1903-07-27

Jlr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright).: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. LaRivi&re :
That the fifth report of the Select Standing Committee to revise the debates of the House during the present session be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, J would ask the leader of the government whether lie has any further information to-day with regard to the proposed railway measure that we understand is to be brought down ? We had the assurance of the right hon. gentleman on Friday that to-day we would have notice of the proposed resolution, or a statement made as to some details of it at least. I would like to remind him that it is ten days to-day since we were told that the policy would be announced to the House last week, and at that time the right hon. gentleman fixed the early part of this week as the date at which we would be called upon to discuss the measure after it had been before us several days. The expectations of my right hon. friend given to the House on Friday last have not yet been realized. I would like to again ask whether or not we may expect an immediate announcement of this policy ? My right hon. friend blamed the members of the legal profession, who are members also of the government, I suppose, for the delay which had taken place up to Friday last. Surely there has been sufficient time since then to correct the defaults of these gentlemen, and that can hardly be alleged as an excuse at the present time.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am glad to inform my hon. friend that I have just been informed myself within the last half hour that the lawyers have finished their work. I hope, therefore, to be able-I won't say to-day -to put a notice on the Order Paper. I have reason to believe that, if not to-day, tomorrow, will be put on the Order Paper, much to the satisfaction of my hon. friend, the notice which he has been so long looking for, and which will give me an opportunity of placing before the House the policy which we intend to present to it.



PRIVATE BILLS.


Mr.  J. P.@: BROWN (Chateauguay) moved that Bill (158) respecting the St. Chrysostome Railway Company be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any explanation of this ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Mr. BROWN.: It is simply for the purpose of changing one or two of the names that appear as incorporators.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 104) to incorporate the Brockville and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Mr. PRINGLE.: Mr. Chairman, the point was raised on Friday last as to whether this Bill could be proceeded with in the absence of the member in charge of the Bill. We are entitled to a ruling from the Speaker as to whether this Bill can be proceeded with in the absence of Mr. Dyment without the consent of the House.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There was a motion made by the hon. member for Leeds, who is not present now, and if the committee is yet determined to go on with the motion, I shall read it:
Mr. Taylor moves that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day for the purpose of referring a point of order to the Speaker to obtain his decision upon a question referred to the House respecting the chairman's decision on Bill 104.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps some hon. memebrs are present now who were not present the other evening, and are not aware of the point involved in the motion. There are two forms of procedure in matters of this kind. The one is by way of a reference when the committee, not any member of the committee, may procure by vote a reference to the Speaker for the purpose of obtaining his opinion upon a given point. That is the procedure my hon. friend from Leeds is taking by his present motion. There is another form of procedure, which takes the form of an appeal which any individual member may take against the ruling of the chairman. The curious position we are in is this, that the hon. member appealed from the decision of the chairman, and that the appeal was taken by the usual method of the chairman leaving the Chair, the Speaker taking the Chair, and the appeal being decided by the House. Now, if we pass my hon. friend's motion as it is now presented, we shall be asking the Speaker to give his opinion upon a point which an authority higher than the Speaker has already decided, that higher authority being the House itself. When this matter was before us the other evening, those of us who differed from my hon. friend opposite, while maintaining that his motion was in order, held that it would be quite unseemly if we resolved to ask the Speaker to determine a point which in this same proceeding had already been determined by the House itself.


Mr. SPROULE.: But you will doubtless remember that when the hon. member for Leeds made his motion, he explained that

his desire was, not to appeal from the ruling of the Chair, but to have the instruction of the Speaker as to whether the point he had taken was well founded or not. He so expressed his desire in his resolution ; and, except for the fact that the word ' appeal ' was used in it, it could not carry the assumption that it was an appeal from the ruling of the Chair. That seems to be laid down very plainly in Bourinot, which says :
If it be found expedient in either House to refer a point of order to the Speaker, a member will move that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again that day. When the Speaker has resumed, the chairman will report that the committee wishes to be instructed as to the point in question. The House will then proceed to take the matter into consideration. land the Speaker having been requested to give his opinion, will decide the matter in dispute ; then, unless there is an appeal to the House against the Speaker's decision, the committee will resume its proceedings.
Bouriuot explains that it is very inconvenient for the House to be suddenly called to decide whether the decision of the chairman shall be confirmed or not, without hearing the argument upon the point of order ; and in order to enable the House to toe well informed on what the point of order is, the more appropriate course is to ask instructions from the House through the Speaker as to the point of order, and therefore to move that the, committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again that day, for the purpose of reporting to the Speaker the point of order raised in Com-miitee of the Whole, and having his decision upon it. There is no appeal made to the House until after the Speaker rules, and that appeal is made against the ruling [DOT]of the Speaker. So when the point of order is reported to the Speaker, and before he gives his decision upon it, it is quite in order to argue the question, so that the whole House may hear it, and the Speaker may have the benefit of the argument before he gives his ruling. After that is done, he gives his ruling. But, following the other course is obviously very inconvenient, because there is no argument upon the point of order itself, and many members of the House may be called in for the vote who have not heard the point of order either debated or raised ; but the only question put to them is : Shall the decision of the Chair be confirmed ? Now, I think it is quite plain that the more convenient and more intelligent way would be to do as is desired, ask the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again that day, so that this question might be reported to the Speaker, and his ruling on the point of order might be obtained after a discussion had taken place upon it before1 the Speaker and before the House, and so that when an appeal were made from the Speaker, the House would be called upon to sustain the Speaker's ruling or reverse it.


Peter Macdonald: I would just say that I have looked this matter up since
it came before the committee the other night; and on page 748 of Bouriuot, I find this :
In the chapter on public Bills, the rules in committees of the .whole anti oil the third reading are fully explained, and as these apply to private Bills-except where there is a standing order on any particular point-it is not necessary to recapitulate them here.
Turning to public Bills, I find, on page 373, the following.
One member may take charge of a public Bill in the absentee and with the permission of another member.
I infer from this that, as the same rule applies to public and private Buis, one member may take charge of a Bill in tlhe absence and with the permission of another member.


Mr. LENNOX.: I concur in what the hon. Minister of Finance says as far as he goes, that is, that it is quite proper to refer the question to the Speaker, or to take an appeal to the House ; and if we were to go upon the narrowest possible technical principles, the inference which the hon. Minister of Finance draws might now preclude us from referring this question back to the Speaker. But I submit that that would manifestly be entirely too narrow a view tc take of this matter, having regard to the circumstances as they exist in this case. It is clear to any hon. gentleman who was in the committee when we last sat that the sole object of the hon. member for Leeds was simply to have the ruling of the Speaker in regard to the point of order, and having obtained that, he would probably have been quite content to abide by it without further question. It is quite true that in the notice he gave-and I assume that it was not absolutely necessary that he should give a written notice at all-he used the word ' appeal ; ' but ' appeal ' as he used it is not to be construed in any technical sense, but with regard to what he manifestly had in view, namely, that he wanted the opinion of the Speaker, or the instruction of the Speaker to the chairman.
That being the case, it would not be treating this committee fairly if it were held that because the word ' appeal ' was used when it was made clear that what the hon. member for Leeds required was the instruction of the Speaker-that we were precluded from having the benefit of the opinion of the Speaker on a somewhat important point. It is not a question affecting the hon. member for Leeds alone, but the rights of this committee ; and I submit that if there were no other reason, the fact that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) persistently endeavoured and failed to obtain the eye of the Speaker at the time he was putting the question to the House, ought to be sufficient to show to this committee that it would be the veriest abuse of a technicality if this matter were not now referred to the proper authority to decide. When the hon. Minister of Finance

points out that it is manifestly wrong to bring this matter up now as it has already been submitted to the House and action taken upon it, I submit the matter lias never been determined by the House, because the House was never properly seized of the question. The Speaker, not knowing the position which the hon. member for East Grey was about to take, and taking the technical language of the notice, was probably for the moment not entirely seized of what the hon. member was aiming at. But now that we know exactly the position in which the matter stands, I would urge the committee to deal with it upon a broad and not upon a technical basis, and we will have the benefit of the opinion of the Speaker upon this question.


Mr. GALLIHER.: One thing which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) made quite clear at the last sitting of this committee was that the reason he took this objection in the first place, was because the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle), was absent and in order to enable him to get here and finish the speech he had so ably started at the previous committee meeting. The hon. member for Stormont being now here, that technical objection has entirely disappeared, and we are now prepared to hear him continue his speech. Moreover, I do not think the hon. member for Simcoe is very serious in his contention that the ruling of the Chairman is wrong. I do not think he will contend very seriously that one member having charge of the Bill cannot delegate his authority to another member to take charge of it in his absence. Taking these facts into consideration.
Motion of Mr. Taylor, negatived.
On the preamble.
Sir. PItINGLE. When the committee rose last Friday evening, I was quoting from the statement of the case made to the chairman of the sub-committee by the solicitors for some of the largest creditors.' I propose to continue quoting from that statement :
An action is now pending to compel the Philadelphia Company, to carry out the terms of their agreement and tasking the court to stop interest running on the Philadelphia Company's bonds so long as they -are so in default. The foreclosure suit of the Philadelphia Company is brought, on arrears of interest on the bonds. The principal of the bonds is not yet due. Will not be due until 1918. In addition we know that when the Philadelphia Company offered their block of bonds for isale they declined to give any guarantee of their title to same. They would only sell * their rights ' without guarantee or warranty of any kind.
I was not present at the final meeting of the sub-committee, but at a previous meeting it was conceded by all parties that no matter what Bill was reported, there should be a clause inserted in it making it subject to the final decision of pending litigation.
I think it is unfair that this sub-committee should report the Bill when there is litiga-Mr. LENNOX.
tion pending. We have the authority' of Messrs. Hutchison & Fisher of the town of Brockville, Mr. Hogg of this city, and of a gentleman from Gananoque, a solicitor of good standing, that there is litigation now pending with regard to the foreclosure of this property. Why should we ratify and affirm that purchase when there is that litigation pending ? The whole committee were unanimous that a clause should be inserted providing for the existing litigation. And it was to be without prejudice to the results of the litigation. Let me refer to another point, and on this also I challenge contradiction. This Bill was introduced as a Bill respecting the Brockville and Sault Ste. Marie Company. The committee never consented to the change being made to the Brockville and Western. And I am told that oil the filial day of the sitting of this committee, nothing was said in regard to the name of the company being changed to the Brockville and Western. I think it most important that a clause should be added to this Bill in respect to pending litigation. Referring again to this document presented by the solicitors, they state :
We submit, therefore, that Messrs. Holmes, Schmit et al. who claim under these bonds as to ninety per cent of their purchase money stand in the Philadelphia Company's shoes and are not entitled to say ' We bought the railway at a court sale without notice or knowledge of any equity and paid the price in cash.' They pay only ten per cent in cash plus what the bonds cost, and as a matter of fact are charged with the equities which attached to this block of bonds.
3.	The sale at Brockville on 20th January last was not subject to a reserve bid. No report as to the value of the road and undertaking was made by a competent engineer or any other person and nothing was done to protect minority Interests in the least degree. It is then said : Why did not the minority interest, construction creditors and others appear in court and contest the action ? We say the minority interests were not large and none of them except those we represented ever received any notice of the proceedings. We do know that certain of them were advised, on good authority that before the road could be sold legislation must be obtained and they were waiting for application for this legislation. Once, notice was actually published of an application to parliament to dispose of the road. The minority thought that they would then have an opportunity of being heard. But the company abandoned their application and matters were allowed to drift. 1 None of the small creditors ever bad the means or a large enough amount at stake to litigate their rights with the Philadelphia Company, and1 incur a large amount of costs which would necessarily be involved.
4.	At the present time the following litigation, however, is pending : In the foreclosure suit of the Philadelphia Investment Company vs. the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway, an appeal from the master's final report is now pending. This appeal is set down for hearing at the next sittings of the Divisional Court.
That appeal has not yet been heard. It is on the list of cases to be heard at the next sitting of the court. Why should this

Bill be passed unless we insert a clause ' without prejudice to the pending litigation ?
Another action is also pending brought by Mr. Carl W. Vollman against the Philadelphia Company. The Brockville and Westport and the new syndicate. This action will be ripe for trial at the fall sittings of the High Court at Brockville. This action attacks the sale of the railway to the syndicate, asks for a decree compelling the Philadelphia Company to complete the road according to the terms of the construction contract which was assigned to them, and asks for a declaration of the court cancelling interest on their bonds while the Investment Company is in default under the contract.
It was on this written statement as presented to the chairman of that sub-committee that, I think I am correct in stating, the majority of the committee considered it advisable that the clause should be inserted in the Bill. But still, the Bill has been reported without that clause.
In this action the plaintiff asks to set aside certain proceedings of the board of directors of the railway company because such board was illegally constituted, the directors not having been properly qualified. We submit it will seriously prejudice this litigation if the syndicate's Bill Is passed as it now stands. Even with a saving clause as was suggested by Mr. Barwick, the fact remains that parliament has confirmed the sale and even with a saving clause in the charter the effect will be to minimize the litigation and create a prejudice against it.
It is not conceivable to me why the subcommittee would not accept Mr. Barwick's suggestion. He represented parties interested and suggested the saving clause. Yet they do not seem to have seen fit to report the Bill with that saving clause in it.
5.	In addition to all the above facts and circumstances we submit that by reason of the totally inadequate price paid for the road by the syndicate in comparison with its cost, the amount paid in bonus by municipality and government subsidy, one is forced to the conclusion that there is a nigger in the wood pile somewhere. It is not right that a few men should so manipulate bonds, issues, &c., so as to defeat the labourer who built the road, the material men who furnished the supplies. We don't appeal to you because the syndicate who bought the road are foreigners. We do say it is unfair to assist foreigners or resident citizens to acquire a franchise and confirm a purchase which had been acquired (even assuming it has been acquired within the strict letter of the law) in such a way that the natural result is to wipe out and utterly destroy the claim of the men who laboured through heat and cold, late and early, to build the road and the men who furnished the material to build and equip the road.
6.	No franchise was ever sold. The Ontario court had no jurisdiction to sell a railway franchise without special legislation, and none was ever given in this case. The syndicate never purchased a franchise and they now ask you to grant them one. We submit you are justified in refusing a franchise until equitable claims receive a just and equitable consideration. Parliament has imposed similar terms before in the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway case and in the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway case.
and we ask you to follow the precedent laid down in those cases.
7.	It must not be overlooked that the receiver of the railway after spending a large sum in erection of new buildings, purchase of new rolling stock, in addition to making ordinary repairs, has paid into court $11,480 to the credit of the foreclosure suit. If the sale of the railway to the New York syndicate is held to be valid these purchasers will be entitled to ninety per cent of this sum paid by the receiver. So the position of the matter will be as follows :
Price bid at auction for railway. $160,000 Of this there has been paid into court in cash, about	 20,000
Balance by bonds turned in.. 140,000
Purchasers will receive out of court in cash ninety per cent of the sum paid in by the receiver, nearly $11,000.
We allege the bonds cost the syndicate $90,000, which with the $20,000 paid makes a total cost [DOT] of $110,000. Deduct share of cash from receiver and a balance of $99,000 remains, the actual cost of the railway, forty-five miles long completely equipped with rolling stock, and engine houses, tools, &c., &c. The railway received in municipal bonds and government subsidy $211,000, which with the sums put in by the contractors and the railway company in cash and proceeds of loans shows that the cost of the railway was between $800,000 and $900,000.
These figures should convince the most skeptical that if no provision is made for some equitable settlement for construction debts, a monstrous injustice will pe perpetrated.
8.	Thirty-eight thousand dollars of government subsidy is still unpaid in consequence of the railway not being finished to government standard. While the receiver was in possession he has proceeded with completion, and now a comparatively small amount of work remains to be done. This subsidy was assigned to Mr. Cooper, and his rights thereto have been recognized by the government. Mr. Cooper has offered to assign to the promoters of the syndicate's Bill his rights to this subsidy for fifty cents on the dollar of his judgment, excluding interest on judgment and costs. As to the unsecured claims, we have repeatedly offered the promoters of the syndicate's Bill to accept forty cents on the dollar of the claim exclusive of the interest and costs. A careful estimate of the sum required to settle the claims on this basis would be $60,000 to settle construction debts.
9.	We represent railway employees whose claims total $1,822 for wages while working on the railway prior to the appointment of the receiver. By reason of this labour the railway company was able to operate the road and received the revenue for their own purposes, and we submit these wage-earners are entitled to consideration at your hands. They are willing to settle on a forty-cents-on-the-dollar basis.
10.	At a former meeting of your committee, Mr. Holmes, representing the purchasers and other promoters of the Syndicate's Bill, stated that he and his associates asked no favours or privileges as to issue of bonds, &c.
We submit that in any event Mr. Holmes should be taken at his word and given no favours. The prospectus issued by the New York syndicate, a copy of which is filed with your committee, proves that the large bond issue and the large capitalization was part of a scheme to derive an enormous profit for this syndicate by manipulations of the stock and bond issue and its flotation on the market. In conclusion, we

submit: (a.) That the syndicate's Bill should not be allowed to pass until the litigation now pending is decided, (b.) That we have established our right to receive a fair and reasonable settlement of our construction claims before any franchise is granted to this new company who have purchased for a mere song a very valuable property, (c.) That a clause should be inserted in the syndicate's Bill providing for a fund to be paid into the hands of the Minister of Railways of at least $50,000 to be applied on construction debts.
This memorandum is signed by Messrs. Hutchison and Fisher, representing Cooper, Fairman & Company, and a number of other creditors. Now, Mr. Chairman, I consider that the sub-committee acted most fairly, and the minority of the members of the sub-committee acted most fairly and reasonably in this matter. The position I took and the position that other members of the minority of the sub-committee took, was this, that these gentlemen had purchased that property at a public sale, that under the Railway Act it was necessary for them to come to this parliament and ask for a Bill ratifying and confirming that purchase, and that we should recommend that Bill ; but if these gentlemen asked for larger privileges outside of that, then we should consider the whole of the three Bills which were before us, and treat them on their merits, and if we could equitably do anything for the creditors it should be done. Now, after a considerable discussion, at two or three meetings, it was decided simply to confirm the purchase, not giving any powers beyond the 45 miles. That we consented to, letting the other Bills stand aside. The minority members of the committee also were willing to authorize an issue of common stock to cover the purchase money. They were also willing to allow bonding privileges of $10,000. a mile for the betterment and equipment of the 45 miles, and for no other purpose. Now we submit that we should not grant these people power to issue bonds for $10,000 a mile on a road which has cost them $2,000 or $3,000 a mile, unless that money is to be used for the purposes of betterment and equipment. AVhy should they require bonding powers of $10,000 a mile unless they use that money for the purposes of bettering the road ? We are simply going to give to these men who have formed this syndicate, who I say are in league with that Philadelphia Trust Company, power to issue bonds to the extent of $450,000 upon a road which has cost them less than $100,000, and to go into the market and dispose of these bonds. I say when they ask that from this parliament they are asking us to grant them a great privilege, and we would be perfectly justified, under all the circumstances, in saying to them :	If we grant you a privilege of
that sort, then pay $50,000 to be distributed rateably among the people who built that road, and who should have been paid by this very Philadelphia Investment Company.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: That is one of the clauses of the Bill that I. as a member of the sub-committee, objected to very strongly. I did not think we should give them that wide power of bonding this road for $10,000 a mile.
Now, Sir, the minority members of this sub-committee also considered that, inasmuch as they were creditors for supplies, the fact of such claims should be stated in the report, so that this fact might be on record in case of any future application to parliament. One claimant, an assignee of the government subsidy, has passed away, I am now speaking of the late .Tames Cooper, who died since the committee made their report. Surely it is important, in the interests of the estate of the late James Cooper, that there should be something on record to show just the position that the committee who were dealing with this matter, took. I think 1 pm expressing the view of every member of that committee when I say that it was decided that the two Bills, the Bill which was being promoted in the interests of the creditors, and the other Bill which was before the committee, should be set aside entirely, and that they should be left in a perfectly free position to press their views and press their claims upon any future application to this parliament for a charter for an extension of that system. I think we are only asking what is fair when we ask to be put on record, so that if these gentlemen who are now the promoters of this Bill (No. 104) should- come before this parliament next session for an extension of the road from Westport to Sault Ste. Marie, the position of the other parties in Bill (No. 67) should not in any way be prejudiced. It seems to me it is only reasonable and fair that that should be put on record as the finding of the sub-committee. As I stated, I believe I am expressing the opinion of every member of that committee when I say that the committee were unanimous in their decision to dismiss this Bill, leaving all parties on an even footing as to the extension. The minority members of that committee deemed it very important that all three Bills should be dismissed, and pimply an appeal made in favour of a short Bill ratifying and confirming their purchase.
Now, sir, I am sorry to take up the time of the House in discussing this matter, but I feel that a great injustice is being done to these parties unless it is made clear that when these people come before parliament again asking for an extension of this road, then the right of all parties can be brought forward and freely discussed. As I pointed out when Mr. Hervey took the contract for the construction of the Broekville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway, he was to receive all the bonds and all the stock of that company. He borrowed money from time to time from the Philadelphia Investment Company,

and subsequently the Philadelphia Investment Company made up their minds to take the contract out of Mr. Hervey's hands. Mr. Hervey assigned that contract to the Philadelphia Investment Company and Mr. Hervey has put in his report a statement saying that the consideration was that they were to pay the debts then incurred by Mr. Hervey. Now, I have a statement from one unfortunate creditor, and I will just give the statement to this committee to show how the sub-contractors on this road were treated, although they had the assurance of Mr. Hervey that the Philadelphia Investment Company, who owned all the bonds, who owned all the stock, and who were getting all the benefit of the work done by these sub-contractors, would pay the liabilities. This is the statement of Mr. Win. Robinson. He says that :
On or about the year 1897, Mr. Robt. Mitchell of Ottawa, (since deceased) and Mr. Wm. Robinson of Owen Sound entered into a contract with the Broickville,Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company

The contract I have amongst my papers.
__and Mr. R. G. Hervey of Brockville for the
construction of several difficult and heavy sections of the above railway. After working one month the contractors were promptly paid for the work done, and thus encouraged, proceeded more vigoutously in prosecuting the work-but, received no more money therefor until about seven months labour bill had been incurred under repeated promises from day to day that money would be forthcoming. The result of such treatment on the part of the company was that heavy labour bills were incurred by the contractors far exceeding their ability to pay unless the estimates, long overdue, were paid by the railway company. About Christmas a substantial payment was paid on account of labour done by Mr. R. G. Hervey thereby encouraging the contractors to complete the work and thus secure the subsidies which were to be paid by the government in ten mile sections when completed to the satisfaction of their engineers.
It was these very sub-contractors who completed the work so as to enable Mr. Hervey and the Philadelphia Investment: Company to get the subsidies from the government. They took the subsidies, put them into their own pockets and did not pay these sub-contractors.
After the second payment, on account, had been made from the company's offices no more money could be obtained, only the ' old time ' favourable promises and encouragement to ' go ahead,' ' dont't stop work,' ' the needed succour will surely be to hand before next pay day,' and such persuasion used, as secured for the company the completion of the road (practically at the contractor's expense). Our capital and resources being thus exhausted our horses, mules and all working plant were seized by the sheriff and sold at a ridiculous sacrifice on a market where such plant was useless except for contractors' purposes for which it was designed and realized an amount quite inadequate to satisfy the claims against it as well as depriving the contractors ' of their means of support.' However, we recovered from this ' knock-down blow' as best we could and sued the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company for the then unpaid estimates recovering a judgment against them for about $20,000

I have a copy of the judgment as obtained and the execution which was issued at the time against this company. The amount of the execution was for $19,402.75, besides an amount of $263 for costs, Interest, &c.
-which was afterwards transferred to Mr. R. G. Hervey under an agreement on his part to pay all our labour and material bills incurred in connection with the construction work and furnish us with final receipts therefor and in case of default in so doing we were to get an immediate judgment for the unpaid portion of our claim. While we were thus harassed by our labourers and others who had furnished the provisions for our camps and feed for our live stock, the company gave us a short-time note for $4,000 signed by the president and assured me that if 1 would get it cashed they would take care of it, at maturity. We were then forced to appeal t.o Col. R. R. McLennan who had faith in the promises and apparent intentions of the company. He endorsed same and I got the value therefor which was immediately applied towards settlement of the then most pressing labour demands. The aforesaid note matured and was renewed and renewed-finally paid by Col. R. R. McLennan who recently told me that it has never since been paid by the TY1 'fllfPTQ if T|	n T	'
Owing to the default in payment by the company which caused the entire loss of my plant, stock and equipment, including derricks and tools and machinery for heavy work-I have since been unable to operate as a railway contractor having expended upwards of $10,000 in said contractor's plant, every dollar of which belonged to myself, my partner, Mr. R. P. Mitchell. -only acting as superintendent-he had no interest in the outfit-and at the time of death owed me about $1,400. The railway company, so far as can he determined in the absence of the aforesaid receipts, or vouchers, representing the settlement of some of the labour accounts, now owe me about $14,000 with interest since the road opened for traffic together with their sole responsibility for the loss of my plant, making an actual total exceeding, $25,000.	i
That is including interest from the date of the judgment. That is only one of many cases, I say, of extreme hardship, and I think that the minority members of the sub-committee were not asking too much when they asked that sub-committee to make it clear in their report that in the event of any future legislation, or in the event of these parties asking for an extension of their charter to Sault Ste. Marie, these claims should be considered. That is only one of many claims. There is the claim of the Rathbun Company, besides that, who supplied ties, fence posts, lumber and other material required for the construction of the road. Then, there is the claim also, and a very important one, of the late James Cooper. No reference at all is made to this claim. I apprehend that if this Bill goes through in its present form, the

estate of tlie late James Cooper will not be able to obtain anything out of the subsidy if the government should at any time decide to pay it to this company. Now, I wish to make it clear that I, at any rate, as one of the minority members off that subcommittee, did not insist that any clause should be put into this Bill to pay either of these sub-contractors or these wage-earners. The position I took and the position, I think, that the other minority members of the sub-committee took was this: These people are entitled to a Bill ratifying and confirming their purchase. We will set aside the bill of the creditors, we will set aside the part of the bill asking for the extension of this road from Westport to Sault Ste. Marie, we will simply ratify and confirm their purchase and we will leave this whole question open, so that in the event of the claims of these parties coming up subsequently the matter can be dealt with.
It is fair and reasonable that we should ask to have a saving clause inserted in regard to pending legislation. Mr. Barwick, who represented these parties, suggested such a clause, but the committee did not insert it. I am informed that nothing was said at the committee with regard to changing the name of this company from the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company to the Brockville and Western Railway Company, and yet it is important that the name of a company should remain unchanged. In looking over ' Hansard' I find that the hon. member for Guys-borough and the late Hon. David Mills, and others on that side of the House, have taken strong ground that the claims of wage-earners and contractors should be safeguarded in legislation of this kind. We did not go that far, but all we asked was that fair treatment should be accorded to the wage-earners. I ask now that this Bill should stand until such time as we can put it in proper shape. I must say that Mr. Holmes, of New York, the promoter of this Bill, presented his case in a very reasonable manner, and he stated that they would pay whatever was due to any labourer on that work. In the constituency of Leeds there are a large number of workingmen who are yet unpaid and who can ill afford to lose their money. Several of them appeared before the Railway Committee, and one of them, a strong supporter of this government, represented that they were in no position to attend the sale and purchase of this road, but that he felt that when the Bill came before parliament the claims of himself and others should be provided for. I am informed that nearly all the workingmen to whom money is due by this company reside in the county of Leeds and are supporters of the present government, and it is for these men that the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) is making this fight to see that justice is done them.
I am bound to say that every member of Mr. PRINGLE.
the committee who supports the present government refused to insert a clause in the Bill protecting the wage-earners, although the gentleman from New York who was promoting the Bill made the distinct statement that he would be the last man to see these men deprived of their wages, and that he was quite willing that a clause should be inserted to protect them. Why did the Liberal members on that committee refuse to insert that clause.


Mr. CLARKE.: Did you draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to that situation ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I did not call the attention of the Minister of Labour to that matter because I did not know that the Minister of Labour would be bothered looking after the labourers and wage-earners of the county of Leeds. But if he would, then he should see that there was an amendment added to this Bill by which they would be protected. I may also state that Messrs. Hutchison and Fisher, solicitors for the Bill, announced themselves to be willing, as Mr. Holmes was willing, that a clause should be inserted protecting the rights of the working people. Why is it that the majority on that committee not only struck out the proposition made by the promoters of the Bill, but also refused to insert the saving clause which Mr. Barwick, an eminent counsel asked them to insert. As I have said the minority of the committee asked for nothing unreasonable. They1 simply asked1 that| a clause protecting the wage-earners should be inserted ; that a saving clause be inserted as to pending legislation, and that there should be a report showing the reason why the three Bills were set aside and reserving the rights of all parties in the event of future application being made to this parliament. We did not ask that a clause be put in requiring the company to pay the creditors, but I find that in the case of other Bills passing through this House, gentlemen on the other side have insisted on clauses being inserted giving ample protection to the creditors as well as to the wage-earners. In 1895, when the Bill respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company wms before the House, the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) made the following statement. ' Hansard,' 1895, page 3238 :
As that matter is disposed of I have another amendment, to which the same objection cannot apply, because it does not affect the main part of the Bill. I have here a petition which I wish to read to the House ; but before doing so. I wish to read the amendment which I intend proposing as clause 10 of the Bill. It is as follows
Before this Act shall become operative, the company shall pay all outstanding accounts for labour performed on the railway and olher works of the company, and also for material supplied to or for the use of the said company, the amounts and the accounts for labour and material to be ascertained by the mayor

of the city of Hamilton, and, when the said mayor shall certify to the Minister of Railways that aill lust claims as aforesaid shall have been paid, this Act shall become law.
Now, that is a very sweeping amendment ; it is tar stronger than anything we ask for; and yet it was supported by nearly all the members on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Bothwell, the Hon. Mr. Mills, at that time, in reply to Mr. Coatsworth, said :
I am rather surprised at the line of argument adopted by the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill, that because the parties have not been informed that such a Bill was before the House or the railway committee, and because they have not been able to make known their complaints, therefore the House ought to take no cognizance of it.


Mr.   COATSWORTH@: That is not my argument at all.


Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).: I do not say it was a serious argument, but the hon. gentleman made those observations. He went further, and said that the promoters of this Bill ought not to be made liable for the debts of the sub-contractors. Well, Sir, we have in the province of Ontario a statute which gives builders a lien upon the property upon which their labour or their material have been expended. Now, it seems to me that that Bill is founded on equitable principles and equitable considerations, and I do not know why that rule should not apply to a railway corporation, if it is their boundc-n duty, as the promoter puts it, to see that those who expended their time and their labour cn the work from which they are to derive advantage, should be paid by those to whom they have let the contract for the performance of this work. It is their bounden duty to see that those who spend their time and labour on the work from which advantage is derived by the company, are paid by those to whom the contract is let. If we undertake to put men of straw who do not reside in the country and have no property in the country forward as sub-contractors, 1-t is their business as a matter of due diligence to see that those who have done the work have been paid for it, or, if not paid, that the money is not handed over to the contractors. That seems to me to be a principle of simple justice, and, before the company are allowed to avail themselves of the labour of those men who work upon the road they ought to be made to give compensation for it. It is better that they should pay twice than that the parties who expended their labour on the work, and who have nothing else to subsist upon, should remain unpaid.
Apply that principle to this case. Here is a man named Hervey, who takes a contract for the construction of 45 miles of railway, for which he is to receive bonds and stocks of the company. He is not pro-eeeding very well, and the Philadelphia Investment Company, which has advanced the money, says, we will take that contract off your hands, we will take the bonds and stocks, and assume the liabilities. They urge on these sub-contractors to complete the road-why ? Because they want to obtain from the government the subsidy on the road, and they obtain it. The subsidy was given to them, and instead of paying
the sub-contractors and the wage-earners, they put the money into their own pockets. They receive the benefit of the work, and obtain the money. And these are the very gentlemen who are asking for this legislation. They can shape it as they like. They can say that these individuals purchased the road, but they purchased the bonds through the Philadelphia Investment Company ; and I say that we would not have been going too far if we had asked for a similar clause to be inserted in tills Bill to the clause which was Inserted in the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Bill. But what I complain of Is this : We met the majority of the committee most fairly. AVe said, we do not want to hold up the applicants for this Bill in any way ; they are entitled to come to parliament and get a Bill ratifying and confirming their purchase ; let us give them just what they are entitled to; but, when we set aside the claims of the creditors and the other claims, let us make a report, so that, it will be clear that if these parties come to parliament next session asking for an extension of this road, the creditors can then come in and press their claims. But the majority of the sub-committee, whether intentionally or not, have not brought down that report, nor have they added the other clauses to the Bill which I say should have been added. Now, Sir, let me refer again to the position taken by the hon. member for Guysborough in 1895. Referring to the amount of $60,000, he says :
Yes ; that amount, has been owing ever Gince. And a large number of these men are feeling it very much. There are farmer^ and others who have worked upon that road and have not been paid a dollar -since -that time, and they feel the pinch. The company is -given the benefit of -their work. It will not do tor them to say : We give.the contract to Bracey Bros., and if a man works for Bracey Bros., he knew what he was doing. You cnuld get labourers every time -and avoid paying them by -throwing responsibility from one to the other in that way. This company are bound to -see that the men were paid, and if they made it possible for Bracey Bros., to leave the country without paying 'the men, then any further advantages granted ito them by the legislature should fcc granted upon the conditions 1 shall name,
I say this is a very much stronger case. Here is a case in which the contractors employed sub-contractors, and these sub-contractors absconded from the country owing these people. Our case is a very much stronger case. The Philadelphia Investment Company got the benefit of the work of these people, and agreed to pay them, when it took the work out of the hands of Robert G. Hervey, and it is really the Philadelphia Investment Company which is getting this legislation through these individuals. When the matter came before the committee, the hon. member for Guysborough made this motion :
I move to amend the Bill by adding the following clause :-

The company shall remain liable for all debts due for the construction of the railway of the said company, and, if such debts are due to contractors, shall cause all just claims for labour, board and building material, in respect of such construction, to be paid by such contractors or their assigns or assignees, and, in default thereof, shall' be directly liable to all persons having such claims.
The hon. member for Guysborough supported that motion throughout the whole discussion, and he was supported by Sir Louis Davies and a number of other government supporters. Now, let us look at the position in this case. We had before the committee Mr. Carter, representing the Rathbun Company. He explained to us that the Rathbun Company, in perfect good faith, had supplied all the ties and fence posts and other lumber that was required for that road. And they supplied these goods, believing that the Philadelphia Investment Company, which was getting the benefit of all the assets of this road, had pledged itself to pay for these articles. Let me for a moment refer to the Act confirming the charter of the Great North-west Central, chapter 85, 51 Victoria, 1888. I will only refer to section 27 of the schedule, which is as follows :
Provided always that the company hereby incorporated shall be and remain liable for, and shall pay and discharge all debts which were due on or before the second day of June last past by the North-west Central Railway Company, and the Souris and Rocky Mountain Railway Company, or either of them, for railway construction, and which have not since been paid and discharged, and the said company hereby incorporated in accepting this charter, do for themselves and their successors, covenant, promise and agree to and with Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, that they shall fully pay and discharge all such debts, and will cause all just claims for labour, board for labourers employed in or about such construction, and buildings, materials in respect of such construction due by contractors to be paid by such contractors.
That is a very sweeping clause, and very much stronger than anything the parties interested are asking for. In 18S8 a discussion took place in this House and the Hon. Mr. Edgar, in speaking on this very section, said :
There is no need of discussing in what way the charter was not in accordance with the Act; but I may briefly say that the Act required that the charter should provide for the payment of all the legal obligations of the former company, and the charter undertook to interpret what that meant by defining certain obligations which the new company was to be bound by. I do not know what parliament would have stated had it been asked to define the obligations more distinctly in the Act; but the government defined them by letters patent, and they have to admit that that part of the charter requires confirmation by an Act of parliament. I move for these papers, and I think they will show that the government are responsible for the delay in the construction of this railway through that rich portion of the North-west. Everything, apparently, was ready for the work two years ago.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: This discussion arose on a motion by the Hon. Mr. Edgar for copies of all papers, documents, telegrams and correspondence in connection with that land grant to the Souris Rocky Mountain Railway Company, or relating to the construction of the said railway. With regard to the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, when the charter of that road was up for discussion in July, 1895, this clause was very thoroughly discussed. The hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser) and his friends supported it throughout. I do not intend detaining the committee much longer. I was not present at the Railway Committee when the report came in, or I would have raised the question I am now raising. Nor was I present at the final meeting of the sub-committee. But I do feel very strongly that whoever made out this report did not carry out the views of that committee. They may have carried out their personal views, but not those of the majority of that committee. My hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo was there, and I will ask him now if tliis point was ever discussed in that committee while I was present, namely, the change of the name to the Brockville and Western ?


William Alfred Galliher: Not that I know of, while you were present.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Was it at any time ?


William Alfred Galliher: I will reply to that later on.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Certain amendments have been moved by the hon. member for Leeds, but I shall not now take up the time of the House with them, as they no doubt will come up during the discussion of the Bill. One of the first is that the words ' North-western ' should be struck out and the words ' Sault Ste. Marie ' be inserted in lieu thereof. I understand the reason was because the sub-committee never agreed to change tlie name of this company from the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie to the Brockville and Western. I do not remember any discussion as to the powers of this company with regard to the carrying on of the business of navigation on navigable bays, lakes and rivers. The last time I was present in the sub-committee it was distinctly understood that all these powers were to be eliminated from the Bill, and we were simply to give this company a Bill ratifying and confirming its purchase, and if we gave bonding powers, they were to be only for the money to be used in the betterment and the equipment of the road. The matter is of a very great importance to a large number of people. It is of importance to the estate of the late James Cook, to the Rathbun Company, to Mr. Robinson and a large number of creditors in the district through which this road runs. I submit that the committee should give every reasonable consideration to these

claims, and if the promoters express their willingness to the sub-committee to pay the wage-earners, why not let them do it ? They are willing to have it incorporated in the Bill, and why cannot we put a clause in the Bill to afford this protection which the others are willing to give ? But the majority of this committee seem to have come to some other understanding with the promoters of the Bill by which they want to deprive the wage-earners of that to which they are justly entitled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The indisposition shown by the House to adopt the proposals made by the hon. member for Stormont and Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) to protect the creditors of this road is most unaccountable. It has been said by some hon. members that parliament has no right, in granting or amending a charter, to impose these conditions. But I am quite sure that no old parliamentarian will for a moment question- the right of parliament in this matter. It is a right which parliament has always asserted and not infrequently exercised. The hen. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) shakes his head.


William Alfred Galliher: All I say is that we do not dispute that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some hon. members of the committee, I am told, have taken that view. So, I am glad that the hon. member (Mr. Galliher), who is promoting the Bill, agrees that parliament has this right, _ for it seems to me perfectly clear. This is a Bill to confirm a sale and amend a charter, and parliament has the same right in connection with it as with any other. The only question is that of expediency-should we impose these obligations? This is the question. I need not review the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Stormont and Cornwall. To my mind, they are most cogent. We must remember that the purchasers in this case are the same parties who incurred the obligations. The purchasers are the Philadelphia Construction Company, and they are the same parties who managed to get the road built under the sub-contractors and who benefited by every dollars worth of labour and material that went into the.road and was not paid. This being the position of the parties, it seems to me perfectly fair to hold them accountable for these obligations standing against the road, especially as they have bought and taken over the franchise and all belonging to this road practically for a song. So, they above all others, have received the benefits of the labour that went into the road, the iron to make the track, and all the supplies used in connection with the construction. There was a substantial subsidy given by the government to assist in building this road ; and we have always recognized as one of the rules that when the government gives a subsidy to build a railway, the first claim
on that subsidy is the labour that takes part in the construction. In this case, the subsidy was diverted to other purposes, and the labourers who built the road yet remain unsatisfied. As the subsidy we gave was not used for the payment of labour and supplies, that is all the Stronger reason that we should provide that whatever company purchase that road should be required to accept the obligations hanging over the undertaking. If there was no precedent for this course, if we had never done it before, those who say that we have not the right to impose these conditions might have stronger ground for their contention. But the fact that parliament has dealt with similar cases over and over again, and has established the precedent of imposing such conditions, not once or twice, but three or four times, is all the stronger reason why we should take this course in the present case. These precedents have been referred to by my hon. friend from Stormont and Cornwall. First, there was the case of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company. When the attempt was made to present the claims of the unsatisfied creditors of that road before the committee, it was contended that they had no status and no right. But the committee, after going fully into the inquiry, decided that as the government had given a large subsidy to assist in building the road, the intention of parliament and the government being that the labour that went into the construction should have the first claim upon that subsidy, it was quite reasonable to provide that the purchasers should pay these claims before parliament would give them the consideration they asked for. In that case, it must be remembered, the people who were seeking the legislation refused to have this condition put in the Bill. But parliament said : You cannot get your Bill through unless you accept these conditions. And they did accept the conditions and liquidate the obligations. In this case, the purchasers of the road, we ai-e informed, are willing that a condition should be put in the Bill making the payment of these claims obligatory. And the strangest part of it, to my mind, is that, in the face of this, parliament refuses to embody such a condition in the Bill. That is, to my mind, unaccountable.


William Alfred Galliher: I did not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think he must have misunderstood what the hon. member for Stormont said.	-


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: If the hon. gentleman will allow me-Mr. Holmes, who represented the New York syndicate, came before us when application was before us for the three Bills. There was a creditor's Bill, there was a Bill by New York men, and there was a Bill in which the Brockville names were added as well ; and he then stated that he was quite willing to have a

clause inserted to pay the wage-earners, but he drew the line at paying the contractors. We then endeavoured to get a clause inserted in regard to the contract, but we could not agree upon that, and we ultimately agreed to put all the Bills to one side and simply give to these people a Bill ratifying and confirming their purchase. That was the last committee meeting at which I was present. We agreed to put them in the position that they were bound to come before parliament in a year to get that legislation. But, that is where we find an entirely different Bill. Instead of simply ratifying and comfirming that purchase and leaving the rest to stand until some subsequent application was made to parliament, when these matters would be brought up, we find a Bill giving them bonding powers, giving them powers to issue so much capital stock, giving them powers to go into navigation, and so forth. That was never the understanding or the agreement by the subcommittee when I was present, and I was very much surprised when I came back to find that this Bill was reported with all these clauses in it.


William Alfred Galliher: There were two propositions submitted by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle). The one that the hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Bproule) was referring to was the one in which Mr. Barwick, the solicitor of these companies, was willing that a clause should be inserted that pending litigation, their claim should not be prejudiced in any way. That is what I thought the hon. member for East Grey was referring to, namely, the agreement of Sir. Barwick the solicitor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) is entirely out in his reasoning, if he desired to contradict the statement I have made because I was absolutely correct.
' Mr. GALLIHER. If the hon. gentleman was referring to wliat Mr. Barwick said he would agree to being put in the Bill, I am correct; if not, I apologize.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was referring to the willingness of the parties who were desiring a confirmation of their purchase and said they were willing to do it, and afterwards Mr. Barwick on their behalf, expressed his willingness that that should be done.


William Alfred Galliher: Mr. Barwick did not express his willingness in that respect, it was only in regard to the appeal that was pending.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I desire to correct the hon. member. Mr. Barwick was willing that a clause should be inserted in regard to the wages of these men, and he saw some of the creditors in regard to a proposition of accepting 40 cents on the dollar of their claims. So far as Mi-. Barwick personally was con-


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: cerned, he recommended it, but the New York gentleman said : well, we will simply take a Bill ratifying and confirming our purchase, and we will let the rest stand until we come to this parliament to ask for an extension, and we may never come.


William Alfred Galliher: Nevertheless, I am not subject to correction on that matter, because Mr. Barwick did not speak in regard to the creditors, it was only in regard to the appeal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am substantially correct yet. If Mr. Barwick did say so, I am only repeating what is correct. The very fact that Mr. Barwick interviewed some of the creditors and desired to make an arrangement whereby they would accept a certain percentage on the dollar for their claims, is the best evidence of it. Notwithstanding that fact, the committee took no notice of that, simply ignored it, and put the Bill through so far as they were able to, loading it down with other claims, the right to sell bonds, the right to issue bonds and other obligations beyond what were standing against the road at the time it was sold, and which would to a great extent at least prejudice the rights of the original claimants. I was referring to a precedent, the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo road. The government granted a subsidy to that road, saying to that company. There are two reasons why we should do this : First, there is the equity ; and second, there is the fact that we are giving substantial assistance to this road, and the principle has always been recognized by parliament that where parliament gives aid towards building a road the first claim upon the subsidy must be the labour employed in its construction. But there is another case. About twenty years ago there came before this House the case of the Hereford railway in the province of Quebec. A Bill was before this House securing, or endeavouring to secure, certain amendments to the original charter and to give other rights to the franchise holders, when parliament said :	The labour that went into the construction of that road years ago is not paid, and it is improper that the poor labourer who built the road should receive no compensation for his labour, and when you come before parliament again asking us to give you something, it is our right and our duty to say that the labour that went into the construction of. that road should be paid, otherwise we will not grant these additional privileges. The holders of that franchise agreed to pay these labourers, and they were paid, but so far as my memory enables me to call up the circumstances, they were not paid a hundred cents on the dollar, but, they were paid a certain percentage, which they agreed to accept as satisfaction for their claims against that road. I think the Hereford railway got a subsidy from parliament at that time, but I am not sure of that.

Then we come to a stronger case, that mentioned by the hon. member for Stormont. I remember that very well, because I was well acquainted with the parties who built the road originally. That was the old Souris and Rocky Mountain road, which afterwards changed its name to the North-west Central road. A Bill was before parliament changing the name of the road so as to enable it to do away with an old obligation that was standing against the original owners. The contractors were Preston & McDonald, they built fifty miles of the old Souris and Rocky Mountain road for the owners. The owners did not pay the contractors, and the contractors could not pay the men, and everything was allowed to drop after the 50 miles had been graded and prepared for the ties. It remained in that way for several years. A new company came forward desiring to take advantage of the surveys and labour so far as the grading of the road and other requisites that went into it were concerned and they applied to parliament for a charter covering the same ground' but under the name of the North-west Central Railway Company. That was done so as to enable them to take advantage of the construction of the old road and yet evade the obligations that were resting upon it. Parliament said : You cannot do that unless you are prepared to put up a certain amount of money to pay old claims. Parliament compelled that company-an English company-to put up at least $25,000. The claims, I believe, amounted to something like $50,000, but the creditors said that they were willing to accept fifty cents on the dollar if parliament would provide that their claims should be paid and although we were not giving a dollar by way of subsidy to assist in the construction of that road, we refused to give that company their charter until they agreed to pay these claims to the extent of $25,000. That English company agreed to pay these claims and they did pay them. They were settled for fifty cents on the dollar or at whatever percentage the original contractors could settle the claims for, but the claims were transferred to the new corporation and the new corporation paid out something like $20,000 or a little more to satisfy the claims presented to the extent of fifty cents on the dollar, and they satisfied every claim before they were allowed to take advantage under their charter of the work that had been done on that road. That is a very much stronger precedent than those which have been cited and yet that company were compelled to do that, and they accepted the obligation. They paid these obligations before they got the charter that parliament agreed to give provided they did so. Then, are we doing any great injustice to this company if we ask them to come forward and do the same thing ? This is a much stronger ease even than that to which I have ' referred. These are the parties who originally incurred the obligation. These are the
parties who were receiving substantially a large consideration for a very small outlay. They bought that road for a mere trifle, the road is built, the road is running, the rolling stock is on the road, the stations are there, and everything is provided for them. They got the road for a trifle and that fact affords a stronger reason why we should compel them to pay the obligations that were incurred by that company on that railway before granting them a charter and before granting them the additional rights which they are asking for under this charter. Now, what would be the result if parliament refuses to ratify this sale ? It is true that these claimants have not got their claims satisfied, but they are standing, doubtless, in as good a position as they were before parliament took up this question. Their claims are not prejudiced in any way. It may be said that their claims will not be paid and it may be a fact that they will not be paid, but we do not put their claims in any worse position provided we refuse to grant this charter, but if we grant this charter as it is proposed in this Bill we do prejudice these claims; in fact, we practically cut out these claims altogether.


William Alfred Galliher: How ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because there is no obligation resting on the company to pay them- none in the world. So that, we shall be doing a very great injustice to these men. We would be doing something that we have no precedent to justify us in doing. We would be affirming a principle that parliament has always heretofore refused to affirm if we were to do what we are asked to do by the hon. member who has charge of this Bill. Therefore, I say that we are justified in contending that parliament should refuse to pass this Bill before these grievances are redressed. This Philadelphia Investment Company who incurred the obligations should be compelled to satisfy these obligations before they get this Bill. Now then, there are a great many claimants in this case. Some of the claims may not be well founded. As to that I am not prepared to say, but many of them are well founded, because, when looked into by the courts, the courts have given judgment; therefore, I assume that they are just and legal claims. These judgments are standing against the company and they have been satisfied in no way. These judgments remain as legal claims, and it is for the purpose of evading the obligations that are hanging over the company that this company desire that parliament should grant this franchise and give them additional consideration which they ask parliament to give. Is parliament prepared to do that ? Is parliament prepared to ignore the rights of these labourers whose labour went into the construction of this road ? We have always recognized the rights of labour whether we have given a subsidy or have not given a subsidy. Shall

we deny the rights of these labourers today ? It has been said that these are the claims of big wholesale men like the firm of Cooper, Fairman & Company, but we have before us the claim of one of these men who is a farmer and labourer, who supplied material that went into the construction of the road and who did everything that a man could do to assist in the building of the road with the expectation that his labour would be paid for. It has not been paid for. Are we going to deny him the right in future to recover compensation for his labour ? If we pass this Bill we are doing it. If we do not pass this Bill we will leave him in the same position as he was before with a reasonable hope of getting his claims satisfied. Parliament may reasonably be asked to pass a Bill confirming the sale of this road, but in doing that we ought to put some clause in providing that the passage of this Bill shall in no way prejudice the rights of these people or prevent the prosecution of their claims in future. If parliament was simply doing that I could understand why there might be some reason why it ought to be done, but the hon. gentleman who has the Bill in charge desires to go much farther and is not content with taking a Bill such as I have mentioned from parliament. I understood that the parties, when this Bill first came before, parliament, were willing to accept that, but for some reason unknown to me and unknown, I believe, to this House, the promoter of this Bill desires to go farther and now asks parliament not only to confirm the sale of the road but asks parliament to tack on other conditions which will practically cut out every claim.


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is stating what is not contained in the Bill at all. There is absolutely nothing contained in the report of the subcommittee to this effect. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which takes away the rights of any creditors if they have any rights. Why does the hon. gentleman state that we are doing that when we are not ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the sub-committee put anything into the Bill to protect these rights or to enable these parties to protect them ?


William Alfred Galliher: The sub-committee simply left the creditors in the same position in which they found them. They did not deal with their claims, they did not prejudice their claims, but they left them with the same rights as they found them. We did not deal with the question of creditors' claims.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the unexplan-able thing about this whole matter. The Bill went to the sub-committee to enable them to take evidence and ascertain whether these claims were legal and equitable and how far they should be recognized, but the Mr. SPROULE.
sub-committee does not seem to have done that. A similar thing was done in the case of the North-west Central and the Toronto and Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Bill. The chief reason for sending this Bill to the sub-committee was because the entire Railway Committee could not waste time taking the evidence and looking into these questions, and the sub-committee was asked for a report on them. We lire told now that the sub-committee never looked into the matter at all. That being so the sub-committee did not discharge the duty that was referred to it by the Railway Committee.


William Alfred Galliher: There was no such reference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As a member of the Railway Commiuee I say that I distinctly understood that a reference was made to the sub-committee for this purpose. That is what a sub-committee is appointed for.


William Alfred Galliher: A sub-committee is appointed to consider the provisions of a Bill and to see which of these provisions they should report on or whether the Bill should pass or not. A sub-committee is not a judicial inquiry to assess the amount of creditors' claims and all that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is one of the most important functions of a sub-committee to see that every legal and equitable claim ought be protected. That is the most important duty of a sub-committee and this sub-committee failed in that. We have precedent after precedent to justify that, but the hon. member (Mr. Galliher) who is a comparatively new member of this House, evidently does not understand the real object of appointing a sub-committee, or otherwise he would not make the contention he does now. Why did not the committee go as far as the lawyer promoting the Bill would go in protecting these people who have claims. The sub-committee simply ignored these things entirely. I confess that I have seen many reports from sub-committees, but I never knew of a case in which a sub-committee dealt with its business in such a perfunctory way.


William Alfred Galliher: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) attended the meetings of the sub-committee he would not say that it discharged its duties in a perfunctory manner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When I look at what this sub-committee did not do, it convinces me that they discharged their duties in a perfunctory way. The very things that they should have done were left undone. For these reasons the House would be acting improperly if it passed even the preamble of this Bill. If we pass it we will establish a precedent which may be the cause of our doing very great wrong in the future. It i is the duty of parliament to protect the

rights of the people whether these rights are equitable or legal, and parliament generally makes an effort to do that. But in this particular instance the sub-committee has been remiss in that respect. The Bill should be referred back to the committee with instructions to provide that the rights of the claimants should be protected and that we shall not grant what is asked, for by the incorporators of this measure until they are prepared to assume the obligations which this parliament has imposed on other corporations under similar circumstances.


Mr. CLANCY.: 
William Alfred Galliher: If the hon. gentleman R-rievfrr-mg anything I have said on this Bill he is entirely mistaken. I have never taken the attitude that he attributes to me.


James Clancy: I can tel] the hon. gentletTLT w,?8 bfP,en llis attJtude from first to last When there were three Bills before the committee, Mr. Holmes proposed H at ke would accept simply a confirmation of his purchase. If my ears do not deceive me. I have some evidence that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher). was willing to approve of that, but later on he has been more pressing. He at least supported the resolution that that proposition should be set aside, and that another turn should be taken whereby further powers should be given to this company. If the hon. gentleman disowns any idea of going further than was proposed in the first instance, namely, that when there were three Bills before the committee, although two of them were in the interest of the promoters of the Bill which the hon. gentleman has in hand today, they were all to be considered ; and what were the propositions ? The promoters of one Bill proposed to secure the creditors. They said, give us a charter, and under such circumstances we will see that the creditors are paid. That was refused by a majority of the committee, on the ground that nothing should be asked beyond a mere confirmation of the purchase.
They said, surely you will not deny the present promoters the right of having their * purchase confirmed by parliament. That was assented to by the committee as a proper thing to do, and it was even understood that time would be given for further negotiation, so that the two parties might come together, for the purpose of compensating the creditors to some extent. Now, we find ourselves with a Bill utterly ignoring every claim made by Canadian citizens, many of them workingmen who have gone unpaid ; and these gentlemen now recede from the first arrangement that was come to, which I admit was only tentative, and they are asking extraordinary powers, going beyond the confirmation of the purchase. They take the ground that if the creditors have legal claims, they are not disturbed, and if they have not legal claims, no matter what the equity is, they will never be paid. I think it would be an outrage for this parliament to consent to anything of that kind.
I say, if these people want a confirmation of the purchase, let them have it ; and if they want more, they should take into consideration the rights of others in Canada, and pay at least a portion of these claims. There were two propositions before the committee. One was that if a charter were given to one of the parties seeking incorporation, they would undertake to pay the claims. The other was that in the event of nothing being done with regard to the claims of the promoters of the three Bills beyond giving confirmation of the purchase which was made by the present promoters, that was thought to be a fair solution of the whole difficulty. That was agreed to ; and for my hon. friend to come here now with this Bill,-even backed by a majority of the committee, seems to me without defence. I repeat that it is a sad day in Canada when men who are mere exploiters, in a sense, can come to this parliament, and, with the aid of a majority of the committee or a majority of this House, can cut out equitable claims of people who ought to be ' paid. I know of no more despicable means of promoting a Bill than by declaring that claimants shall not be entitled to recover their claims. This is the court to which they might reasonably look for the protection of their claims.


Mr. BARKER.: I was a member of the sub-committee, and as such, I acquired my information on this subject. I know nothing of the facts, beyond what I heard in committee, but I think I was at every meeting. These 45 miles were constructed by the original company some years ago. That company issued a considerable amount of bonds, which they sold in the United States. The proceeds of the bonds do not appear to have been used to pay the creditors, because Mr. Cooper, of Montreal, had a very large claim for rails supplied, which still remains unpaid ; the Rathbun Company had a very large claim for ties and



# other materials ; and a large number of '.farmers along the route have never been paid for the work they did or the materials they supplied, and I think for some of the right of way. The road was put up for sale by the sheriff, and some gentlemen in New York, having acquired the bonds which were sold in the states, came to Canada and purchased the property for a very low figure, I think something like $119,000 for the 45 miles of road. Under these circumstances they come to obtain a charter, the Bill for which is now before the House, and ask virtually for a confirmation of the sheriff's sale. It appeared before the subcommittee that there are legal proceedings pending at Toronto contesting the validity of the sheriff's sale. It appeared also that no extension of the line beyond Brockville had ever been made. We had a long discussion, we had several meetings, and we heard the different people. We heard Mr. Cooper's storv as to how he became a creditor. 1 think there was no dispute in the committee that these creditors had valid claims to a very large amount of money, and that these claims were equitable, though they were not perhaps in the position to be enforced against the company's property. The minority of the , committee proposed that a statement that these claims existed should form part of the report to the Standing Committee on Railways, but the majority, very unwisely, I think, and perhaps unfairly, refused to insert in the report any reference whatever to these claims. I myself urged that the report should refer to them, if for no other purpose than as a matter of record, so that hereafter, when any application for further legislation might come up, parliament would be seized of all the facts, and the state of the case would be known without having to be gone into again. But the majority of the committee positively refused that, and we had to submit. That was the one point which I think was unjust to the unsecured creditors. As we failed to get a report stating the position of the creditors, the proposition was made and acceded to all round, that we should simply authorize or confirm the purchase of the 45 miles of railway by the company that is being created, distinctly subject to the pending litigation now pending at Toronto in which the validity of the sheriff's sale is contested. Nothing could be more clear than the understanding on the part of every member of the committee, that the report should declare that this legislation should be subject to the pending litigation. I understand that there is not a word upon that subject in the Bill as it stands to-day. It was further understood that the purchasers should be allowed to issue common stock to the amount of the purchase money which they gave for the road at the sheriff's sale. There was some question as to what was the amount. I think one person


Samuel Barker: said that it was $119,000 or something like that. But those who represented the purchasers said that there was more than that paid. It was not pretended that more than somewhere abount $119,000 had been paid at the sheriff's sale, but that there were costs and expenses in addition. I never heard, however, any pretense that the total cost was more than $150,000 or $160,000 at the outside. Yet in the amended Bill as reported the capitalization is fixed at $500,000


William Alfred Galliher: Did the hon. gentleman not agree, as one of the members of the sub-committee to fix the capitalization at $500,000 ?


Samuel Barker: I am afraid, looking at the whole of this Bill, that some gentlemen finished up the report after we left


William Alfred Galliher: I asked the hon. gentleman whether he did not, as a member of the sub-committee, on the last day of its meeting, consent to the capitalization being placed at $500,000 ?


Samuel Barker: I distinctly say the contrary. As to leaving before the work .was finished, I can only1 say that before we left the arrangement was made that the chairman would prepare a report according to the understanding we had arrived at. All that was left was for the chairman to prepare the report. Let me say here that I disclaim any intention nf implying that the hon. member for Kingston (Hon. Mr. Harty), who was the chairman, did anything wilfully wrong in making the report. I do not know even that lie drew the report, but whoever made it, I am afraid, omitted things that the committee had agreed to and put in some things that it did not agree to. There is no question whatever that the fact that the report was to be subject to the litigation pending in Toronto, was distinctly understood. I am told that there is not a word about that in the Bill. Four-fifths of the Bill have been struck out and it has not yet been reprinted. In my opinion, -we are not, therefore, in a position to properly consider the measure. It ought not to come before us until the Bill is reprinted. With regard to the stock, I say distinctly that while the minority of the committee wer.e present, there was no arrangement that it should be $500,000. For what possible reason should $500,000 stock be allowed to gentlemen who paid only $119,000 for the property ? In addition, they got permission to issue $10,000 per mile of bonds. I myself proposed that they should be allowed to issue $10,000 per mile in bonds on the forty-five miles, but it was distinctly staled that the proceeds of these bonds should be expended in the betterment and equipment of the forty-five miles. I understand that that is not in the Bill either.


William Alfred Galliher: That was not agreed to.


Samuel Barker: Every one of the minority so understood it.


William Alfred Galliher: The minority members of the committee asked that that be put in, and the majority would not agree. To say that the whole committee agreed that that should be put in is incorrect.


Samuel Barker: What occurred was this. In the course of the discussions before the sub-committee, Mr. Holmes, a gentleman from New York, asserted more than once that about $15,000 would complete the road. He said that the whole forty-five miles were practically completed, but that they still required an expenditure, some $15,000. When I suggested allowing this $10,000 per mile, some of those who were opposing the Bill, made the objection that no such sum would be required. I said that it was immaterial what amount we allowed, provided they were obliged to spend the money on the forty-five miles, because they would not spend more on the forty-five miles than was absolutely needed. It is for that reason the majority of the committee were willing that this sum should be allowed in the way of bonds, although in their opinion it was not required because Mr. Holmes had told them that this small sum of $15,000 was all that was necessary to complete the road so as to entitle them to a subsidy if the government chose to renew it. In that particular the report does not appear to have carried out the intention. There was a reason why we were acting in this way. The majority, as well as the minority, wished to leave the matter in such a position that at some time this company would have to come to parliament (for further powers. The Bill iwas to be restricted to the forty-five miles, so that whenever these people saw fit to seek parliamentary powers to extend their line to the west, they would have to come here for the privilege, and then these creditors, who had been unpaid for so many years, would have an opportunity to come before parliament and ask for justice. On no other ground whatever did the majority or minority propose to do away with the other two Bills except that all three-these people, the creditors and the promoters of the third Bill-should be obliged, whenever they wanted to extend that road one mile beyond Westport, to come to parliament and this parliament would hear again the claims of Cooper and all those other gentlemen and do justice in the premises.
. Mr. GALLIHER. Is not that the position now ?


Samuel Barker: Yes, but in order that they might be in that position it was most important that they should not use that $10,000 per mile for any other purpose than for the fortv-five miles. It was all im-2334
portant that they should be held strictly to the position they acquired as purchasers and get nothing more than the confirmation of their title at the sheriff's sale. That was the whole object in leaving them there, namely, that whenever they came for more, the creditors would get their dues.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I was not here during the afternoon to hear what was said about this Bill, but I have one or two papers in my hands which I would like to lay before the committee. I think, after hearing them, the committee will certainly accede to the amendment proposed, for the self-preservation of Canada. Here is a letter from Mr. Edward Murphy, a gentleman living at Prescott, and I presume well known by lion, gentlemen opposite, for he is a very strong politician and supporter of my hon. friends opposite. He writes from Prescott on the 23rd June to Mr. W. A. Lewis, barrister at Brockville. Mr. Lewis has large claims for many of the creditors. He was my opponent at the last election, and out of all the creditors who have claims against this railway company, there are only two Conservatives. However, a great portion of them are constituents of mine, and I have .always made it a rule to endeavour to represent my constituency irrespective of polities. Therefore, I take a lively interest in this Bill to see to it that these honest men who furnished the right of way, who furnished the labour by contract and so on should have their claims recognized in some way. Now, Mr. Smith writes as follows:-
Prescott, Ont., June 23rd, 1903.
W. A. Lewis, Esq.,
Barrister, &c., Brockville, Out.
Re the B. W. and S. S. M. Ry.
Dear Sir,-In 1902 I bought the bonds and stock for said road, from the Investment Company of Philadelphia, $960,000 bonds, and $960,000 stock, all the holdings of the Philadelphia people, in fact, all the holdings of bonds and stock in the United States.
In my contract for said bonds and stocks, the parties agreed to furnish the charter and all data in connection with said road, and in said contract there was no set time, nor no time limit entered into contract. I was delayed month after month waiting for the particulars and all the details in connection with the road and to this day only part of the information has been furnished as agreed, and my people urging for same during all the delay. I would beg to call your attention to my agreement with the Pacific Trust Company of New York. This is a strong company, and in Said company's charter the directors are all held personally liable for the full amounts and contracts of the company.
Re the New York German Syndicate that are now pushing for said road and trying to get charter. They are unworthy of first consideration in the matter. I was introduced to Mr. Holmes, of Holmes & Smith, and by him to Mr. Cragin, and I placed before these men proposition for said road quite fully, and they expressed a wish to enter into a contract, but informed me they could not pay the money over until they could get the bonds and realize on the bonds,

that they could sell the bonds on the New York market and handle the deal for me. This I refused and negotiated the deal with others and was adjusting the Canadian claims and getting all in line for full settlement of all judgments and outstandings against said road. During this time these usupers by misrepresentation got in league with the bondholders in Philadelphia and by using the bonds in direct opposition to the Knickerbocker Trust Company, who were the trustees of said bonds (see notice of Knickerbocker Trust Company on sale of road), and in contravention of my contract for said bonds did undertake to secure control of said bonds and to defraud the honest claims and judgments and debts against said road. They are applying for a charter to enable said syndicate to successfully rob all these honest claimants and to take over a heavily bonused road, that our government did pay as bonus to said road over $105,000 of the people's money, also the several municipalities paid $118,000 of the people's money, and at this juncture the government will surely, through the committee handling this important matter, see .that heavily bonused roads are not gobbled up by foreigners and the people defrauded out of their honest and just claims.
I placed my contract and all documents in the hands of my attorneys, Watson, Smoke & Smith, Toronto, Ont., who are going on with this matter, and I trust the committee, in their wisdom, will withhold all grants or charters for the present for extension of the road or the road now completed. Please see Trust Company's contract.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) EDWARD SMITH.
Now there is a statement from a gentleman who tells me plainly that


William Alfred Galliher: Better get him to put it in as an affidavit.


George Taylor: He will make an affidavit. He was here and ready to appear before the sub-committee, but the matter did not come up the day he was here.
Now, I see the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) here. I would ask him if he will be a party to allowitig the honest labouring men who took part in the construction of this road to be defrauded of what is justly due them, if he will allow three Germans to come here from New Y'ork, buy up this road and deprive these labouring men of their honest earnings ? My hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) I have no doubt has gone over the precedents for the amendments that we propose and has quoted speech after speech of hon. gentlemen on the other side when a similar case came before parliament, as they argued, as I am arguing to-day, and a clause actually was inserted in the Bill they then discussed to protect the rights of the labouring men, the boarding-house keepers and those who' furnished supplies. In this case, the names of the claimants and the nature of their claims is all set forth in the schedule attached to the Bill. I do not think a Bill ever passed this House without provisions being made to protect the labouring men. and I am sure the Minister of Labour will join with me in saying that Mr. TAYLOR.
in this case the rights of these people shall be protected. I want to read a portion of a letter from Messrs. Hutcheson and Fisher, of Brockville, who appeared before the committee :
Brockville, July 17th, 1903.
Geo. Taylor, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Taylor,-Yours of the 16th Inst, received with copy of proposed amendments to Brockville and Westport Bill inclosed. Also copy your remarks in the House the other night. "We now return you proposed amendments. We think your amendment for reduction in capitalization an important one, and should carry. If this new company is given the right to issue half a million of stock and four hundred and fifty thousand dollars of bonds, you will be placing them in a position to exploit the money market, make a huge profit for themselves on their present advance, and throw the concern on the shoulders of such innocent money lenders as they can unload their scheme on.


William Alfred Galliher: Is it not the case of any railway charter-they get these privileges and unload them on the public ?


George Taylor: But these gentlemen are in a different position from any people who ever came before this parliament. They bought forty-five miles of railway completed and equipped for $160,000, and paid for it with bonds, which, some say, they bought for $80,000. Bonuses have been given by this parliament and by municipalities to the amount of $250,000, to assist in the construction of that road. Is parliament going to allow these three men, who purchased for $160,000 a road so constructed to go to New York and say : We have a Canadian charter, and we have large bonding powers as well as a share capital ? What do they care about the construction or running of the road ? Why did they not carry out the offer that Mr. Barwick made? I will quote what he offered, and afterwards withdrew. Some say that one cause for his withdrawing it was that one of these gentlemen had already got into financial difficulties :
If the House grants bonding privileges at ten thousand dollars a mile the new company should be tied up by some such clause as you propose to add to section number nine.
Now, the amendment that I propose would provide that when the bonds are sold the proceeds of the bonds shall go to the benefit of the road and that only. This road to-day is running under license from the government. It has not passed the government inspection yet, and I think it is high time that the government should ask these parties to put the road in sound condition for carrying passenger traffic. It is true that some $38,000 of the government subsidy has not yet been paid. I think that the Bill shoud be amended as I suggest, so' that the road may be completed up to the government standard. This question was fought out before the transfer of Mr. Hervey's contract. Mr. Hervey states emphatically in

the letter tuat when he assigned it to these people, it was with the condition that they assumed all the liabilities. It looks on the face of it as if these parties had a pull. Mr. Barwick appeared on their behalf and he galvanized the committee


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Hypnotized.


George Taylor: But I am satisfied that this parliament will not allow the Bill to go through in this form, and particularly I am satisfied that the Minister of Labour will not give his support to a proposal which will have the effect of practically cutting out $20,000 of money earned by the honest labouring men of the county of Leeds in helping to build this road.
We trust you will be able to have the clause added compelling the new company to complete the road to government standard within twelve months. Perhaps this should be added to section nine.
This is the amendment suggested by Messrs. Hutcheson and Fisher since I sent them copies of the amendments I proposed. That not only would they have the right to sell the bonds, but the proceeds of the bonds should be applied to the betterment of the road and that the road should pass government inspection within twelve months so that it won't run on being unsafe for life and limb, as it has been for years.
Mr. Barwick stated that he would have such a clause put in. We think that the railway committee completely overlooked a statement made by Mr. Barwick, when the master came up on 12.th May last. You will recollect he stated that the new company would have no objection to a clause being inserted in the Bill providing for payment of wages for construction.
Now, Mr. Barwick came before the committee and made that proposition, and why *did not the committee take cognizance of it and recommend it in the report they have submitted ? It is true that later on Mr. Barwick withdrew his proposition, saying he had been down to New York and could do nothing with these people. As I understand, Mr. Barwick is thoroughly satisfied now with the report of the committee, which gives them half a million of capital stock and allows them to secure bonds for $450,000. These gentlemen can then go to the New York market, sell that stock and bonds, and put the money in their pocket. If the amendments are made to this Bill they will do nobody any harm, and they will protect the government, and protect the company, and protect these honest labourers. I am satisfied that the government will, if not now in Canada, at least on the third reading of the Bill, when they come to look into this matter, find it to be in their own interest. in the interests of the country and of the labouring men, to have a clause put in such as was put into the Bill of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company. Now, Mr. Buell was solicitor for this trust company. Mr. Smith, whose letter I read a short time ago, appealed to him, and Mr. Buell writes him from Brockville on the 7th of October, 1902 :
October 7, 1902.
Re Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway.
The Pacific Underwriting & Trust Co.,
66 Broadway, N.Y.
Dear Sirs.-The issue of bonds for the forty-five miles of road completed consists of the 1,125 bonds of $1,000 each, and the issue of stock is $1,125,000. Of these 900 bonds and $962,000 of stock -are held by one party who also have some control (probably absolute) of sixty more bonds.
I have been shown correspondence evidencing a contract by which .the owners of these 900 bonds and $962,000 stock bind themselves .to deliver over these bonds and stock at the Bank of Montreal, Brockville, on payment of the price.
1 am the solicitor for the above mentioned bondholders in t'he suit now pending for the sale of the road under the bonds and1 by the judgment in the suit the road is directed to be sold, and it is expected that the road will be brought to sale shortly. Such sale will be practically controlled by the holders of these bonds and by buying at the sale a good title can be obtained.
That is what Mr. Buell wrote to the Pac-fic Underwriting & Trust Company. Mr. Buell furnishes that to Mr. Smith, of Prescott, and it has been forwarded to me with authority to read it in the House. Now, here is the statement of Mr. Hervey, who was the president of the Brockville and Westport Railway Company. He formed a construction company composed of himself to build the road, and he received all the subsidies obtained from the municipalities, together with the government subsidy voted here. Mr. Hervey was here while the committee was in session, and he wrote this letter on the 20th of May, 1902. Several hon. gentlemen saw him when he was at Brockville; I think he lives in Nova Scotia now :
Re Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway.
The Brockville, West.port and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company chartered by an Act it the legislature of Ontario, entered into a contract with Robert G. Hervey for the construction and equipment of that portion of its line extending from Brockville to Westport, forty-five miles, agreeing to pay for such construction and equipment, according to schedule attached to the contract, all of the .stock, bonds and subsidies of the company.
In pursuance .of this contract, work was begun and the line .partially .completed. Rails and fastenings and the wire for fences were purchased from Cooper, Pairm&n & Co., and the Dominion Wire Company ; and a.n assignment of .the subsidy granted by the Dominion of Canada was executed by the railway company to (I think) James Cooper, of Montreal, out of which payment was to be made for such rails, fastenings and wire.
The Investment Company of Philadelphia furnished at different times certain sums of money upon notes made by the railway company and endorsed by R. G. Hervey, and with certain

bonds of the railway company as collateral security. The Investment Company of Philadelphia were familiar with the conditions and transactions of the railway company, and agreed to the assignment by the company of the Dominion subsidy for the purchase of the rails, fastenings and wire above mentioned. In July and August, 1892, an'agreement was made between Hervey and the Investment Company for the assignment by Hervey of the construction contract to the Investment Company, and thereupon Hervey endorsed such transfer upon the original contract, and the directors, who up to that time had been legally qualified by holding each the amount of stock specified in the charter and having paid all calls thereupon, resigned as such directors, and the Investment Company nominated a board of directors, who I am informed and believe have never been legally qualified as directors, and have since acted, not to represent the interests of the railway company, but as nominees of, and to carry out the wishes and instructions of the Investment Company, Hervey's object in making st;ch agreement was that the railway might be completed and equipped and the construction liabilities paid by the Investment Company, who became the contractors ; and the object cf the Investment Company was stated to be that they might acquire a good title to the stocks and bonds under the construction contract.
There were half a dozen gentlemen from Brockville who appeared before the committee who are named as directors in one of the Bills now before parliament, and I am credibly informed and believe that not a man of them has a dollar of interest in the road, and has only lent his name for the purpose of getting this legislation through parliament.
I am informed and believe that, immediately after the appointment of a new board of directors of the railway company by the in vestment Company, the assignment of the construction contract by Hervey to the Investment Company was presented to said hoard of directors, and such assignment ratified and approved by them. Instead of proceeding to complete and equip the Tailway in accordance with the terms of the contract which they then held, they failed and refused to ,pay the construction debts and to complete such construction and equipment, and I am informed and believe attempted to repudiate the assignment of the Dominion subsidy to Cooper above mentioned, and undertook to foreclose the deed of trust or mortgage securing the bonds, and several years litigation ensued ; during which time the directors of the railway company did not act in the interests of the railway company, and did not defend such foreclosure suit, as they should have none, and should have set up that the bonds held by the Investment Company should not draw interest until such contract was completed, and that the stock held by the Investment Company should not be declared fully paid until actually paid for by the completion and the equipment cf the line In accordance with the contract which they had assumed; but.in all the litigation, as I am informed and believe, the so-called directors of the railway company simply obeyed the instructions of the Investment Company.
By reason of the failure of the Investment. Company to carry out in good faith the contract they had assumed, the subsidy of the Dominion government lapsed-or at least such portion of it as had not been paid, but was wi-th-Mr. TAYLOR.
held by the government pending the completion and equipment of the line in acordauce with the specifications. I have always believed that the securities held by the Investment Company should be charged with a lien for the payment of the construction debts and the completion and equipment of the line according t.0 the contract.
Now, Mr. Hervey states that when he assigned to these people they assumed that obligation to pay these construction debts and to complete the road according to the government standard, so that Mr. Cooper could get tlie subsidy. Now, these people assumed that from Mr. Hervey, they became liable to these labourers and these creditors and liable for the completion of the road. They sold these bonds to these parties and now they come forward and repudiate the bargain made by Mr. Hervey and ask parlia-men to back them up in that and give them a charter and wipe out all these claims. These may not be legal claims against them, liut they are certainly moral claims and this government ought to recognize them. The sub-committee, as I am informed, at least the minority of the subcommittee, fully agreed and believed it was understood by the committee that they would simply legislate so as to confirm the title to the property that they had purchased and give them nothing more and nothing less. I trust that when tlie matter is fully explained and understood by lion, members on both sides of this House that the justice of our contention will be recognized and that the government will restrict the Bill to the purpose which I have mentioned, so as not to place these creditors in any worse position than they were in before the road was sold or since. I have given notice of an amendment which reads as follows :
That nothing In this Act shall prejudice the claims of the creditors in a suit now pending in the courts, to test the authority of the courts of Ontario having jurisdiction to order the sale of this railway, it being a railway for the general advantage of Canada.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


George Taylor: When the House took recess at six o'clock I was reading a statement made by Mr. R. G. Hervey. and I had about concluded reading it. It continues as follows :-
I have always believed that the securities held by the Investment Company should be charged with a lien for the payment of the construction debts and the completion and equipment of the line according to the contract.
While It would seem to me that .a charter should be granted permitting the extension of this railway, it does seem to me only reasonable and fair that such charter should provide for 'he payment within a certain time of the debts incurred under the construction contract which

was assumed by the Investment Company ; or possibly it might be made a condition of the charter that any subsidy that might hereafter be granted by either the Dominion or provincial governments should be charged wiith the payment thereout of the money coming to Cooper (whose security was destroyed by the acts of the Investment Company), and also for the payment thereout of a sum sufficient to settle the other indebtedness incurred under said construction contract, and that the charter should be contingent thereupon and should lapse at an agreed time if such liabilities-which should long ago have been paid by the Investment Company, as above mentioned-were not satisfied.
The above is an accurate statement.
(Signed) ROBT. G. HERVEY. Now, Mr. Chairman, the committee is seized with all the facts in reference to this railway. My hon. friend from Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) has read to the House the action that was taken by this parliament in the cases of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company and the Northwest Central Railway Company, and the Hereford Railway Company, in which cases hon. gentlemen opposite supported a proposal similar to that which we make now. When these companies applied to' parliament for extended powers, parliament granted their charters only on condition that the just claims against them should be paid. I am satisfied that now that parliament is aware of the facts in this case, parliament will not perpetuate an injustice against the creditors of this road. One of these creditors, a Mr. Knowlton, who appeared before the committee, furnished a right of way, and although he never gave a title, the road took possession of it, and he has never received a cent. Besides that he has a claim under a contract for construction, the whole amounting to $8,000 or $10,000. I am sure that parliament will not legislate that gentleman out of his just rights. I am glad to see the hon. gentleman for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) coming into the House, because in the case of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway he moved an amendment in favour of the creditors of that road, and I am glad to say it was adopted by the House. I am sure that his voice will he raised now on behalf of the creditors of the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company. I ask the Minister of Labour to see that labouring men who worked for days and months on this railway, and who never received a dollar of wages, will be protected now that parliament can protect them. I also ask that in any legislation that is granted, it shall he provided that it will in no way interfere with the case that is now pending in the courts. It is the duty of the government to look to all legislation passing through this House, and I trust they will take measures to see that justice is done to the creditors of this company.


Mr. OLIVER.: I would like to say a word on behalf of one of my constituents who has
a claim against this company for $5,000, for money that has actually gone into the construction of this road. A company was chartered by this parliament to build this road, and in the building of that road they incurred certain expenses for labour and material, and the company being in default the road was sold under an order of the court, and practically the same company bought it in.


William Alfred Galliher: That is wrong. I may state that the sub-committee had six statutory declarations before them to the contrary". One company had no connection with the other.


Frank Oliver: It makes no difference whether the same men bought it in or not; some one bought the road with its rights and liabilities, as I understand it.


William Alfred Galliher: Excuse me.


Frank Oliver: They should have done so.


William Alfred Galliher: You evidently do not understand the character of a sale under a mortgage of bonds.


Frank Oliver: 'Well, I do understand that a certain number of men bought this road in a court sale, and so far as that sale is concerned the purchasers were relieved from liability for the claims that were against the road that were not included in their claims. These people got what they bought, that is what they paid for, and that is all that is coming to them. We had no responsibility with regard to that matter, but they were not satisfied with what they bought, and they come back to this parliament and ask for something further from parliament. They ask for certain extension of time and certain extension of authority.


William Alfred Galliher: That is wrong ; read the Bill. ,


Frank Oliver: These people who bought the road come to parliament and ask certain powers and authority, beyond what they obtained by the purchase of the road. I have been a member of this parliament for some seven years and scarcely a session has gone by that there has not been a similar case in which the liens against a railroad have been maintained against the company applying to parliament. During this verv session our friends from Bona-venture "(Mr. Marcil) and from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) have maintained the rights of their constituents in regard to certain railroads in these counties. I am not prepared to say what was the actual result, hut I am certain that the committee upheld the contention of these hon. gentlemen. I remember some years ago when the member for Lincoln maintained a similar contention in regard to a railway in his county, and he was supported in his contention by the House. It was a perfectly fair contention

to my mind, that the labour and material which actually constructs a road should be a lien against that road, and when the opportunity occurs to enforce that lien, when legislation is before parliament, that is the time to see that justice is done. There is no manner of doubt that this road owes certain people honest money. There is no doubt that the company which under an Act of this parliament is going to own the road is given certain privileges by this parliament because of the existence of that road which the money and the labour of these men have actually constructed. It seems to me utterly unfair that these people should be allowed to have the benefit of this money and of this labour without being compelled to give value for it. We are giving them power to raise money. Then, I think the first thing we should do is to compel them to pay the money which the enterprise they have acquired actually and properly owes. As to the account which I have mentioned, a matter of $5,000, it is possibly the man's whole fortune, and it seems to me a terrible thing if people can be actually swindled as in this case. I do not care if it is done under the colour of law or under the procedure of the courts, it is robbery just the same ; the result is just the same. It seems to me that it is the privilege of parliament, if it is not its duty, to protect the rights of innocent parties who have put their money and labour into the construction of the road; and it is a privilege which I for one will certainly exercise, so far as I have the power.


George Taylor: The hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) asked the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) to look at the Bill. That is just what I would like to do-see a copy of the Bill as it has been presented by a majority of the sub-committee.
I think in all fairness to the members of the House this Bill should be printed before we proceed further with it. There is not a member of the House who knows anything about the Bill. As I have seen it in the hands of the chairman, it grants these gentlemen more powers than they purchased. It grants them the power to change the name.	.


William Alfred Galliher: It would help the creditors a lot to keep the old name, wouldn't it ?


George Taylor: It would not do them anj harm. Their claims are against the Brock ville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.


William Alfred Galliher: How will the change of name affect them ?


George Taylor: I do not know whether it will or not ; but there is an action pend Ing against that company. Then the lion member for Yale and Cariboo says that the parties who bought the road are not the bondholders. How does he know that ?


George Taylor: 


William Alfred Galliher: Not because I have written statements from men, but because I have statutory declarations which mean something, whereas letters are matters which anybody can write.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman has them, will he produce them ?


William Alfred Galliher: They were before the sub-committee.


George Taylor: I attended every meeting of the sub-committee and I never heard of them. If my hon. friend has them, let them be read, so that they will be placed in ' Hau-sard,' where we can see them.


William Alfred Galliher: I have them here.


George Taylor: Will my hon. friend send one of them over to me ? I believe the evidence is just as strong that the investment company who took the assignment from Mr. Hervey subject to all these claims are Interested in the purchase of the road. They handed the bonds over to the parties at a nominal price, and these parties appeared in their own names and persons, and made the purchase, and paid in the bonds which they held as the purchase money, thereby barring any other person from purchasing unless he came forward with a sufficient amount of money to pay the bonds in full. I am satisfied ini my own mind, and it was stated by the lawyers who appeared before the sub-committee, Messrs. Hutcheson and Fisher and Mr. Lewis, thatl these parties purchased for the investment company.
I will produce Mr. Hervey's affidavit corroborating the letter he wrote, and Mr. Smith's affidavit corroborating his statement, if the committee will allow me a couple of days' time to get them. If my hon. friend will produce the affidavits he speaks of, I will produce affidavits in a short time contradicting them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We often say it is a right duty of parliament to protect vested rights ; but in passing this Bill, instead of respecting and protecting vested rights, we are practically confiscating those rights.


William Alfred Galliher: What about the men who paid their money for the railway at a public sale ?


Sir. BENNETT.: Let them have what they bought.
Mr. GiiiiLIIIER. That is all they are asking.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have not refused to confirm their purchase, and that is all that parliament can be fairly asked to do without tacking on conditions. I say that we are not respecting vested rights; we are doing what parliament has always been advised it should never do-interfering with and destroying vested rights.


Mr. GALLIHER  .@: Tust a word in answer to what my hon. friend has said. If he

understood the principle of foreclosing either a mortgage or bonds or anything of that kind, he would realize the absolute nonsense of what he is saying. We all know that if a piece of property is mortgaged, and I am the first mortgagee, and there are other mortgages subsequent to mine, and other judgments and claims subsequent, and if there is default made in the first mortgage, all the parties are brought in, as they were in this case. Their claims are mentioned in the report of the master ; they are there to prove their claims either in person or by representation. The master orders a sale of the property. The purchaser may be an entirely different party from either the mortgagee or the mortgagor or any of the subsequent encumbrances. If his bid buys the property, he gets it at that bid, unless some of the other parties are prepared to overbid him. That is where they have their protection ; they can, if they want to, overbid him sufldciently to cover their claims. When the hon. member for East Grey talks about parliament taking away vested rights, 1 ask him, if people attend a public sale ordered by the court, and buy the property, I do not care whether they have bought it at its full value or al half its value, have they no vested rights ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Is there not litigation now pending in regard to the validity of the sale ?


William Alfred Galliher: I will tell you what the litigation is that is pending. There was a report from the master as to the distribution of the purchase money. From that report the late James Cooper made an appeal. The hearing of that appeal was set for the 23rd of April, 1903. The appeal was heard, and judgment was given on the 25th of April, dismissing the appeal with costs. There has been an appeal taken which we who practice law understand the effect of. which takes the matter over vacation. It cannot be heard until the long vacation is over, and the intention is to cause delay in order to obstruct this Bill. But that appeal does not affect the title. The courts had already decided that, these bonds had priority over all the other creditors. That decision was appealed against and Mr. Cooper was defeated.


George Taylor: I will put my hon. friend right with reference to the appeal now pending. It is an appeal as to whether the courts of Ontario had jurisdiction to sell a Dominion road ?


William Alfred Galliher: Has not that already been decided ?


George Taylor: No, no decision has been rendered.


William Alfred Galliher: It is merely a question of appeal from beginning to end.


Samuel Barker: If there is absolutely nothing in that appeal, what isMlie objection to make this Bill subject- to the decision on that appeal ?


William Alfred Galliher: The objection is this. I did not intend to go into this question at all until we came to it on the particular clause in that Bill, but from the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite they propose to go over and over the same ground on every clause of the Bill. What do the amendments of the hon. member for Leeds amount to. He has been posing here as the friend of the workingman, let us see what assistance his amendments would be to the workingman. The first amendment is that the words 1 North-western' be struck out, and the words ' Sault Ste Marie ' inserted in its place. If he can find any advantage to the workingman in doing that, I should like to know what it is. The second amendment is to strike out ' $500,000 ' and substitute * $160,000 ' so as to make the capitalization $160,000 instead of $500,000. How is that going to help the workingman ? His third amendment is that section eight, declaring the. railway to be for the general advantage of Canada, be struck out. But, if there is any advantage to the workingman, it will rather be found on leaving that section in the Bill than in striking it out. His fourth amendment provides that section nine be amended so that the proceeds of the bonds shall only be used for the completion and the equipment and betterment of the forty-five miles of road. How is that going to help the workingman ? Not one particle. Here is the only amendment that could possibly be of any benefit to the workingman. It is an amendment providing that when the railway is completed and passes government inspection, should parliament see fit to renew [DOT] the subsidy, that subsidy will be paid over to the estate of the late James Cooper. But, the subsidy had already been assigned to Mr. Cooper ; and if he has any rights under that assignment, these rights still exist. If the subsidy is to be revoted, I am not sure that the assignment would not still hold good ; but if the contrary opinion should be held, every opportunity would be given the parties interested to be reheard on the subject. Why should we anticipate legislation on an event which may never happen ? But would that pay the workingman, whom my hon. friend is so solicitous about, and whom I would like to see paid just as well as any hon. member in this House ? Not at all. It will pay James Cooper.


George Taylor: Read the next section.


William Alfred Galliher: The next is an amendment to section twelve which provides that should the company apply to parliament at any time for further powers


George Taylor: That is just what they are doing now.


William Alfred Galliher: No, this has reference to a future application. It provides that

should they apply to parliament at any time for further powers, parliament shall inquire into certain claims. You are asking parliament to legislate against itself by declaring that if at any time this company should come to it, it would be bound to do something. And all you want it to do is to make an inquiry into these claims. The amendment does not require the company to pay these claims. What different position then would the creditors be in than they are now ? Supposing this Bill should pass as it stands, surely the creditors are just in as good a position to come to parliament, when this company is asking for further extension, as they would be if you had inserted a clause of that nature in this Bill. We are not taking anything away from the creditors. We are not asking them to waive their rights in anyway, and the insertion of a clause of that description would not add one iota to their benefit. Then section thirteen provides that nothing in this Act shall prejudice the claims of creditors. Then there is the amendment to add section thirteen and provides that nothing in this Bill shall prejudice the claims of creditors in a suit now pending, to test the authority of the courts of Ontario. Why should it be necessary to put in any such clause. You are asking us to provide against some thing which does not exist. You are asking us to provide against a contingency which cannot possibly happen. What difference would it make if you had that clause in ? These are the proposed amendments of the hon. member for Leeds. There is not one of them which will tend to bring the workingman one iota nearer his pay. There has been a little cross firing and certain assertions have been made with regard to this sub-committee. I cannot speak as to all that took place in the sub-committee, because I only attended two of the meetings. One of them happened to be the last. With that draft report of the sub-committee I had nothing to do. I have not seen it up to the present, therefore my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), although he looked pretty hard at me when he insinuated that tliat_ report was not exactly what it ought to be, is completely at fault. I had nothing to do with the report and I am satisfied that in the hands of the Chairman, it was in the hands of a gentleman who would not do anything except what he understood to be the wish of the majority of the committee.


James Clancy: My hon. friend has accused me of insinuating "that the report was tampered with ?


William Alfred Galliher: I understood from the hon. gentleman's demeanour that he thought T had something to do with it.


James Clancy: I want to make myself clear to the hon. gentleman. I neither insinuated, nor am I conscious that my demeanour was such as to insinuate. AVhat 1 did say, and I still say it, was that the


William Alfred Galliher: lion, gentleman wabbled a little on the matter before the committee.


William Alfred Galliher: After the explanation of the l\on. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) I beg leave to apologize for having anything to say in the matter. Now, as to the action of this sub-committee, it was said by some hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the sub-committee had neglected part of their duties-or words to that effect-in not going into these creditors' claims. Let me inform my hon. friend that the sub-committee did go into the question and heard parties with regard to these claims. But the majority of the committee thought that that was a matter hat had better be left to the Committee of the House or to the House to deal with when these claims should be presented if any application was made for a subsequent extension.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) will allow me-that is exactly our contention. But we ask, why was it not put in the report ? If the report will come down in the shape in which the matter was agreed upon in the committee, then, so far as I am concerned, I am perfectly satisfied. And if the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) says that was not agreed upon, and that the report in its present form is the correct report, I will accept his statement so far as I am individually concerned!.


William Alfred Galliher: And without the chairman's sanction to what I say, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) will not accept it ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: If the hon. member for Kingston who was chairman of the subcommittee and in whom I have every confidence says that the report as now in the hands of the clerk is the agreement of that committee I accept it at once. But I am satisfied that he will not say so. It was a majority vote.


William Alfred Galliher: The question was discussed in the sub-committee whether we should report making the statement that we bad considered these claims. I think two of the committee, a minority, wished this put in, but the majority decided they would notput it in. Therefore, the report as decided upon by the majority did not contain that limitation. I state that as a fact, because I was there; and I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) will accept it. But whether be does or not that is the truth of the matter. When these clauses come up one by one, I shall be prepared to discuss these matters at greater length. In the meantime, I felt that I could not allow the representation as to the general character of the transaction that has been made and so strongly urged by hon. members opposite to go without placing this committee in possession of the facts. It has also been stated that certain

propositions were made by Mr. Barwick and by one of the parties applying for this legislation whose name is in the charter.
X can only say that such offers were not made at either of the meetings at which 1 was present. If hon. gentlemen who were at these committee meetings say that such was the case, I certainly accept their word for it. But, speaking generally on this Bill, I point out that these people only came here asking for a confirmation of their purchase. But, surely hon. members would not expect a Bill of this kind simply to confirm such a purchase and give them the bonding privilege of $10,000 a mile. Objection should not be taken to the other clauses here, which are such clauses as appear in an ordinary incorporation-such as the names and adres-ses of the parties, who shall be provisional directors, capital stock, head office of the company, and so on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a few words as to


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I am anxious to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) on this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, I hope that the hon. minister's ambition will be satisfied.
I have been anxious for a long time to ascertain the interest the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) was taking on behalf of the poor labourers who built this forty-five miles of road. I have been equally anxious to know what position' the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) took upon it. The hon. gentleman from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) said that tlie sale was made by order of the court under mortgage and there was no appeal. If so, what are these people here for ? They have appealed to the highest court in the empire in these matters. This court of parliament deals with legal claims, with claims of equity and with moral claims, and to this court these people have appealed. All we ask is that this court should settle this case on the same lines as they have settled other similar cases, that this court shall observe a well established precedent. We can confirm this purchase, but, in doing so, we can protect the rights that have not been protected by the court from which the hon. gentleman says there is no appeal.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I am very happy to gratify my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) by giving him my views on this question, and I hope he will accept my thanks for his giving me the pleasure of hearing him. It is a rare treat, and I appreciate it accordingly. With reference to the claims of the workingmen, I quite agree with all the hon. members of this committee, that it is most desirable, in all cases where it is at all possible, that these claims should be properly protected. I was not present at the discussion of this matter in the Railway
Committee, therefore, I have no information on the subject except from what has transpired in this debate. I understand the facts to be as follows : That this railway company having become financially involved, the road was offered for sale by public auction under a decree of the court and was sold free from all encumbrances to the highest bidder. The purchaser became owner of it free from all claims. It is now urged that the purchasers, although they have obtained a title to the property free from all claims, shall nevertheless be compelled to pay some unpaid sums of money owing to the workingmen, for labour I suppose, in the construction of operation of the road. Now, the purchasers have acquired the property free from all claims.


James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman permit me-the hon. gentleman has repeated again and again ' free from all claims.' If the hon. gentleman will look into the case he will find that it was not free from such claims as might be adjudged; against it by the court.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not got the advertisement here, I suppose the advertisement has been before the Railway Committee. My hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) has stated that the property was sold by the court to the highest bidder, and there was no condition in the contract of sale stating that the purchaser was to acquire the property subject to any existing claims. If there was no such condition in the purchase the purchasers acquired the property free from all claim. Such is the law. When property is offered for sale and there is no stipulation that the purchase should be subject to existing claims or liens of any kind, then the presumption is that it has been sold free from all encumbrances ; that is the law of the land. If there is no such a stipulation or reservation of this kind, then the purchasers acquired the right to the property free from all encumbrances, all outstanding claims of any kind.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well. I will not enter into a controversy with my hon. friend on the subject, the law is too plain to be subject to controversy. In the . province of Ontario the law is beyond all question that when a property is offered for sale by public auction and there is no state; ment in the conditions of sale that the pur' chaser, in addition to paying his purchase money, shall have to pay other claims, or ' take the property subject to other claims, he . is entitled to the property free from all en-; cumbrances. There is no legal gentleman of ; any standing in the province of Ontario who [ will controvert that proposition for one mo. ment.
; Mr. PRINGLE. Will the hon. gentleman r permit me to ask him a question ? Is this

parliament bound to do anything more than to ratify and confirm that purchase 1 That is the first question. Are we as a parliament bound to do anything more than to ratify and confirm that purchase, subject to any rights in existing litigation ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No applicant to parliament has a legal right to legislation, all will concede that. It is always in the discretion of parliament to grant or refuse legislation that is asked for. But it is a novel proposition that parliament is to become a collector of debts and to sell its legislation-for that is what is proposed here.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The hon. gentleman is not answering my question. I do not quite agree with him in the statement he makes. I think we are bound under the Railway Act to ratify and confirm that purchase if application is made to this parliament, as it should be, within a year. But having done that, are we as a parliament bound to do anything more for this company ? Let me continue a little further ? If I am right and if we are not bound to do anything more than to ratify and confirm that purchase, and if this company then comes and asks for large privileges, have we not a right as a parliament to ask them to deal equitably with these claims, if we think there are merits in these claims ?	,


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They have a right to ask for legislation, but for us to withhold legislation because what we ask for is not conceded, is a very different proposition. I do not think it is a wise procedure for parliament to put a price upon its legislation, as is proposed. I will tell my hon. friend where I think the mistake arose. This railway company, as I understand, received a large subsidy from the Dominion parliament. I have turned up the statute of 1894 and I find there a grant of a subsidy of something over $80,000, and a reference is made to a statute of 1880 granting a subsidy as well. I do not know the extent of these subsidies, but it is conceded in this debate that a considerable amount of public money in the way of subsidy has gone into the construction of this road. Now it would have been a very simple matter for the government of tlnit day to protect the workingmen. They could have stipulated in the contract under which they allowed that subsidy to be earned that it should not be paid out until proof of the payment of the wages of the men. They had a very simple remedy, they have not apparently chosen to avail themselves of that opportunity. They have paid the subsidy over to the company without first seeing that the workingmen were paid. There was an easy remedy in their own hands. But my hon. friends opposite, instead of resting the responsibility for the loss to the workingmen where it belongs, upon the government of Mr. PRINGLE.
that day, that omitted to take up the interests of the workingmen and protect them -instead of placing the responsibility where it belongs, they now seek to make the purchaser who has acquired this property, pay a debt for which he is not responsible. An infinitely fairer proposition would be for the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) to propose that the members of parliament themselves should contribute towards the payment of that debt. I understand that the amount of wages owing to the workingmen is some $6,000. If we are going to pay that debt out of other people's money, had we not better first show our generosity by paying it out of our own money 'i It is a simple thing for us to be very generous here, to sit down and by legislation vote to pay a certain debt out of another man's property ; but it would be far more creditable to us, and give greater proof of real generosity of spirit, if we were to contribute our percentage of the money ourselves. Let my hon. friend from Leeds make that proposition in parliament. I am sure he will receive the assent of his own friends, they are burning with eagreness to pay these bills; perhaps we should be equally generous on this side, and the whole question would be solved. But instead of that, what does the hon. member propose ? The hon. member for Yale and Cariboo a few moments ago read the proposed amendments. One of these amendments, number H, is as follows:
That when 'the said company completes the said railway sio that it will pass government inspection and be 'entitled to receive the unearned subsidy, should the parliament of Canada see fit to revate it, it having lapsed, that it be paid over to the estate of the late James Cooper, who had an assignment of the said subsidy as security for rails supplied to equip the road.
Now, if he is sincerely desirous of aiding the workingmen, why does he not first of all ask that this unearned subsidy be applied in payment of these workingmen ? Why does he come here and ask that whatever money is realized must first be banded over to the merchants who sold the rails ? Why does he not consider that the workingmen should be entitled to the first claim ? If we are going to take a sum of money that is not under the control of this parliament and distribute it amongst persons, surely his sympathy should fii-st go forth to the workiDgmen. I ask him why he does not move that that fund be first charged with the payment of the wages before he hand it over to the payment for these rails ? Now, another feature occurs to me. If notwithstanding the court ordering the sale of the property free from all encumbrances, parliament Is going to intervene and prevent tlie purchasers deriving the full value of their purchase, we are going to discredit sales, and we are going to depreciate the value of property that is to be sold. If it is known generally that any property, that is the subject of legislation by this

parliament will not pass to the purchaser though he buys it under conditions that gave him a full title in fee simple, free from encumbrance, if, notwithstanding that fact, we, by our practice, sqy that any company becoming the purchaser of such property that may apply to parliament for legislation shall not be entitled to the fruit of its purchase, we violate the law of contract, and destroy the value of sales held under the law of the land. The proposition in this case seems to me utterly devoid of merit. The blame rests with the late government in not having hedged around the public grant of money with conditions not entitling the company to receive the money until they had done justice to their workingmen. That condition was not put in where it would have been effective and this trouble has come from the neglect of the late government and hon. gentlemen who supported that government come here now seeking with professions of interest to try and get recovery when they know full well that they have no equity here, to-day, when they know full well that they have no legal claim, and who are attempting to make use of this parliament by coercion to wring money out of people who are entitled to fair consideration, and to persuade this high court of parliament to prevent them from getting that consideration except they submit to what is an unjust levy of taxation or to be deprived of legislation which is fairly their due. Let the merits of the application be discussed fully and fairly without importing the condition that the petitioners coming to this parliament may be compelled as a consideration for getting legislation to which they may otherwise be entitled to that shall contribute moneys for claims such as these. It is a degredation of parliament, a lowering of the object of parliament, and it is asking parliament to lend itself to a violation of the rights of the people. In our desire to befriend people we must be just. There is a higher obligation than merely a wish to be kind to people. There is the highest of all obligations-the obligation of being just and not adopting a confiscatory policy such as is involved in this proposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) if he was not in the House and if he did not support the claim of the labourers when the North-west Central Railway Company came before parliament after purchasing the rights of the former company, and when parliament did not give a dollar by way of subsidy, and if he was not one of those who favoured giving the legislation asked for only upon the condition that the new company should pay the claims of the workingmen who built the railway ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I never took any part in the discussion, nor have I any recollection of it.


George Taylor: Look up ' Hansard ' and quote his speeches.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You cannot find any speech of mine on that subject.


George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee was amused listening to the double-barrelled minister-the hon. Postmaster General, and the hon. Minister of Labour making out a very bad case for the last half hour. He addressed his remarks to the hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Cul-bert), when I have not seen the hon. member for Brockville in the House this evening.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I must apologize to the hon. member for Brockville.


George Taylor: Then he refers to the poor labouring men and asks them to come here with their hats in their hands and to pass around the hat amongst the friends of the hon. Minister of Labour first and then amongst hon. members on this side to take up a collection to pay them. The men who have done work on this road and who have not got their pay for it, I am sure, are not going to pass the hat to the hon. Minister of Labour, because they know that all they would get from him would be cold justice.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: May I ask the hon. gentleman when his interest in these labouring men began and why he did not manifest that interest at a time when it would have been effective by seeing that the late government imported proper conditions in connection with the subsidy ?


George Taylor: The hon. Minister of Labour was present and voted for this subsidy. Why did not he, a gentleman aspiring to be Minister of Labour, surround that subsidy with safe-guards in the interest of the labouring men ? That subsidy was voted and the party to whom that subsidy was voted, with the approval of the government, assigned it as security for payment for rails, fish-plates and spikes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why
did the government not protect the workingmen first ?


George Taylor: Why did'nt you, when you voted for that subsidy see that the workingmen were protected ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why did they not do it in the contract ?


George Taylor: Why did'nt the hon. minister have it put in the subsidy ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was not drawing up the contract:


George Taylor: Why did'nt the hon. gentleman put that condition in the subsidies that he has voted for since he became Minister of Labour ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is in all the contracts.


George Taylor: What did the hon. gentleman do in the case of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway ? He supported a claim similar to this presented by the labouringmen and he put a schedule into the Act providing that these claims should be paid. That is just what we are asking now. The hon. minister criticises the amendments which I propose. I am quite prepared to strike out sections 11, 12 and 13 altogether. That is all that these workingmen ask parliament to do.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not find anything in the amendments the hon. gentleman has given notice of which purports to accomplish what he is asking for.


George Taylor: The minority of the subcommittee thought it was unanimously understood that the Bill simply ratified and confirmed by legislation the purchase of what these people had bought. That was agreed to. If that is all that is proposed to be done, I withdraw my objections and my amendments. This sub-committee took upon themselves to recommend a change in the name of the company. They changed it to the Brockville, Westport and Northwestern Railway, when it should have been allowed to remain, the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway, because the law says that if a railway changes hands the new purchasers must come to parliament to get the purchase confirmed. The Bill as it now stands proposes to change the name,, and that is wThat the workingmen object to.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no merit in the name.


George Taylor: There is the hon. Minister of Labour taking part against the workingmen. They ask that the name be left as it is. It is not for the hon. Minister of Labour to say whether a change in the name will effect the claims of these men or not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does any body say that it will ?


George Taylor: Then, why ask to change it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does it have any effect on the rights of any person ?


George Taylor: That is not the question. The workingmen ask that the name be left as it is.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Whether the report of the sub-committee does or does not embody the opinion of that subcommittee, ultimately the Bill was reported back to this House ; and the Bill, with its amendments, is now before the Committee Mr. TAYLOR.
of the Whole House. 1 want to ask the hon. gentleman if he thinks there should be au amendment holding up this Bill until these workingmen are paid, or if he thinks there should be apy condition imported into this Bill requiring the company to pay the workingmen, why he has not made a motion of that kind ?


George Taylor: I am doing nothing of that kind.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I know you are not, and that is just why I am asking the question.


George Taylor: This sub-committee reported to the Railway Committee, and when the Railway Committee dealt with the Bill I was not present.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: __ But here in this House.


George Taylor: I was not present in the Railway Committee and neither were the members whom I had named on the subcommittee, and yet the Railway Committee refused to let the matter stand. The Bill is now before the House in its mutilated state with recommendations which the minority of the sub-committee say they did not agree to. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) has affidavits from these gentlemen stating that they are not the same as the original company, let him read them, because both the member for Hamilton and the member for Cornwall say that these affidavits were not produced in the committee at any time they were present. The creditors are quite willing that parliament should simply confirm what these people purchased, leaving the name of the railway as it was when they purchased it. They paid $160,000 for the road, and parliament should make that the capital stock instead of increasing it to $500,000. The third amendment is that section 8 be struck out and that was not considered necessary, because the original charter says that the road is for the general advantage of Canada. We are simply called upon to confirm the sale here, and we need not give them any bonding privileges at all, but when parliament does undertake to give them extended privileges these creditors say that this company will never want any further legislation and that now is the time to get their rights protected and justice done them. I am willing to put the bonding privileges at $10,000 a mile, with the provision that when these bonds are sold the proceeds will go for the betterment of the road. If the government will accept my proposition simply to confirm the purchase ; to leave the name of the road as it was, to make the capital stock $160,000 and to give them a bonding privilege of $10,000 per mile, it will put the creditors in the same position as they were before the road was bought, and I will withdraw my objections.

When we see these Americans coming here asking for a great franchise we should take care that our poor Canadian people are protected. Why should you grant to these people something that this parliament has no rigut to grant, and why should you refuse to protect the poor Canadians who have claims against this road ? Let me tell the Minister of Labour that I have been here for twenty-one years and that I have never heard of a case similar to this in which it was refused to incorporate in a similar Bill the conditions which we now ask to be incorporated. The Minister of Labour takes different ground now. He says : these people bought this road and they are coming for a charter ; they are Americans and we must give them all they ask for ; we can pay no attention to the poor labouring men wlio have claims against this road. And yet the Minister of Labour professes to be the friend of the workingmen of this country. If he is let him simply confirm the sale to these Yankees, and let him protect the rights of our own people. The validity of that sale is being tested now in the courts as to whether the province of Ontario had the right to sell a Dominion road. Let me ask the Postmaster General why he is giving to these Americans who bought that road for $160,000 the power to capitalize the stock at $500,000 ? The sub-committee agreed that the bonding privilege should be $10,000 and that the proceeds of the sale of the bonds should be put into the road but there is not a word about that in the report of the sub-committee.


William Alfred Galliher: Will the hon. gentleman state what are the facts, and not keep saying that the sub-committee agreed to this. The sub-committee did not agree to it.


George Taylor: I was present at a meeting of the committee when it was agreed to. The member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) made the proposition that the proceeds of the bonds should go to the betterment of the road, and the chairman and every one said that was fair, and the committee broke up with that understanding.


William Alfred Galliher: There was a meeting of the committee after that.


George Taylor: You got the majority of the committee again and decided what you liked.


William Alfred Galliher: It is not true that the majority was got together outside of the minority. We had a final meeting when there were five members present and three of them constituted a majority. Two lion, gentlemen wished to have it as my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) states, but the majority were opposed to it and there was no minority report sent in. I admit that the two members who were in the minority did ask this to be put in, but the majority ruled otherwise.


George Taylor: When I was present that was not done.


William Alfred Galliher: I am speaking of the last meeting.	.


George Taylor: I was not present at the last meeting, but I understand from, my hon. friends from Hamilton and Cornwall that they understood that was agreed to, and yet a report comes down different from that which they understood it would be. Of course if parliament is going to take this course, all we can do is to abide by the decision of the majority. However, I intend to test it at every stage and have the * yeas ' and ' nays,' and we will see whether the Minister of Labour will vote to put out of court the workingmen of this country who have honest claims against that road.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has not asked us to do anything yet. I do not find any motion of his before the House asking us not to grant this legislation except on condition of the workingmen being paid. But he has not yet answered my question. Permit me to explain what I understand to be the practice in connection with the granting of railway subsidies. Parliament grants railway subsidies by an Act which contains the provision that these subsidies shall be payable to the railways named according to the terms of the contract entered into between the government and the company. It therefore remains for the government of the day to include in the contract such conditions as they may deem proper in connection with the granting of the subsidy. I ask my hon. friend to explain if he can why the government that was in power when the subsidies of 1889, 1S92 and 1894 were granted, did not stipulate that the company should ' pay the workingmen. If they did not include such a very reasonable provision in the contract, it is rather late in the day for the hon. gentleman now to discover the default. Again, I ask him if he thinks the workingmen should be paid, why has he not given notice of an amendment to that effect? Instead of that, he proceeds to argue, why should we grant legislation of this kind'to American citizens? Well, I think all men are equal before the law, no matter what their nationality is. When any man acquires a legal right, be he rich or poor, Canadian, British subject or foreigner, his rights before the courts of Canada are equal. I should be ashamed to hear any other doctrine maintained on the floor of the parliament of Canada, and I am sorry that my hon. friend should come down to such an appeal as that. My hon. friend says that in all other cases when railway companies which have been in default have applied for legislation, conditions requiring them to pay the wages they owed have been imposed. I would draw a distinction between a company which is in default

and a purchaser of a property, as in this case. If the old original company had remained in the ownership of its former owners, and they were applying here for legislation, we could very well say to them, you owe your workingmen, and we insist upon your paying them. Perhaps that was the case in the other instance which the hon. gentleman has cited. But in this instance the whole property has been sold just as effectually as if it were a farm; and what would one think of a purchaser of a farm at public auction, free from all debts and claims, being afterwards asked to pay debts owing by the farmer to his farm hands ? It would be equally unreasonable to compel the purchasers of this property, who had purchased it free from all claims, to pay claims they had never agreed to pay-to hold them up, as the hon. gentleman puts it in his graphic way. It is not the duty of parliament to hold up these men, and I am sure that the workingmen of Canada would repudiate such a suggestion. I am sure that the hon. gentleman has not the approval of the workingmen of Brockville for his suggestion that we should hold up these men and compel them to pay what they are not legally liable to pay. If they are legally liable to pay, why does not the hon. gentleman liave them proceeded against by law?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right of the court to sell is now before the court of appeal. If we give this legislation, in what position will the litigants be in the event of the court of appeal deciding that the court which sold had no right to sell ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know what is the nature of the appeal.
* Mr. SPROULE. The appeal is on this ground, that the court in Ontario had not the right to sell a Dominion franchise, because this railway was a railway declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and therefore under federal jurisdiction.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, if that is the only ground of appeal, I think the jurisdiction of the provincial courts over the company's assets is too self-evident to be open to argument. Property in the province of Ontario is saleable by provincial courts, no matter whether it is acquired under a Dominion charter or not. As a matter of civil rights, the right of way is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the franchise is not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The franchise carries no value. The ownership of the property passes to the purchaser.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is only the franchise that gives the right to use the property.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Under the law, when a railway is sold as a going Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
concern, the purchaser has the right, for a certain time, a year or so, to make use of the old powers.


George Taylor: Until the next session of parliament.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: And then he applies to parliament. The court does not purport to sell the franchise in perpetuity; but the beneficial interest in it the court of the province controls, and the court of the province can dispose of by its machinery.
Mr. ' TAYLOR. The hon. Postmaster General asked me to explain why the late government did not surround this contract with safeguards for the payment of the workingmen. I can just say to him that the late government took a more lively interest in the cause of the workingmen than the present government.


William Alfred Galliher: That would be news to the workingmen.


George Taylor: If the Minister of Labour yefers to the speeches of the late ministers, he will not find that any one of them insulted the workingmen as he inis done to-night, when, instead of asking them to bring their case before the high court of parliament to get simple justice, lie asks them to come here with their hats in their hands, and pass them around among members of parliament. That is the conduct of the Minister of Labour here to-night.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never said so.	[DOT]


George Taylor: Then he says he does not believe that I represent the workingmen in this case. If the hon. gentleman had been pt the meeting of the sub-committee, he .would have found there the workingmen, pll political friends of his, making their own Statements. They stated their case and .asked that this legislation grant no new powers to this company, unless some provision were inserted recognizing their claims. After they had been turned down in that committee, the hon. Minister of Labour asks them to come here as paupers, with their hats in their hands. Was ever such an insult offered to the workingmen of this country, who have the right to bring their petitions before the highest court of the realm ? That is what they are doing in this case; and if I am voicing their sentiments, I am fighting a just cause on behalf of the workingmen of this country who have honest claims against the concern which bought this railway, and which, according to the laws of the country, has to come to parliament at its session to have its rights confirmed by Act of parliament. We are quite willing simply to confirm the purchase, but we are asked to go much further, and therefore I am opposing the amendments to

clauses 11, 12 and 13. If the hon. Minister of Labour wants to do justice to these workingmen, let him ask parliament to confirm the purchase and not do anything more. When the company want more, let them come to parliament again, and then we will discuss the claims of those labourers. We have precedents to guide us. We have had new companies asking for extended powers-companies with similar claims against them-and the hon. Minister of Labour, who was then in opposition, was one of the men who was most zealous for the *workingman.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Read ' Hansard.'


George Taylor: My hon. friend from Cornwall read it this afternoon, and showed how the late member for Bothwell (Hon. Justice Mills) the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and half a dozen of others, when in opposition, all urged thjit justice be done to the Claims of these labouring men. Why then does the hon. Minister of Labour take opposite ground to-night ? We simply want parliament to do what has been done in previous cases- confirm the purchase and do nothing more- but we are asked to do more. We are asked to change the name and increase the capital and give the company power to bond the road and do what it likes with the proceeds. I say we should only confirm the purchase. The company will then have to come back for extended) powers, and then the workmen will insist upon having their claims considered. These workingmen do not want to have to come here hat in hand asking as a favour what they should be put in a position to claim as a right. They are just as independent, even if they are not so rich, as the hon. Minister of Labour.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not make any such statements as the hon. member for Leeds attributes to me. He proposes to pay one man's debts with another man's property, but I would ask him now how it was when the late government, of which the hon. gentleman was a zealous henchman, made a contract with this company entitling it to a subsidy, it did not include in that contract a condition requiring that the mens' wages should be paid before the company could get the subsidy V


George Taylor: We had no Minister of Labour then, whose special duty it was to look after the interests of the labouring-men. That is the duty of my hon. friend, but he is sadly neglecting it in this case.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: But the late government had a Minister of Railways and Canals whose duty it was to look after this matter. It is not the Minister of Labour who makes contracts with railway companies, but the Minister of Railways and Canals. How is it that the Minister of Rail-234
ways and Canals in the late government did not put a condition in the contract with this company protecting the workingmen ? There is another question I would like to put the hon. member. If he wants the workingmen to be paid why has he not made a motion to that effect ?


George Taylor: The motions I have made were prepared by the workingmen's lawyers and were satisfactory to them.


William Alfred Galliher: They have no effect at all, as far as the workingmen are concerned.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I do not think the hon. Minister of Labour thoroughly understands the position. If he did, I am satisfied he would agree witn the minority. Let me briefly tell him the position. Three Bills came before the Railway Committee. The first was Bill (No. 67), which was promoted by the creditors, asking for incorporation as a railway company, under the name of the Brockville and Western Railway Company, for the purpose of building a line from Westport to Sault Ste. Marie. Under the terms of that Bill, the applicants agreed to deposit in the hands of the Minister of Railways and Canals, in the event of their obtaining this charter, $50,000 to be divided relatively among the creditors, including the wage-earners. Then there was the application, Bill (No. 89) of certain other gentlemen asking for incorporation for a railway. Then there was the Bill under discussion, (No. 104) asking for the ratification of this purchase. I agree with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that we should grant to these people, irrespective of their nationality, just what they are entitled to. But I submit that parliament is the highest tribunal in our land and that when these people come to us and ask us to ratify and confirm the purchase they have made, if we think any injustice has been done, we have a perfect right to see that it is remedied. These people know when they make the purchase that they cannot buy that franchise, that no Ontario court has power to give them an absolute title to the franchise, and that they have got to come to this parliament in order to get their purchase ratified and confirmed. The view we took in the subcommittee was this. There were seven supporters of the government in that committee and four members from this side ? We found that we could not come to any agreement by which these workingmen or these contractors would be protected, and we took the view that we were bound to give these people a Bill ratifying and confirming their purchase, but we were not bound to go any further. And, if I understand it, what we wanted was a report to the effect that these Bills were thrown out; that there would simply be a Bill ratifying and confirming that sale, and, in the event of either party at a later stage applying for privileges from



this parliament, the question of these claims could be discussed.


William Alfred Galliher: Might I interject a remark ? Was it not the feeling in that subcommittee, at least on the part of those who were there at the last meeting, when I was there-and I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle), also-that there should be a clause giving them certain bonding privileges on account of the very bad state in which the road was, and on account of the danger to trains occasioned by that condition, and so it being in the interest of the public generally that they should be allowed to issue bonds so as to be able to put the road in a proper state ? Was not that the general feeling of the sub-committee ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Is that the whole of the question ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I was not present at the final meeting of the sub-committee. Had I been, I should certainly have made a strong effort to have the report put in proper shape. But I understand the gentlemen who formed the minority made a strong fight to have a condition put in the report that if bonding privileges were given the proceeds of the bonds should be applied to the betterment of the road.
large concessions, such as there are in this Bill, they should be required to do what is equitable to the creditors. The lion. Minister of Labour, in his very strong effort to deprive these people of any possibility of getting their wages, has made the statement that once the courts foreclosed that mortgage, there was no possible remedy for the workmen. This parliament, the highest tribunal in our land has the authority and the power to ascertain if an undertaking such as a railway has paid its debts ; 'and if debts are still owing, it has the power to make the payment of them a condition of legislation. In a recent judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Justice Brewer, one of the' most eminent jurists in the states, in a judgment with reference to the foreclosure of mortgages on railways, declared that the Supreme Court had long since recognized that under present conditions circumstances may arise under which the question is more than one between mortgager and mortgagee, and that the peculiar conditions of the railway situation justified the court in entertaining pleas for priority of some claims over the debt secured by mortgage. Who is foreclosing the mortgage in this case ? Is it not the Philadelphia Investment Company, and is it not true that this company agreed with Mr. R. G. Hervey that these claims


William Alfred Galliher: The latter part is right, but they were not opposed to the giving of the bonding privilege to the extent of $10,000 per mile.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Certainly not. But it was on condition that the bonds were to be used in the improvement of the road. As I pointed out this afternoon, this road really cost the purchasers less than $100,000. They are asking the privilege of bonding for $450,000 besides issuing stock for a very large amount. What do they want these bonding privileges for unless for the betterment and improvement of the road ? And that is the condition we desire to put in the Bill.


William Alfred Galliher: But surely my hon. friend (Mr. Pringle) will not deny that if you attach such conditions to a bonding "privilege as to compel the purchaser of these bonds to see to the application of the money, it will make the sale of the bonds impossible. To impose such a condition would be to defeat the very object of bonding.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: But we are getting away from the point I desire to confine myself to. I said that the sub-committee found that there was some $10,000 owing to workmen, and we felt that if there was any way to protect these workmen we should endeavour to find it. We felt that we should hardly be justified in refusing the applicants a Bill to ratify and confirm their purchase, but we felt also that if we granted them


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The decision of Mr. Justice Brewer does not apply to this case. If I followed the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Pringle) reading properly, the question referred to was as between different classes of creditors, the court might give priority to one over another, just as in a case of salvage. But the case is different here. A new party appears on the scene in the purchaser.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Let me say in answer to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Muloek) that the new party who appears here, I think it has been shown pretty conclusively, are simply the creature of the Philadelphia Investment Company, that the Philadelphia Investment Company have simply taken this means of acquiring the property and realizing their money. When we look at the merits, we find that Robert G. Hervey had the contract for the construction of the road, he receiving all the bonds and all the stock. When he was not able to complete the road, he transferred the bonds and the stock to the Philadelphia Investment Company, they agreeing to pay the debts of these wage-earners. They ran the road at a profit for several years. The receiver lias in hand a surplus of some $lo,-000 which the Investment Company had taken. Then they take proceedings to foreclose their mortgage. I say the equities are strongly with the creditors in this case. We are not asking for anything unreasonable, we are not asking that a clause be


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: inserted in a Bill that these wage-earners should be protected but we said that if all these Bills were put on one side, let a report be made that if these people come before parliament at a future time and ask for large powers, then, the creditors would have the right to come before parliament and press their claims. But, in the position in which it is put at the present time, it will simply put an end to the creditors having any sort of chance of obtaining redress. Now, the hon. Minister of Labour makes the same contention as the promoters of the syndicate Bill, which is that the question of equity in favour of the labourers and those who supplied the material does not exist in this case, because the syndicate made a purchase at a court sale. X submit that this reason does not apply. Why ? Because the conditions of the sale were unreasonable, and were framed with the object in view of a large bondholder becoming a purchaser. I presume that these creditors were parties to that suit. I suppose the court advertised for creditors, and that these wage-earners and contractors proved their claims. If so, they were before the court, and parties to the record, and if the conditions were unreasonable, they had their remedy of pointing that out, and asking the court to impose reasonable conditions. Do I understand the Minister of Labour to take the position that this parliament is bound not only to ratify ,and confirm that purchase, but to grant to .these applicants all privileges and concessions that they may wish for without at all asking them to make some concession towards the men who put their money into that enterprise? Is that the position the Minister of Labour takes?
. The POSTMASTER GENERAL. I do not see where these purchasers have assumed any liabilities towards the creditors in question. They are purchasers in the ordinary sense of the word, so far as I know, they have been so found by the court. .They buy the property free from all claim. I would be just as pleased as my hon. friend or any one else to see the workingmen get their pay, but I do not see any legal or moral ground on which we can compel the *purchasers of the property to pay claims (for which they never became liable, the .payment of which they did not assume, and *which they are entirely free from by the order of the court.
. Mr. PRINGLE. Let me ask another question? Are we legally or morally bound to give to these applicants who purchased a road for about $100,000, bonding power for $450,000 ?
. The POSTMASTER GENERAL. It is quite within the discretion of parliament to *grant such legislation or to withhold it, as *in its wisdom it sees fit to do; but it must 234J
proceed on some recognized principles in granting or withholding the legislation. The hon. member for Leeds says parliament can hold the applicants up and withhold from them the moral rights of petitioners.ro appeal to parliament, simply in order to levy blackmail upon them. You would not want parliament to be a party to a thing like that.
* Mr. PRINGLE. Let me ask the hon. gentleman this : Is it not quite within the discretion of parliament in granting a concession to these applicants to say to them, We find that certain moneys were invested in *that road, certain labour has gone into that iroad which has not been paid for, and if you are to get the privilege of bonding that road for $10,000 a mile, we in our discretion ask you to do what is equitable and right with these claims? That surely is *within our discretion, parliament has done it on other occasions. When the hon. gentleman takes the position that there should be no saving clause in this Bill, we are *assuming that there should be a saving Clause in regard to litigation. I may say to him that Mi'. Barwiek, who represented (these applicants, conceded at once that there *should be a saving clause in. regard to litigation. Now, let me tell him that litigation is now on hand in following particulars : In the foreclosure of the Philadelphia Investment Company, of the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, there is an appeal from the master's final report. This appeal is set down for bearing at the next sitting of the division court. Would not the Bill in its present form practically put an end to that? Then, there is another action pending which will be ripe for trial at the fall sittings of the High Court. This action attacks the sale of the railway to the syndicate, attacks the on their bonds while the Investment Company to complete the road according to the terms of the contract, and attacks the declaration of the court cancelling the interest on their bonds while the Investment Company is in default under the contract. In this action they ask to set aside certain proceedings of the board of directors of the company, because the said board was illegally constituted directors, not having been properly qualified. Now, I say that this Bill would seriously prejudice the litigation of all the parties as it now stands.


William Alfred Galliher: Would the hon. member point out in what way this Bill would do more than confirm a sale that is legal in itself? It merely confirms the sale to them under the direction of the court. Would the hon. gentleman say in what way it would be a prejudice ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I hope my hon. friend is not so dense that he cannot see at once that the way the Bill is framed it ratifies and confirms that sale, and unless there is a saving clause it puts an end to that litigation.

If you pass legislation in this parliament, which is supreme, and if parliament ratifies, confirms and declares valid that sale, that is the end of it, that litigation is put an end to>


William Alfred Galliher: Not at all.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Now, does the hon. gentleman think there is no question about this franchise ? Let me tell him that that matter is now pending, as I understand, before the Privy Council as to the power of the court to sell a Dominion franchise. I contend that our courts have no power in Ontario to sell. They may sell the road, the rails, the ties and the right of way, but they cannot sell a franchise which has been given by this Dominion parliament. I say that is very important. I know hon. gentlemen yvill pay no attention to this matter whatever, they will let it drift through because a majority of that committee have carelessly put in that report. I say it is most unfair and unjust that the majority of that committee, going contrary to the wishes of that committee, have put in their report, which does not even comply with the wishes of the majority.


William Alfred Galliher: Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time that hon. members should stop adopting that tone of imputing unfairness to the committee. I have distinctly stated here, and I repeat it again, that the report put in was the report agreed on by the majority of the committee, and that is the only report, there can be no other report, and there is no other report. I think it is wrong for the hon. gentleman to impute to the majority of the committee unfairness in making this report.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Well, I was not present at the final meeting of that sub-committee, but I was present at the meeting before that, and I state without any hesitation that it was the unanimous opinion of that committee that a saving clause should be inserted in this Bill, and Mr. Barwick, who represented the applicants, consented to its being in, thought it was advisable that it should be in. 1 do not know whether it is through unfairness or carelessness that that report has been put in without recommending that a saving clause should be put in the Bill. Now, whether it has been through carelessness or unfairness, we as a committee should have sense enough to see the position, and we should rectify the mistake. I am satisfied that if the other members,of the committee were here, the hon. member for Kingston (Hon. Mr. Harty), who was chairman, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and the hon. member for Essex, they would say at once that this was an omission, and would wish it to be corrected. They would not take the position that the member for Yale and Cariboo is now taking and try to get this Bill through without that saving clause.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Mr. GALLIHER, I rise to a point of order. I object to the remarks of the hon. gentleman, which are uncalled for, and which do not state the facts. At the meeting prior to the last one he may have been present; I was not, and I have nothing to say about that, nor should he have anything to say about the meeting at which he was not present. If the hon. member for Essex and the hon. member for Kingston were here they would contradict the hon. member for Stormont, and they would say the report was the one adopted at the last meeting. The hon. gentleman happened to have been at one meeting too soon. He should have been at the last meeting when it was finally settled. I do not know whether it was settled by unanimous agreement at the time or not. I do not claim that. I do not state anything I do not know as a matter of personal knowledge. The hon. gentleman has undertaken to speak of something he does not know, of something that occurred at a meeting at which fie was not present.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Chairman, I think we are devoting far too much attention to the report of the sub-committee. The sub-committee, as I understand it, consisted of eleven members of the Railway Committee. No doubt they took this whole matter very carefully into consideration. There were three Bills before them. The report came down to the Railway Committee and I remember very well when it came before the committee making protest against its being dealt with at that time because the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was not present and had not been heard before the Railway Committee in reference to the matter. The answer which I received was that the hon. member for Leeds was not a member of the Railway Committee, but I insisted that he should be heard notwithstanding the fact that he was not a member of the committee. There seemed to be the same disposition to force the Bill through the Railway Committee without full discussion, as there is now to force it through this committee without considering it in all its bearings. I may say that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) has scarcely put the case fairly in the manner in which he has presented it to the committee. The fact that these men are Americans makes no difference to me. I am prepared to deal with them just the same as if they were Canadians. He wants the committee to understand that the rights of these gentlemen who have consummated the purchase of this road should not be interfered with, that they have a fair and absolute right to the road they have purchased and that we should not compel them to pay any money in the shape of a contribution towards the settlement of these claims now pending-claims on the part of contractors or workingmen or boarding-house keepers-

because it would be taking money out of the pockets of men who have made the purchase. To my mind these men have not yet completed the purchase. X understand that the law of the country is such that their purchase will not be absolute and complete until parliament has had an opportunity of passing upon it. Therefore, the hon. Postmaster General has no right to contend that we are taking money out of the pockets of these people when we propose to attach to this legislation something that would compel the company just being incorporated by parliament to deal fairly and honourably with the creditors of the old company. It seems to me absurd that a railway forty-five miles in length should be sold for the sum of $160,000. I think that is sufficient to indicate to us that there is something wrong. It is not every workingman that can purchase a railway. I have no doubt there were workingmen who knew that the sale was to take place, but how is a workingman going to step in and protect himself when the purchase money required to be put up is $160,000 ? These men had no protection whatever. They were entirely at the mercy of the capitalists who grabbed the whole concern at what they could get it for.


William Alfred Galliher: What about Mr. Cooper ? Was he not in a position to buy ?


David Henderson: I do not know that Mr. Cooper was in a position to put up the purchase money paid for this road. I have no knowledge of his financial ability. It may be that he was not able at that time to accomplish it. However, he certainly would feel that under the law of the land, knowing that parliament would have to deal with this whole question, he, as a Canadian, understanding what his rights were, could stand on his rights and content himself with the reflection that parliament would deal fairly with him. I think he had a perfect excuse for not bidding at the sale and becoming the purchaser of a property which in all probability he did not wish to acquire. Possibly he had no desire to buy a railway, possibly it might have been a difficult matter for him to do so as it would be something he could not control. It was out of his line of business. I think, in view of what I have said that the hon. Postmaster General should not have pressed the case in the manner in which he has done, insinuating that we are doing wrong in endeavouring to take money out of the pockets of these people who had acquired the property by absolute purchase, as he would lead us to suppose, when, as a matter of fact, the purchase requires to be passed upon by this parliament.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: While listening to the laboured argument of the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) I endeavoured to grasp the situation and I think
he made a very important admission. He stated something to this effect : Had the old company come before this parliament and asked for the privileges that are being asked for by this new company it would have been right for parliament to have called upon them to recognize the claims of these parties who had put their money and their labour into the construction of this road.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not go that far.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I understood the hon. minister to make an admission to that effect.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I tried to draw a distinction between applicants for legislation being purchasers for value, as in this case, and applicants for legislation being persons who were said to be in default. I drew a distinction between these two classes of applicants. The purchaser in this instance bought this property under the order of the court and got it free from all encumbrances, from all prior claims, and I see no connection between his status as a purchaser and the indebtedness of the former owner of the property. I do not see how, in the case of an applicant on his part, such a proposition as that which is advanced could fairly be advanced, but I wish to say that should the company itself be in default to these creditors and then apply to parliament its claims for legislation might then be considered in connection with the default of the company. We have a right to enforce equity in such a case as that, but it would be confiscation to apply such a principle, if we can call it a principle, against a purchaser, as in the present instance, applies for legislation ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is a very important admission on the part of the hon. Minister of Labour. Where a just claim might be in existence, a moral claim, a legal claim, such a claim as it would belong to this parliament to enforce the discharge of, if it were sought simply by a change of ownership to enable a company to contract itself out of such an obligation it certainly appears to me to belong to the province of parliament to step in and protect the rights of the workingmen. Surely the rights of these men who have put their money, their labour and material into the construction of this road should be protected. The moral liability cannot have changed without the consent of the original creditors. The new company purchased only that which the old company possessed and the old company did not possess these extended franchises which they are now asking parliament to grant. This is not making a demand on the new company for concessions, nor is it an attempt to levy blackmail upon them, but it is merely a request that they shall pay the moral and just claims against the old com-

pany. The new company could only buy that which the old company had power to convey to them, and the old company had not the power to convey to them these extended privileges worth a large amount of money which they are asking parliament now to grant.
Preamble was agreed to. Yeas, 41; nays, 35.
On section 1,


George Taylor: I move:
That the word ' North-western ' be striken out and the words ' Sault Ste. Marie ' he substituted in lieu thereof.
The object of this amendment is to give them, the property they bought. They did not buy a road called the Broekville, Westport and North-western, but they bought a road called the Broekville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie.
Amendment negatived. Yeas, 26 ; nays, 44.
On section 3,


George Taylor: That section 3 be amended by striking out the words ' $500,000 ' and inserting the words ' $160,000 ' in lieu thereof.
Amendment negatived.


George Taylor: I have several other amendments to move, but I will move them on third reading.
Bill reported.


George Taylor: I now ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill be reprinted before the third reading.


Mr. SPEAKER.: That is a question for the House to decide. When shall the Bill be read a third time ?


William Alfred Galliher: I move that the Bill be now read a third time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, there are notices of several amendments to the Bill on the third reading, and therefore the third reading cannot be forced on until an opportunity is given for those amendments to be moved.


William Alfred Galliher: The only notice we have is that Mr. Taylor will move certain amendments in the Committee of the Whole or on the third reading. He has already moved in Committee of the Whole.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question to be now decided by the House is whether the Bill shall be read forthwith or at some future sitting.
House divided on the question, that the Bill be ordered' to be read forthwith.


Robert Lorne Richardson: 
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The amendments to be moved on the third reading of this Bill have not been translated into French. I think it is desirable that all members of the House should be in a position to obtain a knowledge of these by means of such translation. I, therefore, submit to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that the third reading of this Bill should not take place, as the amendments have not been translated.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the question as to the printing of the translation may be taken up only when the Bill is being called for its! second reading. Should the French

translation not be printed at the time of the second reading, then the point of order may be raised. But it is certainly not permissible to raise the point when the Bill is returned from the committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If you will allow, Mr. Speaker, I shall draw your attention to the fact that it was not possible to raise that point previously, as the proposed amendments could not be moved or called before the question was put for the third reading of the Bill. These amendments now come before us for the first time, since the question as to third reading is now being put. Now, in this case, the amendments are very important, and for that reason, I believe that the House should not overrule the objection which I have raised.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I have just stated in answer to the hon. gentleman, the point of order cannot be raised at this stage. Besides, the amendments, from what I have been able to gather in glancing over the English copy, do not add to the provisions of the Bill, but, on the contrary, are for the purpose of striking out some of them. Then-effect is to curtail the Bill in some respects, and the rule relative to the printing of the French translation should not interfere with its third reading. Moreover, I notice that these amendments have been translated into French.


George Taylor: That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to make the following amendments :
1. To section 1.-That the word ' North-western ' be struck out and the words 1 Sault Ste. Marie ' be substituted in lieu thereof.
2	To section 3.-That the words ' five hundred
thousand ' be struck out and the words ' one hundred and sixty thousand ' be substituted in lieu thereof.	,
3	That section No. 8 be struck out.
4.	That section No. 9 be amended by adding the following words after the word ' acquired, on the fifth line ' That the proceeds of the sale of such bonds shall only be used for the completion, equipment, and betterment of said railway, from Brockville to Westport.'
5.	That the following new section be added and numbered as section 11, and read as fol-
Section 11. That nothing in this Act shall prejudice the claims of the creditors in a suit now pending in the courts, to test the authority of the courts of Ontario having jurisdiction to order the sale of this railway, it being a railway for the general advantage of Canada.
Amendment negatived on tbe same division as the last.


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker. Before the question of the third reading of the Bill is
put, I would like to ask your ruling


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid that the hon. member has already spoken on the question of the third reading of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order, that is, whether it is in order to proceed
with the Bill in the absence of the member in whose name it stands.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have not the least doubt as to our right to proceed iu the absence of the member who introduced the Bill. After the Bill has gone through the committee, and even after the second reading has been ordered, the Bill becomes the property of the House, and the House has a right to deal with it. In confirmation of my opinion, I will quote from May, page 248 :
When an order of the day has been read, it must /thereupon be proceeded with, or appointed for a future day, or be discharged. The Speaker, therefore, calls upon the member in charge thereof, no other member toeing allowed to interpose, unless with his consent ; or upon the member, in a case of an adjourned debate, who has moved the adjournment, if he rises to address the Chair ; and the Speaker, therefore, will not permit any question to he asked of a minister or other member when an order of the day has been read, unless it relates thereto.
As an order of the day results from the vote of the House upon a question put from the Chair, the right to move an order of the day, to a certain extent, belongs to the House at large, and is not vested solely In the member who has charge of the order. In his absence, the question may be moved by another member.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Without his consent ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Of course, a member who moves an order in the name of another, does so with his consent, but it is not necessary that that consent should be had. The House may deal with the measure if it c-hooses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House went into committee on Bill (No. 212) to incorporate the Alliance Bank of Canada.-Mr. Russell.
David Henderson: On the occasion of the second reading of this Bill, I intimated to the House that I proposed at a subsequent stage to move an amendment. 1 am opposed to this Bill for special reasons, some of which I shall enumerate. I may say that I am not opposed to this Bill more than to any others of a like character which have come before the House this session, but I am opposed to it because I believe we are going too far in chartering hanks. We have already passed through the various stages some seven bank charters this session, and these have received the assent of His Excellency. Two more are on the Order Paper, which will make a total of nine new bank charters enacted this session To my mind that increase is uncalled for.' No less a financial authority than Mr. Fyshe, the general manager of the Merchants Bank of Canada, in his last annual statement to the shareholders, says, speaking of new bank charters, that he regards

the course which parliament is pursuing as being unwise.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend will allow me, I would point out that as the hon. member who has charge of this Bill is not present, we had better not proceed with it unless my hon. friend's remarks are simply of a general nature.


David Henderson: The exception I take to the passage of this Bill is the same as I would take to the passage of any other Bill of a like character. It is stated that Mr. Eyshe, general manager of the Merchants Bank of Canada has expressed the opinion that there is no more use for these new banks in Canada than there is for a fifth wheel to a coach, which is a very strong expression coming from such an eminent financial authority. For my part, I regard all these new banks simply as so many new channels through which money is sent out of Canada instead of bringing more money into Canada, and consequently the more banks we have, the more means we have of sending money out of the country to find investment elsewhere. I do not propose for one moment to say that it is not quite proper for our chartered banks to hold a healthy reserve in some large financial centre, such as New York, where money can be called on in case of emergency and be obtained on very short notice ; but it is a well known fact that what has for years been regarded as a healthy reserve in a large financial centre has now become a large business investment. Taking the May statement of our chartered banks, I find that at the end of May, they had invested in American securities no less a sum than $102,000,000. On call loan outside of Canada, $38,000,000 ; current loans also outside of Canada, $27,000,000 ; and on railway stocks, bonds and debentures, $37,000,000, largely American, making a total of $102,000,000, practically invested in American securities outside of Canada. Or equal to sixteen per cent of the total assets of all the banks of Canada ; or $26,000,000 more than the entire paid up capital of all our chartered banks ; or $44.000,000 more than the entire currency issued by the chartered banks. To my mind, this is too great. I may say that during the month of June the banks, for some good reason, possibly because of the disturbance in financial circles, especially in the province of Ontario, called in current loans outside of Canada for no less a sum than $5,000,000. The sum I have named, $102,000,000, does not include loans on stock and bonds in Canada, $44,000,000, which are believed to be very largely, at any rate a considerable portion of them, on American securities. This is a heavy drain of money from Canada to the ^ United States, and it discriminates against the Canadian borrower. It enhances the cost of money to the farmer who wants


David Henderson: to borrow money to buy a farm, improve his buildings or add to his stock. It enhances the cost of money to the manufacturer engaged in the industries of the country. It enhances the cost of money to the business man who wishes to use it in his trade. It enhances the cost of money to business men who wish to use it for the purpose of moving the crops for which purpose a very large sum of money will very shortly be required. It increases the cost of money for our public works, for the improvement of transportation. In short, it enhances the cost of money all along the line.
Banks are simply the creatures of parliament. They are not created for the benefit of shareholders alone. If they were, this would be quite a proper thing to allow the banks to do. But banks are created for the benefit of the people at large as well as for the benefit of the shareholder, and they are expected, in return for the advantages and special privileges they have received, to furnish the capital necessary for trading purposes in the country. Banks enjoy very special privileges, privileges which no other incorporated companies in this country enjoy. They are permitted to float their, promissory notes as currency to the extent of their paid up capital, which, at the present time, amounts to about $75,000,000. Practically they are authorized by parliament to borrow from the people $75,000,000 without interest, and every dollar of these notes is guaranteed by the parliament of Canada and is as good as gold. Banks, then, we say, should aid the business of the country; it is their business so to do in return for the special privileges they enjoy. They should always give the preference to home investment rather than to foreign investments. The amendment I propose has as its object to limit the investments of our banks in American securities. And this is proposed for two purposes-first, in order to keep capital in Canada and aid Canadian enterprise; second, to minimize the improper dealing in stocks of which so much has been said so very recently. This. I believe, would be the result if our banks were prohibited from investing so largelv in American stocks. It is the fact, I believe, that this business of dealing in margin could not be carried to the extent it is, were it not for the help of our banks. The chartered banks of Canada advance very large sums of money on the security of American stocks, stocks used for speculative purposes. They advance, possibly, to the extent of seventy-five per cent, in which case the broker is only called upon, in purchasing the stocks for speculative purposes, to put up twenty-five per cent. Now, my desire would be that this order should be reversed and so make it difficult for the brokers to carry on business, that is, those who are engaged in the illegitimate business of stock speculation. I would make them

put up the seventy-five per cent and allow them to call upon the bank only for the twenty-five per cent. If this were done, we shall have a more healthful condition of things in our country. It would minimize the dealing in stocks on margin which has received so much attention and which has caused so much misery and loss in Canada during the present season. The amendment I propose may be said not to go far enough. I simply propose that it should be left to the shareholders to say whether or not the bank shall be permitted to invest money in American stocks of this character. But I believe that if the matter is left in the hands of the shareholders, they will control the investment in foreign securities and will see to it that the directors are prevented from putting up such large sums of money on American stocks and bonds as the bank returns of the present time show that our banks are doing. If the committee adopts the clauses of this Bill I shall then propose my amendment as a new clause to be added to the Bill. I shall read the amendment now, in order that the committee may be seized of it:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bank Act, the said bank shall not, either directly or indirectly, lend money or make advances upon the security of, or take as collateral security for any loan made by it, the bonds, stocks and other securities or obligations of any company or corporation or body corporate not incorporated by the parliament of Great Britain, or by the parliament of Canada, or of a province of Canada, until the consent thereto by the shareholdors of said bank shall have been obtained at a special meeting of the said bank specially called for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not know that this subject was coming up, but, as it is before us, I desire to say something about the influence of our banks. There are a great many who declare that our banking system is perhaps the best in the world, I confess I never agreed with that view. I am free to admit that our banking system has very many good elements and serves very many good purposes. But I cannot regard as the best that can be devised a banking system which does not provide for receiving the deposits of the labouring class of the people, and making money available for the same class when need arises. Comparatively speaking there is a very small minority of the people of the country who are able to avail themselves to-day of the banks when they require to raise money. I have always thought that If banks were so arranged as to supply the needs of the country, they would provide means for carrying on the commercial operations and Industrial pursuits in every locality where the earnings of the people have enabled them to put money away In a savings institution. It is true we have a pretty fair supply of banks to-day. I agree with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that we have enough standard banks in the country to do
the financial work of the country to-day; therefore, there is no urgent need, in my judgment for passing this proposed charter to establish another bank. We need more hanks, but not of the class of those we have now.
Why is it that these banks do not fulfil the needs of the people ? Let me give an example. We have a standard bank in the country, and those who are fortunate enough to save a little money put It away In that bank. Take a radius of ten or twenty miles, in the centre of which district there is a bank. Deposits are made in that bank. What becomes of that money ? As soon as it accumulates in that bank, which is probably a branch of another standard bank, with its headquarters in Montreal or Toronto, a request is made that that money be sent to headquarters, and after it gets to headquarters, then where does it go ? As the hon. member for Halton says, it is invested in stocks or bonds in the city of New York, or Chicago, or some other place. That, in my judgment, is not what the hank is intended for. The money does not serve the best purpose which it can serve in this country. That money should be kept for the needs of the locality where the people have earned it and saved it, and it should be available in that locality for the purpose of other industrial pursuits, to give employment to the labouring men there. The money was earned there and saved by the people in that locality, therefore, it ought to be available for the needs of the people to start other industrial pursuits, and to carry them on, so as to give more employment to labour and enable others to earn more money. But If you want to get that money back again, you cannot do it, because the security necessary to furnish is such that poor people cannot supply it. Therefore, the money is not available to them, but it is available for the wealthy, for those who have at their hand ample security to offer to the banks. The great majority of the people cannot provide that security, therefore, the banks do not afford them facilities for the use of the money that they are justly entitled to, andv the money is invested elsewhere.
What we need, in my judgment, is some species of saving banks in which small savings of labourers, of farmers and of poor people can be deposited, and of which they can borrow small amounts for short periods. Our banking system at present does not afford for the poor people such facilities. Is there any country where the banking system does provide such facilities ? I think the banking system of Germany provides them. And I am told that right here in the province of Quebec, that is not supposed to be so brilliant in the financial world, they havei these very small banks, savings banks, which are called co-operative banks, where may be received the savings of the lower classes for whatever

radius is chosen to be specified in that corporation, where are received the savings of the people in that locality and from whicli the people can draw small sums in case of need, to pay for rent, if you like, to make payments on life insurance, or the other needs of life. They can go to that institution and borrow money from time to time and make their payments. A great majority of men can earn money, and if they could hand it over to some corporation or some individual to finance it and save it for them, and loan it out to them again when they need it, they would be in a very much better position than they are to-day. They are economical and frugal enough to save money, but they cannot finance it and invest it; if they attempt to do so, they are likely to lose it. Now if there were provided some co-operative banking institutions where the money can be handed over in small sums of five cents and upwards by depositors, letting some other more competent person invest the money for them, and from which they can borrow small amounts when they are required to meet the urgent needs of life, X say that such a banking system would meet the wants of the common people far better than any we have to-day. The difficulty is that we have not got enough of them. There are banks for the wealthy, banks for the rich; for the millionaire, but there are not enough banks for the poor people of the country. The majority of the people are poor, and, therefore, they require banking facilities of a different nature from those required by rich men.
Now, to provide for urgent needs, what takes place ? We have our private banks. These private banks will charge a rate of Interest running from eight to twelve per cent, and sometimes as high as twenty per cent. Ten and twelve per cent is the ordinary rate of interest paid in these private banks. Why do these private banks flourish to-day, notwithstanding that they do not afford any great security to the depositors ? It is because that class of poor people can avail themselves of these banks to borrow money which they cannot do from a standard bank. They are obliged to pay a larger rate of interest, but they will pay it, and, therefore, these private banks flourish where a standard bank cannot get business enough to keep it going. We see that all over this country. I take an example in the village where I live. There are two private banks flourishing for years, and it is only within the last few years that a standard bank was established there. I am within the mark when I say that forty or fifty farmers and poor people go to these private banks to borrow money for one who goes to the standard bank, who never go into that standard bank to do any business whatever, becaiise they cannot go there and get the money in small sums for their needs without offering


Thomas Simpson Sproule: security that they are unable to give. Being unable to offer the security required by the standard bank, they go to the private bank, where they are obliged to pay a much higher rate of interest perhaps than their earnings would justify. But they are obliged to pay it because they can get the accommodation there which the standard bank denies them. I say we have enough of that class of banks to-day. They are, as my hon. friend from Halton says, institutions started for the purpose of taking the earnings of people that are deposited in banks to invest them outside the country, instead of keeping them for reinvestment in the industrial needs of the locality where the money has been earned. This money is invested in railway stocks, in bonds and mortgages belonging outside the country, consequently it is of very little advantage to the country where it has been earned. Until we devise a banking system that will reach a larger number of poor people, I am not in favour of giving any more charters for new banks. But I am at any time willing to give a charter to a bank that will accommodate the great bulk of the people in the manner I have mentioned, that will put within the reach of the poor man, the labouring man, the servant girl, if you like, the small farmer if you like, the man who has not the security to offer that a standard bank requires facilities for depositing small sums and borrowing small sums, where people can get accommodation in small amounts that will enable them to tide over the emergencies of life, and in which they can deposit their small savings.


Hr. LEFURGEY.: Mr. Chairman, I think there is another side to this question that hon. gentlemen are leaving out of sight altogether. I know on good authority that the banks of the country are willing and ready to lend money on securities for the transaction of the business and carrying on the enterprises of this country. The reason they are not doing it seems to me to be wrapped up in the fiscal policy of the country. The reason why money is going out to the United States is because the industries are protected there and the money seeks the country where industries are protected. The United States have a stable tariff protective policy, and the reason why our money is going to the United States is because they are building up their industries. Our millions are sent over to the American banks to be invested there and they are bringing a more profitable return than they can bring here.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him one question?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) can talk when I am through.


Alexander Johnston: I was just going to ask the hon. gentleman one question.	_


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If we had a stable protective policy established in this country, so that our industries could be built up, and so that capital would be invested, the banks of the country would be ready and willing to lend money to these enterprises, and our millions would be used here in the feeding of our people and the building up of our cities. I do not want to enter upon a tariff discussion, but the whole banking system and the question of the security upon which the banks will lend their money is wrapped up in the question of the stability of the enterprises of the country which in turn depend upon tariff protection and tariff stability, and you cannot carry on the enterprises of the country when the ministry are handing out the hybrid policy of protecting our industries by bonuses and such hand to mouth expedients that the business people of the country have no dependence upon. I do not know whether the government's policy is to be continued on the basis of the numerous fiscal changes that were advocated during the 18 years that hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition. What we want is a stable policy that the people can depend upon, and if we had that the money of the country would be invested in Canada.


David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the Chair, I beg to move that
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bank Aot, the said bank shall not, either directly or indirectly, lend money or make advances upon the security of, or .take as collateral security for .any loan made by it, the bonds, stocks and other securities or obligations of any company or corporation or body corporate not incorporated by the parliament of Great Britain, or by the parliament of Canada, or ol a province of Canada, until the consent thereto by the shareholders of .said bank shall have been obtained at a special meeting of the said bank specially called for that purpose.


Mr. FRASER.: Surely we are not going to begin at this stage to get in a general principle, if it is a general principle, which will destroy this bank. I know some of the men who are in the bank. The very name of Mr. John F. Stairs should be sufficient for hon. gentlemen opposite, and to handicap a bank at the start while all other banks have no such handicap whatever is the wrong,way to get at it. If the hon. gentleman thinks the banking system is not right why does he not submit a general proposition to amend the Banking Act, instead of just at the end of a Bill incorporating a company composed of such gentlemen as these are. headed by Mr. Stairs, proposing an amendment which will destroy the usefulness of the bank.


David Henderson: In answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser), I would say that I
am no respecter of persons. Mr. Stairs may
be a very excellent man. I have no doubt he is. I have no doubt he is a very respectable man, but I am not dealing with men ; I am dealing with the principle which I have enunciated, and which I contend I am correct in stating. The hon. gentleman complains that I have moved this amendment to a special charter. 1 may say that I am prepared to support a similar amendment to all other charters, and I shall give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to-morrow if he desires to support an amendment to the Banking Act, of which I have given notice, and which has been on the paper for some time, until I would ascertain how the House would deal with this question. If the hon. gentleman is in favour of applying the same principle to all chartered banks, I would be very happy to give him an opportunity of seconding the Bill which I propose to introduce along lines similar to what I propose to-night, so that I think that objection should be dropped. Now, it is a common plan to establish a principle by attacking individual cases. I think we frequently do that. I do not see any other way in which I can reach it. It is not possible for me to amend the Banking Act unless I have the consent of the government, because the time for moving an amendment of that kind in so far as this session is concerned, is passed, but it is within my power to move an amendment to a private Bill, and declare a principle that I believe is a proper principle in connection with the banking system. Now,
I can only say that if tlie hon. gentleman will secure the support of the government for an amendment to the Banking Act I will be very happy to give him an opportunity of supporting it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I could not ask the government to support such an amendment, because I do not believe in it. Certainly I am not in sympathy with the hon. gentleman. I think the banking system of this country is the best in the world, and when I heard an hon. gentleman saying that our money goes to the banks of the United States because their banks are better than ours, I thought it was one of the most laughable things I had ever beard in this parliament, because the stability of the banking system of Canada is the envy of the United States, and there is no banking system in the world better than ours, not even that of the motherland.
Amendment negatived, and section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CITIZENS' BANK OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 2131 to-incorporate the Citizens' Bank of Canada.- Mr. Clarke.
David Henderson: I beg to move that a clause be added to this Bill in the same

words as the amendment I proposed to the last Bill :
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bank Act, the said bank ishiall not, either directly or indirectly, lend money or make advances upon the security of, or take as collateral security for any loan made by it, the bonds, stocks and other securities or obligations of any company or corporation or body corporate not incorporated by the parliament of Great Britain, or iby the parliament of Canada, or of a province of Canada, until the consent thereto by the shareholders of said bank shall have been obtained at a special meeting of the isaid bank specially called for that purpose.
.1 desire to say that I never insinuated for a single moment that the banks of this country were not in every respect equal to and far superior in stability to the banks of the United States. I never insinuated that the hanks of the United States were superior in stability to the banks of Canada and the hon. gentleman who insinuated that I had made such a statement, misinterpreted my meaning. I had no such meaning and that was not the object or the purpose of my moving the amendment.
Amendment negatived, and section agreed to.
Bill x-eported, read the third time, and passed



CANADIAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Canadian Telephone and Telegraph Company.-Mr. Birkett.
On section 22,
Edward Frederick Clarke: I gave notice of an amendment to clause 22, which I desire to move. I beg to move :
That clause 22 of this Bill as at present amended be struck out, and the following clause be substituted therefor :-
The company may and shall enter into agreements or arrangements with any other telephone or telegraph companies, now or hereafter incorporated, for the transmission or forwarding of the messages or despatches of such other companies, or of the subscribers to or users thereof, upon the lines of, or by the company to the place of destination of such messages or despatches, and for a division or apportionment of the tolls or rates in respect of such transmission or forwarding, provided such other companies are willing to enter into like agreements or arrangements with the company for the transmission or forwarding of the messages or despatches of the company, or of the subscribers or users thereof, and for a like division or apportionment of the tolls or rates.
In the event of the company being unwilling or failing to enter Into agreements or arrangements with any other such companies so willing as aforesaid, or in the event of any such agreements or arrangements, when made, being unsatisfactory to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may from time to time make such reciprocal provisions, applying to the company and such other companies, as he teems Mr. HENDERSON.
eaultable and proper for such transmission or forwarding, and the company and such other companies shall be bound by and shall carry out such agreements or arrangements, or such provisions, las the case may be, and upon any violation thereof shall be liable to a penalty mot exceeding one hundred dollars for each such violation.


Mr. BIRKETT.: It is quite difficult to understand the persistent opposition of my hon. friend from West Toronto to this charter. Before the Bill was submitted to the committee, he was supplied with a copy of it, so that he might consult with the solicitor of the city of Toronto to see that all its interests had been provided for and safeguarded. The consideration of the Bill was deferred for three or four sittings of the committee to enable the hon. gentleman and the solicitor of the city of Toronto to prepare such amendments as they might think necessary to safeguard the interests of the municipality. Certain amendments were submitted by the solicitor, and they were all agreed to, with the exception of this one, which the company and its promoters felt that they could not accept, as it would handicap the company to such an extent that the charter would be worthless to it, inasmuch as the hon. gentleman proposes to make it complusory on this company to enter into agreements with other companies which have been heretofore incorporated, while there is no compulsion on the small companies now looking for incorporation. It is permissive on the one side, but compulsory on the other. It is jug-handled legislation, which it seems to me is inconsistent with the position the hon. gentleman has taken with regard to the monopoly of the Bell Telephone Company. Here is a company which is represented by its promoters as willing to invest its capital to the extent of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, and if the committee accept the amendment of the hon. member for West Toronto, it will make their charter of little or no value.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The object of this amendment is to provide that, at the option of other telephone companies, this company shall, on such other companies granting it similar terms and conditions, permit connections to be made with its wires, and messages to be delivered over them. It primarily affects only this company, and is not general legislation. This company has not yet any legal status ; and, in view of the experience which the people of Canacla have had with the Bell Telephone Company, which has persistently refused to give connection with smaller independent companies, it has been thought that if we are to have competition in telephony in Canada, we should embrace the opportunity which is afforded by this Bill to ask that this important and much-desired amendment should be made in the charter of this company. Other companies may take advantage of this clause : but they must subject themselves

to its entire provisions before they can avail themselves of any advantages under it; and no jurisdiction is given to the Governor in Council unless there is a dispute between the parties as to the terms and conditions under which the mutual service is to be rendered. I think I can appeal to the sense of this committee that the time has come when there must be some improvement made in the methods by which the telephone companies are conducted. There can be no question of the necessity for some such provision unless competition in telephony is to be an absurd farce. Local telephone companies have from time to time been incorporated in different sections of the country only to fail one after the other ; and the reason of their failure has been that they have not been able to get exchange messages over the trunk lines. There have been a good many objections made to the proposed amendment. It is said that we are adding to a Private Bill a general section which should apply to all companies. But, as I have pointed out, the provisions of this clause affect only this company primarily, and other companies which may voluntarily desire to take advantage of it. The other companies must give a mutual service if they desire to take advantage of the use of this company's wires for the purpose of exchanging messages. They must be prepared to give this company equal facilities over their lines. The matter was discussed a good deal when the Bill was before the committee. I have the greatest possible respect for my hon. friend from Ottawa, and I desire to assure him that the interests of the municipalities generally are what I am trying to safeguard and promote, and not the interests of one municipality in particular. The hon. member will remember that this clause was submitted on behalf of the Union of Canadian Municipalities. It was acceptable to and accepted by them. It has met with strenuous opposition, it is true, from the company which has practically a monopoly of telephony in most of the provinces of Canada. It does not affect that company in the slightest degree directly. It does not affect any other company which is in existence to-day unless that company may desire to take advantage of its provisions. It is meeting with a great deal of objection from the Bell Telephone Company, because, assuming this enterprise to be a bona fide one, if it were obliged to give an interchange of messages with the smaller companies, especially the farmers' companies, for twelve months or two years, the Bell Telephone Company would be obliged to give a similar service, and what is now a grinding monopoly would be practically broken down. Hon. gentlemen who make use of the argument that we should provide general legislation, and should cover all companies under such general legislation, do not need to be reminded that last year and this year attempts have
been made to provide for the case of the Bell Telephone Company and all other companies doing business in Canada. That Bill has not made very satisfactory progress so far. It was introduced in the House and referred to the Railway Committee, and by that committee referred to a sub-committee. We have practically done nothing at the meetings of the sub-committee except listen to the arguments of counsel against the provisions of the Bill. If hon. gentlemen who object to this clause will give us some guarantee that the Bill to which I refer will be taken up by the government and enacted into law, the insertion of clause 22 is not so urgent; but as there is very little hope that that will be done, I propose to test the feeling of the committee. It is essential, in the interest of telephone users, that tne monopoly should be broken down. That great monopoly, the Bell Company, is not affected directly by the operation of this clause. It can be only interfered with indirectly ; and if interfered with at all, that interference will be in the public interest. I ask for this clause the respectful consideration of the committee, not because it is intended to benefit one locality, but because it will be a substantial advantage to all municipalities where local services are in operation, and will eventually compel all telephone companies to give similar service over their lines to that which we seek to compel this company to give.
Mr, LENNOX. I would not oppose the Bill in its present form did I not believe it my duty to do so in the interests of the people generally. While it is desirable to do all we possibly can to encourage the incorporation of this company because it tends to break down an injurious monopoly, yet, on the other hand, we should be careful to avoid being again met with the question of vested rights and should secure all the advantage we can to the people by providing for a free interchange of messages. Therefore I feel bound to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clark). The strongest argument that I heard in opposition to the incorporation of this company was that it would compel merchants and others doing business with the public to have two instruments in their places of business and) pay for two services., That seemed to me a very formidable objection, and therefore I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment, which will, to a large extent, enable us to overcome that difficulty. I have no doubt that this is a Bill which has been pretty fully considered by members of the committee. It has attracted a good deal of attention, and therefore, I need not elaborate at all the reasons why I propose to support this amendment. The hon. member who moved the amendment has not as yet spoken of one portion of it, and I would therefore mention it now. As the clause
74S3

now stands, it reads :	* The company may
enter into agreements or arrangements.' The words 1 and shall ' were struck out in committee and I am unable to see any special benefit in clause twenty-two if we strike out these words. In dealing with this, company, which has as yet no special rights, we are entitled to ask for whatever is in the interests of the people and insist upon such conditions as we deem necessary. I see very good reasons why, in granting this charter, we should: make this clause twenty-two compulsory. We should provide that upon request being made for an exchange of messages upon reciprocal or mutual terms, this company will be bound to comply with that request. The junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) who made a very eloquent speech on this question, claimed that this was spoliation.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Order, the hon. gentleman cannot refer to anything which took place in the committee.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that I can once a Bill is reported. I am quite willing to take the ruling of the chair.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I have no objection to your going on.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member (Mr. Fraser) compels me to say more. The hon. member for Ottawa made a most violent speech. He claimed that it was an outrage on the rights of the people. After he had read the clause, he had to vary his opinions to some extent. He had to come within the lines of reason, and I trust he will not again advance any such outrageous arguments. This company has only such rights as are consistent with the general interets of the public. The argument that we should embody this, not in a special Act but a general Act, would be very well, if there were a general Act before this parliament; but if we allow this opportunity to go and leave the matter over until another session, we will meet a much more strenuous opposition. We will have the combined opposition of the Bell Telephone Company and this new company, which will probably be a strong organization by that time, and will find much more difficulty in dealing with this question. Some hon. gentlemen are fond of pointing out that this is special legislation, and the hon. gentleman who called my attention to being wrong a moment ago is not one of those who do not, at times, resort to that line of argument. When we find out that a certain system which has prevailed for years is not working satisfactorily and that the consensus of opinion is that a new system should be encouraged, the sooner we apply a remedy the better.
Therefore, on whatever occasion it arises I see no objection. When parties come and ask for privileges which are, to some extent, antagonistic to the general interest Mr. LENNOX.
-that is the time to exact the terms by which those to whom these privileges are given shall be guided. Now, it is said that the second clause proposed in connection with 22 is unfair to this company. We ask in the event of the other company being willing to enter into an agreement to make it compulsory upon this company to enter into an arrangement satisfactory to the Governor in Council: I see no unfairness at all about it. If we were to say that this company must transmit the message of some other company over their line and give them no similar rights against the other companies, or if we were to compel them to carry these messages without being paid, as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) suggests, it would be unfair. But we simply provide that they shall make such an arrangement as may be approved by the Governor in Council. Upon the whole, not going into more details, I wish to say that I believe it is wise at this time to have this legislation. And I hope the gentlemen who see the importance of having a general scheme enacted will support this amendment, for I believe we will find that it will be greatly to the advantage of the people generally and that at another session, instead of being confronted by a combination of two large companies, we shall have an illustration of the beneficial working of this new arrangement, and by next session we shall secure it as a general measure governing all telephone companies throughout the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This company, when it applied for an Act of incorporation, very good naturedly accepted many of the proposed amendments to their Bill. The experience of years have proven the objections to the other company. One of those objections was their forcing their way through municipalities regardless of the rights of the corporations to control or to impose terms. This company very graciously accepted an amendment providing for that, and thereby satisfied the requirements of the representatives of the municipal corporations. They accepted everything till it came to this proposed amendment. Serious objection was raised to this, and it does seem to me that this is the only proposed amendment against which serious objection could be raised. One objection was that if you compel this company to arrange with all other companies, you may compel them to arrange with small companies whose lines are not well built or well maintained, and the large company will be the one to receive the blame for inefficient service. It seems to me that this could be overcome with a little ingenuity. I would suggest a provision to compel this company to exchange messages with other companies having lines built and maintained according to a certain standard. With such a provision, I.think there would be little difficulty in carrying out the main

idea. But if you leave this Bill without amendment, you leave it with the most objectionable feature of the Bell Telephone Company to-day. We have private companies establishing lines in many different places throughout the country. I take as an example the county In which I live.
1 can count, from memory, about eighteen different private lines there, not one of which is allowed to connect with the Bell Telephone lines or exchange messages with it. It would be a great convenience if they could do so, and it is because they cannot that there is such a strong objection to the Bell Telephone Company. That company is regarded as a soulless monopoly. It does not make an effort to serve the wants of the people. It was because of this very objection that we had all the excitement raised over the line in East York, where they would not allow the instrument of the private line to be put in the railway station because of the arrangement giving an exclusive privilege to the Bell Telephone Company. The same difficulty exists all over the country, and it is because of this that there is a burning desire for competition. When this company proposed to secure a charter and establish competition, every one was anxious that the charter should go through. But when they refuse to exchange messages with other companies, we do not look upon the enterprise with the same favour we did before. Without such a condition, it would be very little better than the Bell Telephone Company. An hon. friend says that it is uo better than the Bell Telephone Company. I think it is, and for this reason. This Bill provides that they shall not go into a municipality except upon terms acceptable to the municipal corporation. That is better than the Bell Telephone Company will do. Ihere are many other provisions which this company has accepted which the Bell Telephone Company would not accept. But if they will not give us the advantage of the long distance telephone, we shall be stin in the hands of the Bell monopoly the users of private lines will be no better ott than they are to-day. It is desirable, theie-fore that this clause should become law. If it' does, I would suggest that there might be a limit, that this company shall not be compelled to exchange messages with lines which do not maintain their lines in a cei-tain state of efficiency.	_
Amendment negatived : Yeas, 13; nays, 35.
Bill reported.
Sir. BIRKETT moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. CLARKE moved that the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole House with instructions to strike out Clause 22 and insert the following in lieu thereof.
The company may- and shall enter into agreements or arrangements with any other telephone or telegraph companies now or hereafter incorporated for the transmission nr forwarding of the messages or despatches of such ether companies, or of the subscribers to or users thereof, upon the lines of, or by the company to the place of destination of such messages or despatches, and for a division or apportionment of the tolls or rates in respect of such transmission or forwarding, provided such other companies are willing to enter into like agreements or arrangements with the company for the transmission or forwarding of the messages or despatches of the company or of the subscribers or users thereof, and for a like division or apportionment of the tolls or rates.
2. In the event of the company being unwilling or failing to enter into agreements or arrangements with any other such companies so willing as aforesaid, or in the event of any such agreements or arrangements when made being unsatisfactory to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such reciprocal provisions, applying to the company and such other companies, as he deems equitable and proper for such transmission or forwarding, iand the company and such other companies shall be bound by and shall carry out such agreements or arrangements or such provisions, as the case may be, and /upon any violation thereof shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars for each such violation.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Clarke).	
	YEAS :
	Messieurs
Ball.	Lennox,
Blain,	Smith (Wentworth).
Clarke.	Suroule,
Gilmour,	Wilmot.-9.
Henderson,	
	NAYS :
	Messieurs
Alcorn,	MacKinnon,
Belcourt,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Birkett,	Maopherson,
Borden (Sir Frederick), McCreary,	
Broder,	McEwen,
Brown,	McGugan,
Bureau,	Mclsaac,
Calvert.	McLennan,
Carscallen,	Madore,
Costigan,	Malouin,
Delisle,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Demers (St.	John), Matheson,
Desjardins,	Mayrand,
Dugas.	Morin,
Eminerson,	Mulock (Sir William),
Erb.	Paterson,
Fraser,	Power,
Gallery,	Prefontaine,
Gauvreau.	Pringle,
Gibson,	Richardson,
Gourley,	Ross (Rimouski),
Hackett.	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Hyman,	Scott.
Johnston (Cape Breton) Stewart,	
Johnston (Lambton), Talbot.	
Kendal.1,	Taylor,
Kidd,	Tolmie,
Macdonald.	Turgeon.-57.
Mackie,	
Amendment negatived, motion agreed tof and Bill read the third time, and passed. '



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 168) to incorporate tlie Chicoutimi and North-eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Stewart River Development Company.-Mr. Davis.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. (231) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Keller Heater Company of Canada (Limited).-Mr. Mclsaac.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What will be the order of business for to-morrow ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) will proceed with the Railway Commission Bill and the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will move some of the resolutions on the paper, and I think we will take up some other Bills.


Robert Laird Borden: The railway commission Bill was fixed for Wednesday.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In that event it will not be proceeded with to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: Then you will take up the resolutions on the Order paper ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not had an opportunity of consulting with my colleagues, but I think, if the hon. Minister of Justice is not permitted to proceed with the Railway Commission Bill, as he will not if it was fixed for Wednesday, the hon. Minister of Finance intends to move some of the resolutions that are on the Order paper, and then some other measures standing in his name, and after that Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tubsday, July 28, 1903.