1904-03-23

RAILWAY ACT, 1903, AMENDMENT.

Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York) mov-ed^ for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act, 1903.


Rt.   H@: Explain.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Mr. MACLEAN.: Mr. Speaker, this proposes to amend the Railway Act of session in several directions. The h1 amendment I propose is one to bring e ( press companies within the jurisdiction the Railway Commission. The express co panies have an intimate relationship the business community and the public . large. They make extensive charges G, their services, and as the tolls and taf>
of railway companies come within the j*| j diction of the commission under the Act think the tolls and charges of the expf
t&e


William Findlay Maclean: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 7) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act. He said : This is the Bill which I introduced last session, I trust hon. members distributed it throughout the community and obtained an expression of opinion upon it from their constituents. It simply increases the standard of engineers and also prevents American tug boats doing business in Canada with engineers who have not obtained certificates from the Canadian government. The same remark applies to dredges. The present Act allows an uncertificated engineer to work in a dredge ; but under this Bill an engineer employed on a dredge must have a certificate from the Dominion government. It also seeks to do away with the perinits which at present may be granted by tbe Department of Marine to men who act as engineers for a season, and creates a fourth class of engineers to whom certificates may he granted, in the event of the owners of steamers being unable to obtain engineers of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd class.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read tbe first time.


Mr. KEMP asked :: 1.	What did the census of 1881 and that of 1891 cost respectively ?
2.	What has the census of 1901 cost up to the present date ?
3.	What books, pamphlets, bulletins, &c., have been issued disseminating varied information in connection with the last census ?
4.	What further information, if any, is it intended to publish, pending the completion of the census, and when will the same be issued ?
5.	When is it expected that the census of 1901 will be completed and issued to members of the House ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	$450,904.19 for 1881 ;	$570,115.54 for
1891.
2.	To March 17th, 1904, $1,179,370.01.
3.	Bulletin I.-Families, dwellings and population.


Bulletin II.: -Rural aud urban population of Manitoba and Ontario.


Bulletin HI.: -Rural and urban population of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edwin d Island and Quebec.


Bulletin IV.: -Rural and urban population of British Columbin, the Territories and all Canada.
I


Bulletin V.: -Religions of the people.


Bulletin VI.: -Sexes and conjugal condition of the people.


Bulletin VII.: -Population by origins and nationalities.


Bulletin VIII.: -Immigration and birthplace of the people.


Bulletin IX.: -Infirmities of the people.


Bulletin X.: -Ages of the people.


Bulletin XI.: -Agricultural statistics, Prince Edward Island.


Bulletin XII.: -Agricultural statistics, British Columbia.
Bulletin	XIII-Agricultural	statistics,
Xova' Scotia.
Bulletin	XIV.-Agricultural	statistics,
Northwest Territories.
Bulletin	XV.-Agricultural	statistics,
Manitoba.


Bulletin XVI.: -Agricultural statistics, New Brunswick.
Bulletin	XVII.-Agricultural	statistics,
Ontario.
Bulletin	XVIII.-Agricultural	statistics,
Quebec.


Volume I.: of the census, which deals wholly with population, the following being the tables :
I.	-Population of 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901, compared by electoral districts within their present limits.
II.	-Houses, families and population in 1891-1901, compared by census districts.
III.	-Sex and conjugal condition in 18911901, compared by census districts.
IV. -Rural and urban population in, 1891-1901, compared by census districts.
V.	-Population of cities and towns having over 5,000 inhabitants in 1901, compared with 1871-81-91.
VI.	-Areas of lakes in Canada.
VII.	-Areas, houses, families, population, sex, conjugal condition.
VIII.	-Religions of the people by provinces.
IX.	-Principal religions by census districts, 1891-1901.
X.	-Religions of the people by sub-districts. [DOT]
' XI.-Origins of the people.
XII.	-Nationalities.
XIII.	-Birthplace by provinces.
XIV.	-Birthplace by census districts.
XV.	-Birthplace and citizenship of immigrants.
NAT.-Immigrants by provinces.
XVII:-Immigrants by census districts.
XVIII-Population by birthplace-1881, 1891, 1901.
4.	The 52 tables comprising the census statistics of agriculture and dairy products were finally completed and transmitted to the printer in the month of December last. These were intended to make Volume II. of the report; but as tne printing office could not print these the tables of forest products, fisheries and minerals were sub-Mr. FISHER.
sequently added _ so as to embrace in one, volume the statistics of natural products, all now being in the hands of the King'*, Printer.
All the tables of the census of manufactures (1901)-twenty-one in number-were completed in December, and they are awaiting the convenience of the Printing Bureau.
5.	A fourth volume comprising statistic^ of ages, Infirmities, morality, occupations and wages and real estate will complete the work of the census, and I hope will b? issued to members of the House before the end of the present calendar year.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AT ST. JOHN, N>


Mr. DANIEL asked :: 
Hon. AVILLIAM PATERSON (Minister 0 Customs):: 
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of ' " riculture):: 
Jir. HENDERSON asked :: Grtod total	,	$93,184 09
The following lists were only once printed;
Printing of lists for Peel	$132 66
Printing of lists for Cardwell	 125 12
I.	C. R.-EMPLOYEES DISMISSED AT ST. JOHN.
Mr. DANIEL asked ;
1.	Is it true that two Intercolonial Railway employees, viz. : James P. Demill, a checker and delivery clerk, and Oscar Pederson, a foreman car cleaner, in the round-house at Sc. John, have! been summarily dismissed 7
2.	How long has each of these men been in the employment of the Intercolonial Railway ?
3.	For what reason or reasons have they been dismissed ?
4.	Is it proposed to hold any investigation into the cause of these dismissals ?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND (Minister of Public Works).: It is true that two of the railway employees at St. John have been dismissed. The name of one was James P. Demill and the other Oscar Peterson-not Oscar Pederson as named in the question.
2.	James P. Demill was first employed in 1879. Oscar Peterson was first employed in 1900.
3.	They were not deemed desirable employees to retain in the service.
4.	No.



EXPORT GRAIN TO HALIFAX VIA INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Mr. KEMP asked :: 5.	What was the mileage of each railway over which it was hauled ?
6.	What was the earnings per bushel of each railway ?
7.	What was the estimated cost per bushel for the service the Intercolonial Railway performed ?


Hon. JAMBS SUTHERLAND (Minister of Public Works).: 1.	The number of bushels of grain hauled by thle Intercolonial Railway during the six months preceding March, 1904, for delivery at Halifax for export was : Wheat 87,8261 bushels. Corn 59,611 bushels.
2.	Proportion delivered each month was :
Bushels.
November, wheat	 47,836
December, wheat	 23,990^
January, wheat		16,000
February, corn	 59,611
3.	All of it was shipped from Depot Harbour.
4.	The rates from Depot Harbour to Halifax were :
Per bushel.
16,000	bushels wheat	 5'15
31,836 bushels wheat	r. 4-90
39,9901 bushels wheat	 5-40
25,7181 bushels corn	 4-94
33,8921 bushels corn	 5'00
5.	The mileage of each railway over which it was hauled was :
Miles.
Canada Atlantic Railway	 346
Grand Trunk Railway.. ..	,	 34
Intercolonial Railway	 828
6. The earnings per bushel of each railway was :
Cents.
Canada Atlantic Railway on 16,000
bushels wheat	 2 [DOT] 271
Grand Trunk Railway on 16,000
bushels wheat	 -60
Intercolonial Railway on 16,000
bushels wheat	 2'271
Canada Atlantic Railway on 31,836
bushels	wheat	 2'15
Grand Trunk Railway on 31,836
bushels	wheat	 -60
Intercolonial Railway on 31,836
bushels	wheat	 2-15
Canada Atlantic Railway on 39,9901
bushels wheat	 2'40
Gyand Trunk Railway on 39,9901
bushels wheat	 -60
Intercolonial Railway on 39,9901
bushels wheat	 2-40
Canada Atlantic Railway on 25,7181
bushels corn	 2'19
Grand Trunk Railway on 25,7181
bushels corn	 -56
Intercolonial Railway on 25,7181
bushels corn	 2'19
Canada Atlantic Railway on 33.8921
bushels corn	 2'22
Grand Trunk Railway oil 33,8921
bushels corn	 '56
Intercolonial Railway on 33,8921
bushels corn	 2'22


Mr. KEMP.: 

RETURN ORDERED WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing, the names of all persons eS?' ployed on the Bronte Harbour improvements. *, connection with the construction or repair jj the pier, during the year ending 30th June, l9®1' as foreman, time-keeper, carpenters, labourerl or workmen of any kind. Also the seVeI" amounts paid as wages to each of such pers**11 ' And a similar return giving the like infor*® t.lon for each ol the years ending 30th 1902, and 1903 ; and for the six months end* " January'1st, 1904, respectively.-Mr. Handers** '

Mr.  W. S.@: 
Mr. SPEAKER.: I understand that tbe hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren); after giving the notice of motion which is to be found at page 4 of the order paper the other day, substituted for it the notice of motion which I find printed in the Votes and Proceedings of March 21st, and which is as follows :
Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon)-On Wednesday next-Will move that the House do go into Committee of the Whole-To Consider the following resolution	1That it is expedient tobring in a Bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
I understood that this motion was in substitution of the motion of which the hon. member had previously given notice. The only question before the chair is the one that I do now leave the chair to enable tbe House to go Into committee.


Mr. SPROULE.: Should that motion not have been dealt with when you called ' motions '?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The only order on the paper was the motion which I have put that I do now leave the chair to enable the House to go into committee to consider the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Huntingdon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I ask you whether the notice on the motion paper covers that ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I may explain again. The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) evidently did not understand me. The bon. member for Huntingdon first gave notice of a motion as printed on the order paper of to-day. His attention having been called to the fact that this was irregular he substituted a notice of motion that he would move that the House go into committee to consider the resolution. I take it that the motion is now quite In order and that the hon. member, having given notice of it, was privileged to move it to-day.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: We should give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclaren, Huntingdon) every possible facility to introduce the motion and if I intervene it is only with the desire to have the proceedings of the House absolutely regular. It would seem to me that either one of two things must be concluded, that the hon. gentleman should have introduced his motion when motions were called or that the order paper should have been amended so that when the motion was called it would correspond with the motion which the hon. gentleman makes. I think that would logically follow from the rules of the House. I am not saying this with the slightest desire to prevent my hon. friend from proceeding with the resolution because I am desirous that he should have an opportunity to do so, but it is desirable that we should follow the rules of the House in reference to this resolution.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If any violation of the rules has taken place it has been in printing on the order paper the notice of motion W'hieh the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclaren, Huntingdon) gave the other day. That is the only error as far as I can see.


Mr. M. K.: RICHARDSON (South Grey) Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the resolution which has been moved and so ably supported by the hon. member for Huntingdon, (Mr. Maclaren) I recognize the fact that the subject which is brought to the attention of the House is one of a unique character differing from those which ordinarily occupy the attention of the House. It is a question which rises above the din and the dust of ordinary partisan political strife ; one which makes for the highest well-being of this country for the present and for the future. This resolution appeals to our highest instincts. If the cigarette habit is the evil which we believe it is ; it is an evil that demands a prompt and effective remedy. I recognize that the application of a remedy presents difficulties, bpt I believe that the difficulties are not insuperable. I do not believe, that they can prevent legislation doing away with the evil as it at present exists. I myself am a non-user of tobacco in any form. I do not, however, presume to make an attack on the use of tobacco in general, because I recognize that many of my own friends whom I esteem very highly use it, and I have every occasion to respect these gentlemen for their mental and intellectual attainments ; for their good judgment and for their manly qualities. Were I to attack a habit to which these friends of mine are addicted, I might bo regarded as one of those who
Compound for sins they are inclined to
By damning those they have no mind to,
I may be asked, why I should favour legislation not only of a restrictive character,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 
Mr. RICHARDSON.: 
Mr. ROBT.: HOLMES fWest Huron). I think that my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is slightly astray in some of his conclusions. One of the reasons why the promoters of this legislation and legislation of a similar character-such as the Lord's Day Bill and Liquor Bills-are so very earnest is because they realize that the legislation passed by the provinces is not effective. The provincial legislatures have not the power to entirely prohibit, and the promoters of this Bill, realizing that local re striction has been a failure, desire a Dominion enactment which will absolutely prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes. It was admitted in the dehate last session, and I think it will be conceded by almost every hon. member, that the cigarette habit is an evil, but I am afraid that we do not realize the full extent of the evil. Let me quote from the figures of the Trade and Navigation Report to show how this pernicious habit is growing. In 1899, 106,000,000 cigarettes were manufactured in this country. In 1900, that number increased to 123,000,000. In 1901, the amount had reached 125,000,000. and in 1002 the manufacture ran up to 138,000.000. And. notwithstanding the agitation which took place in the country and the debate in this House-which, one would suppose, would have had a beneficial effect-we find that during the year 1903 no less a quantity than 178.000,000 cigarettes were manufactured. or an increase of 40,000.000 over the year 1902. When we find this evil thus increasing by leaps and bounds, surely It is our duty to take some action to check it. Every medical man In the House last year,
1 think, adnlitted that the habit of cigarette smoking by our youth was very injurious, and as in the discussion this afternoon that

fact has again been brought out most clearly, I need not take up any time in making any proof in this respect. It does seem to me that the only way by which we can check this habit is by a Dominion Act. It is of the greatest importance to the public welfare that our Canadian youth should develop into the very best manhood. It we thought that our boys were diseased in any way, we would bring them to medical men in order to have, if possible, the disease removed, And if we desire that growing generations should attain their biest development, physically and mentally, we should not hesitate to take the most effective steps to root out this evil, which, if unchecked, will sap their manhood. We have realized the importance of keeping the health of our people free from all taint by preventing undesirable and diseased immigrants coming into the country. It is quite possible that in time immigrants infected with disiease might overcome their ailments and develop into desirable settlers, but the Dominion government, realizing the necessity of safeguarding in every way the health of the community" .have passed legislation absolutely prohibiting the entry of settlers infected with disease. I submit that we are equally bound to take steps to prevent the deterioration of our youth and enable our boys to attain their best development by removing from them this growing evil. We cannot too much commend the exertions of those who are behind this legislation. They are not governed by any sordid motives. They are not actuated by any desire to make dollars and cents out of this movement, but are moved by the bejst motives in the interests of society at large, and I am of the opinion that the best interests of our population demand that legislation of this kind should be placed on our statutes.


Mr. ARMAND DAVERGNE (Montmagny).: 
Mr. HOLMES.: 
Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I would be sorry to find that the only protest against this proposed legislation should come from the youngest member of this House, the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. La-vergne). I take this opportunity of congratulating him upon bis maiden speech, and I venture to say that if he speaks in future on weightier subjects as well as be has spoken on this subject, be will be a credit to this House and to the country. If I thought this Bill would accomplish the end its advocates have in view, even though it might prevent me smoking a cigarette myself, I would vote for it. But I do not believe it will accomplish this end. I do not believe that legislation of this^ class does good, on the contrary I believe it does harm. Granted that evil is done to the youth of this country by the early smoking of cigarettes ; still I do not think the remedy should be sought for in this House, it should rather be sought for from the parents of these boys, and from teaching in the day schools and Sunday schools. We all know that some of the boys' schools are loosely and laxly managed, and if they are not under proper supervision, worse evils even than cigarette smoking creep in, and are not stamped out until they are taken hold of by a man who has knowledge of and sympathy with youth. Now, I venture to say that if the energy that has been and is being displayed in bringing in Bills of this nature was exercised directly upon the youth of this country, upon their parents, or upon the schools they attend, infinitely better results would be attained. Some of the speakers have referred to the fact that smoking cigarettes produces indigestion. Might I be permitted to suggest to my lady friends who are so interested in this matter, that there is more indigestion produced in Canada, more evil wrought among the youth of this country, by bad cooking than by the use of tobacco. Fortunately, I live in a city constituency and have not to do election campaigning in the country. I make the assertion without hesitation that the best education you can give to the farmers' wives of this country is to teach them how to cook and economize. Not long ago it was my pleasure to attend a meeting in the east end of Toronto, though not in my constituency, where I could make no votes : but there I found two or three ladies had established a school for teaching girls how to cook. They found that a great many girls enter factories at 12 or 14 years of age and marry at 18 or 20 years of age, without having had an opportunity to learn how to cook a potato or to make a cup of tea. Now these ladies are engaged In teaching girls how to do housework, and I understood there were girls there who were to be married within a few months, and they were working as late as the regulations would permit in order to learn how to do a little cooking. I believe you



will benefit the morals of boys more by making them healthy than you will by legislation looking to the prohibition of cigarette smoking. As I said, if I thought this Bill would do any good, if I thought it would have any effect in stopping the smoking of cigarettes by young boys, I would tote for it. But I do not believe in this class of legislation. I do not believe that this Bill if passed would have the effect its supporters expect from it; therefore I must reluctantly vote against it.


David Henderson: I do not propose to offer any extended remarks on the resolution moved by the bon. member for Huntington (Mr. Maclaren). I dq not think it requires any elaborate argument to convince the hon. members of this House and the people of this country, or the majority of them, that evil attends cigarette smoking. To my mind it is apparent wherever we go. We see it in going up and down the streets of our towns and villages, and I do not think that any member of this House would fail to recognize a cigarette smoker wherever he met [DOT] him.
There is no question in my mind that the evil is a very great one in Canada. It is very injurious tp the youth of our land, to growing boys and young men. Notwithstanding the declaration that we have heard to-day from the youngest member of the House who, perhaps, has not yet been a cigarette smoker for any great length of time, I am not prepared to accept the statement of the few. I base my opinion on observation from year to year and the more I have watched young men and boys indulging in this habit the more convinced I am of its) extremely injurious effect upon their health and therefore I have no hesitation in stating to this House that if the resolution is pressed to a division I will vote in support of it. I trust that the resolution will carry if for no other purpose than as a means of educating the people of the country. I think it is well to agitate this question, to draw the attention of our young people to it and point out to them the injurious effects to which they subject themselves by indulging in this, what I call, very pernicious habit.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the question now before the chair is simply a formal resolution that we go into Committee of the Whole so as to permit this Bill afterwards to be introduced. I would have no objection to voting for the motion although I would not promise that my vote for that motion would carry with it a vote for the Bill which is brought in unless the Bill is far broader than this resolution. Last session when this matter was brought up, the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) proposed, in connection with the criminal code amendment, what appeared to


Edmund Boyd Osler: me a far better plan of dealing with this evident evil existing in the country to-day>
a plan which I believe would be more sefl' sible because that which is advocated to* day is not in accord with the general send' ment of the people of the country. I do no* believe such legislation would be sufficiently well observed.


Mr.  J. M.@: 
Hon. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria. JT.S.).: This question should be looked upon with great seriousness. It is all very well to say that this is a thing which should be left to parents, but parliament is here to protect the best interests of the country and in safeguarding the welfare of our young men we accomplish that result. Certain people who have not had the good fortune to have children, will describe to you how children should be brought up, but I wish hon. gentlemen to remember, that the young cigarette smokers take good care that their parents do not see them. They not only practice the habit beyond the sight of their parents, but as has been known in the city ol' Halifax, sometimes they steal money to buy cigarettes. The young member (Mr. Lavergne) who has spoken, is not old enough yet to experience the disadvantage of cigarette smoking, but I may tell him that I do not believe that I would have arrived at my ripe old age, had I practiced the use of tobacco in any shape or form. Of course most of us ore old sinners in the use r,f tobacco, and we do not look upon the seriousness of this evil as we should. Reference has been made to good cooking, and I think progress lias been made in that art in the Dominion. I do not think that any of us suffer from bad cooking; perhaps we suffer more from eating too much than from eating too little. It lias also been said that tills oitestion should be dealt with by the different provinces. It is my opinion

that the laws passed by the provinces are not so effectually carried out as those passed by the Dominion parliament. For instance >f the Customs Act and the Inland Revenue Act were provincial Acts, they would be abused to some extent, but because they are enacted by the parliament of Canada they are enforced to the fullest extent. It may be true that we cannot prevent the evil, but there is no doubt that we can reduce it, and if we succeed in bringing the evil to the minimum, then we would be doing service to our country. If we trace the history of those who find their way to our penitentiaries, you will find that many of them had taken to cigarette smoking during their youth, and had gone from bad to worse until at last they disgraced themselves and their families. I shall_ have great pleasure in supporting the motion introduced by the hon. member (Mr. Maa-laren) with which I am heartily in accord. I trust the House will deal with this question in that seriousness which it demands and not treat it flippantly.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Ross: served by tbe community. I have always been opposed to prohibition, simply because the experience of mankind shows that if you prohibit a thing, which is not in itself an evil, your law will not be observed, and I think it is always an evil to pass enactments which will not be accepted by the respectable part of the community. If a man can smoke a cigarette with no more , injury to himself than the smoking of a cigar, why should you prevent his indulging in the luxury ? If he prefers a cigarette to a cigar, why should you interfere ? I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that in our legislation we should try to reach the evil where it exists, and the admitted evil is the smoking of cigarettes by boys. I would prevent boys from smoking, not only cigarettes, but tobacco in any form. I do not hesitate to say that it grates on my feelings to meet a boy ten or twelve years of age with a cigarette in his mouth, and I always wish that the parents would look sharply after such a boy. But to say that because the habit is injurious to a boy, it shall not be allowed a grown-up man, is going altogether too far. In my opinion the peculiar obnoxious feature of the cigarette is its cheapness. Nowadays when a boy gets five cents, instead of spending it on candies, as they used to do when I was a boy, he invests it in a package of cigarettes. How are you going to prevent that ? The remedy, to a large extent, is in the provinces, and I would call the attention of the House to the fact that there is a tendency to-day to come to Ottawa for legislation \ which should not be asked for at Ottawa but in the provincial legislatures. There has been lately a reaction against that practice, and last year we had on the floor of this House several members on both sides protesting against the invasion by the Dominion parliament of the rights of the provinces in the matter of legislation. There are many subjects on which the provinces and the Dominion parliament have a concurrent right to legislate, but in all these matters I think we should endeavour to maintain the autonomy of the provinces. The legislation now sought for exists already to some degree in most of the provinces. There is in most of the provinces legislation dealing with this very evil, but we are told that the laws are ineffective and not enforced. I submit, with all deference to those who arc asking us to legislate, and whose motives I sincerely respect, that if they would see to the enforcement of the provincial laws, the evil could be checked. I agree to a large extent with the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) that the ladies who are promoting this legislation could do more good by giving their attention to the matter of education than by seeking legislation on this subject. More can be done by the beneficial influence of women in teaching and educating our youth than in seeking legislation in this respect. The subject eu-91 r WILFRID LAURIER.
gaged the attention of parliament last year, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice attempted to cope with it, but unfortunately) as he said himself at a later day, with very indifferent success. He introduced a measure which did not satisfy anybody, but he has been since looking into the matter. I am not prepared to say, however, that he has yet found a remedy. That something should be done goes without saying. Legislation to be effective should reach the man who supplies the noxious weed to tbe boys and prevent the sale to boys of tobacco in any form, but I do not see how we can undertake such legislation. It will be, hovf' ever, the duty of the government to apply itself further to this question, and perhaps at some later day my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will be able to give info1-' mation to the House on the subject'. The question is not a party one, and I think that the best interests of those who seek this legislation will be served by our not voting for this resolution.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



UNDESIRABLE IMMIGRANTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennoxj. Speaker, before the orders of the day ar: called, I wish to call the attention of government to a paragraph which appeal in the morning ' Citizen ' which says :
Fifty Russian Jews have been deported froa? Fargo, North Dakota, to Winnipeg by Unit States immigration authorities.
I would like to ask the government they intend to do with these immigrant' Are immigrants who are not good enough become citizens of the United States to " allowed to settle in this country or do t government intend to have these immigra0 sent back to the country from which tb came ? The matter is one of importan and we should have an answer from go\ ernment.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister Militia).: In the absence of the Minister^ the Interior, I would suggest that my friend bring the matter up again to-mon'0^ In the meantime I will mention it to te, attention of the minister so that some s*" ment may be made.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY Simcoe). Before the orders of the day called I desire, In view of the fact Jj e* charges, or rather insinuations, of hnP jgpt conduct are becoming somewhat prc' rj/ In this House and are becoming parti®

referenop l,1!0*11) 0Ile '"dividual member, in of thi* pf n0t to one to several members have ha ouse>
and attacks of this characte**
to oecunv tilade for *ome time past 1 desIr'
OCOllnTT 4-1	pasi. -L UCSJ
short tim ie attention of the House for a With o e, ,and if necessary I will conclude Tlie suhil0n 111 order t0 Put myself in order, address,J ™ to which 1 particularly desire to made i,v nySelf this evening is a grant! ion of ,V , government for the construct-constit,,' °Ck at the town of Midland, in the Purchnsfn£y of East Simcoe, and also the MessrsV>by the town of Midland from burton and Brothers, of Barrie, of
the
site
erected" 'iH011 which that dock was to be (Mr d ' J'ae bon- member for Bast Simcoe 15tli instnett) in addressing this House on the ti'ans'ir-t- nt made certain references to that dewsnon^1 w!?icl>
appeared in the ' Globe ' the f0i.per.and in the ' Mail and Empire ' on Dm* .- 'owing morniner. The ' Globe's ' re-
Con I* as MoS'
SIR BENNETT's charge.
A Member was paid for midland

[Stage Direction]
m midland dock purchase.
JPent shinnept accused members on the govern-tae Provia- tlle House ot failure to observe ?ent Act °.DS ot the Independence of Parlia-Jiy the srn„ A dock was, he said, to be purchased dock erninent in Midland and the owner of £?p°nent t S .Yery anxious to effect a sale. His rjjew, marto u Iast campaign, Mr. George wccted n ® a bargain with the owner that if he leal Was mo,, he was t0 receive $400. When the [DOT]aoney he h „ and Mr. Chew did not receive his Which iw^ d 1 his agreement to the law firm issued ;„en,1iett was a Partner, and a writ n®s Paid K,,? col*ect the amount. The monov fw'er for	excuse offered by the former
t.aew had Paying the $400 was that Mr. nc it hart"01 secured the sale of the dock, but [DOT] Da.m«_ ep,n secured by a certain member
tn his pia'ce *in tn h°' Mr' Bennett said, was not "'bom he i?0?f House while he was speaking, ^OlloU nad to Dav SfirtO fnr DllHintr tliv\ dool
as
Parii,
to Wh0place
r°ueh.1 kad to Pay $600 for putting the deal
f°llows :Mail and Empire ' referred to it Another
a ating	of a sirailar nature was that
Wart it to - d0Ck at Midland MrS f°. Set the i L®e'v tec last loot Dcl
Jt|bei	money.
46tdeal through n reoeived $600 for putting ov to paytnp. [DOT] „'Ino owner, therefore, object-°r' had suBP"r' C,h5w'« fee, but the firm, liow-Tllis , ded in obtaining the money.
a®eets n or Insinuation, so far as it afei'y	of this House, applies to
m the tin, 'li0f Ble House who was absent an le anonLtbe sPeech was made. It is
.,	- - 

The owner
,n.® S°vcrllnient, and Mr. Chow $400, if the deal went through. P1 as Mr. Bennett's opponent in a,,!on; He did not obtain his ked Mr. Bennett's firm to coi-money. it transpired that a
Jy. and yra°usly, it is not made speciflo-IirS Wli0 i,' one member of a firm of sollei-°ttiers r.,, Waited for Messrs. Burton and 101 the last 20 years, I desire, so
far as I am concerned, to say that my firm did act in connection with an application made by Burton and Brothers for the completion of the title of their water lots in Midland harbour, and did complete the transaction, acting as their solicitor. But I hurl back at the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) any charge that there was any deal in the transaction. I say to him that the charge is as false as the hon. meember is narrow and small. That bon. gentleman has for some years in this House sought to pose as a paragon of political morality. I would rather say to you, Sir, and to the members of this House that he has proved himself, in the speech he made last week, to be the conduit pipe by which the garbage of political scandal mongers is conveyed to the public. The hon. member makes that charge under the protection of the statute of this parliament in that behalf whjch protects him from the law by which if a man makes such charges outside the House he would be susceptible to the law and would have to pay the damage therefor.
As I said in opening, the Midland dock matter was not the only subject to which the hon. gentleman addressed himself. Most hon. members, if they had any belief in the charges which were made, would have contented themselves not to have dragged irrelevant scandal into the discussion upon the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. Most hon. members would have said : I am possessed of information upon which I will make certain specific charges upon the floor of this House upon my responsibility as a member and I will have those charges investigated. But, Sir, I say that is not the usual method of the purveyor of scandal in this community. What did he do ? He first talked about the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and his relatives ; then he let out and spoke about the .whole government. They were buccaneers and free-boot-ers, but there was no evidence to support the charges except the statement of the-lion, gentleman himself.
Then he attacked the Minister of Justice. Third, he attacked his late opponent Mr. George Chew, in reference to an alleged improper or immoral contract and sought by what I venture to say was an insinuation of the meanest kind to convey the idea that that gentleman had had to do with a transaction whereby certain property was sold to the government, whereas, the lion, gentleman well knew that this was not vlie fact as I shall show conclusively. The hon. gentleman knows that it was a sale of property from Burton and Brothers, the owners, to the town of Midland, of which lie himself was the solicitor. And yet he allowed the statement to go forth to the public without contradiction and without a fair statement of the case, that that gentleman who had been his opponent and yet, Mr Speaker, was his client, had made a deal,
[Stage Direction]
an immoral deal, in reference to the sale of certain property to the government. I would not go so far with the lion, gentleman as to say that if Mr. Chew had entered into an engagement whereby he was to get a commission on the sale of the property that he was debarred from doing so by any act of which I have knowledge, though I do not mean to say that I would approve of such a transaction.
Fourth, the hon. gentleman assailed anonymously, without name, every member in this House, be he on the Conservative or the Liberal side who was absent from his seat at the time. He said that some member who was not in his place-he did not mention his name-had received $600 for putting the deal through, and later on we shall learn what the deal was.
Fifth, he assailed the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Copp) who has already made his statement on the floor of the House and so I need make no reference to it. These are all serious matters and must be treated seriously. It is not right-and I appeal to the fairness of every hon. member in this House. In a debate such as the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, it is not right or proper for hon. gentlemen to make such insinuations and not to back them up with charges. I say and I say it without fear that a man who does that sort of thing and lays no charges is a man who has a degree of narrowness and smallness which is very difficult of description unless it be described as despicable.
Now, Sir, I have no fear of an investigation so far as I am concerned, and I am going to lay all the facts before this House this evening, in order that if it is thought by the House that I have transgressed, the facts can be taken by admission and the hon. gentleman can move and have my seat vacated. I make no bones about the fact. The firm of McCarthy, Osier, Hoskin and Harcourt acted for Burton and Brothers until the sale was completed and for a part of the time for one Jeffrey and one Playfair in reference to the application made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to confirm the title of theser three parties to the water lots. My firm was first instructed to make that application in the beginning of July, 1000. Burton Brothers had registered title to that property since 1S75. James L. Playfair was the owner of 12 water lots on the* Midland harbour and he or his predecessors in title held registered title since 1870 as the hon. gentleman well knows.
The father-in-law of the Messers. Burton Brothers, who is their predecessor in title, was the founder of the town of Midland, the title to these specific lots was very complicated. or rather the description was more complicated than the title by reason of the fact that small bits had been granted, rights of way had been given to the Midland Railway and to others, and therefore the work
Mr. McCarthy.
of describing these lots was somewhat la* borious.. However, an application was put iu on behalf of Burton Brothers and James h Playfair by my firm, in September. Nothin? more was done in connection with it except that certain correspondence and attendances at the department took place until January-1901, when I personally took the matter up' Until then the work had largely been done in the office by persons much more expert in matters of that kind than I am. I made ap' plication in person to Sir Louis Davies, wh° said he would not dispose of it unless the other parties thereto were notified. On tbe 18th of January, Mr. Steers, representing the town of Midland, and myself represent' ing Burton Brothers, appeared before SI* Louis Davies and Hon. Mr. Tarte and ma<i® application for these water lots. Up to th*l time I do not admit for a minute that there was any breach of the Independence 01 Parliament Act in the work which my &1'10 did, and which I personally did on those occasions ; in fact I maintain that I have ® right to do it, and I shall continue to do n until I find an Act of Parliament sayi"" that it is improper or unlawful.
Mr. COCHRANE.: was iniquitous. Now, so far as
except in endeavouring to get the department to straighten out the title of Burton Brothers. I was not successful in that, and the affair drifted on until about November, when, as every one knows the Hon. Sir Louis Davies gave up the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the Hon. Mr. Sutherland then became the head of that department. On the 6th of December, 1901, the Town of Midland, evidently not sharing the views of the hon. gentleman, had expressed some six or eight months before, obtained from Burton Brothers an option to purchase this property for $10,000. Now note the peculiar coincidence. I find upon looking into this matter, because I have spent considerable time on it in view of the charges that were made, and I think that when hon. gentlemen view it in the light of subsequent events they will be equally amazed with me.
I find that in January. 1902. the town of Midland appointed by formal resolution the firm of Bennett & Finlayson as their solicitors, and the town made application for the grant of a sum of money to construct a dock. The answer made to them was not reassuring. Then the town of Midland, of its own free motion, so far as the correspondence in the department shows-and I have gone into the matter very carefully-on the 11th of March, 1902, the town of Midland sends this letter to the Minister of Public Works :-
Dear Sir,-I have been instructed by the town council of the above named corporation to state, that they are now so strongly impressed with the fact that a wharf or dock is of much vital importance to the property of our town that they have finally decided to purchase water front sufficient for this purpose at. a cost of $10,000, an option on which they have for thirty days dating from March the 6th, provided the department at Ottawa, of which you are the honoured head, make such a grant as will build a suitable and efficient dock thereon.
Kindly note that the option stands good for thirty days only. We trust, therefore, that the matter shall receive early consideration by your department.
1 have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) THOS. I. TRUEMAN,
Town Clerk.
Now, Sir, that has reference to the very option to purchase the property given by Burton Brothers to the town of Midland. The then Minister of Public Works answered that letter by saying that he understood the importance of the town of Midland and that he would endeavour to have placed in the estimates the sum of $10,000 for the purchase of the dock. That scheme seemed to have appealed to him. And in May of that year, just twelve months from the time the hon. member was shrieking in protection of the public, as he put it saving : I will protest if any such grant is' made for the foisting of this property on the public at a fancy price, the grant of $10,000 went through the House without a murmur from him as is shown

by the records of the House. It is not for me to impute motives, it is not for me to suggest, but, had the retainer of the town of Midland anything to do with that ? That year was a most important year in the history of the town of Midland as far as litigation was concerned. There were looming up in the near future arbitration proceedings between the town of Midland and the Electric Light Company out of which the hon. gentleman has made a considerable sum of money.


Mr. BENNETT.: Hear, hear, and made a good win for the town, too.
Mr. McCarthy. ' Hear, hear,' the hon. gentleman says. If the hon. gentleman can say ' hear, hear,' in reference to anything that took place in that arbitration, I am sorry to hear it, because it shows that his skin is even thicker than I thought it was. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman, being the solicitor of the town of Midland from January, 1902, to the 29th September, 1902, whether he ever had any communication with the firm of McCarthy, Osier, Hoskin & Creelman, as it then was, or with myself, in reference to the purchase of the dock property at Midland. He answers ' no,' and he cannot answer truthfully, yes. There was a communication between him self and myself or between his firm and my firm during those dates. The by-law which was submitted by the hon. gentleman who says that this is foisting property on the public at a fancy price, was prepared by the firm of Bennett & Finlayson, they were paid for it a fair price by the municipal council of the town of Midland, it was submitted with the support of that hon. gentleman to the ratepayers of the town of Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, bear.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: 
Mr. COWAN.: 
William Humphrey Bennett: Hear. hear.
Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman did nothing except draw the by-law and write these letters which I have read. He had nothing to do with the searching of the title or with drawing the document;

 _ 


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, a writ


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Barrie. But it was improperly drawn, as the hon. gentleman should have known, !u the high court, the matter being in the Jurisdiction of the county court. The hon. gentleman was telephoned to that effect and the writ was never served.
.Mr. BENNETT. If the hon. gentleman allow me a moment, this was done by partner. I always understood that a yit was issued, but I had nothing personally to do with it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: 
William Humphrey Bennett: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Answer ; name.
Mr. McCarthy. Apparently the hon. gentleman will not even now answer, but I must say that I did1 not expect him to. I know his disposition. I know how, if I had not put on record in this House the actual facts, they would have been misrepresented, and how they would have been howled about in the constituency I have the honour to represent. But I have stated the facts, andi shall fee glad to have an investigation into them. I cannot understand why this hon. gentleman should desire to take to himself the role of public disseminator of political scandal. But he seems to pride himself on that role and to rejoice in giving evidence on every possible occasion of a narrow and bitter spirit. But even to gratify that spirit, I do not think he should have gone so far as he has done. Let him make a charge if he has one to make, but if he has only insinuations, let him keep his scandals to himself. It would be more in accord with his dignity as a member of this House that he should cultivate a better reputation, and he would stand higher in the esteem of the public if he would cease disseminating scandals and make straight charges, if he has any.to make.
This is my sixth session in this House, and I think it is the first occasion on which I have felt compelled to Indulge in any personalities or make ill-natured remarks, but i when I have been made the butt of insinuations such as the hon. gentleman has indulged in, I could not, with any respect to myself, refrain from replying to the hon. gentleman in the way he deserve?, and I have done so in as temperate a manner ns I could under the circumstances. So far as j any of my actions are concerned, since I j have entered this House, they have all been open and above board and I invite investigation into each and all of them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I must plead the absence of the kon. gentleman, Mr. McCarthy, from the House when I spoke the other day, as my excuse for not naming him then, as X do now, as the member to whom I referred. I came into this House in 1894 ; X then had perhaps no stronger supporters than the firm of Burton Brothers, Barrie, lumbermen, and they were even stronger supporters of my hon. friend opposite ; in fact they were his political god-fathers, they were his wet nurses, and here we are told by him frankly, fully and fairly, that when they asked for a little departmental work to be done, $400 is the price of his services.
Mr. McCarthy. No.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman states that the sum he received was $400. If Burton and Brothers, will look over the flies of their oflice from 1891 to 1896, when I had the honour of being a supporter of the then Conservative administration, they will find that there were many oflices performed by me for them in departmental work, for which I did not charge them a single cent.


An hon. MEMBER.: Bribery.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the services by me performed were of more importance to them than the services performed by the hon. gentleman. Now Sir, what is all this to do about. I started out with a statement and I am prepared to stand by it now. I discussed it with the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House and stated that it seemed necessary to-day with the low state of morality that if you want anything put through with the departments, there are certain impecunious lawyers, who, for a consideration are prepared to do it, and who receive by reason of what they do fees that are grossly in excess of what they should be.
In 1886, I was reeve of the town of Midland, and continued to be reeve for a number of years. I was elected reeve a year or two after I went to the town. I continued in that position and had a great deal to do for the town with the then Conservative administration in connection with public matters, and from that day until the Conservative administration went out of power, the books of the town of Midland will not show that I ever charged one cent for duties of a public nature.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You dare not, as reeve of the town.


William Humphrey Bennett: And I did not ask for it.
Mi'. COWAN. You would have disqualified yourself as reeve.


William Humphrey Bennett: 
William Humphrey Bennett: There was a piece dispute referred to in the letters.
Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gen^\e will find in an Ontario patent that the w ^ piece in dispute was conveyed to Burt ^ Brothers or their predecessors in the but the Minister of Marine and Fis11^ j0t said that it was not fair to grant fh^e to Burton Brothers and shut out the J
lot.	.4
, r gfU'*


William Humphrey Bennett: 
Leighton Goldie McCarthy: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: 
William Humphrey Bennett: I notice also that Messrs. Hewson & Creswick, of Barrie, have been for a long time acting for Burton & Brothers in the town of Barrie. Be that as it may, Burton & Brothers were anxious to sell their dock, and unless an appropriation was granted by the government for the construction of a dock at Midland there would be no sale, as the town would not buy the dock unless there was a guarantee and an assurance that the government would spend a large sum to build the dock ; it was therefore necessary to put leverage' and power behind the government, in order that the announcement anight be made public that the government would build a dock, and then the town would go on and complete the purchase. Mr. Chew and I had appealed to the hon. tihe Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte), and he had assured us practically that there was little prospect of the dock being built, and the people of the town had been told so, and did not expect that the dock would be built owing to the fact that the Minister of Public Works had not been able to encourage them. But a change came about. Burton & Brothers were anxious to sell -the dock, and apparently enlisted the services of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and what happened ? The sale of the dock went on, and a promise was then made that the money would be expended in the purchase of this dock. Did not the hon. member for North Simcoe have something to do in the prompting and helping the progression of that grant ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If the hon. gentleman is asking me, I say no ; and I challenge him to show that I had any connection with it, good, bad or indifferent.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, Sir, what happened next ? Leverage was exerted by somebody, and the result was that an announcement was made publicly that a dock would be built at Midland, and at the same time the town went on and made a purchase of this property. Now, I am here to say that I do not believe the hon. member would ever have been called in by Burton Brothers had he not been a member of parliament, and merely for drawing up a deed he gets this large sum of 8400. My position was this :	I was a member of
a firm In the town, and the town consulted my partner and myself-most of the business Avas done by my partner because I was away. But acting for the town in this and other matters, any little business that was to be done 011 behalf of the town was done through my firm to the value of some $40, and we had a great deal more to do than the preparation of a deed. But what happened next ? The question that was in dispute was this piece of water frontage, and the town was anxious that it should not he handed over to this gentleman named Jeffrey, but that it should be kept by the

Crown so that the Crown "might have the benefit of all that frontage. I called on the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr-Sutherland), who was then acting as Mimstei or Marine and Fisheries, and he told me- the matter had been before him, and very courteously handed me a file of papers, some six inches high, and said :	ou
can look these over, and call my attention to any that you , W1S,1 , e *; look at I commenced to look ovei them and the result was that I round a number of these water frontages were m dispute between the government and certain applicants. And who was the solicitor acting on behalf of all of them .	1 here
were several from the town of Parry Sound. These gentlemen in the town of Parry Sound had sought the services of the member for North Sim'coe, Burton & Brothers sought the services of these people too.
Mr. McCarthy. I acted for all of them. Mr BENNETT. Oh, yes, they wanted somebody with a pull. I now come to the town of Collingwood, and what do l hud there ? I find there a meat company who are claiming a certain water frontage ; I find that the town of Collingwood are asking for some water frontage too, and I find that the member for North Simcoe is arrayed against the public interest in favour of a private interest; and I have been assured by one of the gentlemen connected with one of these concerns in the town of Collingwood that they had to pay the bon. gentleman pretty handsome fees for what he did, and judging from the fact that he gets $400 for drawing a deed, goodness only knows what he got out of these other com panies.
Mr. McCarthy. So far as Collingwood i, concerned, the moment that the town objected to the grant to the Collingwood Beef Company for whom I acted, I withdrew from tlie matter entirely.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now, what happened ? A deputation came down from the town of Collingwood, and I was met by some of these gentlemen on the deputation who said to me : There is a dispute as to a valuable water frontage in the town of Collingwood. The town of Collingwood wishes to secure that from the government so that we can give it to a large industrial concern which proposes ro settle in that town. But we are met at the threshold of the department of Marine and Fisheries by the hon. member for North Simcoe and this meat company, and we cannot do anything. We claim that he is acting against the interests of the town, although he is the representative of that district, and we claim that he is being paid handsome fees for ids services, and unless Mr. McCarthy withdraws all opposition we will to-morrow place in your hands certain papers which we deem it in the public interest should be brought forward In the House of Commons


William Humphrey Bennett: 
William Humphrey Bennett: 
Mahlon K. Cowan: That would disqualify in any election trial.	cf0-


William Humphrey Bennett: 
Mahlon K. Cowan: Have you or has a [DOT] else ?	nt\e


William Humphrey Bennett: 1	think	the	hon. ^tio'1
man lias henrd it himself. It is a gj,(l. tlie hon. gentleman and I have disc


Mahlon K. Cowan: 
Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that under the last administration the government ever paid to the firm of McCarthy, Osier, Hoskin & Creel-man fees direct for work done by the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy ?


William Humphrey Bennett: They paid fees to the firm.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The costs incurred were iu respect to the constitutional fight conducted by the firm of McCarthy, Osier & Co. on behalf of the St. Catharines Milling Co., and these costs were guaranteed by the government.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do make this statement that the hon. gentleman who then sat on this side of the House took the position, that, Mr. McCarthy being a member of the firm, the fees should not have been guaranteed.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the late Mr. McCarthy. The government never gave the fees or had the power to give the fees to Mr. McCarthy in any case. His clients were the St. Catharines Milling Co. who fought the case and it was only when it went to the Privy Council that the government guaranteed the fees. The matter has been threshed out over aud over again.


William Humphrey Bennett: I say that it was denounced by the then opposition as something unseemly and indecent for a member of parliament to do. Now, as far as Mr. George Chew is concerned he lives in the town of Midland and he will be my opponent. He has been nominated. I can only say that I do not think that if Mr. Chew had to do this over again he would have taken this $400 or $300 as it is said to be. It is a matter between Mr. Chew and the public and I do not know tliat any of his friends

are very proud of the fact that he entered into the arrangement that he did enter into with Burton & Brothers. I understand that he gave a part of it to the church just to ease his conscience to that extent. I say that if the government is going' to reprobate the conduct of members of this House taking matters into the departments and charging grossly excessive fees, all well and good. I do not think it will raise the tone of the parliamentary institutions of this country and I do not believe that such a thing would be tolerated in Great Britain or in any other country. If it is right and honourable for a member of parliament to take a departmental matter up and charge a fee for it, it is equally right and honourable to go up into the Railway Committee and demand a fee for advocating a claim there. I have nothing to take back in regard to what I have said and I can tell the hon. member for North Simcoe that in the township of Oro which will form a part of the constituency of North Simcoe he will have an opportunity in the next election, although it is not in the riding I have the honour to represent, of hearing these matters discussed on the public platform, and I would invite him to ask the electors to decide whether such conduct in a member of parliament is to be reprobated and condemned or whether it is to be admired.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I accept the challenge.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the sole duty of a member of parliament is to see what he can make by trucking around the departments then I say that the dignity of parliament will sink to a low depth. The hon. gentleman has evidently been scouring everything. I am not going to throw back names; he can call me what he likes, but he should remember that:
Immoderate words admit of no defence
For want of decency is want of common sense.
I	am prepared to discuss this case upon its merits and I am not afraid to say that I believe that the right hon. the Prime Minister regrets that the matter has been made public and hopes with hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who are actuated by a high sense of public duty that a recurrence of such an incident will not be heard of for many years to come.


Mahlon K. Cowan: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let him go on. -


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid that .*&! t*e gentleman (Mr. Cowan) is exceed* rules of debate.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Humphrey Bennett: why he asked the firm of Bennett and Fin-layson to give their cheque to the Methodist church; whether he thought this matter would ever come up in parliament; and he wanted the signature of the member for East Simcoe on the cheque in order to show where the money went to;-but what I want to say is, that it was not an honest statement such as we would expect from the hon. member for East Simcoe, or from any other member of this House.
I do not care what the hon. member for North Simcoe charged Burton Brothers for selling to the town of Midland any more than if they had sold to the city of Montreal or the city of Ottawa. In a matter between the hon. member for North Simcoe and his clients, his own clients are the best judges of whether or not the charge has been excessive ; and they apparently paid the bill without remark, something that had nothing to do with the government at all. But, Mr. Speaker, if it had anything to do with this government it was perfectly proper. If the hon. member for North Simcoe acted improperly, the hon. member for East Simcoe was the first sinner in that respect, because after he was a member of this House and before the hon. member for North Simcoe was a member, he was dabbling in water lots in the town of Midland and along the shores of the county of Simcoe. I am not here as solicitor or counsel to say that is wrong for one single instant. The Independence of Parliament Act does not say it is wrong ; the hon. member for East Simcoe had a perfect right to do it. But the hon. member is getting to a depth to /which few men will descend when he tries to smirch a member of this House by first making statements which the Speaker has decided I must not say are untrue, but which are not strictly in accordance with the facts, and then places a wrong interpretation upon the facts for the purpose of striking at a man who is a political opponent, but who is not a member of this House and therefore cannot be heard.
Motion of Mr. McCarthy withdrawn.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Sir \\ iDFKID LAURIBR moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. u. L. BORDEN. Does my right hon. friend propose to bring up any government business to-morrow 1 If so, what will it be ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I need hardly remind my hon. friend that to-morrow is a private members' day. There are several Bills on the paper, and if we get through with them in a reasonable time, we shall take up government business and go into Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned a: 9.50 p.m.
Mahlon K. Cowan: Thursday, March 24, 1904-