Sutter, Swanson, H. Thomson, Tole, Trimble, Watt, White, Whyte, Wilson. Noes. —Messrs Bathgate, Bracken, J. C. Brown, Dargaville, De Lautour, Dodson, Dun can, Fergus. Fish (teller), George, Green, Grey, Hutchison, Kelly (teller), Levestam, Macandrew, McDonald, McKenzie, Mont gomery, Moss, Pyke, Seaton, Seddon, Sheehan, Steward, Tawhai, Turnbull. _. Mr FISH again protested against the injus tice of legislating in respect to a case pending trial. Retrospective legislation was an act which the House would regret, and it would be better to let a thousand guilty _ men escape than to do a wrong to one individual. He desired to express liis strong dissent, and also his regret that the Government, as a Govern ment, should adopt the dangerous principle in volved. ... , Mr SHEEHAN concurred in the opinion of the hen. member for Dunedin South that the Bill should not be retrospective. The effect of the Act would be to deter future dab bling in deleterious liquors, but it should not be made applicable to any one particular in dividual. , , ~ Colonel TRIMBLE thought the Bill should not refer to liquor now in bond. Mr CONOLLY said the law as it stood was quite powerful enough to punish the offenders. The Dunedin case was in the position wherein a material witness was absent. The prosecution wanted the production of an impor tant document. If the House could aid the Court of Law in obviating the necessity for its production it would •do good service. The sympathy and indignation of the lion, member for Dunedin South, in his opinion, was un neMrSBATHGATE said he would oppose the Bill. The principle was bad that would per mit counsel, when in Court, to produce, per haps at the last stage of the trial, a telegram stating that the Government had altered the law. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. COMMITTEE OP SUPPLY. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr MONTGOMERY objected, until the Public Works Statement and some Go vernment Bills were before the House, so that the entire financial proposals of the Govern ment might be considered. He objected to go into the question of finance piece-meal. Mr MACANDREW hoped that the sugges tion of the hon. member for Akaroa would be adopted. 