Mr T.K. Sidey moved the second reading of the Summer Time Bill. He said the measure simply comprised putting the hour of starting work nearer to sunrise. The proposal was that on the first Sunday in October the clock be advanced one hour for five months of the year. To farmers, dairymen and others who used the early morning hours he appealed to be generous and so meet other sections of the community whom the Bill would benefit. From the economic point of view the change proposed would mean a saving in the cost of lighting, fuel, etc, to the extent of many thousands of pounds per annum. He admitted that a certain section of the dairymen would suffer a slight inconvenience, but it would be very slight. In Great Britain the scheme had been a great success, and this fact had been proved by the commission which made an exhaustive inquiry into the operation of the Act upon all sections of the community. Mr H.E. Holland said he was prepared to admit there were certain industries where summer time could be applied, but there were other industries where it could not be applied. He did not think it should be forced on to them. Meanwhile he would support the second reading. The Hon W. Nosworthy said he had opposed the Bill on every occasion when it was before the House, and he would oppose it now on principle. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) urged that a select committee be set up which would take evidence from not only farmers but from industrial and sports interests. Mr Massey said he was opposing the Bill because as a practical man he believed it to be impractical. If the Bill were passed it would be as great a failure as it was in Australia, where the conditions were nearer to ours than those of other countries. After a number of members had spoken for and against the Bill, Mr Sidey offered to limit the scope of the Bill from November 1 to February 1. A division was called for, when the second reading was carried by 36 votes to 24.
Students did not derail tram
To the editor: Sir, I would ask you to publish a letter received by me to-day from the manager of the city tramways. — I am, etc, Robinson E. Hall, President Otago University Students Association, July 23.
"Dear Sir, In connection with the derailment of car No 87 at the City road curve on the 16th inst. In view of the fact that statements had been made through the press and elsewhere that the students had interfered with the trolley pole, the evidence given by the four students was entirely satisfactory, and a complete refutation of the statements that had been made; and their evidence was also corroborated by many of the witnesses who were called on behalf of the motorman, who were in a position to see what happened. I therefore feel it my duty to inform you that I am of opinion that the students were in no way responsible for the accident, nor does there appear to be any justification for the rumour current concerning their interference with the trolley pole of the car concerned. — W.H. Mackenzie, Manager."
We are pleased to be able to acknowledge that the comments in our issue of 17th inst have not been substantiated. — Editor. — ODT, 25.7.1924
Compiled by Peter Dowden
