I think at the time of the second Jubilee, Major Carroll had seen him, and had used some influence with him with Sir Horace Tozer. General Gunter is dea’d, and I make no charge, far from it; but General Gunter told me certain things which led me to understand that the influence I refer to had been used to get him back, and it was impossible for him (General Gunter) to interfere.

By Senator de Largie. - Did he indicate the nature of the influence ? - Yes, as I have told you. My memory is that both Sir Hugh Nelson’s name and Sir Horace Tozer’s name were mentioned in connexion with it.

By the Chairman. - Did you ever say to any one that’ Major Carroll had made himself useful to the Premier of Queensland ? - Never. I never heard it suggested ; and that he made himself useful to Sir Hugh Nelson, I never dreamt of.

You never said it ? - No. I thought that simply as an old Queenslander he had gone to see Sir Hugh Nelson in London, and had pled his cause. I never associated the story with anything of that sort.

It must be perfectly clear, from ,the extract I have read’, that there was a rumour to the effect stated at that time in. Queensland, by way of accounting for an unexpected appointment. It will be remembered that Major Carroll, in his evidence, has said that when he received this appointment in London, he was, never more surprised in his life.

Senator Higgs:

That seems a very severe statement, and I should, in fairness, petition that Colonel Plomer said in his evidence afterwards, that the idea which he intended to convey was not that Major Carroll was destitute of brains, but that he had not sufficient ability for a field officer. The point with regard to Major .Carroll’s three years’ service in Queensland is referred to in the evidence Lt.-Col. Chauvel, at page 172 of the evidence, question 4307 -

Did you ever hear from military officers that Major .Carroll’s services as a subaltern were unsatisfactory ? - Yes, I heard it.

Did you hear it at that time, or in later years? - At that time, or shortly afterwards. I heard Colonel Byron speaking of him as unsatisfactory.

Did you hear the opinions of any other officers concerning Major Carroll at that time? - Yes, I heard Major Jackson speak of him.

What was Major Jackson’s position? - He was then commanding the Queensland Permanent Artillery, which is now the R.A.A.

What was his opinion? - He had not very much of an opinion of Major Carroll’s capacity as an officer. I think he liked him, but he did not think he was satisfactory as a subaltern.

On page 174, the same witness was asked -

In what light has Major Hooper represented Major Carroll to you?

He answered -

He has often spoken to me of Major Carroll as an unsatisfactory Adjutant - unsatisfactory in his methods of keeping accounts chiefly ; but, at the same time, he has spoken of him as a very popular man with officers, and so on.

In other words, as a very nice fellow, but not a good soldier in his position ? - Exactly.

The next witness, whose evidence I must refer to, is Major Deacon, because it was under Major Deacon that Major Carroll served in South Africa,

Senator de Largie:

– Not all the time.

Senator DRAKE:

– For part of the time he was under Lt.-Col. Aytoun, but that officer was in Scotland at the time the Committee was inquiring, and, therefore, was not available as a witness. Major Deacon, and also Lt.-Col. Spencer Browne speak of Major Carroll’s services under Lt.-Col. Aytoun

Senator de Largie:

– Major Carroll got promotion under another officer in South Africa.

Senator DRAKE:

– Promotion was served out all round to officers who were willing to stay in South Africa for a longer period. They were advanced a step in rank. Major Deacon went to South Africa in command of the first Queensland contingent, and his opinion of Major Carroll is given in question 500-

During that time, had you good opportunities of observing Major Carroll’s movements and general conduct? - Yes; he was immediately under my command.

What was your experience of him as a military officer. What opinion did you form as to his military capacity ? - He was perfectly useless to me. I am sorry to have to say it, but that is’ a fact.

That is in the capacity in which he was then acting ? - Yes.

Or in any capacity? - Especially in that capacity.

What was his capacity? - He was the officer commanding what was known as F Company of the Fourth Queensland Imperial Bushmen.

You found that he was perfectly useless to you as a military officer? - Yes.

Then, at question 575, the same witness is examined as follows: -

What I desire to ascertain is the opinion entertained by Colonel Avtoun regarding Major Carroll. It is stated that in his report he recommended Major Carroll as quite satisfactory. Did Colonel Aytoun express any opinion to you ?- - Yes.

What did he say? - That Major Carroll really made him quite ill - that he did not know what to do with him.

Perhaps at this point I may refer to the evidence of Lt.-Col. Spencer Browne at page 206 of the evidence. It is fair to say that Lt.-Col. Spencer Browne holds a very high opinion of Major Carroll, and explains that the very strong feeling expressed against him by Lt.-Col. Aytoun was partly due to Lt.-Col. Aytoun’s preference for Imperial officers as against Colonial officers. At question 5Z42 Lt.-Col. Spencer Browne is examined as follows: -

Did any one express disapproval to you of Major Carroll’s conduct as a military officer? - Yes, Colonel Aytoun did.

What did he say? - Colonel Aytoun made an application for the appointment of an Imperial officer as Adjutant of the 4th Queensland Bushmen, and his remarks when he made that application were to the effect that Major Carroll could not handle the rough material he had in his contingent.

He speaks very highly of Major Carroll in respect of his bravery. The evidence goes on, at question 5295 -

Do you think that Colonel Aytoun would carry his prejudice to such an extent as to do a deliberate injustice to Major Carroll, simply because he was not an Imperial officer ? - I do not think that Colonel Aytoun was altogether satisfied with Major Carroll, but I do say that the condition of affairs in Colonel Aytoun’s regiment was so very unsatisfactory that I think that, and his natural prejudice in favour of Imperial officers, led him to do what I considered to be a very considerable injustice to other officers of the regiment besides Major Carroll. I do not know that he did any special injustice to Major Carroll, because if he was not satisfied with him as adjutant, he was entitled to make a change.

Then, at question 5320 -

I now ask you whether, in your own mind, you d ) not blame Major Carroll more than Colonel Aytoun for the condition of the horses in the contingent? - I do not. I certainly blame Major Carroll for it to a certain extent, and I do not blame either so much as my remarks appear to have led you to believe.

Senator de Largie:

– That refers to the bad saddles.

Senator DRAKE:

– Lt.-Col. Spencer Browne, as I said before, speaks highly of Major Carroll, and cites his evidence in fairness to that gentleman, and as partly explaining Lt.-Col. Aytoun’s feelings. It has been said that Lt.-Col. Aytoun gave a certificate as to the conduct of Major Carroll, when it was a question of his being granted a gratuity of £100, and that he stated that Major Carroll’s services had been very satisfactory. But we have other evidence,” which shows that Lt.-Col. Aytoun’s opinion of Major Carroll was certainly adverse. Going back to the evidence of Major Deacon, at question 614 he is examined as follows : -

What report did you make to the General Officer Commanding when he consulted you at Cambooya ? - The same report that I have made to you, namely, that Major Carroll was useless as an officer on active service.

Then, at question 685, in connexion with Major Carroll’s appointment to the command of a squadron -

Then he belonged to the regiment? - I was not quite sure about that. Major Carroll reported to me as having been on leave, and having re-joined the regiment. I told him I had no place for him, and that I did not want him, and he then said something about his being entitled to an appointment as second in command. I told him that the recommendation for that appointment rested with me, and that I certainly could not recommend him. In fact, it was not until two days after he reported to me that I took him on the strength of the regiment again. I think he rejoined on the nth, and on the 13th he was posted to the command of the squadron.

How did you come to place him in. command of a squadron? - The Officer Commanding my corps, Colonel Jefferies, told me that I ‘had better find some place for him. I explained the position that I was in, and that I did not want Major Carroll. The reason I appointed him squadron leader was because, apart from myself, he was really the senior officer in the regiment.

At question 69 ii -

You told the Committee that Colonel Gallway asked for an officer to do duty as Provost-Marshal, and that you nominated Major Carroll for the position, in order to get rid of him? - Yes; that was my object.

Whilst on active service, did you find that it was very much a case of every man for himself, and the’ devil take the hindmost. You got rid of an officer, and you let the other fellow who took him look after him? - Yes.

At question 698 -

Did you feel on that occasion, or on other occasions, that the fact that Major Carroll was with you in a responsible position, either as Adjutant or as squadron leader, added to your responsibility ? - Very much so.

Did you ever entrust him with independent responsibility in the nature of command? - Nothing further than that which was imposed upon him as a squadron leader.

At question 712 -

Did Major Carroll himself apply to you for a recommendation to remain for further service? - He applied for further service, and the application was sent to me. I forwarded it to Colonel Adye, the A.A.C. for the Colonial Forces, at Pretoria.

At question 715 -

Are you quite certain as to the accuracy of what you have just stated? - Yes. 718. After returning to Queensland, had you anything to do with the vouchers or requisitions for the payment of the war gratuity - .£100 per man? - I do not think I did. I think Colonel Aytoun , dealt with that matter. 719. If you had been called upon to deal with that matter, I suppose that an officer would re-, quire to be very bad indeed - more than inefficient -to induce you to report so adversely as to prevent him from getting his £100? - Yes. 720. He would have to be a downright blackguard ? - Yes, I only knew of one case in which the gratuity was refused. 721. In the ordinary way, when officers come oft service, they feel very kindly towards one another, and would not go out of their way to prevent any man from getting his gratuity ? - Certainly not.

The next witness, to whose evidence I must refer, is Brigadier-General Finn, who was Commandant of the Military Forces in New South Wales- 869. Did he cease to be an Instructional Officer in New South Wales at the end of 1892? - Yes. 870. What opinion did you form of Major Carroll as a military officer ?- Only a fair opinion. 879. What was the oral report you made to Major-General Hutton concerning Major Carroll between July and November, igo2 ? - That he was only a fair Instructional Officer, and that he had much to learn.

Then follows evidence as to alleged peculiarities.

Senator Styles:

– The honorable senator does not attach much importance to the evidence as to Major Carroll’s alleged eccentricities ?

Senator DRAKE:

– No; and I am sorry the point was touched upon. The term “ eccentric “ is very elastic, and I do not attach blame to the officers who may not have used the word in the same sense that it was used by others.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I understand the honorable senator to say that he does not regard this alleged eccentricity as one of the reasons for Major Carroll’s retrenchment?

Senator DRAKE:

– Certainly not. Then we have the evidence of Major MacLagan, which has the same bearing as the evidence of Brigadier-General Finn, and in regard to the latter I fail to see any inconsistency. r5io. Captain Niesigh. - Have you any acquaintance with a confidential report by General Finn on Major Carroll ? - I was present when one was read to him. 1511. Will you please look at Exhibit B25, and say whether you were present when that was read to him? - Yes.

– I promise that I shall put my view.

Senator DRAKE:

– The next evidence to which I desire to refer is on page 75 - 1491. You stated that you thought that I was below the standard of a militia officer? - No. I said that from my short experience of you I thought you were below the standard of other instructional staff officers. 1492. But had any of the other instructional staff officers done this new drill? - Yes, they were doing it at the some time. 1493. Had they ever done it before? - Not so far as I am aware. 1494. Then what makes you say that you think I was below the standard? - Because I think that you did not grasp it as quickly as they did. 1 have already read the evidence referring to the report of Brigadier-General Finn, and now we come to Colonel Plomer. who was Instructional Commandant in Queensland at the time, and was, no doubt, one of the officers from whom the General Officer Commanding got his information -

I557- What did you say to him? - General Hut ton asked me what I knew of Major Carroll, and I must have told him - in fact, I swear I told him - that from all I had heard I knew nothing very satisfactory of him. 1558. From all you have heard you knew nothing very satisfactory of him ? - I am’ sure I must have told General Hutton that my knowledge of Major Carroll was gathered from responsible commanding officers. 1559. Can you give us the names of any of the responsible officers who gave you information about Major Carroll ? - Colonel Aytoun, Colonel Ricardo, Colonel Lyster - in general terms. 1560. I am referring to the time General Hutton was in Queensland, when you went to meet him; can you remember any of the details of the verbal expressions which were expressed by Colonels Aytoun, Ricardo, or Lyster? - I can remember perfectly well what Colonel Aytoun said. 1561. What did Colonel Aytoun say? - I remember asking Colonel Aytoun what sort of officer Major Carroll was as Adjutant in South Africa. I knew at that time that Major Carroll had returned. Colonel Aytoun shrugged his shoulders, and said, “ My dear Plomer. we all know poor Carroll.” Colonel Avtoun never said anything against Major Carroll. 1562. What did Colonel Ricardo say? - Colonel Ricardo always gave me a general idea that Major Carroll was a somewhat eccentric officer, on whom one could not very well depend. I had never seen Major Carroll at that time.

My experience of Major Carroll extended over the periods from December, 1899, *° April, 1900, and from April, 1902, to June, 1902, Major Carroll having been adjutant of the Third (Kennedy) Regiment, Q.D.F., from December, r8g9, to June, igo2, during a part of which period, viz., from April, 1900, to April, 1902, he was in South Africa.

At the time Major Carroll was appointed, the regiment was under the command of the late Lt.-Col. Blaxland, who was stationed at Townsville. The head-quarters of the regiment was at Charters Towers, where I lived, and where Major Carroll was stationed. I was then, and until June, 1900, second in command with the rank of Major, and commanded the regiment on all parades. In July, 1900, I was appointed to command the regiment. During the period from December, 1899, to April, 1900, and more particularly during the camp of continuous training at Kissing Point, in May, 1902, I had ample opportunities of observing Major Carroll.

As an instructor on parade Major Carroll was worse than worthless, because, owing to hil want of knowledge of drill his orders always led to confusion, and eventually he was intrusted with the duty of forming up the regiment on parade only. He was a great enthusiast, and an advanced theorist, and his want of success was purely through his want of knowledge of detail.
As an administrative officer :

As Adjutant, Major Carroll was in command of the regimental band, and operated on the general and contingent banking accounts of the band ; and as the staff banking accounts were in a Charters Towers bank, and the O.C. lived at Townsville, Major Carroll, for convenience, was instructed to operate on the staff banking accounts also. Major Carroll soon got the accounts in such a muddled state that he was ordered to take his cash books to Townsville, and one of the clerks in the District Staff Office had to be employed to unravel the tangled entries. The books were then taken away from Major Carroll, and the banking accounts transferred to a Townsville bank, so that the accounts might be kept under the immediate supervision of the O.C. ‘In 1900, I had the accounts transferred back to a Charters Towers bank, but knowing Major Carroll’s inability, I did not allow him to keep the cash books on his return to the regiment in April, 1902.

Iri June, T902, I spent several hours trying to teach Major Carroll the method of making out the annual pay-sheets - one of the duties of the Adjutant - but lie could not grasp the matter. In the end I had to take over the work, and Major Carroll, wilh my consent, paid a clerk (Mr. Oakey) to do the checking under my supervision. Major Carroll never was able to grasp the methods of making out the various returns, and so could not be trusted to .check the returns when made out.

I consider Major Carroll was utterly incompetent to perform the duties of Adjutant.

He had very little tact in the management of men, owing to his want of judgment, and, consequently, I did not hand over the command of the band to him when he returned to the regiment in April,’ 1902.

As a private individual, Major Carroll was a gentleman, and was much liked by all who knew him.

The -witness added -

Attached to that is the following minute by me, under same date : - D.A.G. and C.S.O.,-

In accordance with your wire of A. 39 of 18th inst., I called upon Major Hooper, Commanding Kennedy Infantry Regiment, for a statement regarding Major Carroll.

When Major Carroll wished to go to South Africa in 1900, Major Hooper offered to do his work as Adjutant without fay or allowance, which would tend to show there is no personal bias on his part.

Townsville Camp.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It has already been explained that if the late General Officer Commanding had desired to call Major Hooper, he could have been called.

Senator Drake:

– But the then Minister of Defence would not pay his expenses down to Melbourne.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Why did Major Hooper refuse to make a declaration after he had stated that he would do so? The reasons are given in paragraph e of the memorandum, in which Major Hooper is quoted as saying -

I am unwilling to make any voluntary declaration -

How could it have been a voluntary declaration when he was pressed to make a sworn declaration by the Committee^ and would not do so? A declaration made under pressure could not have been voluntary. He goes on - because my evidence could not favour Carroll, and I do not wish to pose as his voluntary accuser.

In paragraph g of the memorandum it is stated -

It will be seen that the Permanent Staff officer’s, who had Major Carroll under their notice in New South Wales, were unanimous in their condemnation of him as an Instructional Staff Officer, and their evidence is only met by that of certain volunteer officers of short service, and necessarily very limited relative knowledge.

– Quite so. Senator Drake took up nearly the whole of last

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Is it not a fact that other men have been appointed to the service since, while Major Carroll has not been reinstated?

Senator PEARCE:

Question - That the words “ be adopted “ be left out - resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the words “‘having been duly considered, the Government be recommended to give that officer’s case favorable consideration on the first convenient opportunity,” be added - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 7695

DEFENCE BILL 1904

Debate resumed from 30th November (vide page 7612), on motion by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) :

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

He should also furnish a report to the Board immediately he has completed the inspection of any unit or units upon all points which, in his judgment, should not be held over for his annual report ; also on points upon which he may have been so requested to report by the Board or any member of it.

He should embody in his annual report only those portions of his intermediate reports which he deems necessary to repeat.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– That only means an interregnum report.

Senator MATHESON:

– Yes, that is an intermediate report.

We find there that the Staff has been slightly reduced, but the language is the same. The next paragraph is original -

He will be assisted, when the Board deem necessary, by any officer whom they may detail.

Under the English scheme the Inspector is assisted by a number of other sub-inspectors, whom it is not proposed to appoint in the Commonwealth.

– The honorable senator is mistaken. There’ is no provision for making an inspection in India, and, moreover, the Indian Army is totally distinct form the British Army. The debate has been useful, because we know now the motives which influenced Senator Dawson’s Committee in striking out these, to my mind, extremely vital words. In the last paragraph but one of their report, Lord Esher’s Committee say -

The Inspector-General and his staff should have no executive or administrative functions.

Senator Dawson’s Committee say

The Inspector-General will have no administrative or executive functions.

Why have the staff been left out? Is it contemplated, for instance, that the InspectorGeneral’s staff, who have just the same functions as the Inspector-General, should have in addition executive or administrative functions? Because, if so, it just proves what I wish to elaborate, and that is that Senator Dawson’s Committee, directly they got away from the report of Lord Esher’s Committee, lost the entire inspiration that formed the basis of the whole of that extremely valuable report, and they absolutely failed to recognise the vital distinction that Lord Esher’s Committee drew between the functions of the Inspector-General, which were; simply to be inspecting functions, and those of the executive or administrative staff of the Military Department. There is no necessity for me to deal any further with that matter. The AttorneyGeneral said there was no particular objection to the two original paragraphs. This is the original paragraph of which I do not approve -

He should embody in his annual report only those portions of his intermediate reports which he deems necessary to repeat.

I distinctly dissent from that principle. What we have had to fight against in the Military Department all along has been the fact that Parliament has been kept in the dark. From the very first moment that the Minister I am not allowed to mention took control of the Department, report after report was pigeon-holed, and denied to us. The best proof of how unnecessary the refusal on his part was, is that when Senator Dawson came into office he found no difficulty in giving any members of the Senate the fullest information in connexion with these matters, and he freely gave me information which I had been refused by previous Ministers. I wish, to place on record my appreciation of the extremely good work he did in that respect, particularly in allowing light to be thrown on the very great deficiency in the matter of guns and field artillery, about which no information could be got. If it is to be an instruction to the Inspector-General that his annual report should contain only matters which he deems it necessary to repeat, Parliament will not get that full information on defence matters which it is entitled to expect. Having, as I hope, established the fact that the report of Lord Esher’s Committee forms the basis of the changes we propose to make in our Defence Department, we now have before us a certain amount of expert advice, which I intend, as shortly as I can, to quote and use for the purpose of analyzing the proposals whichare submitted by the AttorneyGeneral in Mr. McCay’s memorandum. As it comes first, I propose to commence with the Council of Defence. In this memorandum, Mr. McCay proposes that the Council of Defence shall consist of the Minister of State for Defence, the Treasurer, the Naval Director, and the Chief of the General Staff. Then there are consultative members, but these may be dismissed altogether, because any person whom the Committee wished to consult would obviously become a consultative member. The expression “ consultative member,” is merely brought in as a sop to certain officers and people in the Citizen Forces who are being honored with this very flowery designation’, which will satisfy them and mean nothing. In dealing with this matter of a Council of Defence, Lord

Esher’s Committee give very fully the reasons why they advocate such a body, and I propose to quote them shortly, in order that we may analyze how far Mr. McCay’s proposals agree with those of that Committee. Lord Esher’s Committee say : -

In considering the constitution of the Defence Committee itself, we are fully alive to the vital necessity for having as its invariable President, the Prime Minister of the day. Under our political institutions, based on the authority of a Parliament with traditions like ours, no body of experts, however highly trained and qualified, would carry sufficient weight and authority to give practical effect to their conclusions, unless the Prime Minister, in whom governing power is vested, were present at their deliberations, and personally committed to their policy.

Further on is this statement -

At the outset of our inquiry, therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that no measure of War Office reform will avail, unless it is associated with provision for obtaining and collating for the use of the Cabinet all the information and the expert advice required for the shaping of national policy in war, and for determining the necessary preparations in peace. Such information and advice must necessarily embrace not only the sphere of the War Office, but those of the Admiralty and of other offices of State.

Then comes the important part -

A committee which contains no permanent nucleus, and which is composed of political and professional members, each preoccupied with administrative duties widely differing, cannot, in out opinion, deal adequately with the complex questions of Imperial defence. Valuable as is the work which this committee has accomplished, the fact remains that there is no one charged with the duty of making a con tinuous study of these questions, of exercising due foresight in regard to the changing conditions produced by external developments, and of drawing from the several departments of State, and arranging in convenient form for the use of the Cabinet such information as may at any moment be required.

Again -

The committee is necessarily a changing body. It is not safe to trust matters affecting national security to the chance of a favorable combination of personal characteristics. We are, therefore, convinced that the addition of a permanent nucleus to the Defence Committee is essential as the only valid guarantee - (1) that vitally important work with which no one is now charged shall be continuously and consistently carried on, and (2) that the Prime Minister shall have at his disposal all the information needed for the due fulfilment of his weighty responsibilities, and, further, we can conceive no other means of focussing questions of national defence under existing conditions without involving constitutional changes which would be undesirable, if not impracticable.

Now we come to the definite suggestions of Lord Esher’s Committee to deal with the serious position which is pointed out; and those suggestions are as applicable in Australia as they were in England. The proposals are as follow : -

The permanent nucleus of the Defence Committee should consist of : -

A permanent secretary, who should be appointed for five years, renewable at pleasure.

Under this official two naval officers, selected by the Admiralty, two military officers chosen by the War Office, and two Indian officers nominated by the Viceroy, with, if possible, one or more representatives of the Colonies. These officers should not be of high rank, and the duration of their appointment should be limited to two years.

The duties of the permanent nucleus of the Defence Committee would be : -

To consider all questions of Imperial defence from the point of view of the navy, the military forces, India, and the Colonies.

To obtain and collate information from the Admiralty, War Office, India Office, Colonial Office, and other departments of State.

C To prepare any documents required by the Prime Minister and the Defence Committee, anticipating their needs as far as possible.

To furnish such advice as the committee may ask for in regard to defence questions, involving more than one department of State.
1. To keep adequate records for the use of the Cabinet of the Day and of its successors.

There is not a single one of these matters which could not be performed by a military man. Senator Walker has asked me what grounds I have for supposing that it is the intention of the Government to appoint the Permanent Secretary of the Defence Force to this position.. I have a very strong reason which I overlooked, and that is that it is specifically recommended in Senator Dawson’s addendum to his Committee’s report. The honorable senator expressly states that the Finance member of the Military Board should undoubtedly be the Permanent Secretary or permanent head of the Defence Department. I just as strongly affirm that that gentleman should not be appointed the Finance member of the Military Board. My reason is this : The Military members of this Board are all to be appointed for a fouryears’ term. The Minister, as we all know, will come and go, and the result will be that the Permanent Secretary of the Department, if he should become a member of the Board, will go on for ever. Major-General Hutton, in dealing with the matter, says, in paragraph 21 of his criticism of the scheme -

The main alteration is the substitution of the Secretary of the Department of Defence for the General Officer Commanding as the controlling element of the proposed Military Board.

There is no doubt whatever that this gentleman would become absolutely what the General Officer Commanding describes as the “ controlling element of the proposed Military Board.” That would be the most disastrous thing that could possibly take place as a result of these proposals. Every disadvantage that arises from the present position of the General Officer Commanding would be perpetuated under such a system, without our having, as we have- under the existing scheme, the advantage of a highlytrained technical man at the head of affairs.

Senator Walker:

– The honorable senator will find that there is no reference to the Permanent Secretary of the Department in the Minister’s memorandum.

Senator MATHESON:

– That is so, but things which are not mentioned sometimes eventuate when it is too late to protest against them. I have no hesitation in saying that the Finance member should be absolutely independent. He should be appointed, as are the Military members, for a term of four years, and he should then return to his regimental duties. What can be more essential than that our military officers should acquire an .intimate acquaintance “with the difficulties of dealing with financial questions, and the restrictions which the Parliament must place upon expenditure? How could any officer better obtain this experience and information than as the Finance member of the Military Board? Again, I fall back upon my authority, and Lord Esher’s Committee has a good deal that is most significant to say upon this subject. They say -

The theory that military officers of all ranksare by the fact of wearing un’iform shorn of all business instincts has inevitably tended to produce the laxity which it is supposed to prevent. When money is doled out in compartments, and no discretion as to allocation is permitted, savings are not likely to accrue. In the cases, however, in which some measure of financial responsibility has been afforded to military officers, as in funds granted for manoeuvres, and in the provision of supplies in th’e military districts, marked regard for economy has ‘ been manifested. There can be no doubt that in proportion as officers are accustomed to financial responsibility the economy which they alone can secure will be effected.

While, the present system of fiancial control is futile in peace, it is ruinous in war. Officers unaccustomed to bear any financial responsibility, and ruled by excessively complex regulations, cannot at once improvise a system for the control of expenditure in the held, when the restraints are suddenly removed. The result, as in South Africa, is the waste of millions.

And again they say -

The Financial Secretary is now the colleague of the members of the Council, and can no longer occupy the position of an independent critic with special powers of access to the Secretary of State. His responsibility for the efficient and the economical administration of the military force* is co-equal with that of the other members. He has specially assigned duties, but not special responsibility apart from them. Parliament and the country must in future hold the Army Council responsible as a whole, through the Secretary of State, for the efficiency of the forces. The Council is one and indivisable with aims and interests shared in common by all members.

So much for the Finance member. I can see no reason to dispute the carefully-arrived- at conclusion of the Esher Committee. It would be impossible for the Permanent Secretary of the Defence Department to control that Department efficiently, and at the same time discharge all the duties that I have enumerated, as well as act as Secretary to the Military Board, and as Secretary to the Naval Board. I see no reason, however, why he should not act as secretary to both these Boards, because his duties in that respect would be analogous to the duties as Permanent Secretary of the Defence Department ; and as a simple recording officer, his assistance would no doubt toe most valuable to both Boards. But as a member of the executive” of those Boards, he is distinctly out of place. The next question is that of the absence of a Quartermaster-General. When Senator Dawson’s Committee framed their report, following the lines of the Esher Committee, they included such an officer. But Mr. McCay has come along, and has cut the Quartermaster-General out entirely. No reason of any sort is given for the omission. The duties have in the most arbitrary way been divided between the Adjutant-General and the Chief of Ordnance. Four of the Departments which would ordinarily be controlled by the Quartermaster-General, namely, Transport, the Army Service Corps, the Army Medical Corps, and the Veterinary Department, are placed under the control of the DeputyAdjutantGeneral. The other four Departments, namely, Supplies, Clothing, Equipment, and Ordnance Department Stores are placed under the control of the Chief of Ordnance. I pointed out yesterday, and I repeat it, that the Chief of Ordnance must be a highly-trained engineer officer. He must be a man of very special attainments in a very special line. To ask that officer to make himself responsible for buying supplies wholesale, and looking after clothing ‘ and equipment is .too preposterous for anybody to think of. In addition to that, it is absolutely impossible in any army to separate transport from supplies. Nothing could be more clearly set. out than that fact is in the columns of Lord Esher’s report, under the heading of “ Duties of Quartermaster-General.” I do not, however, quote it; but I do propose to quote a paragraph from Lord Esher’s report in that connexion. It is as follows, speaking of the Admiralty: -

It may be said to have been founded on the proved requirements of war, and although it has not in recent times been put to the supreme test, it has smoothly and successfully met new demands as they have arisen, including an enormous increase of -personnel and materiel. It conforms closely to the arrangements under which the largest private industries are conducted. Finally, it has retained the confidence of the Navy and of the nation.

That is a very vital point which I wish to impress upon the Senate - that these three or four gentlemen are asked to conduct the business of the Defence Department in exactly the same way as a private business would be carried on. I appeal to the Senate as to what person would ever dream in his private business of employing a highly-trained engineer to purchase stores wholesale for the purpose of sending them up country, and selling them retail? Any business man would laugh at the suggestion. Yet, if we follow Mr. McCay’s proposal, we should be forced to adopt that very system. In fact, if we attempt to carry out this scheme without a QuartermasterGeneral, the whole thing is practically doomed to failure. I again propose to quote Lord Esher’s report. It says -

For the first time in the long annals of War Office reforms its intricate problems have, we believe, been approached from the point of view of war rather than from those of peace. The scheme we have laid before you is based upon the consideration that the preparation for war is the primary object of a War Office, and that military organization can be sound in time of peace, unless it is applicable to the necessities of war.

What we have to ask ourselves is this - is Mr. McCay’s proposed organization applicable to the necessities of war? Can any one believe it possible that in time of war we can do without a QuartermasterGeneral’s department ? Has the Senate any idea of the organization of the QuartermasterGeneral’s department. If not, all that honorable senators have to do is to turn to MajorGeneral Hutton’s report on the recommendations of the Defence Committee, and there it will be found that at the present moment we have a Deputy Quartermaster-General, assisted by two assistants, whose services have practically been shown to be indispensable. Yet the Government propose to do away with that officer, and to throw his work upon two other officers, in spite, not only of MajorGeneral Hutton’s advice - because I understand that people are chary of accepting his advice - but of the carefully-thought-out scheme of the Esher Committee. It is a curious fact that the duties in connexion with the Quartermaster-General’s department are nearly double those of any of the other three departments enumerated in Lord

Esher’s report. I do not propose to go through them all, because it is not essential that I should ; but the fact remains that this is the one department that Mr. McCay has though fit to cut out of the scheme put forward both by Senator Dawson and by Lord Esher. Mr. McCay gives no reason for doing so. The Attorney-General gives no reason. They simply say, “ We do not think it is necessary.” Therefore, we have these two gentlemen representing the Government setting up their opinions in opposition to those of admitted experts, whatever may be thought of Major-General Hutton.

Senator Guthrie:

– The present Minister of Defence is a practical military man.

Senator MATHESON:

– He may be, but he has not had the experience that Sir George Sydenham Clarke, Lord Esher, and Admiral Sir John Fisher have had. I think I have made out a good case for the QuartermasterGeneral, and I hope that the Senate will insist on having that officer reinstated as a member of the Council of Defence. I spoke at the commencement of the slovenly, slipshod way in which Mr. McCay’s memorandum has been drawn up.* Just in passing I wish to justify that statement. In Mr. McCay’s schedule we find an officer called the Deputy Adjutant-General. T understand that the word “ deputy,” directly the office of General Officer Commanding is done away with, is entirely redundant. We find that MajorGeneral Hutton talks, in connexion with the new office, of “ the Adjutant-General.” We find that Lord Esher’s Committee talk Of the office of “Adjutant-General.” Yet, because under existing conditions the officer is called a Deputy Adjutant-General, Mr. McCay, or the office - of course it is not Mr. McCay individually - puts down the same title, though it was quite unnecessary to use the word “ deputy.” The most important feature in connexion with this Council of Defence has not been sufficiently touched upon by Senator Dawson’s Committee, or by any one else. The point is this. These officers are appointed for four years, and it is intended that at the end of four years’ tenure the officers are to go back to their ordinary routine work outside the office, and that four other men of similar standing are to come in and carry on the work.

Senator Walker:

– Will not the officers be eligible for re-election ?

Senator MATHESON:

– No ; that is a most important point, and one upon which Lord Esher’s Committee lays great stress.

They have the strongest objection to the new organization getting into a groove. They have experienced the drawbacks connected with the existing organizations, and the grooves that the principal officers connected with it have got into. What they say is most important, because it lays down the rule which should govern the appointments in the Commonwealth, and which reads as follows : -

In appointing the members of the Army Council, no consideration, except that of special fitness for the duties involved, should arise.

It is not necessarily any senior officer ; a good junior officer would be taken in preference.

– The honorable Senator is mistaken. This is not an Advisory Board, but a certain number of citizen colonels are to be given the title of consultative members. They are to be told, “You are consultative members, and if we want to consult you we shall send for you.” It is a mere farce to insert that’ provision in any scheme, because if the Board wished to consult any persons, they would send for them. This sop is put in to gain the support of a certain number of citizen colonels and majors in order to disarm criticism.

Senator de Largie:

– Is the honorable senator aware that for many years in the old country there has been an Advisory Board in connexion with the militia?

Senator MATHESON:

– The honorable senator may be perfectly right. No doubt other persons outside Parliament are of the same opinion as he is, namely, that this constitutes an Advisory Board, but it does not. It is simply an honorary title given to a few men in order to secure their support. There again the provisions in the Bill are entirely inadequate, and if it is taken into Committee to-night, it will be utterly impossible to draft amendments by the morning. I maintain that the constitution of these Boards ought to be clearly set out in the Bill. They are not set out, and the result will be that we shall probably pass the Bill to-morrow morning, and in the course of a few months we shall find that the Government have made arrangements differing perhaps very materially from even the provisions indicated by Mr. McCay, and which, so far as I am concerned, will be thoroughly unsatisfactory. I now come to the Naval Board, and here we find a most curious reversal of the whole of the principles that nominally governed Senator Dawson’s Committee, when they were dealing with the Military Board. The main objects of the proposed new scheme as were set out in Mr. McCay’s memorandum are -

The separation of administration from executive command, thereby making practicable, first, decentralization by the increase within established limits of the independence of State commands, and the consequent encouragement of independent thought and initiative ; and, second, the ultimate full development of a Citizen Force.

What do we find ? We find that in spite of that the Director of Naval Forces is to combine both administrative and inspecting duties ; indeed from another paragraph it is fair to assume that it is also intended that he shall have a State command. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has made any inquiry on that score, but I called his attention to it when he was making his second reading speech. We might just as well have no system as have a system which is put in force in one respect by one Board, and is entirely ignored by the other Board. Beyond that there is very little to say about the Naval Board. Its construction is entirely out of keeping with the rest of the scheme, and if it is put through on the lines contemplated it cannot avoid being a failure. I now come to the question of the Permanent Secretary of the Defence Department. Lord Esher’s Committee have a good deal to say about the Secretary to the War Office, whose position corresponds with that of the Permanent Secretary of our Defence Department. In case it may be suggested that under this re-organization scheme his duties would become so diminished that he might fairly be asked to take a seat on the Military Board as a defence member, I propose to indicate a few of the duties which he might reasonably be expected to perform. Under Lord Esher’s scheme, and doing nothing else than act as Secretary of the War Office, the following are the principal duties he would have to discharge: -

General control and discipline of the civil staff serving under the Army Council, and of office arrangements. Appointments and promotions; (4) Direct control of the central department including the Registry and the War Office Library; (e) Parliamentary business; (<?) Issue of orders and publication of ‘regulations other than those of a purely military character, which will be dealt with in the branch of the member c.f council concerned ; («) Official communications with the. King, with other Departments of State, and with the’ Law Officers of the Crown ; (f) Preparation of Actuarial and Statistical Returns of a general character, and the editing of the War Office List; (g) interviews and semiofficial communication on behalf of the Army Council ; (A) Communications with the Press.

All papers intended to be brought before the Army Council will be sent to the secretary, who will summon and attend its meetings, keep, minutes and records, and make himself f acquainted with all questions which come before the council for decision.

All letters sent from the War Office/ in the name of the Army Council should bear tile signature of the secretary, to whom all letters sent to the War Office should be addressed.

The secretary will be responsible for making such arrangements as will secure secrecy wherever necessary. The War Office has for some time been notorious for the leakage of confidential matter, and recent cases have been brought to our notice showing that the present safeguards are totally insufficient.

It will be remembered that when Senator Dawson was in office he ordered an inquiry on several occasions into a most extraordinary leakage which took place iri the Defence Department, showing that the defects occurring at home are equally prevalent here. The question of promotion is dealt with extremely fully in Lord Esher’s report, and has hardly been dealt -with by Senator Dawson’s Committee or in Mr. McCay’s memorandum. This is one of the most important topics with which we could’ possibly deal. There is always a feeling that promotions are apt to be made improperly - that influence may be brought to bear in order to secure promotion for men who are not duly entitled to it. Lord Esher’s Committee are very explicit on. the constitution of a Promotion Board ; but I do not see that Mr.. McCay makes any proposal in this connexion, except that the Inspector- General is to be the Chairman pf such a Board. Nothing whatever is said, however, about the constitution of the Board. Under the circumstances, we are obliged to fall back upon Major-General Hutton, who recommends that the Board shall consist of the Inspector-General, the AdjutantGeneral, and the Commandant of Victoria. Personally, I do not think that such a Board is at all satisfactory, though I have no suggestion to make on that score, being of opinion that any recommendation’ should, have come from the Committee. I have not touched on the Inspector-General, chiefly because there is not much exception to be taken to the proposal which has been placed before us. I understand that objections are raised to the presence of the Inspector-General on the Council of Defence, but as the equivalent officer will be on the Council in England I do not see any objection to the .same course, being pursued here. Had Lord Esher’s Committee pointed out that it was impossible, or out of place, for the InspectorGeneral to be on the Council, the objection would have held good here, but in the absence of any direction of the sort I do not see why we should strike out a line for ourselves.

Senator Sir Josiah SYMoN:

-Hear hear.

Senator MATHESON:

– The AttorneyGeneral says “ Hear, hear,” but I appeal to him, though I am afraid uselessly, to induce the Minister of Defence to mould the scheme more on the lines laid down by Lord Esher. If some reasons were given for the departures, one might be satisfied; but, so far as one can see, there is simply a desire to make an innovation in the proposals of a predecessor. Suggestions are struck out which are essential fo the scheme, and we are simply told, without any proof, that they are unnecessary.

Senator de Largie:

– It is dangerous to give reasons under such circumstances.

Senator MATHESON:

– It certainly is, when there are no reasons to give ; but the matter is left in an extremely unsatisfactory position. I intended to say a great deal more, but, unfortunately, this legislation has been pushed ahead somewhat unduly, and there has not been opportunity to consider all the questions which arise out of the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee: Clause 1 agreed to. Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 December 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19041201_senate_2_24/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 1 December 1904

QUESTION

PETITION : IRREGULAR

Senator Lt Col GOULD:New South Wales

The PRESIDENT:

Senator TRENWITH:Victoria

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator McGregor:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator de Largie:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:

PAPERS

QUESTION

UNIFORM MARRIAGE LAWS

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Higgs:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

BRITISH NEW GUINEA

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Drake:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Drake:

Senator HIGGS:

WEBSTER AND SOICH V. JOHNSTON AND ARBOUIN

QUESTION

PRYKE AND FULLER V. JOHNSTON AND ARBOUIN

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Trenwith:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Trenwith:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senate
1 December 1904

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Postmaster-General · Western Australia · Free Trade

Senator DRAKE:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Queensland · Protectionist