1903-08-05

Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis) moved :: That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be now concurred in.
Mr. MONK moved in amendment:
That the said report be not adopted ; but that the appended draft report marked * B,' be adopted by this House in lieu and stead of the report laid upon the Table of this House
The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections beg to report as follows upon the question of the purchase of a post office site at Valleyfield :-
In the opinion of the committee, the following facts have been established by the evidence adduced before the committee, which is annexed to the report of the committee :
1.	As far back as the year 1898, when Mr. George Loy was mayor of the town of Valley-field, a petition of the citizens of Valleyfield to the government (exhibit No. 20), praying that a post office be built at the town of Valleyfield and on the property known as the Loy property, was circulated for signatures, and was forwarded to Ottawa and acknowledged by letter from the Department of Public Works to the mayor, Mr. George Loy, himself one of the signatories of the petition.
During the same year, the municipal council authorized two deputations to Ottawa to press upon the attention of the government the two


Mr. BOYD.: questions of sewers and post office building, and Mr. Loy, as mayor, formed part of both deputations.
(Evidence of Mr. LavimodiSre, secretary-treasurer.)
2.	After the election of Mr. George Loy, as member for Beauharnois, in the autumn of 1900, and at the first session which followed his election, a sum of $10,000 was appropriated by parliament for a post office at Valleyfield, Mr. Loy being, at the time of such appropriation, the sitting member for Beauharnois, wherein Valleyfield is situated.
3.	Mr. Loy's election was protested and declared void, but he was re-elected at the byelection of 1902, and the sum of $10,000 was revoted at the session of 1902 for the same purpose, the previous vote having lapsed, Mr. Loy being again the sitting member for Beauharnois.
4.	On the 10th July, 1902, the Department of Public Works directed Mr. U. H. Dandurand, real state agent, of Montreal, to purchase the Loy property at Valleyfield, the instructions to that effect being conveyed in the following terms : -
(Translation.)


On Board SS.: * Stanley,'
July 10, 1902.


Mr. IT  H.@: Dandurand,
Real estate agent,
Montreal.
My dear Mr. Dandurand,-My department requires a site upon which to construct a public building at Valleyfield. The locality most suitable for us is a property which belongs to Mr. Loy, on the principal street, fronting on the canal on one side and on a street at the rear part. The fact that this property belongs.to the sitting member makes the purchase embarrassing for us. I request you, therefore, to purchase the property on the best possible terms. You have an extensive experience ; you will not say for whom you want to buy. I believe it was sold two years ago for $8,000. I fear you will not be able to have it for less than $10,000. You will, if you please, lose no time and obtain an option on this property without delay. I myself will pay you the usual commission. I have reasons for purchasing quickly.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) J. ISRAEL TARTE.
5.	Pursuant to these instructions, Mr. Dandurand sent out to Valleyfield a sub-agent usually employed by him in similar cases, named R. B. Johnston, who arrived in Valleyfield in the afternoon of the 14th July, and on the same evening secured from Mr. Loy an option in the following terms :-
Valleyfield, July 14, 1902.
R. B. Johnston, Esq.
Dear Sir.-Confirming our conversation of this evening, I beg to say that I will give you an option until three o'clock, Wednesday afternoon, on the 16th instant, for the purchase of my property in tihe town of Valleyfield, consisting of a lot land situated on Victoria street and extending to the street in the rear, on which are two dwelling houses, i.e., one of stone and the other of wood, the price to be $10,000, payable in cash on day of sale, the buildings at present on the lot, one used as a storehouse and the other as a tin-shop, to be removed within sixty days from date of purchase. It is agreed that the present tenants
shall remove within the sixty days before mentioned.
Notice of acceptance or refusal of option to be given to me in Montreal on above date, or left at the office of McIntosh & Hyde, there. Yours respectfully,



GEORGE M. LOY.

[Stage Direction]
While Johnston did not disclose to Mr. Loy that he was acting, in the purchase, for the government, Mr. Loy said to him : -* Well,' he said, [DOT] now it is not for the government, is it ? '
I said: ' That, Mr. Loy, is a matter that interests me. whether I wish to deal with the outsiders or the government.'
He said :	' I would like to know.'
Question : Yes ?
Answ'er :	I said :	' I have several.'-(Johnston's evidence, p. 129.)
6.	Johnston returned the following morning and reported to Mr. Dandurand, and an accept-tation of the option was prepared by Mr. R. A. Dunton, notary, of Montreal, acting under Mr. Dandurand's instructions, and signed by Johnston. It is in the following terms :-
Montreal, July 16, 1902.
George M.: Loy, Esq.,
Care of McIntosh & Hyde,
Montreal.
Dear Sir,-I beg to accept your offer to sell me your property on Victoria street for $10,000, as contained in your letter addressed to me, dated July 14, 1902, upon the terms therein mentioned, deeds to be executed before R. A. Dun-ton, N.P., with due diligence and within fifteen days. Price will be paid in cash on title being found satisfactory and deeds executed by you. Pleiase send all papers and titles to Mr. Dun-ton to prepare deed of conveyance if desired.
7.	On the day of ithe acceptance of the option (the 16th July) Mr. Loy came to Montreal, went to the office of Mr. Hyde, inquired about Johnston, and Mr. Hyde, at Mr. Loy's request telephoned to Mr. R. A. Dunton, notary, as to Johnston ; later in the day the acceptance was brought to Mr. Hyde, with $100 to bind the bargain, by Mr. Dunton, said $100 being furnished by Mr. U. H. Dandurand, and Mr. Hyde forwarded the $100 to Mr. Loy.
8.	The delay of fifteen days mentioned in the option expired, but nothing occurred according to the evidence adduced, until on the 8th September following when the secretary of the Department of Public Works wired Mr. Loy as follows :-
Kindly see the city clerk and ask him to forward us by next mail, if possible, a copy of the iplian of the city of Valleyfield, which is needed to complete the purchase of site for public building.
(Sgd.) FRED. GELINAS,
Secretary.
Mr. Loy sent up the plan called for with the accompanying letter :-
Fred. GSlinas, Esq.,
Secretary, Department of Public Work3, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,

Your telegram received last night. I send you herewith, inclosed, the only plan of the town which I could get. I am informed that Mr. Sullivan, the former engineer of the town has a new plan, but he is away from home to-day. T will see him on his return and if he will lend it I will send it or take it up to you. I-would call your attention to the fact that j at present there are two post offices in the town, one in the central part and another near

the Canada Atlantic Railway station, in Belle-rive ward.
I am, sir,
Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) GEORGE M. LOY.
And this letter from Mr. Loy was acknowledged by the Secretary of the Department of Public Works, as follows :-
Department of Public Works of Canada, Secretary's Office,
Ottawa, September, 16, 1902. Geo. M. Loy, Esq.,
Valleyfleld, P.Q.
Sir,-I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th September instant, inclosing a copy of the plan of the city of Valley-field, said plan being required by the department in connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,



FRED. GELINAS,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
9. On the 17th September, 1902, a memorandum for reference to council was prepared in the Department of Public Works.
It alleges as follows :
' That it is necessary to acquire a site for the public building which is to be erected at Valleyfleld, P.Q., and for which parliament, at its last session, voted a sum of |20,000. (Should be $10,000.)
_ ' That an officer of the department had examined the different sites available for this building, and has reported that the lot shown in pink on the sketch hereto annexed is the most suitable for the purpose. This lot is centrally situated, it runs from Victoria to Ste. Cecile streets and has a frontage on these streets of 77£ feet, and 163 feet deep.
' That the lot in question is owned by Mr. R. B. Johnston, who is willing to sell for $10,000 which price is considered reasonable by the officer who examined the site.
' The undersigned, in view of the foregoing, has the honour to recommend that the authority be given to purchase from Mr. R. B. Johnston the lot described above, and which is shown in pink on the plan hereto annexed, the said land being required for the purpose of a site for the public building which is to be erected at Valleyfleld, P.Q., the price to be paid being $10,-
This recommendation was adopted by council on the 22nd November, 1902.
10. On the 1st of December following (1902), the deed of sale from Mr. Loy to Johnston was ready for signature by the parties concerned, and then, for the first time since Johnston's visit to Valleyfleld, they met, at the office of Mr. R. A. Dunton, notary, but the government cheque had not been issued, and it became necessary to procure money.
A note for $10,000 at one month was made by Johnston, and it was discounted by the Sovereign Bank, on representations made to the bank by Mr. Dandurand, the government agent, and the proceeds of the note in question were handed over to Mr. Loy on account.
Paid R.   A.@: Dunton gave the committee a statement showing how he subsequently disposed of the balance.	[DOT]
Here is the statement :
1902.
Dec. 1. Net cheque amt	$9,600 00


Mr. MONK.: Contra.
Dec.	1.	Paid Mr. Loy	
$1,000	00"	6.	N. Papineau	
4,500	00"	18.	Interest	
731	90


Paid R.   A.@: Dunton, discharge.	7	30Paid balance,	Loy	
3,360	8011.	It will be seen that Mr. Loy only received, in reality, $9,700, Johnston having been allowed by Loy to keep (and Johnston having kept) $300 on account, as he represented, of trouble, &c., in negotiating to procure the amount.12.	The note of $10,000 matured in due course, hut the government cheque not having yet arrived, it was renewed at fifteen days from 31st December, 1902.
Pressure seems to have been brought to bear to cause the official cheque to issue. The papers were in the hands of the Department of Justice for examination as to title.
The Deputy Minister of Justice, on the 17th January, 1903, wrote as follows :
Sir,-I have the honour to request that you will send me a cheque for the compensation money in this case in favour of Robert Bruce Johnston and Robert A. Dunton, agent of the Minister of Justice. I would be glad to have this cheque immediately, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has telegraphed, asking that the purchase may be completed to-day.
Finally, on the 19th January, 1903, a cheque for $10,000 issued from the Finance Department, payable to the order of R. B. Johnston and of Notary Dunton, who was to act as agent of the Department of Justice, specially appointed, and it was forwarded to Mr. Dunton, who caused it to be endorsed by Johnston and went with the latter to the Sovereign Bank to take up the $10,000 note previously discounted, and at the same time Johnston signed a deed of sale in favour of the government, the Public Works Department being represented by Mr. Charles Archer, advocate, of Montreal.
(Deed dated 20th. January, 1903, similar in terms from Mr. Loy to Johnston, 1st December, 1902.)
13.	' Johnston's Interest.'-The only interest Johnston, the sub-agent employed by Mr. Dandurand, had in the transaction, was the remuneration given him by Mr. Dandurand himself, when Johnston returned from Valleyfleld and made his report, as well as handed in the option to Mr. Dandurand (page 126). Mr. Dandurand is quite clear in his evidence on this point.
Johnston was paid a sum, between $50 and $100, for his services.-(Deposition of Mr. Dandurand, page 134.)
The reduction of $300 on the $10,000, obtained from Mr. Loy, whereby the price was reduced to $9,700, was without Mr. Dandurand's knowledge, and was a matter between Mr. Loy and Johnston only. In all other respects, in signing the deeds, in obtaining the discount of the $10,000 not, in signing cheques, &c., Johnston merely executed the instructions given him by Mr. Dandurand and Mr. R. A. Dunton.
Mr. Dandurand paid the notary $22, amount of his account, but his commission of $500, due by the government, is not yet paid.
14.	' Mr. Loy's Knowledge.'-It is difficult to understand, even outside of the documentary evidence, how Mr. Loy could be completely ignorant of what was going on in respect to his property from the time he received Johnston's first and only visit at Valleyfleld, 14th July, 1902, until the day when he made the sale to Johnston, on the 1st December, 1902.
He never, as he admits, saw or endeavoured to see Johnston during that long period, until

he finally met him to sign the deed and draw money on the 1st of December, although in the interval correspondence passed between Mr. Loy and the government relating to the purchase of the Loy property.
He merely went to see a friend, Mr. Hyde, and had him inquire from Mr. Dunton if Johnston was all right.
The delay fixed in the option expired on the 30t.h July ; the Department of Public Works prepared its memorandum for Council, corresponded with Mr. Loy, the Order in Council was passed, there was a change of ministers, money had to be borrowed because the government cheque had not issued, the Loy contract had been delayed ; and of all this Mr. Loy states that he had no knowledge whatever, and never thought that the government was in reality the sole purchaser of his property.
The government part in the transaction must have been brought home to Mr. Loy when he received a formal demand from the Department of Public Works, on the 8th September, 1902, for a plan of the city of Valleyfield, which is needed to complete the purchase of site for public building.
Indeed, in his answer, accompanying the plan sent by him, Mr. Loy refers to the fact of their being two post offices in Valleyfield. Furthermore, information of a precise and definite nature was certainly conveyed to Mr. Loy, when the department, on the 16th September, wrote him officially that the said plan was required by the department in connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Loy could not have remained ignorant of the fact that Johnston, In the transaction with Mr. Loy, was an agent of the government.
In the opinion of the committee, the sitting member for Beauharnois was thus officially notified of the real state of affairs, and it became his duty not to carry out the sale of the 1st of December following, which he clearly was prohibited from doing under section 10 of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows :
' 10. No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or any agreement, expressed or implied, with or for Hie government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any money of Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.'
In view of the fact, admitted by all witnesses, that the question of a post office site had been a burning question in Valleyfield since 1898, both while the property was held during four months by a Mr. Archambault, and since he retroceded it to Mr. Loy, after the four months, Mr. Loy cannot, in the opinion of the committee, plead ignorance of the real nature of the deed *which he executed in December, 1902, and it appears to the committee that the law quoted above has been violated.
Evidence was adduced in regard to the value of the property, and also in regard to the availability of two government properties at Valleyfield ; but the committee confines its report to the facts which establish the violation by Mr. Loy of the law quoted above.


Mr. SPROULE.: Before the House proceeds with the discussion, might I ask why we are expected to consider this report
without having the evidence printed ? I have inquired for a copy of the evidence, and I am informed that it is not printed. While the report has been presented to the House, members cannot do justice to it if they have not an opportunity to examine the evidence.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The question is on the amendment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, before touching, as I will as briefly as possible, upon the evidence adduced before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, I would like to say a word of explanation in regard to the bringing before the House of the question of privilege which the House is about to consider. I have found it stated in the press and heard it stated elsewhere, and it was insinuated while the committee were proceeding with this investigation, that in provoking the investigation in question I had been moved by motives which I would be very sorry to see attributed to me. It was suggested in the public press and elsewhere that I had some personal rancour against the sitting member for Beauharnois ; and some went so far as to say that even further motives than that had animated me when I brought this very important matter to the notice of the House. I think it due to myself, and a duty on my part, to disclaim any such motive or intention. As a matter of fact, I state to the House now, and I trust that my statement will be accepted by the members of this House, that almost immediately after the purchase of this property by the government in January last, the circumstances of that purchase were brought to my notice, and, to a certain extent, were a matter of public notoriety in the county of Beauharnois and the surrounding counties and in the district of Montreal. Long before the. session opened these circumstances were disclosed to me by parties who were familiar with them ; and, whether I displayed a want of sufficient zeal or failed to take that interest in the matter which it seems to me a matter of this gravity should command, the certificate of search of the registrar and the other documents bearing on this question were placed in the hands of my hon. friend the member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). Subsequently, when the session opened, and from time to time during the session, this matter, which seems to me to be one of real importance for the members of this House, was again brought to my attention. When my hon. friend the member for Montmorency was called to England on professional business, the documents remained in the possession of members who sit on this side of the House ; and, as the close of the session approached, a distinct impression was made upon me that if we failed to bring this matter, which had been laid before us with all its surrounding cir-

cumstances, to the knowledge of this House, that failure to perform a public duty would be attributed principally to carelessness on my part or to some other unavoidable motive. It was upon that impression, which was conveyed to me by unmistakable signs, that I deemed it my duty to bring the matter to the notice of this House ; and I trust, Sir, that in spite of the treatment which 1 received during the investigation before the committee, the members of this House will be persuaded by the explanation which I have given that, in calling the attention of the House to this grave violation of that salutary rule which guards the independence of parliament, I have been moved by no other motive than a sense.of a public duty, which every member of this House, under similar circumstances, would have discharged in the manner in which I have discharged it.
It was said before the committee, time and again, that there was procrastination, and that the result was the exclusion from this House of the sitting member for Beau-barnois (Mr. Loy). I need hardly tell the House that I did all in my power to have the investigation concluded in the shortest possible delay. I handed in the names of my witnesses, and the House will see by the proceedings of the committee that there is no justification whatever for the strictures of the chairman of the committee regarding delay. Indeed I have no hesitation in saying that I never before had to deal with a chairman who placed upon his duties as such the interpretation which the hon. gentleman who presided over this committee did place upon his.
The circumstances of the case are not very complicated. A very faithful recital of them is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of this House of yesterday, which contain at length the minority report of ' that committee. With regard to the question of exclusion, when a question of privilege has been referred to a select standing committee, I do not think that the hon. member implicated is obliged to absent himself from the deliberations of this House. If he were, the House will realize what power there would be in the hands of hon. members to obtain the exclusion, during a long time, from the House of one of its members with regard to whom a question of privilege is raised. I have not had time to fully look up the authorities, but I would submit the following authority, taken from May's ' Parliamentary Practice,' page S93
On the 17th May, 1849, petitions were presented complaining of the conduct of three members, as railway directors. The members were permitted to explain and defend their conduct, but did not afterwards withdraw. It being contrary to the standing orders of the House to make a motion, or to enter upon a debate on the presentation of a petition, unless it complains of some present personal grievance, or relates to a matter of privilege, the conduct Mr. MONK.
of the members could scarcely be regarded as under the consideration of the House at that time, and as soon as the members were heard, the petitions were ordered to lie upon the Table, without further debate. One of the members withdrew, but returned almost immediately to Ms seat.
On the 28th of April, 1846, the House had resolved that Mr. W. S. O'Brien, a member, had been guilty of a contempt : but the debate upon the consequent motion for his commitment was adjourned until a future day :	Upon which Mr. O'Brien immediately entered the House, and proceeded to his place. Mr. Speaker, however, acquainted him that it would be advisable for him to withdraw-, until after the debate concerning him had been concluded. The reason for this intimation w'as, that the member had been already declared to be in contempt, although his punishment was not yet determined upon. On the 30th, a request was made through a member, that he should be heard in his place: but this was regarded as clearly irregular, and he was not permitted to be heard. But a member not yet adjudged guilty of contempt may return to his place, when the debate is concluded.
I would infer from that authority that after the question of privilege has been debated and been referred to a committee for investigation, the hon. member concerned is at liberty to return to his place and may take part in the proceedings of the House until the committee has brought in its report and found him guilty. Any other interpretation would be contrary to justice and reason and would proceed upon an assumption contrary to all the principles of our parliamentary laws, that a man is presumed guilty until lie is proved innocent.
Let me refer briefly to the facts of the case. The fact is stated in the report that the question of the purchase of a property at Valleyfield for a public building liad been discussed in the county of Beauharnois up to the year 1900, and after that up to the time when the government decided to purchase the property in question. Petitions had been sent to Ottawa, deputations bad come to Ottawa, and the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy), who was then chief magistrate of the town, formed part of these deputations. A vote of $10,000 had been appropriated in 1901 for the purpose of a public building in Valleyfield. No effect was given to that appropriation, and during 1902, after the by-election rendered necessary by the unseating of the sitting member and after an election contest of a very violent character, In which this question was the topic of discussion, the hon. member was re-elected, and parliament again voted $10,000 for a public building in the town of Valleyfield. On the 14th of July a letter was sent by the Department of Public Works-and I invite attention to this because it is the basis of the subsequent negotiations-to a well known real estate agent in Montreal requesting him to acquire the very property subsequently purchased. That real estate

agent deputed a man usually employed by him for the purchase of property where it is important not to disclose the name of the principal, to obtain an option on this property. This sub-agent came out to the town of Valleyfield and offered the hon. member for that county the price mentioned in the letter of instructions to Mr. Dandu-rand, namely, $10,000. Mr. Johnston, whose evidence was by no means favourable to those who wished to establish the truth of the charge made in this case, gave it as his opinion before the committee that it was impossible that the member for Beau-harnois should have consented to a sale to the government had he known that in reality the government intended purchasing this property. But when Mr. Johnston, the sub-agent, is asked what grounds he had for that belief, he never having met the member for Beauharnois before that date, he relates the conversation which took place between himself and the hon. member on the lltli of July, and that conversation is referred to in the report. The very first question which the hon. member asked this emissary of Mr. Dandurand, and a very natural' question under the circumstances, was this. Mr. Johnston says :
' Well,' he said, * now it is not for the government, is it ?
I said :	' That, Mr. Loy, is a matter that
interests me, whether I wish to deal with the outsiders or the government.'
He said : ' I would like to know.'
I said : ' I have several.'
From which I think, Sir, it is fair to infer that at that moment the member for Beauharnois had a suspicion at least that this much talked of purchase of this very property of his by the government was in the mind and in the intention of this agent. Well, during the space of a very short interview, the sitting member for Beauhar-uois gave an option to Mr. Johnston ; that option is to be found in the minority report printed in the proceedings of yesterday. I wish to call the attention of the-House particularly to the fact that in that option, which is delivered to Mr. Johnston, who had acted on behalf of Mr. Dandurand, who was, for the purpose of this transaction, an agent of the government, conditions were imposed to that sale, and one of the conditions was that the sum of $10,000 should be paid in cash and the transaction completed within fifteen days, the deeds to be made out and the transaction completed within fifteen days, and the acceptance of the option to be made within two days, or on the 16th of July then ensuing. Mr. Johnston-this is established in the evidence-returned to Montreal, made his report to Mr. Dandurand, handed him in this option. and received the remuneration which he was entitled to, after having taken these steps towards the purchase of this property. The next day, if I mistake not, or on the 16th rather, the last day fixed for the acceptance, Mr. Johnston, or somebody
on his behalf, had an acceptance prepared, that acceptance was prepared by Mr. It. A. Dunton, and I wish to call particular attention to this point, that he had been chosen both by Mr. Loy and by Mr. Dandurand, as the notary who was to act in the matter. He had been chosen by Mr. Dandurand, as results from Mr. Danduraud's own evidence, and he was the notary chosen by Mr. Loy, as results from the statement made by Mr. Loy in his deposition ; that is, the notary in the matter was Mr. Dun-ton, of Montreal. This acceptance was taken over to the office of Mr. Hyde, one of Mr. Loy's friends, not his business agent, but one of his friends in the city of Montreal, with a sum of $100 on account, which sum was sent out to Mr. Loy at Valleyfield. Now, Sir, I wish to submit to this House that from that moment there were fifteen days granted to the parties to complete the transaction, fifteen days within which the deed which was to constitute the real purchase was to be made out and the money, payable in cash, paid over to the vendor. This is an important point, because it may be claimed here that the property, from the moment of the acceptance, vested in Mr. Johnston, that the member for Beauharnois parted at that moment with his ownership of the property, and that everything which occurred afterwards occurred between the purchaser of the property, Mr. Johnston, and the government. The proposition which I submit to the consideration of this House is this, that upon the expiry of the fifteen days within which the transaction was to be completed and the money paid over, there was no more ' vinculum juris,' no lien de droit, as we say under our law in the province of Quebec, between the two parties in the event of failure to carry out the essential conditions mentioned in the option. That is the law of our province, and, although 1 am ignorant of the law of the other provinces, I venture to believe that is also the law of the other provinces, that where an option is given upon a property, and the conditions mentioned in that option as to be performed within a certain delay, are not performed, then the binding force of the option lapses, and that after the month of July there was no title in that property in Mr. Johnston, and in reality that property remained vested in; the sitting member for Beauharnois. That, Mr. Speaker, is the law in our province, and the constant jurisprudence for many years. I think it is proper for me to give some proof of that proposition. Ever since 1876, and I believe long before-but I take that year as a starting point-the law in our province, such as I have laid down, has been so interpreted in our courts, both in the Superior Court and in the court of final jurisdiction in the province of Quebec. I quote from Stephen's Digest, of 1882, volume 2, at page 684, where a decision of the Queen's Bench rendered in 1876 is reported :

802-i
vendor. The sitting member for Beauharnois [DOT]was in the office of the notary, Mr. Johnston, who had not been seeu by anybody, very naturally from the moment on the 14th July preceding after he had fulfilled his part of the transaction was there, the notary was there and there was no1 money. What happened ? Through the interposition of Mr. Dandurand, the real estate agent chosen by the department to carry this transaction through, a note was discounted in the Sovereign Bank under the signature of Mr. Johnston without any credit that we could see attached to Mr. Johnston but on the representations made by Mr. Daudu-rand himself the personal note of Mr. Johnston with a bank with which he had never had any transaction whatever, was discounted for $10,000. The deed was then signed and the proceeds of the note were placed in the hands of the notary who was, as I have said, the agent both of the sitting member for Beauharnois as notary and as well the notary of the government. The notary handed over immediately the sum of $1,000 to the vendor and kept the balance to extinguish the mortgage of $4,500 and also to pay the amount of the accumulated interest which figured up I think to some $731. On the 18th, after having attended on behalf of the sitting member and on behalf also of the government to the discharge of this mortgage, Mr. Dunton, the notary, paid over the balance to the sitting member for Beauharnois, some $3,300. Now, the sale made by the sitting member to Mr. Johnston was for the sum of $10,000. but on the day when the sale, long suspended, was carried out, on the 1st December. Mr. Johnston seems to have reported to the sitting member that he was entitled to some $300. The evidence given by the sitting member is that the representation made to him by Mr. Johnston was that Mr. Johnston had trouble in negotiating to find the money. I assume, Sir, that we must give the sitting member credit for ordinary intelligence and he knew and knew positively, at that time that this Mr. Johnston had not in reality deeded this property over to the government that that part of the transaction had been decided weeks before ; yet, if we are to accept his statement upon the representation made by this man that he required $300, he abandoned to him this sum of $300, and the deed of sale instead of being for the sum of $10,000. the exact sum voted by parliament, the exact sum available and the only sum available for that purpose that year; the exact sum which is mentioned in the subsequent deed of sale by Johnston to the government, was for the sum 'of $9,700. How the sitting member could have accepted this statement that Mi-. Johnston notified to him in the official letter of the secretary of the Department of Public Works weeks previously as the man -who was selling this property to the government; how I say Mr. MONK.
the sitting member could have accepted this plea for the payment of $300 and accepted it upon the reasons alleged by Mr. Johnston, it is for the House to decide.
Now, Sir, this note for $10,000 was renewed. It was kept in the bank until further- pressure from some parties-whether acting on behalf of the sitting member or otherwise-until further pressure was brought to bear upon the government to issue an official cheque. That cheque was issued from the Auditor General, from the Department of Finance, and it was made payable to wrhom 7 It was made payable to Mr. R. B. Johnston and also to the order of the notary, Mr. Dunton, who was, I claim, the agent, the appointee, the chosen notary of the sitting member for Beauharnois as well as the notary also chosen by Mr. Dandurand, and finally designated specially by the Department of Justice to act for that department: in this affair. That cheque came to Montreal and on the day it arrived in Montreal, with the proceeds of that cheque, this note lying in the Sovereign Bank for over a month was taken up and Mr. Johnston signed his deed of sale to the gov-fernment. Now, Sir, it is apparent, I think, to the members of this House that Johnston never acted in this matter in any other capacity but as the agent of the government. It is clear from the documents produced and the evidence of Mr. Dandurand, that Mr. Dandurand was the agent directly named by the government, and that Mr. Johnston never for a single moment occupied any other position than that of sub-agent named by Mr. Dandurand to secure an option upon this' property. Therefore he had no interest in the transaction but that of a paid employee, and from the moment he returned to Montreal and handed over his option and made report to Mr. Dandurand that he had fulfilled the duty required of him, he was paid off and disappeai'ed from this transaction and never reappeared until the day when it became necessary-not to secure his intervention for any purpose relating to the completion of this transaction, not to treat with the government whose agent in reality he was as to the price, but merely to intervene in the notary's office to sign the authentic deed containing worjl for word all the stipulations contained in the previously signed deed between the sitting member for Beauharnois and this sub-agent himself. Sir, I do not wish to take up unduly the time of the House but it seems to me that the circumstances of this case disclose as clear an infraction of section 10 of chapter il of the Act relating to the independence of parliament as it would be possible to place before this House. Few cases I submit could be clearer. In matters of this kind as in many other matters with which members of the legal profession are familiar, where it is designed to evade the law, titles never pass directly ; it passes through the agency of interposed persons, and who

bears that characteristic more in the present instance than the man Johnston who acted throughout this transaction V As to the knowledge of the sitting member I say that it is impossible after the communications which passed between the member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) and the government itself, weeks before this sale was completed; it is impossible for members of this House to arrive at any other conclusion, than that, at the time the sale was made on the 1st of December, the sitting member for Beauharnois knew perfectly well what was the role filled and to be filled by Mr. Johnston in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the amendment which I have proposed is well founded, and I would repeat that it seems to me that in bringing this matter to the notice of the House I have fulfilled a duty of which not only the public but the members of this House themselves ought to be grateful in a certain sense and in a certain degree. There was a time Sir, speaking more particularly for my own province, when there was no law in reference to the independence of members who sat in the representative assembly. I venture to assert without fear of contradiction that since that time there has been a tendency to violate to a certain degree that cardinal principle of the absolute independence of the members of this House, without which this House would be reduced to a state of absolute inutility. Under these circumstances it seems to me that every effort made for the absolute restoration of that independence so essential to the proper working of our representative institutions, is a step taken in the right direction.


Hon. J. I. TARTE (St. Mary's, Montreal).: Mr. Speaker, I fee] that it is incumbent on me to answer the observations that have just been made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I gladly acquit him of any improper motives on this occasion. He has stated, and I for one accept his statement in toto, that he has been animated by the desire of fulfilling his duty. He has invited his colleagues to take his word and I take his word. I would have been very pleased however if he had extended to myself and to Mr. Loy the same treatment, and had accepted our word. Mr. Loy and I have both stated on our word of honour the transaction as it took place. Mr. Loy stated on his honour that he had no knowledge of the purpose for which that property was acquired by Mr. Johnston. 1 stated on my word of honour that Mr. Loy never approached me and that I have never approached him when he was a member of parliament in reference to this matter. This personal question settled, permit me to call attention to the wording of my hon. friend's indictment. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) states first.
That in 1898 Mr. Loy bad sold his property when he was not a member of parliament, to Mr. Archambault.
With that the House has no concern. We have nothing to do with transactions carried on by gentlemen before they are elected to this House. The indictment as far as the sitting member is concerned is as follows
That from the time the said George Loy . handed his said property to Archambault up to the day of the sale of said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of said property, and that at the time of the sale of said property on the 20th January, 1903, said Robert Brice Johnston was merely acting for and cn behalf of said Loy, who in said manner did indirectly sell his said property to the Crown or government of Canada.
This is a very serious charge. My hon. friend, on information that he had received, has made to the House a statement that when Mr. Johnston bought Mr. Loy's property, he, Johnston, was acting on behalf of Mr. Loy himself-that in point of fact Johnston had been appointed as the agent of Mr. Loy to sell his property to that department. This is the gist of the charge. I ask my hon. friend frjom Jacques Cartier whether he has substantiated that charge in any way whatever ? Has it been established by a tittle of evidence that Mr. Johnston was the agent of Mr. Loy ? Why, Mr. Loy and Mr. Johnston have stated under oath that they did not know each other. Johnston had never met Mr. Loy, and Mr. Loy did not know Johnston even by sight. The Department of Public Works did not know Johnston. As my hon. friend has just said, before taking his seat, Johnston acted as an agent for Mr. Dandurand. He was paid for his services, not by Mr. Loy, but by Dandurand himself. It is true, Mr. Loy consented to give him $300 of the price of sale ; but at that time Mr. Loy did not) know that Johnston had been acting for the government. Now, my hon. friend wTill be obliged to recognize that he has utterly failed to establish the real point of his statement, that is to say, that Johnston was acting on behalf of Mr. Loy. That is the only point with which the House is concerned. I will not discuss the law in the matter. I will not follow my hon. friend in the statement he has made that the law might involve Mr. Loy in trouble because the deed of sale was not passed immediately. The main fact is that Mr. Loy did not know Johnston. Johnston, then, did not act for Mr. Loy. It is in evidence that Johnston was employed by Mr. Dandurand. In what capacity did Dandurand act ? The letters that are in evidence show. When on a tour of inspection of the different works of the department I called at Valleyfield. Parliament had placed at the disposal of the department the sum of $10,000 to erect a public building there. It was then my duty to choose a site. I proceeded to the town, I found that a government site on which perhaps I might have cast my eyes was no longer available, as it had been rented by the Department of Railways and

Canals some time previous. There was no other government property which was tit for a public edifice. I made up my mind that the Loy site was the only one that was really fit, and I immediately instructed Mr. Dandurand, whom I knew very well, who is a trusted real estate agent in Montreal, to acquire immediately the Loy site. I was aware that I could not purchase Mr. Loy's property with his knowledge that the government was purchasing from him. 1 instructed Mr. Dandurand accordingly. Not to awaken a suspicion, he appointed a sub-agent. That sub-agent went to Mr. L*y, represented to him that he wanted the property for commercial purposes, and took an option on the 14th of July. On the 16th of July the option was completed in Montreal, $100 being paid down as a guarantee of good faith, the deed to be passed later on. From that date Mr. Loy was no longer the owner of his former property. He had nothing more to do with it. He had pledged himself to sell, and practically had sold. Every man of business will agree that when a man has given an option on a property, lie is no longer the owner of that property, but has sold it. The deed had to be executed ; that was all that had to be done. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier lays a good deal of stress on the fact that in the month of September, before the final deed of sale was executed, Mr. Loy was communicated with by the secretary of the Department of Public Works. I was away then. Mr. Dandurand, the government agent, had communicated to the department officially the fact that he had secured the property that was indicated to him. Let the House not lose sight of this fact, that in the month of August, before these communications took place between the department and Mr. Loy, Mr. Dandurand had officially notified the department that he had secured the property he had been instructed to secure. There is written evidence in the record of that fact. Then the department was officially acquainted with the fact that the property was ours. There was only the ordinary procedure to be followed, and that is just what was followed. When the department is notified that a site has been secured, before passing the deed, the department sends an official to ascertain whether the site has been rightly chosen, and whether the price agreed upon is not too high. That is just what was done in this case. Mr. Routhier, an architect of the Department of Public Works, proceeded to the town of Valleyfield, and carried out the procedure which I have just indicated, and it was to give effect to the sale of which we had been notified that Mr. Galinas, the secretary of the department, asked Mr. Loy, in the ordinary way of business, for a map of the town. Mr. Gelinas was not then aware of the different phases through which the sale had passed, X was not obliged to tell my Hon. Mr. TARTE.
officers what I had done. Mr. Galinas acted in the ordinary way of business. He communicated with the sitting member for information which he might have got elsewhere. Surely if there had been any desire to conceal that transaction from the public, the Deparment of Public Works would have acted differently. The whole thing was carried out in perfect good faith. My hon. friend was surprised at the delay that took place in completing the purchase. Well, in the month of August the ministers were away, I was away, and it was only on the 17th of September that I ordered a report to be prepared. There was no sitting of the Council, and some time afterwards I resigned. Therefore, the delay on which my hon. friend has laid so much stress is very easily explained. The correspondence between Mr. Gelinas and Mr. Loy is also very easily explained. I do not desire to say much more on that question; I am a layman, and am judging things of that kind in the ordinary way in which laymen judge them. Mr. Loy gave an option on the 14th of July. On the 16th of July that option was executed and a sum of money paid in cash as a guarantee of good faith. From that day Mr Loy considered himself no longer the owner of the property. Mr. Dandurand had appointed Mr. Johnston as his agent without the knowledge of Mr. Loy or the Department of Public Works. Mr. Johnston carried out his mission in concealing from Mr. Loy the object of his errand. He went to the town of Valleyfield and explained to Mr. Lov that he wanted the property for commercial purposes. Mr. Loy inquired whether the purchase was for the government, and Mr. Johnston said no it was for other purposes. Mr. Loy did not know a word about the object of Mr. Johnston's mission, he did not know Johnston. On information that he received, my hon. friend took upon himself to assert that he was in a position to prove that Johnston was acting on behalf of the sitting member and that the sitting member was trying fraudulently to evade the law. That is the charge made. It is that Mr. I.oy, knowing that he could not sell directly, appointed Mr. Johnston as his agent and that the two men were acting fraudulently. That charge my hon. friend has tried to prove. He has admitted himself that Mr. Johnston acted all through as the paid agent of Mr. Dandurand, and consequently of the government. It is evident that Johnston never acted as the agent of Mr. Loy. Then I ask: How can the sitting member be said to have been guilty of any fraudulent act? The House and the country will say no. Any man of good faith will say no. And without casting any reproach on my hon. friend, accepting his statement that lie has acted in good faith, I verily believe he would have acted more creditably to himself and have shown greater regard for

the honour and dignity of the House, if lie had agreed to the suggestion made to him by the right lion, gentleman who leads the House, and accepted the statement which Mr. Loy and myself made on our honour that the transaction had been carried out in the way it has been. But my hon. friend, proceeding on information he had received from the outside, saw fit not to accept our statement. The question was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Loy was examined under oath. He repeated under oath what he had said in the House, that he did not know for whom Mr. Johnston was buying his property. I was examined under oath, and I swore that Mr. Loy never approached me nor did I approach him since his election to parliament. It is true that in 1898, before Mr. Loy was a member, and when lie was the first magistrate of the town of Valleyfield, a petition was signed suggesting as a suitable site for a public building, Mr. Loy's property. Parliament had not then voted any money for a public building. But the citizens of the town of Valleyfield were anxious to have a public building, and they recommended the Loy property as the best site. When Mr. Loy signed that petition, he had sold his property to a Mr. Arc-hambault, and was no longer the owner. Later on, however, Archam-beault did not pay, and Mr. Loy took it back. When he signed the petition in 1898 he was not the owner, but even if he had been, he was not a member of parliament, and but only the mayor of the town; and though it might be said to be a little risky, he had right, as well as anybody else, to sign the petition. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has reminded the House that in 1898 Mr. Loy had sold to Mr. Archambault for the sum
einnAA0,?' tljat tlle government paid 8iu,uuo tor the same property; but my hon friend knows that it is clearly established in the evidence that from 1898 to 1902 property in Valleyfield has increased by leaps and bounds. One of the statements which my hon. friend has made in his indictment is that the property sold to the government was sold at a price exceeding its value, and that the assessors had valued it at $5,000. In point of fact, the indictment of my hon. friend, from beginning to end, is a charge of fraudulent conduct between Mr. Loy and myself, because if the property had been paid far too high, if Mr. Loy acted fraudulently in bonding it to Mr. Johnston, both Mr. Loy and myself are guilty. I am guilty for having closed my eyes to a trans-aetion in which a member of parliament was involved and also to the fact that the property was purchased at too high a price. Sir, I took every possible precaution, and the evidence justifies my course from beginning to end. The evidence has established that property in Valleyfield is assessed at two-thirds and sometimes one-half of its
value. One of the assessors, himself a political friend of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, swore that in his official capacity he was accustomed to value property at two-thirds and sometimes at one-half its real value.
That point is clear, and on that score, as to the others, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) lias failed, I know he has acted in good faith. He had his information from parties who have told him stories that he should not have believed. The transaction was carried on in an honest way ; and, indeed, I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion, that I am so sorry that my hon. friend the sitting member for Beauharnois has been subjected to such an annoyance. Let me tell the House that no more honest man has ever lived in any country than my hon. friend from Beauharnois. He is an honest man in the very best sense of the word. And that is the main reason, perhaps why the French Roman Catholic riding of Beauharnois elected him, an elder in the Presbyterian church, as their representative in this House. He was an honest man then, he is an honest man to-day. He has not violated the law willingly or knowingly, and I hope he has not violated even the letter of the law. The proverb says that the letter of the law kills. I hope' it will not kill on the present occasion, for the spirit of the law has not been violated. The hon. member for Beauharnois did not know what I was doing in this matter. I concealed my actions from him ; the department concealed their actions from him. He has acted in perfect good faith ; he has sold at its real value a property that could be sold to-day at a profit. It is in evidence that a property smaller than his could not be bought then for less than $13,000 cash. The value of property in the town of Valleyfield has ^ been going up by leaps and bounds*within recent years.
Well, Sir, I think I have covered all the points that deserve to be covered : The property was not bought too dear ; Mr. Lov had no knowledge of the object for which it was purchased ; Mr. Johnston did not act as his agent. There remains nothing except the fact that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has been wrongly informed by parties who had other purposes to serve than promoting the public interest. I quite understand that political warfare must be carried on. It is a case of political warfare on the part of the Informants of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. He lias given his word to us and to the country and I take his word. But our word must be taken also. While taking my hon. friend's word, as I am glad to do. and as I am bound to do. yet I say without hesitation that those who informed him have been acting from purely party motives. Such sentiments should not be-and I hope will not often have occasion to be-ventilated in this House. When the case is as clear as

it has been made, it seems to me we should not have held the long investigation we have held, the result of which is now known to the country at large.


Mr S BARKER (Hamilton).: A's I was a member of the committee to which this question was referred, and as I concurred in the minority report now under discussion. I desire to say, in as few words as possible, why I formed the opinion I did, that the minority report should be sent to this House, and why I think this House should receive and adopt it. The question was not one as put by the non. member for St. Mary s (Hon. Mr. Tarte) of the moral wrong or moral guilt upon the part of the member for Beauharnois, but whether that gentleman committed an act, which, under the statute relating to the independence of parliament voided his seat. The question arose under section 10, which is in these words :
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the intei position of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada, on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any officer of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, shall he eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.
Now, the sole question was whether Mr. Loy, while member for Beauharnois, had brought himself within the terms of that section. Of one thing there is no question whatever, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Public Works intended to buy this property from Mr. Loy. There is no question whatever that the department resolved to make that purchase through the interposition of an agent. The minister employed a Mr. Dandurand to make the purchase, and that agent of the government simply sent an employee of his to do the work. Now, what occurred ? Mr. Johnston, who was the sub-ageut or employee of Mr. Dau-durand, went down to Valleyfield and there saw Mr. Loy. After an hour's discussion, or less than an hour's discussion, Mr. Johnston obtained a written option from Mr. Loy for the purchase of this property for $10,000. Now, just here it is necessary to recall the fact that for three or four years prior to the closing of this transaction, the construction of a public building in Valleyfield and the purchase of property for that purpose was a burning question there. Before Mr. Loy became a member of the House, while he was mayor of Valleyfield, he had taken part in deputations that had come to Ottawa to urge that a public building should be constructed in Valleyfield, which was within what afterwards became his constituency. It was known to him that many of the people of Valleyfield were urging that Mr. Loy's own property should be purchased by the government for the purpose of this public building. Mr. Hon. Mr. TARTE.
Loy first became a member of this House in 1900, and at the following session there was a sum of $10,000 placed in the estimates for the purpose of this public building in Valleyfield. Under circumstances that we need not go into here, Mr. Loy lost his seat in this House, and was subsequently re-elected at a by-election. He became a member of this House again in 1902, and again the vote of $10,000 was placed in the estimates and granted by this House for the purpose of this public building. So it stood until July, 1902, when this Mr. Johnston being sent out by the agent of the government, saw Mr. Loy and negotiated with him for the purchase of the Loy property. And, shortly, they agreed that there should be an option given for two days to sell this property to Mr. Johnston in his name for the same sum of $10,000,, the amount that was in the estimates for the building at Valleyfield. Mr. Johnston, in the course of the conversation, was asked by Mr. Loy this question :
Well, Mr. Loy said, now it is not for the government is it ?
Now, Mr. Speaker, what induced Mr. Loy to ask that question ? Was it not his consciousness that what had been going on for three or four years was now culminating in the purchase of the property ? Was it not his suspicion, at least, that the person who was there offering to him, or willing to contract with him for $10,000 to buy this property, was really an undisclosed agent of the government ? He asked him a question, and what is the answer ? Mr. Johnston says :
That, Mr. Loy, is a matter that interests me, whether I wish to deal with outsiders or the government.
Now, surely that answer alone was sufficient to put Mr. Loy upon inquiry, he know- -ing at the time that he could not sell that property to the government without forfeiting his seat in parliament But the matter does not rest there. There are further circumstances that bring the knowledge more clearly to Mr. Loy. The acceptance declared that Mr. Johnston was to complete the purchase, and obtain his deed, and pay the purchase money within fifteen days. He did not do so, and apparently nothing was done. The matter was allowed to lie in suspense until December, but some correspondence passed in the meantime. On the 8th of September a clerk in the Public Works Department telegraphs to Mr. Loy :
Kindly see the city clerk and ask him to forward us by next mail, if possible, a copy of the plan of the city of Valleyfield, which is needed to complete the purchase of site for public building
Now, I would call attention to the fact that at this time the contract with Johnston was in suspense, no action was taken upon it. Mr. Loy knew that the question of the

public building related to his property ; he knew he had given an option to this man and had not yet received his purchase money, yet without a word with the department without a word of inquiry he sends the plan. ' Are you buying some property ; whose property are you buying ?- would have been natural questions for the member for the constituency to ask, especially in the interests of the citizens of Valley-field. He gets that plan, and he sends it to the Public Works Department with this letter :
Your telegram received last night. I send you herewith, inclosed, the only plan of the town which I could get. I am informed that Mr. Sullivan, the former engineer of the town, has a new plan, but he is away from home today. I will see him on his return, and if he will lend it I will send it or take it up to you. I would call your attention to the fact that at present there are two post offices in the town, one in the central part and another near the Canada Atlantic Railway station, in Bellerive ward.
These latter words ,are significant,, as' written by a gentleman who had no knowledge that his own property was being bought by the government. There Mr. Toy clearly shows that he knows what is the object of this purchase, it was in connection with a further post office that the town was claiming, and which the government was about to construct, and for which a vote was in the estimates of the year. The plan being sent, the clerk in the Public Works Department writes a further letter, which even more clearly brings home to Mr. Loy the knowledge that it was his own property that was being dealt with :
I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th September instant, inclosing a copy of the plan of the city of Valley-field, said plan being required by the department In connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.


Mr.  K. B.@: Johnston was the man who held an option for the purchase of that property from Mr. Loy, the man who was in default, who had not carried out his undertaking to pay for the property within fifteen days. Johnston is apparently selling this property to the government, and Mr. Loy is to be assumed as supposing that he was acting as a man who had acquired and then owned the property, and was selling it again for an advance, perhaps, upon the price. Now, is it conceivable that that could be so ? Is it possible to conceive for one moment that a man of the Intelligence that we all know Mr. Loy possesses, would not see at once that Mr. Johnston was simply an intermediary of the government, and that he had been sent there to get round the provision of the statute ; Mr. Loy knew he could not sell to the government directly, that the government ought not to buy from, him directly, and so a Mr. Johnston was interposed ? Mr. Johnston gets an option to purchase, he does not carry it out, 252
but the transaction is going on in the Public Works Department, and Mr. Loy is asked to furnish a plan. He knows it is to be for a public building, and he knows it has relation to this Mr, Johnston who held an option from him, and he would have us believe that he had no suspicion that the purchase by Johnston was for the government.
Now, I do not wish to occupy any longer the time of the House. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has gone into the whole of the circumstances very fully. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if, under such circumstances as are here stated, it is possible for a member of this House to sell property to the government through an intermediary, the Independence of Parliament Act is absolutely waste paper. Any member can buy from or can sell to the government, and the government can buy from any member by merely sending down a person to carry out the transaction, a third person, who is merely a nominal party in the bargain. I do not wish to comment further upon the case except to say this, that although Mr. Low was kept until the 1st of December- the option having been given in July, to be carried out within fifteen days-although he was kept until the 1st of December before he got his money, he allowed Mr. Johnston to keep $300 out of the prchase money ; instead of allowing him to keep $300 out of the purchase money, if there was anything that one side should be paid by the other, it was that Mr. Loy should have received interest from Mr. Johnstou.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not propose to detain the House very long ; I think it will be sufficient for me to make but a few remarks in regard to this matter. The facts as they are now before us were disclosed at the beginning of the session, all the circumstances were communicated to the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain), but he did not think them of sufficient Importance to warrant him in taking any action upon them. We are told by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that he knew of these facts previously to the beginning of the session. He has told us that he ,1s very anxious to preserve the rules and privileges of the House ; and yet he sat in his seat and allowed Mr. Loy to sit here for four months and a half in violation, as he believed, of the statute, without saying one word. He did not move in the matter until he was urged to do so by some influence or other, and that influence cannot have been from the hon. gentlemen who sit upon the other side of the House, because they did not take enough interest in the matter to appear before the committee, only two or three of them. I do not know where the influence came from, but I have a very shrewd suspicion. Now, the facts that were disclosed to us are these : First, that Mr. Loy, in January, 1898, gave a promise of sale of this piece of property to Mr. Archambau'lt, and that



that promise of sale was afterwards discharged, along in June. So far, there is no dispute. But there was the further statement in the charge that, although this promise was absolute, there was a secret agreement between Mr. Loy and Mr. Archarn-bault which raised a suspicion that the promise was given for the purpose of enabling Mr. Archambault to make a sale of the property to the government in the interest [DOT] of Mr. Loy. Mr. Archambault came upon the stand and testified himself, strongly, that such was not the case, that 'there was no agreement whatever between himself and Mr. Loy to that effect, and Mr. Loy said the same thing. It further transpired that Mr. Archambault took possession of the property. During the months that he had it he moved the buildings and did other things and made a loss of $800, and he only failed to carry out the arrangement because he could not get the money for that purpose. The committee very properly concluded that this transaction in 1898 had nothing whatever to do with what has been charged against Mr. Loy. Another matter that has been charged against Mr. Loy is that the purchase by the government of this property was a purchase by the government from Mr. Loy through the agency of Mr. Johnston. The words of the charge are as follows :
That from the time the said George Loy handed his said property to Archambault up to the day of the sale of said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of said property, and that at the time of the sale of said property on the 20th January, 1903, said Robert Bruce Johnston was merely acting for and on behalf of said Loy, who in said manner did indirectly sell his said property to the Crown or government of Canada, in violation of chapter II. of the Revised Statutes of Oanada, ' An Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons."
I will admit that if the statement had bee") correct, then Mr. Loy would have violated the statute, but it is not correct eveu according to the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Monk) himself, because, to-day, upon the floor of this House, he does not pretend to say that Mr. Johnston was the agent of Mr. Loy, hut he turns it now and says that Mr. Johnston was the agent of the government. There is the crux of the whole situation. If he had been the agent of Mr. Loy, or if he had to the knowledge of Mr. Loy been the agent of the government, then, there would have been a violation of the statute, but surely no hon. member would pretend to say that if Mr. Johnston was not the agent of Mr. Loy, and if Mr. Loy had no knowledge of the agency of Mr. Johnston on behalf of the government, Mr. Loy has committed any breach of the statute. If I am not correct in that, then, I will warn hon. gentlemen on the other side to be very *careful before they sell property, because the government could sand out an agent to purchase a piece of property no matter how Mr. WADE (Annapolis).
small from one of their number and then some hon. member might get up in the House make a charge against the party selling the property and we would have to turn him out. That is a proposition that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), a lawyer stands up in the House and makes. It seems a surprising thing that he should pretend to support such a proposition as that. Let us refer to the statute and see what it says. Section 10, I believe, is the section that hon. gentlemen opposite claim has been violated :
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing, any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.
I would like hon. gentlemen to note well the construction of this section :
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, &c.
That is if he sells the property to the government himself he commits an offence. If he sells the property by means of an agent or trustee then he violates the statute. That is the reasonable construction of the statute, and that is the evil that the statute was intended to remedy. The object of the statute was to put it beyond the power of the government to in any indirect way bribe the representatives who sit in the House, hut I cannot conceive of any lawyer pretending to argue in favour of the other interpretation.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: If an agent of the government goes to a member of parliament and buys a property from him and the member of parliament does not know at that time that the agent is the agent of the government but he discovers it before the bargain is completed that this man is really buying for the government does the hon. gentleman think that is not covered by the statute ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I did not say that at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to know.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman shall know. I thought I made the hon. gentleman understand me as I went along, but, if I have failed, that is my misfortune. If he finds out before the sale is completed of course he does know. My proposition is simply this, and it is so plain to my mind that it does not need any demonstration, that if the party does not know at all surely he cannot be liable under this section, but if be does know that the agent is acting for the government, then, of course, he is liable.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: My bon. friends say ' bear, bear.' I am glad tliat I have been able to make them see this thing as I see it. The question is :	Did Mr. Loy know that Mr. Johnston was acting as agent for the government ? I make bold to say that there is not one word of testimony to support that position. But, there is the emphatic evidence of Mr. Boy, the emphatic evidence of Mr. Tarte, and the emphatic evidence of Mr. Johnston, all the other way showing that Mr. Loy did not know that Mr. Johnston was acting as the agent of the government. What did Mr. Loy know, and what did Mr. Johnston say ? Mr. Loy, in the first instance, asked Mr. Johnston if this property was for the government. It was a very ordinary question to ask. What answer did he receive ? It is a question for me whether I deal with the government or with outsiders. That was Mr. Johnston's reply. Is that not a proper answer for a man who is buying property to make ? If I go to Mr. A to buy his property from him, if he states his price and I am willing to give the price, has Mr. A any right to limit the parties to whom I shall sell that property ? If Mr. Johnston had bona fide purchased the property had he not a perfect right to go out and sell it to the government the next day or at any time that he saw fit ? Mr. Johnston gave Mr. Loy to understand that he needed the property for a departmental store, and Mr. Loy has told us in his testimony that he believed that he was selling the property to him, but I submit here as a reasonable proposition that if Mr. Loy, at the time he sold his property, believed honestly in his mind that he was selling it to Mr. Johnston it does not make the slightest difference what was in the mind of Mr. Johnston. When did Mr. Loy have the first knowledge that the government was going to get this property ? According to his evidence it was long afterwards, nearly two months afterwards on the receipt from the secretary of the Department of Public Works of the letter acknowledging the receipt of a plan he had sent and which letter stated that the plan was required for the purpose of concluding the purchase of the property from Mr. Johnston.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I hope my hon. friends will be quiet until I am done. At that time had Mr. Loy knowledge that Mr. Johnston had negotiated a sale of the property to the government ? Certainly, and he does not deny that for a moment, but he had no knowledge at the time Mr. Johnston was acting as agent of the government in the purchase of the property.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I was not able to be at the committee all the time and the evidence not having been printed. I am obliged to ask questions to know what the evidence was, because I have no means of knowing.
252i
Did Mr. Loy say where he supposed the government were going to build the post office ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not know that there was ever anything said about it. There was an attempt on the part of Mr. Monk to prove that the government had a site there which they could have built on, but he has abandoned that as he has abandoned the statement made by him that the price paid for this property was too large. The statement made by Mr. Loy was that he had no knowledge of the government getting this property until long after he had concluded the terms of sale, and had received $100 on account.


Mr. BENNETT.: And did not get the consideration.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Certainly he did not get the consideration; that has been stated half a dozen times over. He only received $100 on account, and he was under promise to convey the property to Mr. Johnston, and the evidence shows that he did not know that Johnston was the agent of the government until long after the deed had been passed and until after the whole money had been paid to him. I am not quite as suspicious as some hon. gentlemen opposite and that is the reason why I am not ready to condemn any man upon the mere statement of so flimsy a suspicion as has been put forward here. The last speaker also tried to make the point, that the option of sale was given in July for fifteen days, and that the sale was not concluded until December. Why, to my mind, that and the explanations that were given, afford the strongest argument in favour of the honesty of Mr. Loy and of his innocence and want of knowledge in this whole matter. The negotiations were going on and this Mr. Johnston was trying to get the money. It was a continuous contract, it had never been ended by Mr. Loy, he was anxious to sell his property, he needed the money to clear off the mortgage upon it, and finally at the suggestion of Johnston Who said he had trouble in raising the money and that Loy would have to drop $300 from the price in order to enable him to expedite the obtaining of the money, Loy did so, and then Johnston went and negotiated his note with the Sovereign Bank in Montreal, obtained the money and paid it into the hands of the notary who, with the proceeds discharged the mortgage that was on the property and handed over the balance to Mr. Loy. Now it does seem to me that the only question we had to consider, and the only question we have to consider to-day is :	Whether the statement of Mr. Loy in that connection is true or false. He has undertaken to swear, and he is supported in it by three other witnesses. that he never knew that Johnston was an agent of the government until after the deed had been passed. That is exactly the evidence and it is just as it appears.

He did know on September 16th that the government was buying property from Johnston and that is the statement contained in the letter-


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: ' The hon. gentleman has made a very important statement, and might I ask him when was the deed passed V


Fletcher Bath Wade: The deed was signed in December if my memory serves me.


John Graham Haggart: Then surely he had the knowledge on the 8th September according to your own admission.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Not at all. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) does not seem to follow my remarks for the purpose of getting information, or otherwise he would have heard what I stated, and I stated it as emphatically as I could : that on the 16th day of September by the letter which Mr. Loy received from the secretary of the department, it was conveyed to his mind that the government was buying this property from Mr. Johnston. That is what X stated.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Now, I say that if Mr. Johnston purchased the property bona fide from Mr. Loy, had he not a perfect right to turn around and sell it to the government V


Robert Laird Borden: We have not the evidence before us owing to the action that the government has taken, and so we do not understand this matter thoroughly, and consequently I have to ask a question. When was the sale from Loy to Johnston completed V


Fletcher Bath Wade: The sale from Loy to Johnston was completed, if my memory serves me right on the first or second day of December.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that was the date of the sale from Johnston to the Crown.


Fletcher Bath Wade: No. The date of the sale from Johnston to the government was away along in January.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it a fact that this letter came to Mr. Loy's possession some six weeks before he completed the sale to Mr. Johnston V


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is perfectly right. It came to his possession on or about the 16th or 17th of September.


John Graham Haggart: The 8th of September.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The 8th of September, perhaps; it does not matter for a few days. That letter conveyed to his mind exactly what I have stated, that Johnston and the government were negotiating the purchase of that property.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman another question.
' Mr, WADE.
We have to get at the facts in this fragmentary way, not having the evidence printed. I do not quite understand the explanation of the rebate of $300 on the price. It has been alleged that the payment of $300 was really a commission paid by Mr. Loy to Mr. Johnston for his services as agent. My hon. friend (Mr. Wade) conveys a different view Which must of course be considered because I was impressed by the statement made from this side of the House. My hon. friend (Mr. Wade) says that was an abatement and not a commission paid to Mr. Johnston; it was an abatement of the price which Mr. Johnston had agreed in the first instance to pay to Mr. Loy. Will my hon. friend give us the evidence as fully as possible with regard to that, because I think it bears pretty strongly upon the point we have to decide.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The evidence upon this point is : That the purchase price agreed upon between Loy and Johnston was $10,000, and there was to be no commission paid by Mr. Loy to Mr. Johnston and there was never any talk about commission at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Naturally there would not be-if it was a mere purchase.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It was a mere purchase. That was at the beginning of the transaction. Time went on until about the first of December or the last of November, when Mr. Johnston comes to Mr. Loy and tells him that he has great difficulty in securing the money and that Mr. Loy will have to make a reduction in the price-that is the evidence-and Mr. Loy who was in need of the money at the time finally agreed to make a reduction of $300 in the price.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask my hon. friend another question ? I have to apologize to him for interrupting him, but it is because of the evidence not being printed.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am glad to have the hon. gentleman do so.


Robert Laird Borden: Did Mr. Loy, at that time, inquire of Mr. Johnston what he was getting from the government ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: 
Mr. LENNOX.: When on the first or second of December an agreement was made to change the price, would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) who is a prominent lawyer, inform the House whether he would regard that as a new contract entered into at that time, Mr. Johnston being in default on the first agreement ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Certainly not. I would simply regard it as a modification of one of the terms of the contract that existed between them. There is no question about that. I do not know that I have anything more to say about this matter, Mr. Speaker.
I should, I suppose, express my regret that my conduct as chairman of the committee was not pleasing to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, but then you know there is a certain class of lawyers who are very much given to abusing the judge who decides against them in a suit they should never have brought, and I do not see why 1 should not allow that privilege to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk).


John Graham Haggart: Let me give my view of this transaction in just a few words.
I will deal with the minority report and from that report it seems to me that there was an option got by a man named Johnston, who was agent for Mr. Dandurand in Montreal, who was employed by the Minister of Public Works for the purpose of purchasing this property. That option was obtained in July. The termination of the option was on the 31st of July. For that option he paid -Si 00, Mr. Loy covenanting that he would have the right to purchase the property for $10,000. On the 8th of September, long after the option had expired, there is a letter or a telegram from an officer of the Department of Public Works, asking Mr. Loy to send up plans of this particular property.
Some hon. MEMEBRS. No, no.


John Graham Haggart: I will read the telegram :
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th September, inst., inclosing a copy of the plan of the city of Valleyfield, said plan being required by the department in connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.
For what purpose was the plan required 1 For the purpose of the purchase of the property. The hon. chairman of the committee admits that Mr. Loy must have had knowledge that the government were purchasing this property when he received this letter. Then Mr. Loy had knowledge on the 8th of September that his property was being purchased by the government for the purpose of a public building. He was theta! under no obligation whatever to convey that property to Mr. Johnston.


Mr. COWAN.: Why not ?


John Graham Haggart: The option had expired on the 31st of July.


Mr. RUSSELL.: That is not the fact.


John Graham Haggart: Then I am misinformed from the documents. The option was on the 16th of July, and was for fifteen days.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


John Graham Haggart: Read the option and its acceptance. Is it an option for ever? When does it expire ? The option expires within the fifteen days mentioned, and Mr. Loy was not obliged at any time afterwards to convey the property. At any rate, on the 8th of September following, he had notice from the government that the purchase was made on behalf of the government, and he makes a conveyance of the property on the 1st of December following, receiving the money and giving the deed. Is not that a knowledge by the party who is selling the property that he is virtually conveying it to the government which had purchased it for the purpose of erecting a post office ?


Mr. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa).: I will not go over the ground convened by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), but I want to state how this matter strikes me. What are the facts in this case ? On the 14th of July, Mr. Johnston, who was acting as the agent of Mr. Dandurand in acquiring this property-and I am prepared to admit at once that the latter was the agent of the Department of Public Works-obtained an option from Mr. Loy which was to be exercised on the 16th of the same month. On the 16th of July the option was exercised, and $100 were paid by Mr. Johnston to Mr. Loy. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence which shows that Mr. Johnston himself knew that he was acting for the Grown. He was told by Mr. Dandurand to go and acquire this property, without being told for whom it was wanted. Mr. Dandurand himself knew that the property was required by the Crown.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Dandurand, in his evidence, makes it clear that he told Johnston that the property was required by the government.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is not my recollection. My recollection is that Johnston himself did not know at all that the property was required by the Crown.


Joseph Israël Tarte: He did not.


Mr. BELCOURT  .@: And he assumed that it was required for the purpose of putting up a theatre or a departmental store.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Dandurand corrects that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Both Dandurand and Johnston swore that Johnston did not know for whom he was purchasing.


Haughton Lennox: Does not the hon. gentleman remember that when Johnston was

giving his evidence, he said that he did know that the property was required for a post office, and that he knew that when he went down to Valleyfleid ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: No.


Haughton Lennox: And thought he had the right to exercise his own judgment in the selection of a site ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have already stated my recollection of the evidence, and there is no use my repeating it. There is at any rate no dispute about the option having been exercised on the 16th of July, when $100 were paid by Mr. Johnston to Mr. Loy. That made the position the same as if on that day, instead of an agreement to sell being made, a conveyance had been actually executed.


Robert Laird Borden: Is my hon. friend aware that where property, to which a trust is attached, is sold to some one who is ignorant of the trust, but who, before tbie consideration money is paid, has knowledge of the trust, he is bound by the trust?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not see what this has to do with the question.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend permit me to tell him ? If a member of parliament was approached for the purchase of a piece of property and entered into a bargain to sell it, not knowing that it was wanted for the Crown and if, before the consideration money is paid, hie becomes aware of that fact, he would be within the terms of the statute.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I take issue with my hon. friend on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was not bold enough for that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As a lawyer, with some knowledge of the law of Quebec, where the transaction took place, such would not be the case. Let me quote an authority. My bon. friiend the leader of the opposition is perhaps not as familiar as we are with the Quebec Civil Code, but if he will turn up articles 1472 and 1476 he will find that I am right. 1472 says :
Sale is a contract by which one party gives a thing to the other for a price in money which the latter obliges himself to pay for it.
It is perfected by the consent alone of the parties although the thing sold is not then delivered.
Consent makes the sale perfect, and my contention is that on the 16th of July the title of the property passed from Loy to Johnston, and that anything that happened subsequently did not change the legal position of the parties. Article 1476 says :
A simple promise of a sale is not equivalent to a sale, but the creditor may demand that the debtor shall execute a deed of sale in his favour


Haughton Lennox: according to the terms of the promise, and, in default of so doing, that the judgment shall be equivalent to such deed and have all its legal effects ; or he may recover damages according to the rules contained in the title of obligations.
On the 17th of July, and from that day until the 20th of January, 1903, when this conveyance was made, Mr. Johnston had the right to say to Mr. Loy : ' You must convey that property to me.' And if Mr. Loy had refused Mr. Johnston could have enforced his claim in the courts.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. gentleman say that the decisions I have quoted, and which have been uniformly followed in the province of Quebec, namely, that if a man does not conform to the conditions stated in the option, he cannot claim the property ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: That is jurisprudence, not law.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: In my opinion, a promise of sale, under the circumstances disclosed, accompanied by a payment on account, is as good a title as a conveyance. Does my hon. friend dispute that as a sound proposition ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course I will deny that. I have quoted authority to show that you must conform to the conditions of the option.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is not a denial of my proposition. I am sure the hon. gentleman would be very careful about denying the proposition of law I have put. If that be so, the knowledge which Mr. Loy acquired some time in September-and I admit for the sake of argument that he received notice that the Department of Public Works wanted his property for this public building


Joseph Israël Tarte: He received notice that they had bought it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Assuming that Mr. Loy knew beyond doubt that that property was required for public purposes, he could not avoid the transaction which he had concluded with Mr. Johnston on the 16th July without laying himself open to an action at law to compel him to execute that conveyance. In order to determine whether this transaction was a violation of the Independence of Parliament Act, wie must go back to the 16th of July ; and if on that day the transaction was perfectly legitimate, then Mr. Loy did not commit any violation of the Act. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence which would warrant any one believing that Mr. Loy on the 16th of July had been notified or knew that the property was required by Johnston for other purposes than a departmental stone or theatre. But hon. gentlemen opposite argue that the option had lapsed and that, as a matter of law, Mr. Loy could have

avoided the agreement he made on the 16th of July and should have avoided it because of the knowledge he had since acquired.
I submit that that is also wrong in law. Under the law of the province of Quebec, he was bound to carry out bis agreement. The delay in executing a deed of conveyance only gave him the right to claim interest. Article 1077 says :
The damages resulting from the delay in the payment of money, to which the debtor is liable, consist only of the interest at the rate legally agreed upon by the parties, or, in the absence of such agreement, at the rate fixed by law.	.
So far as the law is concerned, Mr. Loy was bound to carry it out notwithstanding the knowledge he had acquired two months later on. I want to point out a very glaring contradiction on the part of my kon. friend from Jacques Cartier, which shows most conclusively that-in his own mind, although perhaps he did not realize it for the moment-he was satisfied that the charge against Mr. Loy is disproved. Look at paragraph 8:
That from the time the said George Loy handed his said property to Archambault up to the day of the sale of the said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of said property-and that at the time of the sale of said property on the 20th January, 1903

*-
-and I call the attention of hon. members of the House to the following words :
-^said Robert Bruce Johnston was merely acting for and on behalf of the said Loy.
So, my hon. friend charges that Mr. Johnston was the agent of Mr. Loy. And that was the charge, I submit that my hon. friend must prove in order to establish the fact that there had been a violation of the statutes.


Mr. WARD.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) permit me to ask him a question ? What would be the effect of the fifteen days mentioned in the acceptance of that option according to the laws of the province of Quebec ? How, long, for instance, after that fifteen days had expired would Johnston have the right to enforce that contract ? Will it go on for ever ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, it does not go on for ever. The delay of fifteen days, as I understand it, was required by Johnston himself within which


Henry Alfred Ward: For looking into titles


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes-within which Loy should convey the property to him. But there were difficulties in the way. Johnston was quite satisfied to take his deed later on. and I say that is all that we must look to, because Loy was hound to do that which Johnston required of him, notwithstanding the lapse of fifteen days.


Henry Alfred Ward: Then, he could enforce it five years hence ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I cannot make my point if I am interrupted in this way. I was going to say that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier made the charge that Johnston was the agent of Loy ; and I say, and I think he will agree with me, that, in order to claim that Loy has committed a violation of the section, it was necessary to establish that point. For the section-section 10-says :
No person, directly o.r indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the Interposition of any trustee or any third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any officers of the government of Canada for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons or shall sit or vote in the said House.
What the Act contemplates is an agent on the part of the member against whom the charge is made, and not an agent on the part of the Crown. Otherwise, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) the seat of every member of this House would be in jeopardy continually. The statute provides that a member of the House shall not directly by himself or through am agent endeavour to sell his property to the Crown. And now, what has the hon. member for Jacques Cartier asked this House to declare ? Jtfot only in his argument has he stated that it is not proven that Johnston was the agent of Loy, but by reference to the report which his* motion asks this House to adopt, we find these words :
Under these circumstances, Mr. Loy could not have remained ignorant of the fact that Johnston, in the transaction with Mr. Loy, was an agent of the government.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the charge was that Johnston was the agent of Loy. Yet, my hon. friend is asking us to-day to declare* that Johnston was the agent of the government. There is a flat contradiction which, to my mind, shows conclusively that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in dealing with this evidence, himself concluded that the charge he had brought that Johnston was the agent of Loy had been disproved. Nobody disputes that Johnston was the agent of the government-he was employed by Mr. Dandurand, who, was the agent of the Crown. But Mr. Loy did not know this. And surely we are not going to declare that a member of this House has violated the independence of parliament by the sale of property if, on that day, he did not know that the purchaser was the agent of the Crown. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) would not follow the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He does not ask this House to say that there was any actual moral-X think he called it-violation of the statute, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier tells us.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) must allow me to explain that I did not say that. I stated that it was not a question of moral wrong, but simply a question of whether there had, been a violation of the words of the statute.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) to say that the most he would contend for was that there was a technical violation of the statute.


Samuel Barker: No.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Then, I do not press that. But it is clear that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has been compelled to say in this minority report that the other two charges that he made, namely, that the price was excessive, and that there was other property in Valleyfield suitable and available for the purpose of a public building, were disproved.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) must not misrepresent the report. It is said in the minority report, that we have confined the report to the direct question submitted to the committee. My hon. friend remembers perfectly well the nature of the evidence as to the value of the property as well as its availability as a site.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I take it that if the hon. member (Mr. Monk) had been able to show to his- own satisfaction that the price was excessive, he would not have been content to let that go without calling attention to it. Had it been shown by the evidence that the price paid by the ex-Minister of Public Works was excessive, it would have been the hon. member's duty to say so. Why did he include this in his charge if it was not relevant and necessary ? I think that the hon. member failed, on his own admission to show that too much was' paid for the site or that there were other sites in the town available. And as to the other charge, the hon. member disposes of that himself by this motion declaring that Johnston was the agent for the government. The very essence of his charge was that Johnston was the agent of Mr. Loy. To establish that charge it must be shown that Loy must have known, at the time when the property was being acquired, that it was being acquired for the government. It seems to me that after the statement made by the hon. member for Beauharnois and the statement made by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) might well have withdrawn his charge, because the evidence he had before him in the documents-and there is a great deal of documentary evidence-goes to show that, until two months after this option was given. Mr. Loy could never have known that this property was being acquired for government purposes. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier tells us, and we are bound to take his word for it, that he


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 7
has no ulterior motives in making the charge. But, while we here are bound to accept his word, I think people outside will have a very shrewd idea that this was an attempt, perhaps on the part of a gentleman who used to sit in this House, if not on the part of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, to avenge himself upon a political opponent. I submit that the charges that were brought have been disproved by the evidence. And, in order to justify the vote I intend to give, I want nothing better than my hon. friend's own statement, contained in his motion, that Johnston was the agent of the government, and not the a'gent of Mr. Loy.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not intend to make any remarks on this matter, but the very astounding propositions laid down by my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) compel me to say a word or two. In the first place, I think it most unfortunate that the right hon. leader of the House, who, next to the Speaker, is responsible for the dignity and decorum of this House, saw fit, in his wisdom, to insist that we should discuss this matter without having the evidence printed and before us. The motion which the right hon. gentleman saw fill to have passed yesterday was that this question of the printing should be referred, if you please, to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. That is the position the matter stands in to-day. This question of printing the evidence touching the honour, and privileges, and prerogatives of this House is to be referred to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to determine whether it shall be printed. I do not regard that as a proper way of dealing with the question, and I venture to think that it was most unfortunate that the right hon. gentleman did not see fit to assent to the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier to have this evidence printed. We have had to-day disputes across the floor of this House about many questions of fact contained in this evidence, although we were assured yesterday that there was no possible question about any matter of fact involved in this case. The members of this House at the present time are in doubt, I am in doubt myself, as to the evidence with regard to many matters that have been mentioned.
But I wish to refer to some remarks of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) with regard to the effect of this statute.
I wish to speak so far as the law of my own province is concerned. I do not profess to speak with any authority with regard to that of Quebec. But so far as the law' of my own province is concerned, I beg to dissent most emphatically from the views which that hon. gentleman has laid down. The law of Nova Scotia, following in that regard the law of England, is very much the same as that which the hon. gentleman has propounded as the law of Quebec. If a con-

tract is made for the sale of land, although no deed passes at the time, although no money is paid at the time, the land in equity though not at law, becomes the property of the purchaser; the right to compensation is the right of the man who sells the land. That is the rule in equity, and that is very much like the law propounded by thp hon. gentleman as that of the province of Quebec. But I would point out to him that according to the English law-I am speaking only with regard to the English law and the law of my own province


Benjamin Russell: In regard to the point at issue, as to whether delay in the payment of the purchase money would split up the whole contract and leave both parties free, what would my hon. friend say to that V


Robert Laird Borden: I shall come to that very fully before I sit down.


Benjamin Russell: I was afraid my hon. friend would neglect that view.


Robert Laird Borden: I say that so far as that matter is concerned, distinctions are drawn in the English law between the position of a man who has made a formal conveyance and received the compensation money, and the position of a man who has made a contract for the land, but has not yet received a legal title and has not yet received compensation. One distinction was that to which I adverted a moment ago. Another distinction I think would be made in a case of this kind, which involves a matter of public policy, because what would follow the hon. gentleman's proposition ? Has he thought of it ? His proposition is this, that if any member of this House were approached by some person and gave that person an option of purchase which was after accepted ; then if the member discovers before the contract is completed that the other party was really the agent of and was purchasing for the government, the member can complete the contract.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not dispute that, but that is not the case here.


Robert Laird Borden: But he did dispute it a moment ago. He told us that he most solemnly affirmed upon his standing as a lawyer in this House that that man could go on and carry out that contract. My hon. friend has changed his opinion, I am glad he has changed his opinion, because I say such a doctrine as that would be a monstrous one. What would follow from it V According to the law of Nova Scotia, according to the law of England, and I suppose according to the law of Quebec, an undisclosed principal can be sued by the man with whom he has made a contract, and that being the case, as soon as a member of parliament found out that he was dealing with the government, if the government did not see tit to carry out the contract under the new conditions, you would have
the spectacle of a member of parliament bringing suit in the Exchequer Court against the government for the unpaid price of property which he had sold to the government.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I was not dealing with such a case at all, I was dealing with a different case. The case the hon. gentleman supposes is not the case here.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad to see that I misunderstood my hon. friend. I would not have got up except to make an observation on what I thought he distinctly stated to this House, in answer to a question I put to him, namely that such was his view of the law of the province of Quebec.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to) put a question to him ? When did Mr. Loy ascertain that he was selling the property to the government V I submit for his consideration that Mr. Loy never found that out until after the deed had passed, he never found that this man was acting as agent for the government.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's view of the case is of course entitled to all possible respect, I am not finding any fault with that. But there are circumstances in connection with this case which, in my opinion, might point to an opposite conclusion. It appears so far as I can gather from the evidence, which I have not had an opportunity of reading, that there was considerable discussion as to the probability of the property being required as a site for a post office. It appears that Mr. Johnston came to Mr. Loy and Mr. Loy was suspicious at the' time that the property might be required by the government. An option was given, which I will not refer to again, as it has been read two or three times to the House. The terms of that option were not carried out. And six weeks before Mr. Loy gave any formal conveyance of the property at all, he receives a letter from the Public Works Department, a letter of the 18th of September, in which ihe is distinctly told that certain information which is required from him with regard to a plan of the city of Yalleyfield, is required by the department in connection with the purchase of R. B. Johnston's property. Now, my hon. friend from Annapolis, or some hon. gentleman on the other side, has very ingeniously put forward this view of the situation :	They say that that merely
means that Mr. Loy, had agreed to sell to Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Johnston buying in his own right, had afterwards agreed to sell to the government. Well, that may be so, but it is rather unusual that Mr. Johnston should immediately sell to the government long before he got a title from Mr. Loy.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Not immediately, two months afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us say two months afterwards; and I think it is most

unfortunate for Mr. Loy ttmt lie was not called before the committee to give evidence as to bis understanding of that letter. Was be asked with regard to bis understanding of that letter ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: He was before the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I know be was, but I understand he was not before the committee after this letter was produced. Am I right or wrong ? Again my bon. friend will see that I am embarrassed by the fact that, owing to the action of the government yesterday, we have not this evidence before us. Am I right or wrong in supposing that Mr. Boy did not give evidence before the committee after this letter was produced V


Samuel Barker: He did not.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I consider it is a very unfortunate thing that he was not called before the committee to give evidence, and to make plain to the committee what his understanding was of the purport of that letter.


Fletcher Bath Wade: He was there, why did not the hon. gentleman opposite cross question him V


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of this matter on behalf of Mr. Boy himself, because here is a letter of the 8th of September written to Mr. Loy and received by him some six weeks before this transaction was completed, and in which it is made perfectly apparent to him that the man who has come to him to get an option on his property is really proposing to convey that property to the government. Now, under these circumstances, it does seem to me very unfortunate that Mr. Loy did not again come before the committee and throw what light he could as to the condition of his mind after he had received that letter.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Assuming that Mr. Loy could have had no doubt on that day, the 8th of September, that the property acquired by Mr. Johnston was being made over to the crown, will the hon. gentleman contend that because of that knowledge on the part of Mr. Loy he would have been relieved in law from performing his contract made with Mr. Johnston on the 16th of July V


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Could he have successfully resisted an action for the specific performance of the agreement of the 16th July ?


Robert Laird Borden: If Mr. Loy had notice, and if Mr. Loy knew that Mr. Johnston was really acting for the government-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I assume that.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: I asked the hon. gentleman that once and he gave me one answer, and I ask him again and he gives me another answer.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Surely my hon. friend wants to be fair. Assuming that on the 8th September Mr. Loy acquired knowledge that tire property was being acquired by the department, could then Mr. Loy have successfully resisted an action at law on the part of Mr. Johnston for a specific performance of the agreement of the 16th July? I say no, and I would like to have my hon. friend's opinion.


Robert Laird Borden: If, as a matter of fact, there was, in the first instance a distinct bargain between Mr. Johnston and Mr. Loy, according to Mr. Loy's belief and that bargain had been carried out between Mr. Loy and Mr. Johnston so as to vest the title in the property to him, it would be perfectly plain that any transaction between Mr. Johnston and the government afterwards would be of no effect.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is the whole point.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the whole point ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I have very great difficulty in making myself plain to my hon. friend. If, on the other hand, Mr. Johnston came to Mr. Loy as the agent of the government-and there is no doubt he did come as agent of the government in reality whether he knew it or not-to purchase this property, and before that transaction was carried out, although a contract had been entered into, Loy received notice that this was really a sale between himself and the government, then, I maintain that the contract could not be carried out between them, because you would then have the ridiculous position that I pointed out a moment ago to my hon. friend of the government declining to pay compensation money, being sued by a member of parliament who would go into court and say :	1
made a bargain with your agent although I did not know he was your agent, to sell this property. I have now discovered that he was only your agent, you are now declining to carry out your bargain, and 1 come into the Exchequer Court with my petition of right, and claim from you $10,000 which was agreed to be paid for my property. Surely the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Beleourt) or any other hon. member on the other side of the House will not pretend for a moment that any such action as that would be entertained by the Exchequer Court.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? A layman may perhaps be able to make thing's clear. On the 16th September the

secretary of the Department of Public Works writes to Mr. Loy and he tells him that the department wants a map in connection with the purchase of Mr. Johnston's property. Mr. Loy considered then that he had sold his property to Mr. Johnston. Was he not simply informed that Mr. Johnston had sold to the department ? That is the point I would like to make clear.


Robert Laird Borden: Here is one of the difficulties In connection with which I stated a moment ago that I regarded it as most unfortunate that Mr. Loy was not called before the committee to give evidence after this letter had been produced. Do I make myself clear to my hon. friend ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I see.


Robert Laird Borden: I say that the letter might possibly have the construction which the hon. gentleman puts upon it, namely that Mr. Loy might merely infer from it that Mr. Johnston had bought this property in good faith from Mr. Loy, had afterwards entered into an agreement with the Crown to convey it to the Crown, and that the Crown were therefore investigating the title and wanted a plan for that purpose. That would make Mr. Loy perfectly innocent, but if, on the other hand, this letter gave to Mr. Loy the notice that I have described a moment ago, that Mr. Johnston was not really buying the property in his own right, but buying it for the Crown, and that the Crown was taking steps for the fulfilment of the contract, an entirely different condition of affairs would exist.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is in evidence that when Mr. Johnston went to Mr. Loy, Mr. Loy did not know that Mr. Johnston was acting for the department. He made that clear in his evidence.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Assuming that Mr. Johnston was the agent of the government, and the government the undisclosed principal, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will admit, will he not, that Mr. Johnston could not commence action for specific performance against Mr. Loy if Mr. Loy had refused to convey to him, and if Mr. Johnston could commence action against Mr. Loy for specific performance and if Mr. Loy was innocent at the time that he made the promise to sell to Mr. Johnston, could this statute be any defence in an action for specific performance ?


Robert Laird Borden: It would be exactly the same defence that would arise in the action I have suggested. Does the hon. gentleman think that Mr. Loy could maintain an action against the government in the Exchequer Court ? I would hardly suppose that he would go as far as that, but if he did go as far as that, with every possible deference to the hon. gentleman's opinion, I would hardly feel justified in agreeing with him upon that point.


Mr. HEYD.: If the most brilliant lawyers in this House do not understand this question, what could you expect from poor Loy ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is a question which might properly be addressed to the right hon. leader of the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) particularly in view of the fact that he has not even permitted these lawyers to whom my hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) refers in such complimentary terms, to have an opportunity of perusing the evidence.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid it would be worse and worse if the evidence were printed.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know about that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My hon. friend can console himself with the knowledge that there was no argument before the committee at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I almost feel inclined to address the House now in the language of Samuel Weller before leaving the witness stand : Is there any other hon. gentleman who desires to ask me a question ? In conclusion, I have simply to say that my view of the statute is entirely different from that which has been presented by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. If we are to conclude from this evidence, which is not actually before us, because we have not had it printed, and from this correspondence, that Mr. Loy at all times up to the time he gave the title and received the compensation money believed that he was making a real sale of the property to Mr. Johnston, then that is one aspect of the case, and, adopting that view, we would have to acquit him ; but if, on the other hand, the evidence, the correspondence and the circumstances of the case would lead us to the conclusion that at any time up to the conveyance by him of this property and the receipt of the compensation money he became aware of the fact that Mr. Johnston was really the agent of the Crown, then it seems to me that this is not a case in which he can be justified in the way in which the majority report of the committee does seek to justify him.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, it seems almost a pity to interrupt the flow of* legal eloquence, but it is also a pity that the whole of the afternoon should be taken up without a layman expressing an opinion. I can only form an opinion from the speeches I have heard ; and, taking the defence of Mr. Loy, I can only conclude that Mr. Loy is one of the most innocent men I ever have heard of. He is too innocent to sit in this House. I dare say you all remember reading of that charming old humbug Samuel Pepys, who used to humbug himself and others, and who,

on one occasion, was controller of the King's navy, and had reason to suppose that a certain gentleman was going to offer ihim something for an appointment. This gentleman asked him to dinner, and on leaving, Mr. Pepys, in his quaint language, says : This man did hand me an envelope which, by its feel, I felt contained money ; when I got home I did open the envelope behind my back, so that if asked in future I could truly say that when I opened the envelope I saw no money there. Now, Sir, it strikes me that this simple and ordinary transaction of the purchase of a piece of property in Yalleyfleld for a post office, the negotiations for which had been going on for some years, has been so complicated and so surrounded with agents and with extraordinary conditions, that I would say it would be impossible that Mr. Loy should not have known that the government were purchasing this property. With regard to the abatement of |300 of the price, that abatement was paid, if I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) aright, after Mr. Loy had knowledge or suspicion that the government were purchasing. That seems to me of itself a most extraordinary transaction. As the case has been presented, from a layman's point of view it would be concluded that Mr. Loy had knowledge that that property was purchased for a post office. If he had not, he is too innocent a man to represent any constituency in this House.
Mr. 0. B. HEYD (South Brant). It is not yet six o'clock, and as we have just had the opinion of one layman, permit me to give the opinion of another layman. We have listened to lawyers all the afternoon, and the whole question simmers down to this : If Mr. Loy is a liar and a perjurer, then the gentlemen opposite are right; but if he is an honest man, as I believe he is, then they are wrong. I believe Loy is honest, and I am going to support the report of the majority.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
HSuse resumed at eight o'clock.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. LEIGHTON  G.@: MCCARTHY (North Simcoe) moved third reading of Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Mr.  G. W.@: FOWLER (King's, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, before this motion passes I wish, pursuant to the notice which I have given, to move :
That the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the .same by providing that a branch line be built from the proposed main trunk line of the Grand Trunk Mr. OSLER.
Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk line crosses the Nuskwaak river, and thence extending, by way of Fredericton and the valley of the St. John river, to St. John city.
It is not necessary for me at this time to go into this matter at any length, as it was discussed to a considerable extent when the Bill was in Committee of the Whole. I think this is a very important provision. As was pointed out at that time, it would be impossible for the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to enter into an arrangement by which a portion, and even the whole of the common stock of the new company might be handed over en bloc to the Grand Trunk Railway Company in exchange for certain privileges granted by that company to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. It was also pointed out that this might have a very important bearing upon the freight rates that would be charged by the Grand Trunk Pacific in the territory over which it is to run; that, if the adjustment of the freight rates of the new company were to come before the railway commission which is to be appointed, the amount of the capital stock of the company would be a very important consideration with the commission in estimating what those freight rates should properly be. Therefore, it seems to me important that due provision should be made that no such arrangement as that which I have pointed out should be allowed to take place, but that whatever capital is placed upon the market or is passed from the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to other holders, whether they be private persons or the Grand Trunk Railway Company, should be passed for a money consideration; so that the actual money cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific would be the only thing to be taken into consideration by the commissioners should they be called upon to adjust the freight rates over that road. It may he said that they would still have power to inquire into this matter and to ascertain whether money had been paid for the stock or not; but then, supposing that this stock or a portion of it were to get into the hands of third parties, innocent persons who had paid par for the stock, although the original owners of it had got it for ten or twenty or thirty per cent, or any other figure under par, it would not be fair to these innocent holders of the stock not to take into consideration the amount they had paid for it. I do not intend to make any extended remarks on this matter. The thing seems to me to be so plain that I cannot understand how any member of this House can oppose my amendment.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, when the government's proposal in relation to the Grand Trunk Pacific was introduced into the House, the Prime Minister stated that he would insist that the

Grand Trunk should acquire $25,000,000 of this stock; and I think he ought to tell the House and the country how he intended that the Grand Trunk Company should acquire that stock-whether by purchase or by what means ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While we are waiting for the answer of the right hon. First Minister, I may point out that it is provided in the contract that the Grand Trunk Company shall acquire this stock. What we want to know is in what way it is proposed that they shall acquire it ?


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Of course, the amendment of the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), is something which is absolutely unprecedented. Not one precedent has been cited where a clause was ever inserted in a charter requiring a company to sell its stock for any given sum of money. The question which has been asked the Prime Minister, of course, I cannot answer more than to say that I do not see how such a question can reasonably be asked, namely, how a company which acquires stock shall acquire it. I suppose they will acquire it in the course of business, according to the law of the contract, which must be construed in accordance with the law of the land. In that contract the government require the Grand Trunk Railway Company to acquire $25,000,000 of this stock. Personally speaking, I think that was a wise precaution. It was, at all events, an answer to the criticism that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was not behind or aiding or assisting in the scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, when they do acquire this stock, are bound to hold it for fifty years and possibly longer-at all events, until the bonds which the government have guaranteed are paid off. The company cannot dispose of that stock, but must hold it as a guarantee that they are interested in and are behind this scheme. But that we Should insert in a charter a clause that a certain stock shall be sold for cash at par value, is something which I never yet knew to be asked to be inserted in any other charter which has ever passed this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made that inquiry because I regard it as a matter of importance. That provision is put in the contract for some specific purpose. I assume that it is for the purpose of establishing confidence in the public mind, that this transaction is a bona fide one, and that the provision made for security is all that could be desired. For what purpose is it made compulsory on this company to secure it, if it is not some ^guarantee that the Grand Trunk Railway will have an interest in this undertaking which will' compel them to carry it out. The hon. member for North Simcoe says that this is an unprecedented thing. It is, but he must remember

Mr. McCarthy. I do not say that the question of contract is unprecedented because two parties to a contract may agree on anything ; but speaking of the charter, I say it is unprecedented to insert in a charter a provision requiring the stock of the company to be sold at a particular price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While that may be unprecedented, the intention of parliament is to provide that this stock shall be taken up In order to furnish a guarantee. We have never had to deal with such a Bill before. Here are two corporations, and the same men are on the directorate of each. We are giving the directors of the one company the power to sell to themselves, as directors of the other company, a certain amount of stock and at whatever price they like. The directorate may sell it to the other at five cents in the dollar. Will any one say that such a transfer as that would be any guarantee for the carrying out of the undertaking ? This provision looks very like a blind to the public, an attempt to make the public believe that there is some kind of guarantee because we compel the Grand Trunk Railway to take $25,000,000 worth of stock in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, whereas the fact is that since the same men are on the directorate of both companies, the one board may sell the stock to the other at five cents on the dollar. That being the case, is it unreasonable that we should provide that if the Grand Trunk Railway purchase the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, they must give some substantial consideration for it. Speaking on this point, the right hon. First Minister said : ' I may say at once that one/ of the first sections of the contract '-


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I do not want to take an unreasonable objection, but a reference to a prior debate on a government measure cannot be made on a private Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But these two Bills must be read together. They are practically the same contract. The one is the complement of the other, and a reference to the government measure is, I respectfully submit, quite in order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think that the hon. gentleman is in order in referring to a debate which h,as taken place on a Bill that is not now before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I remind you, Sir, that the Bill we are discussing refers to the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has no right to quote from previous debate on any other measure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully submit that I am quite in order. This Bill speaks of $25,000,000 worth of stock being purchased by the Grand Trunk Railway, and I am within my rights in referring to the

fact that the right hon. First Minister explained why the stock was taken.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is nothing of the sort in the Bill.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has a perfect right to discuss the merits of the Bill now before the House, but not to quote from a previous debate on another Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That debate has reference to the same subject. For instance I take up this Bill-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am dealing with the question. The hon. gentleman need not be so uneasy.
Mr. WAI>E. Chair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite within my rights, and am speaking to the Chair. I want the hon. member for Annapolis to understand that no senseless interruptions will stop me. I am dealing with an amendment providing that this $25,000,000 of stock to be purchased by the Grand Trunk Railway shall be paid for at par, and I am quite within my rights in stating that we are given to understand by the right hon. Prime Minister that the clause in its unamended form is a substantial guarantee.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman must comply with the ruling of the Chair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is contended by supporters of the government, by the government press, that this provision furnishes a substantial guarantee to the country that the Grand Trunk Railway are behind the scheme and will carry it out. I say it does not. I say, let us have a substantial guarantee, and such a guarantee would be the payment for these bonds in cash at par. Let the Grand Trunk Railway make a bona fide purchase of the stock and let it not be shuffled from one hand to the other. Let the Grand Trunk Railway buy the stock in tlie open market, and then they will be putting up $25,000,000 as a guarantee for the faithful carrying out of the contract. Until that is done, the country will not be satisfied that this is a bona fide scheme. I say that the transaction, in its present shape, is one that will not bear the light of day. It is one that the people will not regard as a proper contract to be passed by this House.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the question is put, we should have a declaration from the government with regard to this matter. Does the government attach any special importance to the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway is required to acquire $25,000,000 of the common stock of this company ? I think that that is a perfectly fair question to submit to the government at this time, and for these reasons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is said that the Grand Trunk Railway is behind this company, and that the fact that it will control the common stock is a source of strength to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. In what way is that a source of strength ? Does the government take the position that it is a source of strength to this company that the Grand Trunk Railway should acquire this stock for a nominal consideration ? If that is the attitude of the government, I am not supposed to agree with it. For it would only result in an excessive capitalization of the company; and, in the end, might prove an obstacle in the way of controlling the rates as we should control them in the interest of shippers. Then, there is another matter in this connection as to which, I think, we ought to have some answer. The clause which is dealt with by the motion proposed by my hon. friend from King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), is a clause which has been eliminated from the Railway Act of Canada as passed through this House, and as it now stands practically ready for its third reading. If this clause is not a proper one to retain in the General Railway Act, what are the special reasons which justify its insertion and retention in this Bill ? It will not do for the government to tell us that this is a mere private Bill in which the country is not interested to a greater extent than in any other private Bill. This is a Bill incorporating a company with which the government proposes to make a contract and to which it proposes to give substantial assistance to the extent of many millions of dollars and a guarantee. It is a company for which the government proposes to build a road some 1,600 miles in length. For these reasons, the country is interested in this Bill to a very much greater extent than it would be in an ordinary railway Bill. This is a clause which, beyond doubt, permits the whole of the common stock of this company to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for a consideration which it might be difficult to estimate. Under these circumstances, I think it becomes the duty of not only my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), but of the government itself to state the reasons for the insertion in this Bill of a clause which has been deemed not worthy to be placed in the general railway legislation of this country.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The amendment which is now before the House has been given notice of by my hon. friend from King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) in the following language :
That the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the same by striking out section eleven ; or in t'he alternative, to amend the said section by providing that in case the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall

acquire the whole, or any pant of the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Com pany, such stock shall he paid for in cash to the full par value thereof by the said Grand Trunk Railway Company.
I presume that there is a clerical error in the notice and that the clause referred to is section 12, not section 11. Section 11 is in these words :
The. directors may annually appoint from among themselves an executive composed of at least three directors for such purposes and-


Robert Laird Borden: May I point out that the right hon. gentleman is reading the Bill as originally introduced, whereas the amendment relates to the Bill as it is printed.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: There is only one change in clause 11, and that consists in the insertion of the word ' common.'


Robert Laird Borden: But the numbering has been changed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That section in the Bill as reprinted reads :
The directors of the company elected by the shareholders may make and issue as paid-up stock, shares in the company, whether subscribed for or not, and may allot anid band over in payment for plant, rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vessels, or materials of any kind, or as consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired and also for the bona fide claims of contractors and engineers, such an amount of such stock as shall be a fair and bona fide value for the property purchased, or for the- rights, powers and privileges acquired, or services rendered, as aforesaid, other than promotion services, due regard being had to -the then market value of the stock, and such issue and allotment of stock shall be binding on the company, and such stock shall not he assessable for calls.
In this section there is nothing new or unusual ; it is the provision which has been inserted in all railway charters from time immemorial. My hon. friend says that such a provision has been eliminated from the General Railway Bill which is now before the House. That may be. But we have to deal with the law as it is today, and with the custom of parliament as it is to-day. The reasons which have induced the company to ask for these powers are the same, no doubt, as have induced all similar companies to ask for them. It may he that, in the future, it will be desirable to provide otherwise. But we are dealing with the provisions of the law as they are to-day, and as they have been for many years past. Now, I come to the main point made by my hon. friend. If the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada acquire this stock, why should they be treated differently from any other purchaser of the stock ? For, practically, that is what this amendment means. My hon. friend has said, and has said rightly, that the government attaches great importance to the Grand Trunk Railway Company coming
into this scheme and standing behind it. The government in that, I think, interprets rightly the feeling of the Canadian people generally. They would he more confident of the ability of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to cope with the enterprise if that company have the backing of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. And I hold, that instead of being deterred from taking part in this scheme, the Grand Trunk Railway Company should be encouraged to stand behind it, because by so doing they will be of great assistance in the successful carrying out of the enterprise. But, if the Grand Trunk Railway Company are to come into the scheme, is there any reason why they should be subjected to more severe obligations than any other purchaser of the common stock of the company ? Why, Sir, the amendment, if I may say so without offence, is simply absurd. How can we bind the Grand Trunk Railway Company or anybody else to pay for stock more than the market price ? But the Grand Trunk Railway Company is to he asked to pay $25,000,000 in cash for $25,000,000 of stock. If any one believes that the Grand Trunk Railway would be willing to pay par value for this stock as it is issued, he has more faith than I, for my part, have in human nature. The stock will be sold at market value, and not otherwise. Let us read the amendment:
In case the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall acquire the whole ior any part of the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, such stock shall be paid for in cash to the full par value thereof by the said Grand Trunk Railway Company.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway put their stock on the market. Anybody can bid for it. I may buy stock at fifty cents on the dollar. But if the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada undertake to purchase stock, they will have to pay one hundred cents on the dollar. I do not think that anybody has so much faith in tlie enterprise-though I have great faith in it-as to believe that the stock will bring one hundred cents on the dollar as it is issued. The thfng is preposterous, and that is the reason why it cannot he accepted.


Samuel Barker: I have listened with some surprise to the remarks of the right hon. the first minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He seems to he under the impression that the company will issue its stock at the market price. I never heard of that before. He speaks as if, the market price of the stock being fifty cents on tfie dollar, there is no reason why the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada should not buy it at fifty cents on the dollar. And there is no reason in the world why it should not do so, provided it buys the stock from tlie public. But this clause is not dealing with the market price of this stock after it is issued, but it is dealing with the issue of the stock by the company itself ; and I

venture to say that the right hon. gentleman has never heard of a ease where a company has been authorized to issue its stock without the subscribers of the stock being under obligation to pay one hundred cents on the dollar.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Canadian Pacific Railway stock was not so issued.


Samuel Barker: The right hon. gentleman was speaking of the ordinary conditions on which stock is issued or stock is sold. I say that the ordinary conditions upon which stock is subscribed is that the man who subscribes for $100 worth of stock undertakes to pay $100 to the company on that stock, that is the ordinary condition ; and the moment you depart from that you are making an exception. If the right hon. gentleman proposes that this should be an exception, let it be so stated that we will know what is meant. But let us not pretend here that that is the ordinary course of business in this country, because it is not. Now, the right hon. gentleman has read clause 12 in the original Bill, and I wish to point out that there has been a very material and a very significant change in this clause as it has been reprinted as amended in committee. I have pointed this out, and I beg leave to point it out again, as the right hon. gentleman does not seem to have noticed what I said before. Clause 12 is in the language read by the right hon. gentleman, and very much in the same words as were formerly used and as now exist in the general Railway Act of 1888. That clause has been struck out in the new General Railway Bill now before the House. But two or three very significant words have been incorporated in this clause since it was introduced into this House by the hon. member for Simcoe, and which read :
The directors of the company elected by the shareholders may make and issue as paid up stock shares in the company, whether subscribed for or not, and may allot and hand over in payment for plant, rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vesels or materials of any kind.
So far the words as they were in the Act of 1888, and as they were in clause 12 of the Bill as introduced into this Hiouse. What follows then ?
Or as consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired.
Now, those are very important words. We must not forget that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada have practically one set of directors. They are different in name, I know, the former has some senators, for example, that are not in the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but we understand they are going to disappear. Nobody doubts that the directorial power iu the two companies will be practically and in effect the same. Now, these two Mr. BARKER.
companies with one board of directors, one power, one government, will meet to do- what ? To enter into agreements for traffic arrangements between the companies under the powers of the general Railway Act. They can agree there in consideration of the terminal facilities which the Grand Trunk Railway Company may give to this new company, to give any consideration whatever, however large ; and under these little innocent looking words the whole $25,000,000 of stock may be given as a consideration for the interchange of traffic between these two companies, when, according to the right hon. gentleman, it is a part of the undertaking, without compensation, that the Grand Trunk Railway is going to help this road and be behind it. Out of the forty-five millions of capital, the Grand Trunk evidently intends-or there is no object in putting that clause in the Bill-evidently intends to get twenty-five millions of paid-up stock, and everybody knows that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada cannot pay that amount of money for it.
Mr, MCCARTHY. Does the hon. gentleman appreciate the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada has got to hold this stock in its entirety for fifty years?


Samuel Barker: Yes, but the company are to rank as stockholders, and it will be paid-up stock, and when you come by and by to settle tariffs, you will hear of this to the cost of this country. That is the objection. Let the Grand Trunk pay in hard cash as holders of the twenty-five millions, and we will know where we are. But the country does not want to pay tolls in respect of this stock given to the Grand Trunk for the interchange of traffic. That is the contention here, and it is for that reason that the hon. gentleman from King's (Mr. Fowler) wishes to make it quite clear that the stock subscribed for by the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be paid for in cash, so that hereafter it will he known what they did pay for it and what the company got for it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Although I have spoken once before, perhaps I may be allowed to reply to an observation of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). He knows tliis better than I do, because he is an authority on railways, and he does not pretend, surely, that because we print in the Bill a limit of the capital stock at forty-five million dollars, that we are hound to take that amount into consideration when we consider the rates. It seems to be in the mind of the hon. gentlemen opposite that we shall have to take Into computation of the freight rates the forty-five million of dollars, whatever has been paid for it. If the Grand Trunk Railway Company do issue forty-five millions of stock and if they pay twenty-five millions, all that will he taken into consideration in fixing the rates will he the twenty millions, and not the

forty-five millions. Therefore,, it does not matter what they are authorized to pay ; what matters it that they shall pay the fail-value of the stock, and whatever they pay shall be the basis of the rate to be levied upon shippers. '


Samuel Barker: I am very well aware of what the right hon. gentleman has said. But the right hon. gentleman knows that he is enabling these two companies to agree between themselves what the value may be of the privileges and rights accorded under this agreement; and ten years hence no commissioners, parliament, or anybody else, can go back upon that and say whether the value they put upon that agreement is or is not correct. But if you require the cash, you will know where you are. That is the distinction. Suppose, for example, that to-morrow these two companies were to sit down together-the same body of gentlemen perhaps, though really acting as two distinct corporations-and they agree that the Grand Trunk shall give terminal facilities to the Grand Trunk Pacific in Montreal or at other points, and they estimate between themselves that such facilities are worth an enormous sum of money, and in consideration of those facilities they issue paid-up stock, who hereafter is going to say that that was not the true value ? How are you going to get at it ? If you make it a eash basis, you will know what cash went into the company, and then it will be quite correct, as the hon. gentleman says, that if only twenty millions were paid in, that is all they could reckon in the settlement of the tariff or the tolls. But when you enter into such arrangements as are referred to here, compensation for rights, powers and privileges, who hereafter is going to measure the value of those rights and powers ? The right hon. gentleman leaves the whole thing at large, and it is impossible hereafter to say whether the stock issued, whether this twenty-five millions or forty-five millions, ought or ought not to stand for its full value in the settlement of tolls.
Amendment (Mr. Fowler) negatived on division.


Mr. S. HUGHES (Victoria).: I desire to move :
That the Bill be not now read the third time but that It be referred hack to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to amend section twelve by omitting the word * Graven-hursit ' therefrom.
I desire to amend section 12 by the omission of the word * Gravenhurst ' or, at all events in such a way as not to give the company a roaming commission to establish branch lines from both North Bay and Gravenhurst. If we were to say from North Bay instead of Gravenhurst I would be satisfied, or from Gravenhurst instead of North Bay I would also be satisfied, but I do not think in the interest of other companies that have undertaken the construc-253
tion of roads in that locality it would be proper to give a roving commission to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I trust the promoter of the Bill will accept the amendment and confine it either to Gravenhurst or North Bay.
Amendment (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) negatived.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I desire to move an amendment of which I gave notice some time ago and which is as follows
That Bill (No. 64) be not now read the third time buit that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amending section eight by adding thereto the following words ' The majority of the directors of whom the presidemt shall be one shall be British subjects.'
This clause was inserted in the agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and it seems to me that it was a wise precaution. I hope that the hon. gentleman who has charge of this Bill (Mr. McCarthy) will see his way clear to accepting this amendment. About a year ago we had a good deal of talk In this country In reference to the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway becoming so absorbed by those interested In American railway systems that the Canadian Pacific Railway might practically become an American institution. However, that was guarded against by the fact that the majority of the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway are British subjects. It will be a very serious thiug, It seems to me, if any of our transcontinental railways were to be placed under the control of the powerful syndicates which are operating and which are at the head of American railway systems. It would have a tendency to build up United States cities and ports at the expense of Canadian cities and ports. Under these circumstances they could operate, if they saw fit, Canadian roads in favour of the United States and against domestic enterprises and it seems to me that this would be a restriction against the adoption of such a policy. I would ask the promoter of this Bill to accept this amendment.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) will accept a suggestion I would say that while I think his amendment is a good one and I do not see any objection to it, I think we had better introduce it Into the Bill confirming the contract which will come later. I am prepared to accept this amendment, but I think it would be better to put it into the Bill confirming the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understand the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Banner) to say that this provision will be made a part of the contract V


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.



Amendment (Mr. Kemp) withdrawn.


Mr. WILMOT moved :: That the Bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that a branch line be put from the proposed main trunk line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk line crosses the Nashwaak river, and thence extending, by way of Fredericton and the valiley of the St. John river, to St. John city.
Mr. McCarthy. I would like the ruling of the Speaker as to whether an hon. gentleman can move a motion of which another hon. gentleman has given notice.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I gave my reasons in opposition to the proposed line laid down in the Bill


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order, order. The hon. gentleman has not given notice.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 1 cannot lay my hand just now on the authority, but I am sure to have seen somewhere in May that a motion making an important amendment to a private Bill must be moved by the hon. member giving notice of it. I cannot just now lay my hand upon the authority but I am pretty sure that the amendment can be moved only by the hon. gentleman who has given notice of it.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the ground I take


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) has spoken once.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) has spoken forty times and I am satisfied that if he will only have the goodness to keep quiet the business of the House will proceed much better. I am asking a question in reference to a point of order and if I am not within my rights 1 will be delighted to obey the rules of the House. In case this Bill passes nine o'clock, notice can again be given and the member giving notice can move the motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is not a notice; it is a suggestion.


Mr. FOWLER.: I understood that having already spoken on the motion of which I gave notice it was against the rules of the House for me to move the second motion of which I gave notice. I would like to ask the Speaker's ruling on the point as to whether it is in order to move this motion. If it is I am sure I will be delighted to do so and to discuss the question too.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It will have to be done with the unanimous consent of the House. T understand the House agrees to that.
Mx-. FOWLER. Well then, I beg to move, pursuant to notice that I have already given :


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: That this Bill he not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that a branch line be built from the proposed main trunk line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk line crosses the Nas.hwaak river, and thence extending, by way of Fredericton and the valley of the St. John river, to St. John city.
There was some discussiou the other evening when this Bill was before the Committee of the Whole in respect to this branch line. The charter as first introduced does not provide for any branch extending from the main line to the city of St. John. I brought the matter up and requested the promoter of the Bill to make such an amendment to the Bill as would provide for a direct connection with the city of St. John. Without such direct connection, in order to reach the largest Atlantic seaport of Canada it would be necessary to go round by way of Moncton which was the proposed terminus of this so-called-this so-called-1 say it advisedly-transcontinental road. Transcontinental as applied to a road which it is proposed shall stretch from one ocean to the other but which stops at an inland town seems rather a misnomer. It was-not, by the charter as originally introduced, proposed to make any connection at all with the city of St. John which is the largest, city in the province of New Brunswick, and which is the nearest Atlantic port on the Canadian coast. I consider that this was a very serious blunder on the part of those who are promoting the Bill. I ask that the Bill be amended to the extent that the city of St. John will have direct connection by the shortest possible route with the main trunk line. There was a counter proposition by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), who proposed that instead of going by the shortest and most direct route from the main trunk line of the proposed road, we should go by a more roundabout way, around by the small country toiyn of Chipman and thence to Norton, a point on the line of the Intercolonial Railway between Moncton and St. John, and about 83 miles from St. John. Now, even by the contention of the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) this proposed course would be considerably longer than the proposition which I make in this motion now before the House. It was very easy matter to take the map of any country and sit down with a pencil and draw lines which shall be short routes. The hon. member for Westmoreland is either oblivious of the fact, or he has forgotten it if he ever knew it, that the route which he proposes for this main trunk line is through thie most mountainous part of the province of New Brunswick. It is through a part of the province which is not only very rugged aud mountainous, but which abounds in lakes of considerable size, and

in order to avoid these lakes-because even this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway road will scarcely be able to run on the water- in order to avoid these lakes and to get a feasible pass through these mountains, it will be necessary to make wide detours. And when that is taken into consideration and the necessary allowance made for these wide detours, the route which is proposed by the hon. gentleman will be more than 50 miles longer than the route followed, say from Edmundston, where it should come really, down the valley of the St. John river to the city of St. John. I do not know w*hy this town of Moncton was made the terminus of the road. If it were intended to get the shortest possible route to the Atlantic seaboard it certainly was a very great mistake to make the town of Moncton that terminus.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Nine o'clock.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hour for private Bills having expired, the House will resume the consideration of the motion of Mr. Wade, and the amendment thereto.



INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT- MR. LOY, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the motion of Mr. Wade and the amendment of Mr. Monk thereto.
Haughton Lennox: When the debate began this afternoon I did not intend to speak upon the question, as in common with many other members of the House, owing to the fact that the evidence of the committee had not been printed, I had not been able to acquaint myself so fully with the facts as I would desire. But in the course of the discussion certain matters have transpired and certain statements have been made which I think should not go unchallenged. It has been stated this afternoon that the majority of those who have spoken on both sides of the House are lawyers, and this one would anticipate in a question of this kind. One of the laymen who spoke (Mr. Heyd) on behalf of the hon. member for Beauharnois, said that if lawyers could not agree upon a statement of the law how then would Mr. Loy be expected to know the law? Well, I do not wish to press this point, but their are certain recognized rules of law which have to be adopted in order that justice shall prevail, and one of them is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. In other words, the hon. member whose seat is attacked, whether he did or did not know the law relating to his case, is bound in common with all the subjects of the King by the law as it exists. Otherwise it would be impossible in many instances to carry out the just provisions of the law. But I am not going to address the House to-night so much upon the question of whether the seat of the hon. member should or should not be va-253$
cated, as to reply to certain very broad! statements made by at least two members of the legal profession who spoke on the government side. It has been recognized since courts of justice have been known in Britain and in this country, that that which you cannot do directly as being a violation of the law, you cannot do by any underhand method; you cannot by a trick evade the law and so evade the responsibility which attaches to violation of the express provisions of the law. It is also well recognized that if certain circumstances exist which would put a man of ordinary prudence and discretion upon inquiry, and if the courts find that inquiry was avoided, much more so if it is found that the party deliberately closed his eyes so as to avoid a knowledge of that which would be prejudicial to him or inconvenient for him to know; then the same consequences must attach as if he had actually known all the circumstances. It is, therefore, exceedingly pertinent and important in dealing with this question that we should come to a conclusion not only as to whether the member for Beauharnois had actual knowledge by words or by letter of tile circumstances which were transpiring in reference to his property; but it is pertinent and important to inquire whether the surrounding circumstances were such as would carry conviction and would suggest inquiry to any reasonable man situated as he was at that time. I merely refer to this. But I am induced to speak for a few^ minutes upon this question more particularly because of certain broad propositions, of law particularly, and some statements of fact made, this afternoon by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt). The former gentleman, concluded his argument in these words:	' A certain class of lawyers '
-and he did not finish them. I was rather puzzled why he did not explain what this term meant. I cannot explain it unless he had in mind a certain class of lawyers who when) they have a poor case, usually abuse the opposite counsel. If he had, I do not know that that reference is borne out by the fact. If he refers to the hon. gentleman on this side of the House who brought up this matter, I do not find that the hon. gentleman abused anybody. On the contrary, I think the consensus of opinion in this House must be that he presented the matter in a calm and temperate way, with that proper measure of judicial discretion and that observance of judicial rules which we would expect in a matter of this importance, involving very grave issues to the hon. member for Beauharnois. But on the other hand, although it is true that there are certain circumstances in which a lawyer displays the fact that he has a weak case by abusing the opposite counsel, there is another way of determining whether a

counsel has the conviction that he hasi not a strong case, or whether or not he has a strong ease. When we find the Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and the hon. junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), men of such a very high legal standing in this country, men of such conspicuous ability, men of such great fame in the profession-when we find these gentlemen struggling with this case for so long a time, with the result that as they proceed with their argument it becomes darker for the member for Beauhar-nois, what do we think then of the case ? Is there not a suggestion that the case as presented by these hon. gentlemen is not strong ? Can we come to any other conclusion than that if these hon. gentlemen, with their well known forensic skill, had a good strong case, they would make a very powerful argument ? Now, I will not say on behalf of the hon. gentleman whose seat is attacked, ' save me from my friends,' because that might imply something not very complimentary to the hon. gentlemen who are assisting him ; but I will for the moment address myself to a statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis. He said, if I understood him aright, that Mr. Johnston sold to the government, and that if lie did, having made a valid contract with the sitting member for Beauharnois, then the sale was valid. I dispute the proposition that Mr. Johnston sold to the government. What are the facts ? The facts ns stated by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and not questioned by any member of this House, are that he instructed a gentleman in Montreal, Mr. Dan

durand, to purchase this property for the purpose of a post office site; that this gentleman went to Mr. Johnston and instructed him to act in the matter ; that Mr. Johnston says that, acting upon that instruction, he went to Valleyfieid and made an arrangement with the sitting member to secure an ojftion for the purchase of this property. He was in league with the government. He had no money with which to purchase the property. He never changed his position. He began as an agent of the government-a sub-agent, it is true, but his position is not modified by that circumstance-and continued to negotiate as an agent of the government. He was supplied through the agency of a gentleman; whom the ex-Minister of Public Works had instructed to act on behalf of the government. So it is impossible to argue that this gentleman was In any sense purchasing on his own behalf. From"first to last he was purchasing ns the professed agent of the government, under instructions directly given through the Department of Public Works, with money which was procured through the agency of the government; and he was paid as an agent by receiving afterwards the sum of Mr. LENNOX.
$300 through the abatement made by the vendor of the property and $100, which I think was contributed by the government. The letter which was sent, stating that the government required certain land, is important as showing whether or not the hon. member for Beauharnois had a knowledge of the fact before the transaction was consummated that the property was to be the property of the government. Now, it was admitted by the hon. member for Annapolis that if, as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Beauharnois knew that the government was to be the purchaser, and that Johnston was virtually only an agent before the transaction was consummated by a deed of the property, then the law must apply and the seat must be vacated, as the hon. member had violated the law. What is the evidence on this point ? It is suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition, with that fairness which characterizes that hon. gentleman that probably that letter in itself was not altogether conclusive ; that it might be subject to the interpretation that Mr. Loy understood that he was carrying out the transaction with Johnston, and that Johnston was entering into an independent transaction with the government. But having regard to the facts and to the question which was put by Mr. Loy at the time the negotiation for the purchase was entered into, ' Is this for the government ? ' having regard to the fact that it was notorious that this property above all others was a suitable site for the post office ; having regard to the fact that the hon. member for Beauharnois had been the mayor of that town, and that he was prominently connected with the municipal affairs as well as a parliamentary light: having regard to the additional fact that he was a prominent man, to whom such a question would naturally be communicated, and who would be in touch with the prevailing sentiment of the locality, which is said to have been that his property was the most suitable site for the post office, it is almost inconceivable that he should not have known from that letter that the government intended acquiring his property. At any rate, as he knew all the-circumstances, he was put upon inquiry ; and if he deliberately closed his eyes, he was just as much responsible as if he had allowed the full light to flow in upon him. Then is it consistent with the contention that Mr. Johnston was regarded by the hon. member from Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) as a man of means acting for himself, when just about the time the transaction was being completed by the deed, there was an arrangement made by which an abatement of $300 was taken off the original price upon the ground that he could not otherwise carry out the purchase. Mr. Johnston insisted upon a reduction in the price. Did not that reduction annul the option and make a new contract ? If so, then

the hon. member for Beauharnois was no longer bound by the option he had given. My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says he does not regard that abatement as constituting a new contract. I shall not question the sincerity of my hon. friend. I take it that he gives us his opinions as an lion, member of this House belonging to the legal profession, candidly and fairly, but I do venture, with all due deference to my hon. friend, to question the soundness of his conclusion. In dealing with this matter, we are not discussing abstract, cast iron rules of law. I understand that we are to apply to it reasonable interpretation upon broad and common sense principles, and I submit that when Mr. Johnston said lie could not carry out the option unless he were given an abatement .of S300, a new contract was then proposed, and my hon. friend from Beauharnois, who then knew that the property was to be transferred to the government, should have declined to conclude the sale. My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has laid down tiie proposition that if Mr. Loy knew, before the completion of the contract, that the property was going to the government, then the independence of parliament Act applied. Well, having regard to what has transpired, can there be any doubt in the minds of hon. members that the hon. member for Beauharnois must have had at least a very strong suspicion that it was the government which was acquiring the site. Seeing this the hon. the junior member for Ottawa, Mr. Belcourt, took the position that Mr. Johnston did not know that he was purchasing the property for the site of a post office. I had not the opportunity of attending all the meetings of the committee, but 1 was at some of the meetings, and consequently it would be easier for me to carry in my mind the evidence that transpired while I was present than if I had been present at all the meetings. I have a distinct recollection of the examination of Mr. Johnston, and 1 clearly recollect that he explained that he had been instructed to obtain a site for a post office. And what did seem extraordinary to many members of the committee was that he did not stop there, but went on to say that the selection of the site was left to his discretion. Hon. members who were present at that meeting were no doubt as much startled by that evidence as I was. I repeated it immediately afterwards to some members outside, and expressed my astonishment that the choice of a site should have been left to him, Mr. Johnston, the agent of the government. He went to Valleyfield for the purpose of obtaining an option on a site for the post office, and the government, through Mr. Dandurand, provided him with the money to carry out the sale. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) cited to us article 1472 of the Quebec Civil Code. I recognize no substantial difference between that
article and the law in the province of Ontario. That article reads :
Sals is a contract by which one party gives a thing to the other for a price in money which the latter obliges himself to pay for it.
Let me draw attention to these words : ' Which the latter obliges himself to pay for it. They are not at all unimportant in the consideration of this matter, because an option differs very substantially from an ordinary contract of sale, In which both parties are mutually obligated, the option of sale being more in the nature of a mere offer. Now the portion of this article of the code to which my hon. friend wished to direct attention is this :
It is perfected by the consent alone of the parties, although the thing sold be not then delivered.
I quite agree with my hon. friend that this is a good proposition in law, not only in the province of Quebec, but probably throughout the Dominion generally. But if a sale is perfected by consent, it is only perfected within the terms of the written document or within the terms of consent. It is contended by my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) that the whole matter is to be determined by the condition of things as we find them on the 16th of July. I need not remind hon. members who are of the legal profession only, for it is well known to all the members of this House, that fraud in the initiation of a contract vitiates it, that no contract founded in fraud or misrepresentation can be enforced at the suit of the person who is a party to the fraudulent misrepresentation. Specific performance, indeed ! At whose Suit ? Could there be specific performance at the suit of Johnston ? Why, he went there with a deliberate falsehood in his mouth. He went there instructed to make statements that were untrue. The sitting member for Beauharnois was a public man, interested in the welfare of his town. It was a matter of interest to him whether that property should be used for some great public purpose, such as suplying a need of the town of Valleyfleld. or should be diverted to some other purpose. The representation made that the property was being purchased for a purpose other than that which was actually stated would have met Johnston immediately if he came into court for specific performance. Could specific performance have been enforced at the suit of the Crown ? What position was the Crown in ? I call attention of the members of the government to that. The Minister of Public Works, who has charge of this matter, holding that the property was desirable in the interest of the government and in the interest of the country, formed a plan by which to acquire it. He goes to an agent and the agent employs a sub-agent, who is instructed to misrepresent to the vendor what the

property is to be used for. So, the Crown, which we are supposing to have instituted proceedings, is shown to have been aware that this property could not have been bought directly by fair and open dealing from the sitting member for Beauharnois, and yet it comes into court and asks for specific performance of the contract. What will the answer of the court be? The answer will be: This matter did not begin on a fair and open basis; and, in addition, the government of Canada, who, above all parties, should not initiate a suit directly contrary to public policy and to the words of the statute, cannot say that specific performance should be enforced for the sale of the property of a member of parliament to the Crown. At the suit of Mr. Coy, can specific performance be obtained? I submit to you, Sir, and I feel I am submitting a matter that you will concur in, that no such suit could be successful. X admit that if the contention of the hon. member for Ottawa were correct and the transaction were closed on the 16th July, that the option of sale concludes the whole matter, then there would be good ground. Or. if the suit arose before there was any disclosure made to the sitting member for Beauharnois, then there would be good ground for the suit. But when the facts are that he does know before the time the deed is demanded that the proposal is substantially to vest his property in the Crown, by sale, he being a member of parliament, and in the face of the Act which declares that no sale can be made and no contract entered into between a member of parliament and the Crown, it goes without argument that he too will be denied the remedy of specific performance. What is the remedy, if any? The remedy is to go after Johnston. The remedy is in damages and for damages alone ; and so, section 1077 of the Code, which my hon. friend has cited, comes in very properly. Go after Johnston, the party with whom you dealt, and who deceived you. That is the remedy. It may be said that this is rather hard : it may be said that Johnston is a man of no substance. I have nothing to controvert that. It is probable he is a man of no substance, for it is generally a man of no substance who is put forward to carry out a scheme of this kind. The answer is : Have a care before you enter into contracts with men unknown to you; have a care when a stranger invades your town, and, with some unusual story, asks you t.o bind yourself to sell your property to him, trusting that you will conform to his wishes with all the innocence of youth. But, if with the unsuspicious nature that characterizes the ordinary member of parliament, you sell property of this character, which is kn*wn to be prized by the Dominion government, known to be the only site for an intended post office in your town, it is incumbent upon you to know the man you are Mr. LENNOX.
dealing with, and you have no complaint if you are compelled to seek damages against a worthless man. But. aside from these general propositions which, I say with all fearlessness will be acknowledged by every member of this House as applied to the parties to the contract, there are certain well known rules of courts of equity which must be recognized. A court of equity does not decree specific performance as a matter of course; it decrees it or withholds it at its discretion. I cannot grant the exceptional and peculiar remedy of specific performance except where the righteousness of it is established. He who comes into equity must do equity. The party who claims specific performance must show that his hands are clean, must show that he is guilty of no connivance, no fraud, no questionable conduct. Could any of the parties show this ? But the party who seeks a decree in equity must do more than that. He must show that it is not contrary to public policy. Can this be done in this case? There could be no more flagrant violation of the requirements of public policy than for a court of this land to decree specific performance once they knew that this transaction, on the fact of it honest, was in fact an evasion of the statute, by which evasion the property of a member of parliament would become vested in the Crown represented by gentlemen in political affinity with him who was the vendor of the property.
Now, I want to appeal, not to my friends on this side of the House, but to you, Mr. Speaker, to all members of the cabinet and supporters of the government, on behalf of Mr. Loy. I do not think the hon. member for Beauharnois-I say it in all sincerity- has been treated fairly in this matter. I do not think the government have given the hon. gentleman a fair chance for his life, because, after all, a man's blameless and unblemished reputation is of more value to him than life itself. What is the position in which the government has placed the hon. member for Beauharnois ? It has forced him into this position, than at best he has to stand with a cloud of suspicion attaching to him. If that evidence had been printed, as it was the duty of the government to print it, we could have gone into the discussion of the matter fully and fairly, recognizing that whatever our political differences may be, it is our duty in all honour and in all fairness to stand by each other in that which is right. We would have been able, perhaps, not only to exonerate Mr. Loy from the charges made against him, to the extent of enabling him to hold his seat, but we would have been able, perhaps, so to vindicate his honour as that the whole House would unanimously agree that he was not to blame at all. That might have been the case if the government had allowed the evidence to be printed. But what position are we in ? We are in this

deplorable position, and 1 bope it is not a precedent that will be honoured in the future, that members on this side of the House and on that side of the House cannot agree because they do not know the evidence. It is impossible for hon. gentlemen upon either side of the House, except those who continuously attended the committee-and very few of them did so-to be able to judge of the merits of this case as fully as they ought to be, because they are not possessed of the evidence.
Now, in view of all these circumstances, I am not going to say that I would not like unduly to press the case against the hon. member for Beauharnois, who has been so badly treated by his own friends. They have left him-and don't you forget it-they have left him covered by suspicion, by reason of the notoriety of the fact that the government wanted this property, suspicion by reason of the fact that an appropriation had been made, the suspicious movements of Mr. Johnston in acquiring the property, suspicion by reason of the fact that Loy was a supporter of the government, and that he was specially interested and charged with a knowledge of the whole matter as representative of the city, and by reason of the fact that after the option had expired, and at a time when you would have expected him to be on the alert in regard to a man unknown to him like Mr. Johnston, he appeared indifferent to the result. I say all these circumstances are calculated to cast suspicion upon the conduct of the member for Beauharnois', even though they do not amount to actual proof. Now, under these cricumstances, feeling that the hon. member may well exclaim, ' Save me from my friends,' speaking for myself alone, having no instructions from anybody, having no knowledge of the general opinion on this side of the House, I would be glad, speaking from my feeling of good nature, if the hon. member who has had charge of this matter could see his way clear not to press his motion to a division. I feel that where honour- is at stake, it is better that several hon. members who may be guilty of some infraction of the law should go unpunished, than that one member should have a stigma cast upon him which by possibility is not deserved.


Mr. E. G. PORTER (West Hastings).: After the lengthy discussion that has taken place on this motion, I would not venture to address the House now but for the fact that X have the honour of being a member of that committee to whom was confided the investigation of the charge which has been the subject of discussion this afternoon. I do not wish to be understood by the House or by the country as acquiescing in the majority report which has been brought into the House in regard to this matter, nor do I wish to be understood as assenting to some of the propositions that have been laid down by hon. members
opposite in regard to the construction that is to be placed on the contract between Mr. Loy and Mr. Johnston. The junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) endeavoured to convince this House that the contract of sale between the member for Beauharnois and Mr. Johnston was consummated on the 16tb day of July, and that after that date, no matter what information the hon. member may have received, it was impossible for him to recede from the contract into which he had entered. Now, Sir, I take issue with the hon. member for Ottawa in that position. It is, I think, a proposition in law that will not be disputed by any lawyer, in fact, it is a proposition of individual right which will be recognized,
I think, by every member of this House, that a person having property to sell, a vendor, so to speak, has a perfect and absolute right to dictate and to state upon what terms his property shall be sold. No matter how ridiculous, or how absurd, or how onerous these conditions may be, he has a perfect right to impose these conditions and a perfect right to insist upon these conditions being performed before he is obliged to part with his property. To apply that principle to the case in hand, the hon. member for Beauharnois in signing the option for the purchase of his property had a perfect right to impose upon the intending purchaser whatever terms he saw fit, and unless these terms were acquiesced in by the intending purchaser he was in no way bound. When an option is given for the sale or purchase of property, unless the identical terms under which that option is given are accepted, there is no binding contract. The option may be conditional as to the time in which the option shall be exercised, it may be conditional as to the manner in which the purchase money shall be paid, or it may be optional as to the state of the title, or it may be optional in many other ways. Whatever the conditions imposed by the vendor are, they must be accepted by the intending purchaser ; otherwise, there is no contract. If the terms of the option are varied in any way by the intending purchaser, then something further is required in order to complete the contract ; in other words, the vendor having received a qualified or conditional acceptance it is for himself to go a step farther and acknowledge or confirm the conditional offer that he has received. It is perfectly apparent in this case that no such third step as that was taken. Only two steps were taken in the formation of this contract, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the exact wording of the option and acceptance. I submit with every confidence to the House that upon a fair and reasonable construction of the option and of the letter of acceptance there never was a contract between these two parties before the money was actually paid over. The terms of the option are that he will sell the property^

the right to buy to be exercised by three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon on the 16th, with this further condition ' the price to be $10,000, payable in cash on day of sale.' If the argument of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Bel,court) is correct, the sale, according to that hon. gentleman, was completed on the 16th July, when the letter, which he termed ' the letter of acceptance.' was written. I defy any one to find in that so-called letter of acceptance an acceptance of the exact terms contained in this option. There were three things to be done-first, the exercise of the option of the 16tli July ; second, the payment of $10,000 ; and, thirdly, the payment at the time of sale. Now, these are the three conditions that the vendor imposed and had a right to impose. Let us see if these conditions have been accepted by the intending purchaser. Mr. Johnston says : ' I beg to accept your offer.' That part of it is all right, and he did that on the 16th July. But then he goes on to sav that he does not accept the second part as to the payment of the $10,000 on the day of sale, but he puts it in this way :
The price will be paid in cash on title being found satisfactory and deeds executed by you.
An entirely different thing from what the vendor had stated in his option. By the terms stated in the option the intending purchaser was bound to exercise that option in its exact terms, but when we read the acceptance of the 16th July we see that the intending purchaser entirely varies the option given to him by. the vendor. For that reason, I say that there was no contract, that there was no confirmation of that intended acceptance by the vendor ; and for that reason, I submit there never was a binding contract by the option and by the intended letter of acceptance between these two parties, if I am right in that contention, then it leads me one step further. The hon. member for Ottawa argued that because there was a contract, therefore, the hon. member for Beauharnois could not withdraw. If I am right in my contention, there was no contract ; and if that be so, the second part of his argument falls to the ground.. If there was no contract between those two parties, as I submit there was not, then it was perfectly open to the hon. member for Beauharnois at any time after he received that letter of the 16th July to have withdrawn from what had taken place, as the negotiations might eventually end in a contract. I submit that the evidence given before the committee amply justifies me hi saying that the hon. member for Beauharnois had become possessed of the knowledge that the government were really purchasing this property, and the moment lie acquired that knowledge, there being no binding contract between himself and the intending purchaser, It was not only his privilege, but his duty as a member of this House, to have repudiated the whole thing and to Mr. PORTER.
have refused to enter into any further negotiations in regard to it. But that was not the only means of escape, to my mind, that the hon. member for Beauharnois had in regard to this matter, and I quite agree with some of the remarks that were made by the last speaker (Mr. Lennox) in regard to this question. If the hon. member for Beauharnois did not know that this property was being sold to the government, the government certainly knew that this property was being bought from the hon. member for Beauharnois, the government knew that the hon. member for Beauharnois was a member of this House at the time, and it was just as incumbent upon the government to inform the hon. member for Beauharnois of the position in which he was placing himself by going on and completing his contract as it was the duty of the hon. member for Beauharnois to have withdrawn from it when he understood what the character of the contract was. There is a principle of law which is as well recognized as any other principle of law that I know of, and it is that it is just as much a fraud to withhold information that should be imparted as to impart false information to a party with whom you are contracting, and I hold that, while the term ' fraud ' may be too harsh, it was withholding on the part of the government information that it was their bounden duty to impart to the hon. member for Beauharnois to enable him to form a proper judgment upon the matter, and to escape the penalties or the obligations of this statute, which is made to protect the parliament of this country. For these two reasons, then, I differ entirely from hon. gentlemen opposite, because I have come to the conclusion from the evidence, as in fact it has been admitted by hon. members on the other side of the House during this discussion, that at a certain time before the money was actually paid over, the hon. member for Beauharnois did become aware that the government were purchasing this property, and having obtained that know-_ ledge before he was bound to carry out the" contract, or the government being under an obligation to impart that knowledge to him, I submit there was no justification for the hon. member for Beauharnois carrying out the contract, nor is it honest or just for the government to ask their supporters to whitewash him in this matter.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Monk).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Henderson,
Avery,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Barker,	Kemp,
Bell,	Kidd.
Bennett,	Lancaster,
Birkett,	Lennox,
Blain,	Leonard,
Borden (Halifax),	Maclean,
Brock	Monk,
Broder,	Morin,

Cargill,	Osier,
Clare,	Pope,
Clarke,	Porter,
Culbert,	Richardson,
Earle,	Rcche (Marquette)
Fowler,	Sproule,
Ganong,	Thomson (Grey),
Gilmour,	Tolton,
Hackett,	Vrooman,
Halliday,	Wilson.-40.
NAYS : Messieurs
Angers,
Archambault,
Bazinet,
Beith,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Bickerdilte,
Brown,
Bruneau,
Bureau,
Carbonneau,
Champagne,
Christie,
Copp,
Costigan,
Cowan,
Davis,
Demers (Levis),
Demers (St. John), Desjardins,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Fraser.
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Harwood,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Hyman.
Kendall
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assotnption) Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Lewis,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
MacLaren
(Huntingdon),
Macpherson,
McCarthy,
McCreary,
MeEwen,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
Madore,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Martineau,
Matheson,
Mayrand,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monet,
Morrison,
Mulock (Sir William), Murray,
Oliver,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Power,
PrSfontaine,
Proulx,
Puttee,
Riley,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Rousseau,
Russell,
Schell,
Scott,
Sifton,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Toimie,
Tucker,
Turcot,
Turgeon,
Wade.
Wright.-105.
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Lavell,
McLennan,	McIntosh,
Ross (Ontario),	Rosamond,
Wallace,	Smith (Wentworth),
Beland,	Boyd,
Thompson (Haldimand)	Ingram,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Tobin,	Ball,
Borden (Sir Frederick),	Kaulbach,
Bourassa,	Casgrain,
Campbell,	Clancy,
Gallery,	Hughes (Victoria),
McCool,	MacLaren (Perth),
Reid (Restigouche),	Pringle,
Ross (Yukon),	LaRiviSre,
Delisle,	Gourley,
Bourbonnais,	Carscallen,
Amendment negatived, main motion (Mr. Wade) agreed to on division.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-PLANS PRESENTED.

The PRIME MINISTER.: I beg to move :
That an order of the House do issue for certain plans prepared by Mr. E. A. Hoare, engineer for a short line of railway between Quebec and the maritime provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER laid the plans on the Table of the House. He said : I have also laid upon the Table of the House certain reports from the different engineers employed by the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec, and the government of Canada. These, however, do not require any motion because they are public property.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask whether this comprises the mountains of information to which the right lion, gentleman referred in his speech.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ; that does not comprise the mountains ; only some of the hills.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask when we shall expect the mountains ?


William Findlay Maclean: The mountain is not -delivered yet.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
POSTMASTER AT MACLEOD, ALBERTA. Mr. OSLER asked :
PATRS : Messieurs
Calvert,
Logan,
Dyment,
McColl,
Smith (Vancouver), Harty,
Blair,
Carroll,
German,
Taylor,
Lefurgey, McCormick, [DOT] Ward,
Hale,
Reid (Grenville), Bruce,
Cochrane,
Haggart,
1.	Has Mr. D. J. Campbell been dismissed from the position of postmaster at Macleod, Alberta ? And if so, when was he dismissed ?
2.	Upon whose recommendation was he dismissed ?
3.	For what offence was he dismissed ?
4.	How long had he occupied the position of postmaster at Macleod ?
5.	What was the appointment worth annually?
6.	Has any person been appointed to the vacancy ? And if so, who has been appointed, and what was the date of the appointment ?
['The Railway Commission Bill will be taken up, and we will endeavour to clear off other matters on the Order Paper as much as possible, probably the lead resolutions, and later in the day other Bills may possibly be dealt with.']
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Mr. Campbell was appointed postmaster at Macleod on the 1st of January, 1885 ; his salary was $800 a year. He has been also acting as sheriff and his duties as sheriff interfered with the proper discharge of his duties of his office as postmaster and for that reason a change was made. On the 6th instant Mr. Samuel Heap was appointed in his place.
COMMISSION ON CAPITAL AND LABOUR ;
1886.



Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What are the names of the present harbour commissioners of Montreal ?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each of the said commissioners during the last fiscal year of said board, as salary, fees for attendance at meetings or other purposes ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prfifontaine) :: 1.	Hon. Robert Mackay, Jonathan Hodgson, Robert Bickerdike, Alphonse Racine, E. H. Lemay, Wm. E. Doran (from May 2nd), James Cochrane (Mayor), James Cratbern, John Torrence, L. E. Geoffrion, Robert Reford.
2.	Hon. Robert Mackay, salary as president (Act 57-58, Vic. Chap. 48), $2,000.
Fees $5 for attendance at a meeting :
Hon. Robt. Mackay	$680
Jonathan Hodgson	 505
Robt. Bickerdike	 570
Alphonse Racine	 595
E. H. Lemay	 385


Wm.   E.@: Doran (from 2nd May).. ..	410
James Cochrane	 425
Jiameis Crathern	 455
John Torrance	 525
L. E. Geoffrion	 490
Robt. Reford	 375


$5,415 RAILWAY BETWEEN NAPANEE AND DESERONTO.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER asked ;
1.	Was a chanter ever granted to the Rath-bun Company, or any other company or persons, to build a line of railway from Napanee to Deseronto, and locating the line of such railway along the bank of the Napanee river ? If so, when ?
2.	Has any Act been passed or charter granted to the Rath-bun Company, or any other person or company, to construct a line of railway from Napanee to Deseronto, changing the original location referred tio in paragraph one of this question, or authorizing any other location ? If so. when, and what location was ao authorized ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. w. S. Fielding) :: 1. Charter to Napanee, Tamworth and Quebec, Can. 1879, chap. 67, covered this route by authorizing a line from Napanee to the Ottawa river, ' and to extend the said railway in a southerly direction to such points on the Bay of Quintfi as may be deemed expedient.' This company subsequently, 1890, chapter 62, changed its name to the Kingston, Napanee and Western, and was amalgamated under Can. 1896, chap. 15, with the Bay of Quintg Railway Company, the latter company being incorporated in 1881,


Edmund Boyd Osler: Can. 1881 (chapter 46), with Messrs. Hugo . B. Rathbun and Edward B. Rathbun as two of the provisional directors.
2. While the original location does not appear to have been changed by subsequent charter, other locations were authorized by Can. 1884. chapter 62, 1886, chapter 68, 1890. chapter 62, 1896 (1) chapter 15, section 6.
KINGSTON PENITENTIARY-COST OP SISAL. Mr. CLARKE asked :
What was the average price per pound paid each year since 1893 by the government of Canada for sisal used in the manufacture of binder twine at the Kingston penitentiary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1893	
None	purchased.1894	
$3	50	per	cwt.1895,	
2	91	"1896	
3	35	"1897	
3	06	"1898	
None	purchased.1899	
None	purchased.1900	
$8	50	per	cwt.1901	
5	13	"1902	
6	26	"1903	
8	75	'*


RAILWAY ACT. 1903-RAILWAY COMMISSION SALARIES.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the House go to-morrow into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide as follows with respect to the salaries of the board, and oither expenses incidental to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, now before the House, to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways :-
1.	The chief comissioner to be paid a salary of $10,000 per annum.
2.	The other two commissioners to be paid salaries of $8,000 each per annum.
3.	The secretary to be paid a salary to be
fixed by the Governor in Council, not more than $4,000.	.
4.	Such salaries and remuneration to be paid to the other officers, staff and appointees of the board, anid such other expenses to he paid incidental to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill as are approved by the Governor in Council.
5.	The salaries of the commissioners and secretary to be paid monthly out of the unappropriated funds in the hands of the Receiver General. All other salaries, remunerations and expenses, including travelling expenses, to be paid out of the moneys to be provided by parliament.
He said :	I may say that the assent of
His Excellency has been received to this resolution.
Motion was agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called I bring to the attention of the government a telegram which was received from Dawson, directed to Mr. T. Chase Casgrain, M.P., and which
by direction of the sender was handed to me in his absence :
Dawson, Y.T., August 4, 1903. T. Chase Oasgrain, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Board Trade asked Laurier, Ross full text scope commission twice without avail, inquire.
I presume it refers to the Tread-gold commission and I would gather from it that the board of trade have asked to be furnished with a copy of the scope of the commission and have not received a reply. That inquiry would seem to have been addressed to the Prime Minister and to the member for the Yukon. However, such as it is I bring it to the attention of the government in order that such action may be taken in regard to it as may he deemed necessary.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have received such a telegram as that from, I think, Mr. McCormick, who, I believe, signs as president of the hoard of trade, asking for full particulars. The information if sent by mail could not reach Dawson any sooner than the commissioners themselves, who are now on their way to Dawson City. I propose sending a summary by telegram.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose there will be no difficulty for the members of the board of trade and the people who are interested in the matter, to ascertain precisely what the scope of the commission is from the commissioners themselves.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly not.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the right lion, gentleman might see that the commission are so instructed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The commission will sit as a public court.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
The PRIME MINISTER.: Before we proceed with the Orders of the Day, I would like to ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, if to-morroiv will be convenient for him to take up the transcontinental railway Bill ? If not to-morrow, what day will be convenient ?


Robert Laird Borden: To-morrow would have been quite convenient except for the fact that the documents which were asked for on Thursday last have not been laid on the Table of the House until today. In view of that, I think possibly Tuesday next w7ill be more convenient, because it is desirable that the members of the House should make themselves acquainted with the information to which the right hon. gentleman referred in his remarks, and which up to the present time has not been accessible to members on either side of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then we will take up the subject on Tuesday.


PUBLIC AND REFORMATORY PRISONS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 221) further to amend the Act respecting public and reformatory prisons, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: What is the
meaning of certified industrial schools ?[DOT]


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amendment is made at the request of the Attorney General of Ontario. The certificate referred to is issued by the provincial secretary of Ontario, and has the effect of placing these industrial schools on the same plane as the Ontario Reformatory for Boys.


Robert Laird Borden: The words ' certified industrial school,' I suppose, has reference to some Act of the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


JUDGES' RETIRING ALLOWANCES.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Acts, the Exchequer Courlt Act, and the Act respecting judges of provincial courts, and to provide as follows :-
1.	If any judge of the Supreme Count of Canada. or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Superior Court of Canada, resigns his office. His Majesty may, by letters patent under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his resignation ; to commence immediately after his resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life ; provided such judge has (a) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts, or as such judge and as stipendiary magistrate of Hie North-west Territories, for twenty years or upwards ; (b) attained the age of seventy years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for twenty-five years or upwards ; or (c) continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for thirty years or upwards.
2.	If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of a superior court of any of the provinces of Canada, resigns or has heretofore resigned his office as such judge, to accept the office of lieutenant governor of a province, and if he serves, or has served as such lieutenant governor, and is not otherwise eligible for any retiring 'annuity, as such judge, His Majesty mav, at any time after the expiration of the term of service of such judge as lieutenant governor, grant unite such judge an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary annexed to the judicial office which he held at the time of his resignation ; to commence immediately upon the issue of such letters patent, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 3.	Every county court judge who has attained
the age of eighty years shall be compulsorily retired: and to any judge who is so retired, or who, having attained the age of seiventy-five years, resigns his office, and who in either case has continued in office for a period of twenty-five years or upwards, His Majesty may grant eh annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement ; or if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period than twenty-five years, equal to two-thirds of suich salary ; provided that to any such judge who is so compulsorily retired, or who so resigns within	years after
the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions, there may be granted an annuity equal to the full salary of the office held by him at the time of Ms retirement or resignation, irrespective of the number of years he has continued in office
4.	If any judge of a county court, after having continued in office for a period of thir.ty-five years, and become afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, resigns his office. His Majesty may, by letters patent under the great seal of Canada, grant to him a pension equal to the salary of his office at the time of his retirement : the said annuity to commence im-meditaely after his retirement, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.-The Minister of Justice.
On resolution 1,


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to have some better reasons from the lion. Minister of Justice for these resolutions. If my memory does not deceive me, the Liberal party was more strongly opposed to superannuation, when in opposition, than to anything else. And throughout the country, the people, irrespective of party, are opposed to that sort of thing. They consider that a man ought to pay for his own superannuation, and that the tax-payers should not be taxed in order to pay a superannuation allowance to a man who has lived in luxury while in the public service, and neglected to lay up a competency for ills old age. I represent a rural constituency, and my people are not at all in favour of this policy. There are in that constituency labouring men and mechanics who earn from $300 to $400 per year. Is it fair that these men should be taxed on their small earnings to help pension a judge who has been superannuated on full pay, and who lias enjoyed a salary of from $4,000 to $7,000 a year during the years he was on the bench ? I consider this most unfair. It is not even as if these judges had ever paid anything towards their own superannuation. I give this government the credit of having made some changes in our superannuation system since they came to power. Every civil servant now has to pay into the superannuation fund so much a year, and that money is returned to him with interest at 5 per cent when he is superannuated, or is paid to his family should he die before superannuation. There can be no objection to that, because they are" simply getting back what they have con-

tributed. But there is no reason why the government should tax people to keep men living in luxury with their families, who have never contributed anything to the superannuation fund. I am speaking the sentiments of the people I represent.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I represent myself a farming constituency, where there is probably a greater number of farmers than in my hon. friend's riding, .and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that any man who has served his country thirty years as a judge on the bench is entitled to all the consideration he can get. Many of our judges are giving their services to the country on the bench for a pittance compared to what they would earn at the bar.


William Humphrey Bennett: And just the opposite too.


Uriah Wilson: In my riding there is a vacancy on the county court bench at present. And there is not a lawyer in the county town who would not take the position at the pay, and it is only a county court judgeship. There are also other gentlemen in other towns who are very anxious to get the position, and the pay is more than the most of them earn at, the bar.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There may be something in what the hon. gentleman has said, but there is also a great deal in what I-have said. The bench has ceased to attract the best men at the bar. My hon. friend will admit that some of the men he knows in Ontario, and whom I know in Quebec, have been on the bench twenty-five and thirty years, and are seventy-five years of age and over, and they are obliged to work on when they have really passed their years of labour, because they cannot afford to retire. In view of the very small salary paid distinguished men on the bench, the least we can do is to give them this retiring allowance.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I notice that judges eighty years of age can be compulsorily retired ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That only applies to county court judges. The high court judges may retire if they choose, but we cannot compel them.


Jabel Robinson: Why is a county court judge to be compelled to retire at eighty years of age ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Because experience has shown that when a man has reached the age of eighty, it is time for him to leave the bench.


Jabel Robinson: Does the hon. Minister of Justice know that some men at eighty are as full of vigour and as active in intellect as some men of sixty, I do not think it is necessary to compel a man to retire unless lie is unable to do his work. In the county where I live, the judge, who
has been on the bench fifty years, is full of vigour to-day, and the members of the bar there are not anxious to have him retire, nor is he himself anxious to retire. He is full of experience and probably a far- better judge than any one we could select in his place.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the age of Mr. Justice Britton when he was appointed to the Superior Court in Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot remember.


William Humphrey Bennett: About seventy, was it not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have no idea at all.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would like to observe to my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), who seems to take a different view from that presented in these resolutions, and to object that judges be given pensions, because pensions of some kind are not given other classes of the community, that in all civilized countries, particularly England, the services of judges have been deemed of such a character as to make it advisable for the community at large that they should be provided a pension in their old age. The object is to put judges above temptation, to ensure their dignity and independence, and to make them what they should be, the impartial arbiters of all differences in the community. The idea of giving pensions to judges has never been called into question in this House. Ever since confederation, our judges have been granted pensions.


Uriah Wilson: Are you not increasing the amount ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No. but we provide that, under special circumstances, -a pension will be given. At present when a judge has served fifteen years, he can, on the mere asking, retire and receive a pension of two-thirds of his salary. This resolution provides that when a judge has served thirty years or has reached the age of seventy and served twenty-five years, or the age of seventy-five and served twenty years, he shall be allowed to retire on full pay. Now, my hon. friend objects to this, as do some other hon. members, that men should not be compulsorily retired. Judges of the county court can be compulsorily retired; judges of the superior court cannot be so retired, but they are given the option after having served thirty years, or after having served twenty years and having attained the age of seventy-five years, or after having served the twenty-five years and attained the age of seventy-five years, of withdrawing with full salary. For my part, I am sorry we have not the power to retire even judges of the superior courts compulsorily at a certain age. Such power

of compulsory retirement should not be taken as a reflection upon anybody. Unfortunately, we have to admit that as time goes on our forces diminish. And judges, being human like the rest of us, when they reach a certain age, say seventy-five or eighty years, ordinarily are not as fit as younger men to discharge the important services which the community look to them to render. Take a parallel case, say of generals in the army. In the United States a general is compulsorily retired at sixty-fdur years. In England also, I think, there is a limit of age for the general officers. If I am not mistaken, and speaking under correction, officers in high command are forced, after they have reached a certain limit of age, to take their pensions. The same thing should apply to judges. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) speaks of a certain judge who at eighty years of age is as well able to discharge the duties of his position as a man of sixty would be, perhaps better. But exceptions of this kind only prove the general rule, that a man at eighty is not as well fitted to do good work as a judge ns a younger man would be. So, the fact that there is a judge in the county of Elgin who, at eighty years of age is able to discharge his duties proves nothing. Mr. Gladstone at eighty gave perhaps his best services to the state. Those exceptions are very rare. Though my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson) is very vigorous at his age -perhaps sixty, like myself-yet perhaps he will agree with me that his vigour was greater than it is at the present time. I am sorry to be obliged to admit that, as time goes on, our forces, instead of increasing, diminish. This rule of human life is the thing that we have to recognize and provide for in this Bill. It is a painful spectacle which some of those who have to attend in court are compelled to witness -men forced hy reason of the fact that they are not in affluent circumstances, to continue the discharge of duties upon the bench when it is painfully evident that it would be better that they should take their pensions. Then, I repeat, nobody will dispute the fact that the services rendered by the judges are the most important that can be rendered to the country. I think that when a man has discharged his duties as a judge for twenty-five years and has reached the age of seventy-five, or has discharged his duties for thirty years, and, in his own judgment, knows that his forces are diminishing, and it is to the advantage of the public that he should withdraw and make way for younger men, the country should not turn him out on the street, but should maintain him in dignity and affluence and comfort to the end of his days.


Jabel Robinson: I feel as though I would like to die in harness. I do not think it is right, when a servant has been faithful to you all his lifetime and has dis-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
charged his duty well, to kick him out because he liapens to have his age against him. We all grow old, but we all hate to be kicked out. We would hate to be kicked out even from this House. And if the Prime Minister is able to discharge his duties at eighty years of age, the country would not like to see him kicked out and he would not like it. Here is a judge who has served the country for fifty years and .wishes to continue in his place, and members of the bar who plead before him are nearly all anxious that he should hold the position. It is cruel to turn him out. It is like turning out an old horse in the pasture to die. I hope the minister will make exceptions to this Bill, and, where-ever there is a man capable of discharging his duty to the public, for pity's sake do not turn him out.


Mr. BROCK.: I desire to express my own opinion, and the opinion of the class to which I belong-those engaged in mercantile and manufacturing pursuits, who have a great deal of litigation-that it is very desirable that our judges should be amongst the most vigorous of the professional men in the country. I think it is more desirable that a judge should be well paid and should be able to look forward to a pension in old age than that almost any other class that I know of should be in that position. I think that we could do with a different class of politicians, we could even do 'without a great many of those we have, but we cannot do without the best services that our judges can possibly render in a country like this where there is so much litigation. I think, therefore, that the motion before us is absolutely in the right direction. It is impossible for us ail to pay attention to the worthy but sentimental reasons advanced by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), because if we do we shall find ourselves in very serious difficulties, such as have been spoken of by the Prime Minister. Judges who are past their best days-and sometimes people, even judges, when they grow old grow obstinate-will not retire when they should. I think it is well that the power afforded by this resolution should be in the hands of the government, so that they may use it in the case of a judge who is not able to perform his duties. It would be invidious, of course, to take a case here and there. It should be made a general rule, and it should be applied, as the Minister of Justice has provided in this resolution. Therefore, I wish to say that I favour the resolution, and I think that, so far as the class to which I belong are concerned, they will be unanimous in support of the government's proposal.


Edward Guss Porter: The clause of the resolution under discussion does not make it compulsory for judges of the Supreme or Superior Courts to retire from their posi-

tions, as the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) seems to think. This clause of the resolution only applies to voluntary resignation. And it seems to me that no one can be a better judge of the time when he should retire, and the advantages or disadvantages of retiring than the very men who would be entitled to take advantage of this resolution. A gentleman who has served upon the bench for thirty years and has reached the age limit provided in this resolution, ought to be the very best possible judge as to whether it would be advisable for him to continue in the occupation of his exalted position, or whether it would be to his advantage and to the advantage of litigants and the public generally for him to retire. But, while I think that would be the case, I think it would be unfair, after he had given so many years of service to the country, that a judge should be compelled to retire; or, should he believe that he had become incompetent to discharge the duties of his high office and feel it incumbent upon him to give way to some one else more capable to perform his duties, it is not fair, to my mind, that he should be allowed to retire after spending so many years in the public service without some provision being made by the country he has served faithfully and for so long. For my part, I am in entire accord with the resolution under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the scope of the resolution been taken from any other source, or is it entirely original with ourselves ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely original. The only precedent I know of exists in the United States where, with respect to judges of the Supreme Court and judges of the district court of the United States who have served ten years, it is optional with them to retire on full pay, 70 years of age and ten years of service.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) It seems to me, looking at the scope of the resolution and having regard particularly to the reason suggested by the Prime Minister, that there are possibly some cases not provided for by this resolution and which might deserve consideration. For example, take the case of a judge who is appointed at the age of forty-five years and has served twenty years, and at the age of sixty-five he finds himself subject to some infirmity which greatly interferes with or absolutely prevents the discharge of his duties as a judge. It seems to me that the reasoning of the Prime Minister would include a case of this kind. But the right hon. gentleman will observe that that is a case which is not covered by the terms of this resolution.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perhaps to meet a case of that kind we might require some medical certificate.


Robert Laird Borden: I am assuming that everything of that kind would be safeguarded by such means as would be found desirable in the public interest. I do not know whether cases of that kind have been considered by the government, but in listening to the observations of the right hon. gentleman it struck me that there might be cases of that kind which would, be just as deserving of consideration as those which are dealt with in the resolution.


Edmund Boyd Osler: With these resolutions I entirely agree. I cannot see why they should not be extended to all the judges. If the age limit is to be applied to the lower court judges I do not see why it should not be applied to judges of the higher courts. As the hon. gentleman knows, there are cases where a man reaches his greatest vigour and is more useful at eighty years of age than at sixty. But these cases are very rare. I do not know why exception is made of the Supreme Court and Superior Court judges. It strikes me this provision should be applied to them quite as much if not more than to the lower court judges. I think in that particular the Bill does not go far enough. The Prime Minister truly said that when a man is appointed judge he should be rendered independent of all cares and anxieties as to money, and he should have full provision made for his old age after he has served the country for a long period. After all, I think these provisions do not go to the root of the matter, because the salaries we are paying our judges now were fixed at the time of confederation when living was very much cheaper than it is now. The result is, as the Minister of Justice knows, that to-day it is difficult to get the men we would like to take positions in the higher court. Another result is that we find our judges are more and more endeavouring by other means to implement their salaries. We find the judges in our higher courts, many of our best judges that we all look up to with great confidence, taking positions as directors of various companies, looking out for various outside sources of supplementing their Incomes. I think that is a serious detriment to the administration of justice in Canada, and some way ought to be found of stopping this practice, as I consider it a very serious evil. These judges are sought for by companies whose object It is to get men who will inspire the public with confidence in their concerns. My experience of judges is that as a rule they are not good business men, and I think that statement may be made of judges generally. I would be afraid to say what proportion of them, at all events in Ontario, take positions in companies about the business of which they can really know nothing. They are forced to do so because their incomes are not sufficient for their position. Any lawyer of great ability in large centres like Toronto, or Hamilton, or London, or Mont-

real, or Quebec, or Ottawa, will make a larger income in the practice of his profession than the salaries received by any one of our judges. I think we cannot attain what ought to be our object, that is to have judges who are absolutely independent, until we increase their salaries very materially.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In answer to what has fallen from the hon. gen-leman, I may say that it is not within our power to affect the tenure of office of judges of the high court. Under the British North America Act, section 96, the Governor General has exclusive power of appointing judges of the superior, district and county courts in each province. Section 99 provides that the judges of the superior courts shall held office during good behaviour. So we have absolutely no power to interfere. I must admit that I am one of those who would not like to have power to interfere with the judges of the high courts. I think the more they are kept beyond our control, directly or indirectly, the better it is for the bench and for the public at large. I would like to take advantage of this occasion, when I am endeavouring to do as much as I can for the judges off the high courts, to say that I agree entirely with what has just fallen from the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) when he says that it is not desirable that our judges should be mixed up in commercial corporations. I hold strong views on that subject myself, and I have no doubt about the impropriety of it. I am of the opinion that if a judge is paid a salary to give his whole time to the service of the country ini that position, he has no right to divert any portion of that time to any other purpose. I think that remark applies with great force to those judges who take upon themselves to sit as directors in financial institutions, and to be connected with corporations which take a portion of their time, to the detriment of the interest of the public.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Representing as I do a rural constituency, I would like to say a word with reference to these resolutions, and fori this reason. We have in our constituency a very intelligent, broad-minded and liberal judge, who has passed the age of eighty years. Now we think it is only right that a judge such as this one should be allowed to retire with full allowance and full pay. We are exceedingly anxious that the very best men the country can afford should be placed upon the bench. If there is anything that we are prouder of than another, it is the status which our judges have throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion of Canada. We are exceedingly anxious that conditions may be made such that our best men can take these positions and this resolution enables them when in the natural course of events they are no longer able to perform their duties to retire on a sufficient allowance. In my own Mr. OSLER.
constituency and in other rural constituencies there are men in the ordinary walks of life who are not able to engage counsel in a case which comes before a judge and it is an advantage to have a fair-minded judge who will take the case up for them and see that justice is given to them. This matter has come to the notice of the people in my constituency for the reason that our judge is very advanced in years and he will be able to retire with an allowance if the resolution that is now before the committee is carried out.


Sir. GALUIHER.: I heartily concur in this resolution just as it is. I am not sure that the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is not one that would probably involve us in difficulty afterwards. If I undertsand aright the provisions of this resolution they are to reward those who have spent a certain number of years in the public service. It might happen in the case suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition that a judge might be incapacitated by illness or by some accident from performing his ordinary judicial duties. Then we would have to be guided by the question of the degree of fitness or unfitness. While we might say of one judge that he was unfitted we might say of another judge that he was unfitted in a lesser degree, and that while we would give a certain benefit to one we would not give the same benefit to another because he was not unfitted to the same degree. I can see that difficulties might arise in regard to that. A judge may have served five or ten years and he may meet with an accident which renders him unfit to perform his duties as a judge. He would then be placed in the same position as a judge who had probably served twenty or twenty-five years, that is if I understand the suggestion aright which has been made by the hon. gentleman. I do not think that is really the intention of this resolution as brought down and if the government were to adopt such a suggestion I take it that they would meet with that difficult}'. I wish to say a word further, not in connection with this resolution, but in connection with judges. In my opinion judges and especially judges of the Supreme Court are underpaid. We certainly want the very best men that we can possibly get at the bar to act as our judges. There is no more important position in the land to fill than that of judge. Judges have in their hands questions as to rights of property between subject, and subject sometimes involving very large sums of money. Therefore, we should have the most honest, the most upright and the most capable men that we possibly can have, men most learned in the law, men possessing judicial minds, and I would like to see some measure brought in by which the salaries of these judges will be increased or a readjustment of the salaries of judges from one end of

Canada to the other made. If they are worthy of the office of judge, then, they are worthy of being paid proper salaries, salaries that will place them beyond any question of suspicion of being tampered with in performing their duties and place them beyond any question of want when their term of office expires or they are obliged to retire by reason of age. I would also say a word in reference to county court judges and particularly the county court judges in the west. For, instance, in that part of the west where I live and practice my profession our county court judge is paid $2,400 per annum. He has not the advantage, as in many places in the east, of being able to receive fees from surrogate work, so that practically all that the judge in Kootenay county, British Columbia, and I take it in other counties in British Columbia has, is the sum of $2,400. That was not a sufficient sum to induce any man who practices at the bar, who has any practice in any town or district in British Columbia to accept a seat on the bench. There should be some-provision by which the salary of these judges should be increased, there should be some fees derived from surrogate work, or they should be allowed a certain amount for living expenses, because living expenses are much higher there than in the east. The salary of our county court judge unaided as it is by fees from outside sources is much less than the salary of county court judges in the east.


Samuel Hughes: Everything is higher out there.


William Alfred Galliher: Everything is higher, even most of the men.
Mr. G1LMOUR. Do I understand that this resolution in regard to Supreme Court and Superior Court judges requires that they shall reach a certain age before they are entitled to their retiring allowance ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the law as we have it, a judge immediately after his appointment, if he becomes incapacitated from illness, may retire upon two-thirds of his salary. If he has served fifteen years, at tlie expiration of the fifteenth year he can go off with his pension notwithstanding the fact that he may be in full possession of all liis faculties. In the amendment which I now propose if a judge has reached seventy-five years of age and spent over twenty years on the bench he may retire, or if he has reached the age of seventy years and spent twenty-five years on the bench he* may retire, or if he has served thirty years on the bench he may retire, whatever his age may be.


Mr. GILMOUR.: I think if anything should happen to a judge after five or ten years service he should have some portion of his salary as a retiring allowance.


Robert Laird Borden: I was desirous of seeing what safeguard has been provided by the statute in the case which has been referred to by the hon. Minister of Justice, namely, the case of a judge who, having served less than fifteen years, becomes incapable of properly performing his duties, and therefore has to retire.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no way of compelling a judge to retire. He must act of hiS own motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that thoroughly.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will send the statute over to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: In reply to what has been suggested by my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher), of course, I understand that there must be some safeguard, and that you must not adopt any policy that would place any judge under the control of the executive. I would be as much afraid of that as my hon. friend is, but I would like to point out to him that under the law as we have it at present, you have the matter dealt with already in the case of a judge *who not having served for 15 years, nevertheless becomes incapable of performing his duties as judge. 1 will read the section, omitting the immaterial portions :
If any judge of any superior court who becomes afflicted with some permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office, resigns-his office ; Her Majesty may by letters patent under the great seal, reciting such permanent disability, grant unto such judge an annuity equal to two thirds of the salary annexed to the office he held at the time of his resignation ; to commence immediately after his resignation and to continue henceforth during his natural life.
I am uot at present aware, whether there is any provision in the statute as to ascertaining what the permanent disability is.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A medical certificate.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.) This is the practice of the Department of Justice, and not a provision of the statute. Of course, that does not provide for the case where the judge becomes incapable of resignation. Then, applying the principle of the law as it is at present to the case I suggested, you would have this condition of affairs perhaps : A judge appointed at the age of 45 years, having served for 20 years, and becoming afflicted with a permanent disability such as is mentioned in this section, would if such a policy commended itself to parliament, retire under the provisions of the statute on a salary equal to that which lie enjoyed at the time of his resignation.


William Alfred Galliher: That is what I thought the hon. gentleman was referring to, and that is what struck me as to the 15-year



limit provided for by the statute, and not up to the 25 or 30-year limit; that it seemed clear that if the judge retired from disability such as you mention, you would be practically applying to him the principle of long service, whereas in reality he had not served the full term designated as long service, for instance, the 30 years or 25 years, after attaining a certain age. I can understand his being paid a proportionate part, according to the yearn of service, but not the full amount of the salary such as a long service judge would receive.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) was raising some objection on the ground of the difficulty of ascertaining the permanent disability. 1 was dealing only with that portion of his remarks, and I was pointing out there would be no more difficulty in that case than there is under the provisions of section Id and 15 of chapter 10S of the Revisedi Statutes. Assuming that there is no difficulty of that kind, and there is no more difficulty In the one case than the other, then the other question comes up as to whether or not you have got as strong a case under the circumstances I have suggested for giving to the judge on retirement his full salary, as you have in the cases which are set forth in the resolutions introduced by the Minister of Justice. In the one case you have a man of 70 years of age not afflicted with permanent disability, but retiring on full salary because he has served 25 years. The case I have mentioned seems equally meritorious, namely the case of a judge having attained the age not of 70 years, but 65 years, having served not 25 years, but 20 years, but at the age of 65 becoming afflicted with some permanent disability which would prevent him from performing his judicial duties. It seemed to me, speaking off-hand, that a case of that kind possessed as much merit as the case of a judge who has attained the age of 70 years, and has served 25 years, but who is not afflicted with any permanent disability which should necessitate his retirement.


William Alfred Galliher: It would be only a question of whether you have the' two principles ; one the case you have mentioned, and the other the principle of granting a man full pay who would serve the full term. You would have to have a double principle.


Robert Laird Borden: That observation of my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) is perfectly fair and logical. You are, in the case I am suggesting, combining the principle which has been acted on in the statute I have referred to with the principle which is embodied in the resolution of the Minister of Justice. Whether this is a wise and logical thing to do is a question, and I am inclined to think it is wise.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It does seem to me that we should not fix the period of 20 years' service.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 was only using that by way of illustration.
air. WADE. It does seem to me that a man who goes on the bench and leaves his practice, after he has been on the bench for 10 years and is afflicted by some permanent infirmity, such as blindness or deafness, or anything of that sort, so that he is permanently unable to discharge his duties as judge ; it does seem to me that in such a case as that he should be permitted to retire with his full salary. If the principle is good in one case it would seem to me that it is good in the other case. Indeed there might be far stronger reasons why in the case I speak of he should be retired with his full salary than in the other case. If a man goes on the bench at 45 and leaves his practice, and then at 50 years of age, after his practice has gone from him, he is unfit by infirmity to sit upon the bench, he has either to do one thing or the other, he has to retire on two-thirds of his income-and that is impossible in our province, where the judges have only $4,000 a year-or else he has to remain on the bench and not discharge his duties. It would be better in the public interest to allow a judge who has been in service five or ten years and becomes permanently afflicted, to retire on full salary.


Mr. GOURDE  Y.@: One strong argument to support the ground that in case of infirmity a judge should retire and retain his full salary, is that a judge should at once, when he finds himself unable to discharge his duties, be in a position to retire. I know one instance where a judge would retire now, but because of the fact that he cannot retire with his full salary he does not feel in a position to retire, and, therefore, the administration of justice is retarded by the presence of a judge who ought not to discharge judicial duties on account of his infirmity, and who would not discharge them if he had an opportunity of retiring on full pay. When there is a physical infirmity rendering a judge incapable of fulfilling his duties, I think he should be allowed to retire on full salary, in order that whenever he feels that he is not capable of exercising his duties, properly, he can step down and out without financial regret.
I want to say one word in support of the views of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Galliher). I think the salary of $2,400 a year for the county court judges of Nova Septia is entirely inadequate at the present time. When the salaries were fixed twenty years ago. there might have been something to be said in favour of such a small figure ; but to-day that salary is utterly inadequate to enable a judge to maintain that social position which is necessary to the proper dignity


William Alfred Galliher: of a judge. It is so small that it rather renders him an object of sympathy and pity than of dignity. That should not be the case. Our judges should be in a position to live well and to be independent of any thought of dependence on the public or otherwise.
Then, I have often been anxious, even before I entered this parliament, to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister of Justice and the other lawyers in this House. At confederation there was a principle established of making a distinction in the salaries of the judges in the different provinces according to the population or the area of those provinces. I think that distinction is absolutely vicious. If a judge in British Columbia, where the population may be only 300,000, exercises the highest judicial functions in that province, on whati ground of justice is he paid a smaller salary than the judge who exercises the same ljigh functions in another province, simply because the territory or the population happens to be smaller ? I regard this as a most invidious and unjust distinction. In fact, it makes a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Inferior to a judge of the High Court or to a judge who exercises similar jurisdiction in some other province. If a judge exercises supreme jurisdiction in his province, whether it is over twenty people or over one million, his salary should be equal to that of any judge in Ontario or Quebec. After all, it makes no difference in principle that the population is larger in one province than it is in another, because the judge can only do so much work in the province. As a matter of fact, the judicial territory in the larger provinces is divided up, so that a judge in a judicial district in Ontario or Quebec has no! more population or territory to exercise jurisdiction over than a judge in Prince Edward Island. Although the province is larger, the particular district to which the labours of the judge are confined is not in many instances as large as the circuit in the smaller provinces. Therefore I ask the hon. Minister of Justice to wipe out this unjust and invidious distinction, introduced at the time of confederation. I think all the legal gentlemen in this House will support me in the contention that there is no reason why the salary of a superior court judge in Ontario should be one cent more than the salary of a superior court judge in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia. Judges exercising similar jurisdiction in every part of Canada should be paid the same salaries. I say that in defence of the judges of Nova Scotia, and I am sure that every legal gentleman from everjr other province will assert the same principle.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The difference in the salaries of the judges in the different provinces has been a standing grievance for a long time, and I trust that 254i
at no very distant day something may be done in the direction of levelling up judicial salaries. However, one must not try to do too much at one time, and if I accomplish now what I have undertaken, I think I shall accomplish something, and I would prefer to leave another part of the work to some future time.


Mr. KENDALL.: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question or two in regard to the demeanour of judges towards gentlemen at the bar and court-houses full of ratepayers. I have not much to say of a derogatory nature of the judges of the province of Nova Scotia. I have always understood that most of these gentlemen have been men of great learning, of high character and generally of gentlemanly demeanour. But I wish to bring before the notice of the Minister cf Justice the fact that on two or three occasions during the last year or two the bar has been subjected to indignities by members of the bench and court-houses crowded with respectable ratepayers have been attacked in the most malignant way by one or more judges of the province of Nova Scotia. I ask, is a judge within his rights when he reflects on the character of a committee appointed by a county council to contract a court-house ? Is he within his right when he makes a malignant attack on the tastes of a court-house filled with well-behaved ratepayers ? I will not say more than this, but I hope this reference will secure in the future more respectful treatment of lawyers and of people whose business of inclination takes them to a courthouse. I would intimate to these judges, if my remarks should reach their ears, that if they wish to command the dignity due them, they must treat barristers and the people who frequent their courts with that consideration to which they are entitled.


Mr. ICAULBACH.: Being a layman, I had no intention of taking part in this discussion, but I certainly consider that I would be derelict in my duty to my county were I to remain silent. The resolutions with regard to the pensions of judges are, to my mind, contrary to what I consider a just principle. Our judges in our different courts are supposed to live within their salaries, but if they are improvident and lay nothing by for a rainy day, that is their own faults and they should suffer the consequences. I would very much rather increase the salaries of our judges than give them pensions. We have more judges now than we have work for, if I can judge by the work of my own county. There the judges sit twice a year and despatch the business in two or three days. I therefore do not see why the number should not be reduced by one-half, and then give double pay to the others and abolish this system of pensions. The public who have to pay the judges' salaries and pensions are deserving of some consideration. In my opin-

ion, the principle of pensions to any one, I care not who he may be, is wrong, and I take this opportunity of expressing my disapproval of so uncalled for, extravagant and unprecedented a drain as calls, on the exchequer of this country.
On resolution 2,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to be very exceptional treatment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We will let that stand and consider it another time.
On resolution 3,


Mr. STEPHENS.: I was somewhat surprised to find that the lion. Minister of Justice had made some changes in the ages at which county court judges may be compulsorily retired. When this resolution was first put on the Order paper, it read, ' seventy-five years,' but now it is ' eighty.' I am of the opinion that not one man in eighty is as capable las younger men. I have made some inquiries, and have failed to find a mercantile or financial institution in this country with a man as manager at the age of eighty. Let a man seventy years old seek employment in any institution where brainwork is required, and he will not in many cases succeed, but even should his application be entertained, the undertaking would not prosper under his management as it would under the management of a younger man. I consider the position of county court judge a very responsible one-one that requires a man to be in possession of all his faculties. This is certainly required of a man who has to look into and decide intricate cases, and that generally without delay. Besides that the position is a responsible one, for the. reason that from the decisions of a county court judge, in many cases, there is no appeal. Look at the case from a merchant's standpoint. A merchant may sue a man for 8100 or $200; and if the judge is incapable of giving a proper decision, he not only injures that merchant from a monetary point of view, but his character as well. I propose therefore to move in amendment to clause 3 that the word ' eighty ' be struck out in the first line, and ' seventy-five ' be substituted, and that ' seventy-five ' be struck out in the third line and ' seventy ' be substituted.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The reason for the change from seventy-five to eighty is this. When the resolutions were first introduced they attracted some attention, and I discovered that in Ontario there were three county court judges who would be compulsorily retired at seventy-five, notwithstanding the fact that they had not served twenty-five years. Consequently, they would have been obliged to retire on two-thirds their salary. Under the circumstances, I thought it better to extend the period of time into eighty. The law Mr. KAULBACH.
now provides for action by the executive where you have a county court judge not competent to perform his duties. An application may be made to the Minister of Justice, and he can appoint a commissioner who will hold an investigation, and the judge may be retired by Order in Council. So that we have that provision at the present time, and I think it is only fair to go as far as we can towards giving such relief to the county court judges as we can give; and I do not think we are giving too much by adopting the resolution in its present form.


Mr. CLANCY.: The rule of forcing retirement on the county court judges is, no doubt a very harsh rule. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice has gone so far as to say that he would have that made compulsory with the Superior Court judges, if he had the authority to do so. I think that when an hon. gentleman brings a resolution in this House, he ought to have the courage to make a charge rather than shelter himself behind the privileges of parliament. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens) insinuates, without having the courage to state and take the responsibility of his statement, that one of the county court judges, presumably in the county he represents, is unfit for his position. Will the hon. gentleman declare from his place in this House that there is a county court judge in the county of Kent who is unfit to discharge his duties ? If he is prepared to do that he will assume some responsibility and will show some courage. This is not the first time the hon. gentleman has played a second part in these matters. The hon. gentleman some time ago proposed a resolution in this House which he had never framed, a word of which he had never written, but which had been placed in his hands, with regard to one of the Superior Court judges. He is now playing an equally false part with regard to his own county. He has had a resolution placed in his hands to move here, prompted by somebody from his riding who wants to secure an appointment there. If he wishes to make a charge against the county of Kent judges let him be man enough to make that charge rather than insinuate what he dare not state.


George Stephens: I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that he is mistaken in saying that this resolution was written out and given to me. It is wholly my own suggestion. And I was not making any insinuation as to the judge of the county court in Kent county. I simply say that there are several judges that I know of in Canada who are not capable of discharging their duties.	.


James Clancy: How does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stephens) know that ?


George Stephens: I know it from statements made to me by solicitors in the different counties.


Haughton Lennox: What counties ?


George Stephens: There is no need to say what counties. The hon. gentleman from Bothweil (Mr. Clancy) is wrong when he insinuates that this amendment was placed in my hands to be read to the House. He evidently thinks that there is no one capable of doing anything in this House except himself. In that he makes a sad mistake. Beyond the age limit I have proposed, very few men are able to discharge the diities of any bench, to say nothing of the county court bench. A judge of the county court has great responsibility. He is only one man, and in many case?, there is no appeal from his decision. His position is more important than that of a judge of a higher court.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman state what hardships have come under his notice to induce him to take the course he does ?


George Stephens: It is not necessary that I should state them. I say that a man of eighty years of age is not capable of discharging properly the duties of a judge. I think that is a good stand, and that is the stand I am going to take.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman, I think, stated that I thought nobody to be capable of doing certain things except myself. I wish to say that I do not think there is any gentleman in this House capable of doing what he has done except himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, oh.


James Clancy: I wish to say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) who gives vent to that utterance that he is not playing a part consistent with the high position he holds as a member of the legal profession.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not a judge.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman ought to stand by the eminent members of his own profession who are guilty of no greater crime than that of growing old, I hope he will be spared to be as guilty as the oldest of them, and that nobody will say ' oh ! ' when that time comes should his case be discussed. I do not expect to see that time myself. As to the hon. member for Kent, he is not a legal gentleman. Depending upon hearsay and that, no doubt, from some person who wishes to get an appointment at his hands, he comes to this House and, partly insinuates that certain judges are unfit to occupy their position at eighty years of age, yet refuses' to state that he knows of a single case where hardship has arisen from cases of that kind. I think I can leave him in the position he occupies, a position which does not display great courage.


George Stephens: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) know of any judge who is not capable of discharging his duties ?


James Clancy: I have never said that there was one.


George Stephens: But does the hon. gentleman know of any such case ?


James Clancy: I know of none.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the Minister of Justice how many judges in Ontario will be retired under this Bill if it passes as he proposes ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The committee will be surprised to learn how few judges will be given relief under these resolutions, should they pass in their entirety, in the High Court there are only two men in the whole province of Quebec, one man in Nova Scotia, and one in the North-west Territories.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Who is in Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The chief justice, who is seventy-five years of age and has been twenty-two years on the bench. There is one man, Judge Richardson in the North-west Territories. In New Brunswick there is one, the chief justice. With respect to the county court judges in the county courts of Ontario, there are Judge Elliot, who is eighty years of age and lias been thirty-four years on the bench; Judge Hughes eighty-one years of age and forty-eight years on the bench; Judge Deacon, seventy-nine years of age and thirty-five years and six months on the bench; Judge Lazier, seventy six years of age and twenty-one and one-half years on the bench; Judge O'Brien, eighty-three years of age and thirteen and one-half years on the bench; Judge Ketclium, seventy-five years and six months of age, and fourteen and one-half years on the bench; Judge Woods, eighty-four years of age, and seventeen and one-haif years on the bench. In the county court of New Brunswick there is Judge Stevens, who is eighty-one years of age and who has been thirty-six years on the bench-and who, I may say, has been for a long time asking for such legislation-as is now brought in.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the hon. minister any account or memorandum as to the number who would be retired in the course of two or three years.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. It took considerable time and labour to get together the information for this memorandum. Unfortunately we have not in the department the ages of the judges at the term of their appointment and have some difficulty in ascertaining them. I do not apprehend that there are very many who would be affected by this legislation within the next two or three years.


James Clancy: The hon. minister will not be able to find out their ages now.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I may say that I have not had any complaint with respect to the legislation now proposed. I

do not think its operation will produce hardship. After all, judges who have got beyond seventy-five years of age retire with full pension. So, there is no hardship so far as they are concerned.


Mr. POPE.: They ought to have full pension.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Some of them ought.


Mr. MACKIE.: In regard to Judge Deacon's age, he is in his 81st year, instead of 79.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have taken Judge Deacon's word for it.


Thomas Mackie: I have taken Judge Deacon's word for it myself, within the last three months.


William Humphrey Bennett: In view of the prospect of three more appointments of county court judges in the province of Ontario, I think the Minister of Justice might give a thought as to how these appointments shall be made. A principle was inaugurated in the province of Ontario that worked out well, namely that it was thought better not to bring active politicians from the scenes of their fights and place them on the bench. That principle was observed by Sir John Thompson, and was supposed to be an admirable one, but owing to party exigencies the Minister of Justice, since he has been in office, has been forced to break in upon it, and the result is that we see in the province of Ontario, installed in judicial places, men who have been the keenest politicians and are now brought face to face with the people with whom they have been fighting for many years. While that has been going on, I must congratulate the Minister of Justice that in the county of York, and in the county of Grey, he did not promote the junior judges. I think that was an admirable conclusion arrived at by the minister. I think that both those gentlemen who are junior judges deserve richly to be reprimanded as they were by not being promoted. I hope the active part taken by them in politics will be a lesson to all junior judges in future, and that they will prefer to take chances of preferment by reason of their merits rather than by reason of their political affiliations. Coming down to the question before us, I say that in my opinion the salaries of Superior Court judges, particularly in Ontario, are notj liigh enough. I wish to say also that I think there are too many judges in our province. What have we seen lately '! At the last session of the Ontario legislature, in deference to political, leverage, for it cannot be anything else, the provincial government has arranged for the appointment practically of three more judges. As I understand the law, once the province has determined upon the appointments, then it is the duty of the federal power to supply the salaries. It is a notorious fact that in Ontario the superior court judges are not Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
pressed with work. I think perhaps there has been some congestion so far as appeal judges go.
Mr. McCarthy. Is it not a fact that there are only two judges to be appointed, and one is to be taken from the chancery division ?


William Humphrey Bennett: That will be two too many, in the opinion of the general public, I think. It comes to this, that in the province of Ontario we all believe that we should have better men on the bench than some of the gentlemen who have been getting' on. In order to get the best men, you have got to pay higher salaries. 1 have understood that there are Superior-Court judges to-day in the province of Ontario who are quite willing to do more work, but they expect more pay for it, and I think they are right. It is a notorious fact that in past years Superior Court judges in Ontario have crippled the courts, owing to the fact that they were absent from their duties. In regard to county court judges, it has got to be a screaming farce, appointments are made in counties where there is no more need for a junior judge than there is for five wheels to a wagon. I am not going to say that the government who are now in power are entirely to blame for that, because I think the former government erred in that respect also. But now that there is to be an appointment in the county of Prescott, let me draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that in that county last year there was not a single case tried in the so-called county court. There might harm been a division court case, but the return shows that in the county of Prescott not a single case was. tried before the county court. In view of that fact, and seeing there is a junior judge in that county, it would be well to promote him, and in that way do away with one. Take the county of Ontario, which has two judges, in that county last year there were three cases tried. Political exigencies have played such a part in the appointment of judges that we find in the county of Ontario that Judge McCrimmon, the senior judge, is a man in the prime of life, and yet lie is as-isted by a junior judge, and owing to political exigencies it was found necessary to appoint a third gentleman as surrogate court judge. So there are three gentlemen practically standing around to do work that might be done by one. The time has arrived when there should be a thorough revolution in relation to county court judges. Let there be fewer of them. So far as salaries go, I think, with the addition of the surrogate fees that are paid to them, their salaries are fairly good ; but in regard to the superior court judges, I think it is the opinion of the lawyers and of the general public that they should be paid higher salaries and that there should be fewer of them.


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend is somewhat mistaken when he says that Sir John Thompson laid down the principle that county court judges should be taken from the bar outside the district to which they were appointed. That principle was laid down by him, it is true, but when the question came up for discussion some time ago in the House, I had an analysis made of the appointments that were made by Sir John Thompson, and when this resolution comes up again for consideration I intend to bring that 'down, and the hon. gentlemen will learn that we have all sinned very much with respect to these appointments. While the rule has been laid down by Sir John Thompson, I am not disposed to say that I think that rule ought to be abrogated.


Edward Guss Porter: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether this clause is intended to affect junior court judges as well as county court judges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Ail county court judges.


Edward Guss Porter: It says every county court judge. In some legislation that took place a few years ago with regard to the salaries of county court judges, that expression was used, and it was afterwards construed to have application only to senior judges, but not to junior judges. I would suggest to the hon. minister that that be made perfectly clear by adding junior judges. While I am on my feet, I desire to say a word with reference to the salaries that are paid to county court judges. I quite agree with the remarks that have been made by some hon. members that the county court judges are not sufficiently paid. As I understand the matter, the salaries now paid to county court judges were fixed at the time of confederation and there has been no increase since then. But there has been a decrease of some $200 to $400. At the time the salaries were fixed, it is an actual fact that the cost of living to a county court judge was very much less than it is at the present time. The salary was then fixed, not only having regard to the cheapness of living, but having regard to the duties that were then expected to be performed by a county court judge. Now while there has been no increase in the salary there has been a very significant increase in the cost living of the county court judges and there has been a very significant increase in the am unt of work they are expected to perform. Instead of only performing the duties belonging to county courts and division courts, as they were intended to perform at the time of confederation, there has been passed since that time not less than 52 Ontario and Dominion statutes, imposing additional duties upon county court judges. Now, is it reasonable to expect that they should perform the duties imposed upon them by these 52 additional Acts of parliament without additional salary, while at the same time they are obliged to pay a higher cost for living than at the time their salaries were fixed. In fact they are paid a smaller sum.
It does appear to me that it is entirely unfair to the county court judges. This matter was recognized by parliament in regard to the superior court judges, when in 1873 an Act was passed Increasing the salaries of the high court judges it was put in the preamble, that owing to the increased cost of living, the government of the day felt it incumbent upon themselves to increase the salaries of the superior court judges. If there was an increase in the cost of living for the superior court judges, there was a similar increase in the cost of living for the county court judges and while parliament increased the salaries of the sup-perior court judges it decreased the salaries of the county court judges. There is another very cogent reason why the salaries of the county court judges should be increased. A part of the means of adding to their salaries has been taken away from them. In former times it was quite the usual practice for a county court judge to fill the dual position of county court judge and local master of the high court. Now, in any county of this province where that position becomes vacant it is no longer given to the county court judge, but an appointment from the bar is made to fill that position and that source of revenue is cut oft' from the county court judge. In former days fees that were derivable from the business transacted in the surrogate court were given to the county court judges, but now the practice is that if that position becomes vacant a special appointment is made from the bar to fill the position and these fees go into the pocket of the appointee and are not received by the county court judge. One other strong reason why county court judges should be paid more is this':	County court judges,
in addition to being county court judges, are to all intents and purposes superior court judges with the one single exception that they do not try high court cases, but all chamber motions and applications of all sorts In connection with cases in their respective counties are heard by the county court judges as local judges of the high court and instead of this business being performed by the judges of the high court in Toronto as formerly.it is now performed by the judges of the county court and in that way their duties have been very materially increased, while there has been no proper adjustment of their salaries. If I understood correctly we have received an intimation from the Minister of Justice that something would be done in the future for these county court judges and I hope he will see his way clear to do something for them in the very near future.


George William Fowler: I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Hastings

(Mr. Porter) as to the necessity of increasing the salaries paid to county court judges on account of the additional cost of living at the present time as compared with that at the time their salaries were fixed and the additional duties that they have to perform. In my own province we are not so fortunate as to have one or two judges for a single county. We have only one judge to attend to the judicial duties in several counties and that statute respecting speedy trials has caused a very large increase in the expenses of the judges. The judge of the county that I represent is also the judge of the county of Albert. If a man is charged with a criminal offence the judge is obliged to go to the county of Albert when this person applies for trial, and he is put to considerable expense for railway fare and also his living expenses during the time' he is absent. For this he receives no remuneration whatever. I think the salaries of the county court judges should be increased for the reasons which have been so ably enumerated by the hon. member for Hastings.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) in regard to an increase in the salaries of the county court judges and I would like to repeat what I said before, that I concur in the statement that our county court judges should be better paid, but I am afraid I am placed in the same position that much more eminent men than myself have found themselves in when they attempted to increase the salaries of the county court judges. They withdrew the resolutions after they had got them into committee. This question has been under consideration since 1888. I have a letter written by Sir John Thompson to one of the judges, in which he says that he hopes during that session to bring down a resolution for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the judges of the high court and the county courts. Unfortunately, he never got beyond the resolution. I think the judges are not paid sufiictently well. I think they ought to receive further consideration, but, however, that is only my own personal view and I cannot do more than express it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I desire to say a word in reference to the controversy that took place between the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. member for East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett) in reference to the policy laid down by the late Sir John Thompson.
I remember quite well, when Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice, pressing him to make an appointment' in my own county and he informed me that he had determined upon the line of policy intimated by the hon. member for East Simcoe and that he could not make the appointment of the gentleman we then thought It desirable to appoint, and he did


George William Fowler: not make it. Might I suggest that the hon. member for East Simcoe is quite correct and at the same time the hon. Minister of Justice may be correct? Posibly at the commencement of his term of office Sir John Thompson had not adopted that policy, but after having been Minister of Justice for one or two years he came to the conclusion that it was a proper policy to adopt and that from that time forward he did adhere to that policy. The hon. Minister of Justice may be quite correct in saying that he made appointments in a way different from that intimated by the hon. member for East Simcoe, but these appointments may have been made in the earlier part of the regime of Sir John Thompson.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will produce here a list of the names of the gentlemen appointed, the districts to which they were appointed and the dates at which they were appointed. I have a memo, all prepared and I will have it here when these resolutions are taken up again.


David Henderson: It occurred to me that both the hon. gentlemen were right.


George William Fowler: Could the hon. Minister of Justice give us some data as to the judges who will be affected by this eighty year provision. I understand that the amendment proposes that the word ' eighty ' shall be struck out and that ' seventy-five ' shall be substituted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think it is a pity that the hon. Minister of Justice did not have sufficient courage, as his predecessor had, to bring down a resolution to increase the salaries of the county court judges and let us see who are the members of this committee who will stand up and say that thev are sufficiently paid. I can only speak of the province of Ontario, and I am bound to say that I do not think there is any man in the public service that is as poorly paid as the ordinary county court judge in that province. It is no criterion of the work of a county court judge, when you speak of the number of cases that are returned as having been tried in the county court. In that return there are only included certain cases over which the judge has civil jurisdiction. To begin with, the county court judge saves the country an enormous amount of expense in the trying of criminals. More and more every day men charged with criminal offences are advised by their counsel that they are just as safe in trusting their liberties to the county court judges as to a jury. I am safe in saying that two-thirds of those charged with criminal offences in nearly every county of Ontario now elect to be tried by the county court judges, and the county court judge's have power to try all offences except murder or treason. It must be recognized by parliament that judges who have such full jurisdiction in regard to the liberties of the

subject, must be competent men or else tlie parliament of Canada would not allow them to do that work. Considering tlie cost of living to-day, and considering that a public servant who is underpaid is not fairly treated, we have, I think, to admit that our county court judges are not treated by the country as they should be. I wonder sometimes that we can get competent men to take the position, and I often think that it must be public spirit rather than the salary that induces them to do so. Probably they desire to se*rve their country rather than to look to the compensation that attaches to the office. I know that many county court judges could not live on the salaries they get had they not private means. That ought not be so. If a man has not got a shilling and yet is fit to be a county court judge, the salary ought to be sufficient to enable him to take the office. Without unduly delaying the House at this late hour, I wish to emphasize particularly on the Minister of Justice that had he brought down a resolution to increase the salaries of the county court judges-I speak of those in the province of Ontario about whom I am most competent to speak-such a resolution would have received the support of a large majority of the members of this House. I regret that the Minister of Justice did not bring down such a resolution, because I believe that the county court judges in Ontario at least are at present very much underpaid.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: The amendment proposes to reduce the age of compulsory retirement from 80 years to 75 years, it being 75 years in the original resolution. I believe for the reasons given by the Minister of Justice, that the age should be maintained at 80. It would work a great hardship on several of the county court judges if the age is not so maintained. In my county the judge who on his appointment had every reason to believe that he would be continued during life and good behaviour in his office, will be about 23 years on the bench when he is 75 years old. That would only entitle him to two-thirds of his allowance, and I believe that would be unfair. Several such cases occur in Ontario, and I believe that 80 years should be maintained as the age of compulsory retirement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What period of years does the Minister of Justice intend to insert in the blank?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not intend putting the resolution through to-night, and I thought I would like to hear what the committee had to say on the subject. I shall take it into further consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for confining it to a certain number of years?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was inserted when we had the limit fixed
at 75, but now in view of the change I do not think there is any need for it now.
Amendment allowed to stand.
On section 4,


George Stephens: I wish to amend section 4 by striking out the figures ' thirty-five' in the second line and substituting the word ' thirty ' therefor.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why have you fix any number of years here? I do not see why, if a county court judge becomes afflicted with some permanent disability 25 years or 20 years or even 10 years after he has been appointed to office, he should not be taken care of by the state just as well as after 35 years. I cannot see any merit in a man having the good luck to be in office a few years longer before lie was afflicted with some permanent infirmity. If it is a sudden affliction that comes to a man it is a matter he cannot control. If a man having given up his profession and not intending to retire, but being rendered by the act of God afflicted so that he cannot perform his duties, it seems to me he ought to have the right to be looked after no matter at what period of his service it happens. _


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will remember that up to last year or the year before if a county court judge became permanently disabled at any time before he had been on the bench for ten years, be simply went off and got nothingat all. Last year the lavy was amended so that if he had served five years he became entitled to half his pay, and if he had served ten years to two-thirds of his pay. If we did make this change with respect to tlie county court judges, we would put them in a more favourable position than the high court judges ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That might not be undesirable, considering the small salaries they get.


Haughton Lennox: Suppose a judge is not willing to resign his office, what does the lion. Minister of Justice propose to do ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a serious question. We had two cases of that kind in Canada, and in neither case was anything done except to let the judge continue on. That has been the course followed in England. I would ask my hon. friend to let the amendment stand as well as the resolution, and I would ask that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the order of business to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Railway Commission Bill will be taken up, and we will endeavour to clear off other matters on the Order Paper as much as possible, probably the lead resolutions, and later in the day other Bills may possibly be dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thtjbsday, August 6, 1903.