1914-03-16

PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTES.

Mr. BORDEN moved:: That the committee authorized by order of this House on the 9th of March, to inquire into a proposed amendment of the law respecting the manufacture, sale and distribution of cigarettes, cigarette paper and wrappers, be constituted of the following members: Messrs. Barnard, Broder, Charlton, Cromwell, Kemp, Kyte, Lemieux, MacNutt, Marcil, Morphy, Paquet, Perley, Schaffner, Stewart (Lunenburg) and Turgeon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report on dividends remaining unpaid, unclaimed balances and unpaid drafts and bills of exchange in chartered banks of the Dominion of Canada, for five years and upwards, prior to December 31, 1912.-Hon. W. T. White.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 110, to amend the Insurance Act, 1910.
He said: The amendments proposed are designed to meet certain defects in the

existing Insurance Act, and particularly those which have been revealed by the recent liquidation and inquiry by the liquidator into the affairs of the Union Life Insurance Company.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I notice that the resolution is not yet moved.


Mr. WHITE:: I may explain that there are two Bills. The one to which the resolution refers is that relating to Civil Service insurance. But the present Bill requires no resolution as it involves no expenditure by the Government. The principal provisions of this Bill are as follows: Greater powers are given the department to deal with insolvent life insurance companies. The amendments in this regard are designed to meet certain defects in the existing Act and in the Winding-up Act relating to life insurance companies. There is also provision to the effect that in the case of contracts entered into between life insurance companies and any of their directors, officers or agents, in the event of liquidation, the liquidator may elect either to continue such contracts or to terminate them, no matter for what time they may have been originally entered into; and, in the event of the liquidator electing to terminate them, the holder of the contract shall be entitled to rank for only three months' time of the contract. This is to meet a difficulty that arose in connection with the Union Life Insurance Company, which I will explain at greater length on the second reading of the Bill. The legal result of the contract in that case was that a very large sum indeed-on account of the length of the contract-would have been payable by the insurance company in respect of damages which would, of course, rank upon the assets of the company pari passu with the claims of the policy holders. There is a further provision of importance, that, in the event of liquidation, the claims of the policy-holders shall he a first charge upon the assets. I think these are the chief amendments relating to life insurance companies which are insolvent or are in liquidation.
In addition, there are certain amendments under which companies are not permitted to invest in the shares of other companies carrying on the same class of business. Companies now holding such shares are required to dispose of their holdings within a certain time. Ten years is the time specified.
There are more stringent provisions as to
the supervison of companies in process or organization, particularly as to the expenses of such organization. A limitation is placed on investments in unsecured bonds in which companies are authorized to invest, and there is a provision whereby the liquidator of a life insurance company may, subject to certain conditions and with the consent of the court, re-insure the policyholders of the insolvent company. That is, of course, in the interest of the policyholders. There is also provision in the case of fire insurance companies that if there should he a twenty-five per cent impairment of the capital the superindentent of insurance may call upon the company to>
make good the deficiency.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I notice the hon. minister mentioned as one of the features of the Bill that in case of liquidation the policy is to be the first claim upon the assets of the company. Is that a departure from the present law?


William Thomas White: I am advised that it is; I think that the claims now rank pari passu upon the assets.


Wilfrid Laurier: All claims?


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend would hardly expect me to say offhand whether all claims are in that position. I believe they are. This is designed to meet a situation that arose in connection with the Union Life, in which all claims ranked equally with the claims of policy-holders, and to provide that the claims of policyholders shall have the first place.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would my
hon. friend, on the next occasion when this Bill is before us, be in a position to tell us exactly the law on this point?


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

[Stage Direction]
CONSIDERED IN	COMMITTEE-THIRD'

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75, respecting The Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
Bill No. 51, respecting the Bronson Company-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 107, respecting the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company-Mr. Fowler.
. Bill No. 108, to incorporate the Northwestern Railway Company of Canada-Mr. Boyce.
169u

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. NEELY:: 1.	Has R. H. Smith been appointed to the position ot district or other engineer on the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, what is the date of such appointment?
3.	On whose recommendation was such appointment made?
4.	What will be his duties and salary?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Date he reports for duty, which is expected to be March 15.
3.	He was recommended by the Hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals.
4.	Resident Engineer, Halifax Ocean Terminals Railway. Salary $150 per month.


COLDBROOK STATION POSTMASTER.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Coldbrook, Kings county, N.S.?
2.	Where does he reside, and is the actual conduct of the office in his hands, or does he hire a substitute therefor? If so, who is he, and is the Post Office Department aware of the same?


Mr. PELLETIER:: Mr. W. E. Porter, the present postmaster of Coldbrook Station, County Kings, N.S., resides at Kent-ville, N.S., and owing to the fact that he is unable to give his whole attention to the duties of the office, the department is about to make another appointment to the postmastership. It has been the postmaster's practice to visit the office for p couple of days each week, having also an assistant in charge of the offi ie. The new postmaster to be appointed will be in a position to give his personal attention to all the duties of the office.


BEAUCE COUNTY RURAL MAIL.
Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Was a contract awarded for the carrying of the mails between St. Georges Beauce station and any or all of the following post offices : St. Georges East, Liniere, Armstrong and St. Thfiophile?
2.	If so, to whom and at what price?
3.	Were tenders called for the above service?
4.	If a contract was not awarded, how is the service made and at what price?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The places mentioned in question 1 are at present served under three contracts, viz.:
1.	St. George East Rural Route No. 2, via St. George, Beauce, Jersey Mills, Liniere 
and Taschereau Post Offices. Tenders have been invited for this service, and a contract awarded to the lowest tenderer. The name of the contractor will be given when the contract is executed.
2.	Liniere Rural Route No. 1, via Marlow and Armstrong Post Offices and the United States boundary line. Tenders were invited for this service and a contract awarded to J. L. Bolduc at $400 per annum This contract took effect on 1st January, 1914.
3.	Armstrong and St. Theophile. This contract is with J. Richard at $100 per annum. It expires on the 31st instant and a renewal has been authorized.


PORTNEUF COUNTY POST OFFICES.
Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	How many post offices were there in the county of Portneuf on the 1st of July, 1896?
2.	How many postmasters have been dismissed between the 1st of July, 1896, and the 21st of September, 1911?
3.	Was there an investigation in each case?
4.	If each case has not been investigated, how many investigations have been held?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. 35.
2.. 11.
3.	No.
4.	2.
PICTOU COUNTY MAIL CONTRACTORS. [DOT]Mr. MACDONALD:
1.	Who are the mail contractors between rnyer St. John and Back Shore and between Pictou and Seafoam, respectively, in Pictou county?
2.	What amount is to each of them?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	For Back Shore and River John, J. L. Cameron; for Pictou and Seafoam, J. D. McMaster:
2.	J. L. Cameron receives $1.25 per trip for a tri-weekly service, amounting to $195 per annum; the department is endeavouring to obtain a lower offer. J. D. McMaster receives $468 per annum.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY MINIMUM FREIGHT RATE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the minimum freight rate chargeable on small parcels on any division of the Intercolonial railway been increased at any time since October 10, 1911?
2.	If so, on what date was such an increase made and the amount of same?


Mr. ROGERS:: Minimum freight rate on small parcels east of. Chaudiere was increased by the former board of management on April 21, 1913, from 25 cents to 35 cents. On August 15 of the same year

the new traffic manager, with the approval of the general manager reduced it again from 35 cents to 25 cents.


NATIONAL, TRANSCONTINENTAL, RAILWAY TRAIN SERVICE.
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No loss.
3.	In January, 1912, $143,681.40; in January, 1914, $185,054.61.


*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	When does the Government contemplate the establishment of a train service on the National Transcontinental railway, west of Quebec?
2.	Has the Government received any petitions from the Abitibi settlers asking for a service of trains between Cochrane and Harvey Junction?
3.	What is the Government's decision on the subject?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The road west of Quebec to Cochrane is still under construction by the contractors, but arrangements were made between the commissioners and the contractors whereby the contractors are giving a mixed train service this winter between Harvey Junction and Parent, 173 miles; between Cochrane and Bell river, 185 miles; and westwardly between Cochrane 'and Hearst. The Grand Trunk Pacific is operating between Winnipeg and Superior Junction. The line between Bell river and Parent, a distance of 139 miles, is not in a safe condition for operation.
2.	Yes; one.
3.	Answered by number 1.


CIVIL SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	In how many cases has the Government or Treasury Board added years of service to the period of actual employment of civil servants superannuated or retired since October
10, 1911?	..	, ,
2.	How often was the said practice resorted to between July 15, 1896, and October 10, 1911, and what was the last date within the said period on which it was employed?
.Mr. W. T. WHITE:
1.	Three, under the provision of chapter 17 of the revised statutes, section 15.
2.	Once; 1897.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY EARNINGS. Mr. EMMERSON:
1.	Is the statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Gutelius at a meeting with the suburbanites in St. John, that the Intercolonial lost over $80,000 In the month of January, correct ?
2 If so, how much of this loss was chargeable to the haulage of Canadian Pacific railway freight trains to and from the Empress boats, between St. John and Halifax?
3.	What was the amount paid in salaries in the different departments at Moncton, in January, 1912, and January, 1914?


HAMPTON STATION IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	What improvements or changes does the management of the Intercolonial railway propose to make at Hampton station?
2.	When was the work started, and what has occasioned the delay with the work?
3.	Were the plans changed, and for what reason?
4.	Is it the intention of the management to erect stations where tickets may be sold at such suburban centres as Fair Vale and Renforth? If so, when?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	To rearrange tracks; to eliminate Maim Street grade crossing; station improvements.
2.	Not started.
3.	Plans not complete.
4.	Not under consideration at present.
NOVA SCOTIAN IMMIGRATION AGENTS. Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	What are the names and addresses of the Special Immigration Agents from Nova Scotia, appointed by the present Government since it took office?
2.	How long was each of them so employed, in what places did they respectively carry on their work, and what amount was paid each for salary and what for expenses?
3.	How many of these agents, or have any of them, reported in writing to the department: If so, whose reports are on file?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1 and 2. Colin F. McKinnon, Taylor's Road, Antigonish county, Nova Scotia, employed from January 30, 1913, to May 10, 1913, as special immigration agent to Great Britain. Salary, $300; expenses, $429.48.
William Watkins, No. 5 Lilac street, Coburg Road, Halifax, N.S., employed from December 14, 1912, to April 14, 1913, as special immigration agent to England. Salary, $400.03; expenses, $425.79.
S.	P. Fream, Brighton', Digby county, N.S., employed from November 29, 1912, to February 6, 1913, as special immigration agent to Great Britain. Salary, $223.61; expenses, $269.98.
J. M. Macdonald, Christmas Island, Nova Scotia, employed from March 8, 1912, to July 8, 1913, as special immigration agent to Scotland. Salary, $400.03; travelling expenses, $494.72.
John A. Macdougall, Glace Bay, C.B., employed from March 8, 1912, to July 8,

1913,	as special immigration agent to Scotland. Salary, $400.03; expenses, $573.03.
J. J. Walker, Truro, N.S., employed from February 24, 1912, to June 24, 1913, as special immigration agent to England. Salary, $400.03; expenses, $635.30.
3.	Each of the above mentioned parties made a written report upon the work done in the interests of immigration. These reports are on file in the Immigration Branch.


BONAVENTURE MAID.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the mail contractor for the service between Bonaventure, Quebec, and the railway station?
2.	Was the contract awarded after tenders, and was it awarded to the lowest tenderer?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Alex. Bernard.
2.	Mr. Bernard's offer was the lowest the department could get.


SHIGAWAKE RURAD MAID.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a rural mail service been established at Shigawake, Quebec ?
2.	Who is the contractor, what is the amount of the contract, how many subscribers have been served, and what offices have been closed, if any?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: .
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


TIDE HEAD SALMON POUND.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Does the Marine and Fisheries Department contemplate removing the salmon retaining pound from Tide Head to New Mills, N.B., or anywhere else?
2.	Why is such a change being made and on whose advice?
3.	What action will be taken to supply the new pound with fish?
4.	Are tenders being called?
5.	Is it true that certain parties who were offered work are said to have refused to accept it on the ground that they were opposed to the removal of the pound?
6.	Who were such parties, where did they belong, and had tenders been called?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	It is the intention to discontinue the pound at Tide Head, and to maintain one at New Mills, N.B.
2.	To enable the parent fish to be purchased from the commercial fishermen, instead of being captured as they are at present after they enter the river, and to be retained in a tidal pound, as such is preferable, on the advice of the expertsl of the department.

3.	Pish will be purchased from the regular fishermen.
4.	No.
5.	Not to the department's knowledge.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


RADIUM-BEARING ORES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Is it the intention of the Government to place in the Estimates this session a sum of money to be granted as bonuses to encourage the prospecting for and the discovery of radium-bearing ores?


Robert Laird Borden: The Government has been in communication with some of the provincial governments in. regard to this matter. An Order in Council has already been passed reserving radium in case it should be discovered. The question of granting bonuses to encourage the prospecting for and the discovery of radium-bearing ores is under consideration, but no decision has been arrived at yet.


NEW RICHMOND RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the rural mail service been opened at New Richmond station, Quebec?
2.	Who is the contractor, what is the amount of the contract, how many tenderers were there, and was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?
3.	What post offices have Deen closed in consequence of the opening of the new service?
4.	What is the increased cost to the department?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No.	'
2,	3, and 4. Answered by No. 1.


MORRIS BURG-WILLIAMSBURG MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Were tenders called for carrying the mail between Morrisburg and Williamsburg during the summer of 1913?
2.	If so, who was the lowest tenderer and what was the amount of the tender?
3.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? If not, why not?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Tenders were invited in connection with a proposed re-arrangement of mail routes in Dundas county, but no action has been taken thereon.


CONCESSIONS TO UNITED STATES. FISHERMEN.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: [DOT]
Has an application been made to the Government- by or on behalf of the United States fishermen operating on the coast of Canada, with a view of obtaining concessions not granted under the usual modus vivendi licenses?


Mr. HAZEN:: Yes.

. COLE HARBOUR PUBLIC WHARF.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	On what date was the money first voted by Parliament for the construction of a public wharf at Cole harbour, Guysborough county, N.S.?
2.	Has any part of the amount so voted been expended? If so, how much?
3.	Has the site for said proposed wharf been selected? If so, where?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	May 9, 1911.
2.	No.
3.	No.


CANSO AND CLARKE'S HARBOUR REDUCTION WORKS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	'iAIiat quantity of fish scrap was produced at i he Canso reduction works in the years 1909 10-11-12 and 1913?
2.	What was the production of oil during each of said years respectively?
3.	To whom was the fish scrap produced at said Canso works in 1913 sold, and at what price?
4.	To whom was the fish scrap produced at Government reduction works at Clarke's harbour, N.S., in the year 1913, sold, and at what price?


John Douglas Hazen: 1. 1909, 131 tons 300 lbs.;
1910,	143 tons 1,300 lbs.; 1911,	29 tons
1,780 lbs.; 1912, 123 tons 500 lbs.; 1913, 151 tons 300 lbs.
2.	1909, 10,560 gallons; 1910, 9,642 gallons;
1911,	2,205 gallons; 1912,	13,440 gallons;
1913, 15,272 gallons.
3.	Farmers, at 820 per ton, and A. H. Whitman, Halifax, 405 tons at 829.81, and 130J tons at 832.
4.	Farmers, at 820 per ton.


ST. JOHN HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What is the contract price for solid rock paid by the Government to Norton Griffiths Company in the St. John harbour improvements?
2.	Were any sub-contracts let by Norton Griffiths Company which included solid rock?
3.	If so. what price is named in said subcontract for solid rock?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	83.80 for stone of five tons and over, and 82.50 for small stone.
2.	Part of the work was done under a sub-contract which is now cancelled.
3.	The sub-contract was not submitted to the department, and there is no knowledge of the price.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTIES.
Mr LAW:: 1.	Did the minister or any official of the Department of Militia or any other department of the Government furnish, or cause to be furnished, to any person a list of the applicants for the Fenian Raid bounty for the county of Yarmouth, N.S., previous to the list laid on the table of the House by the Minister of Militia on March 9, 1914?
2.	If so, to whom was said list of names given?
3.	What date was the fund exhausted and the last payment made, for said bounties?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	To be answered by the Finance Department.


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Have any applicants been received by the Department of Militia and Defence for Fenian Raid bounties in the county of Victoria, N.B.?
2.	If so, what are the names and post office addresses of such applicants?
3.	What applications, if any, have been paid?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Impossible to give this information at present, as applications have not been entered by counties.


LATIN SOUTH AMERICA AND WEST INDIES TRADE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is the Government aware of an association under the name of Latin South America and West Indies Trade Development Association of Canada-official organ, Canadian Oversea Trader?
2.	Has the Government, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or otherwise, promised, directly or indirectly, any help in any form to the said association? ,
3.	Has the Government received any information on the operations of the said association?
4.	Is this association still operating in Montreal?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Very little.
3.	I do not know.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-STANDARD RULES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is it proposed to introduce the standard rules on the Intercolonial railway? If so, when?
2.	What are the reasons for the proposed change?
3.	What number of rules comprise what is known as the Standard Rules.
4.	What is the number of rules in force under the present system?
5.	Will it be necessary for the employees to submit themselves to examinations?
6.	If so, what percentage of the questions have to be answered in order to pass?
7.	What will be the fate of the employees who are unable to pass the examinations?
8.	Will the examinations be printed or oral?

9.	If these examinations are not to apply to all the employees of the said railway, what classes of employees is it proposed to examine?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes; June 1.
2.	To adopt modern railway practice.
3.	Variable.
4.	Variable.
5.	Yes.
6.	No. fixed rule.
7.	Keep on studying until they pass.
8.	Both.
9.	All employees whose duties are in connection with the operation and safety of trains.


RICHMOND AND WOLFE PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Does the Government intend to erect a public building in the electoral division of Richmond and Wolfe?
2.	If so, has any land been purchased for the erection of the said building?
3.	If not, have options been obtained by the Government or any person on behalf of the Government, upon any property or properties at D'Israeli for the said purpose?
4.	If so, by whom, from whom and for what price?
5.	Who recommended the said property or properties to the Government?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Under consideration.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	From Mr. Zacharie Beaudoin who offers to sell a lot for $1,950, from H. Gosse-lin a site for $2,500, from J. Bingle a site for $1,500, and from La Oompagnie Cham-poux a lot and building for $5,500.
5.	The departmental purchasing agents were instructed to examine and report on appropriate sites.


EASTERN TOWNSHIPS EXPERIMENTAL FARM.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Before the purchase of the experimental farm in the Eastern Townships at Lennox-ville, Quebec, were any farms examined on behalf of the Government in the electoral division of Richmond and Wolfe?
2.	Were any options obtained by the Government upon the said farms?
3.	At what price were said options obtained, and how much was paid for the said options in each case?
4.	Who was appointed by the Government to visit the said farms and obtain the said options?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.

4.	Mr. Duncan Anderson, of the Experimental Farms Branch of the Department of Agriculture.


SUSSEX GOVERNMENT BUILDING.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	When was Mrs. Naomi Dryden appointed caretaker of the Government building at Sussex, N.B., and who did she succeed in the position?
2.	Has she been dismissed from the said position? If so, when and for what reasons?
3.	Who has been appointed in her place, and what was his occupation before being so appointed?
4.	Is he still following his former occupation, or does he give all his time to his office?
5.	What was the salary of Mrs. Dryden?
6.	What is the salary of the present official?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	11th July, 1901, succeeded her husband, Shephard Dryden.
2.	Yes, on 1st April, 1913.
3.	Thomas Goggon, previous occupation not known to the department.
4.	He is supposed to give all his time to his present position.
5.	$400 a year.
6.	$400 a year.


SOURIS RIFLE RANGE.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: .
1.	What did the Government pay for the rifle range they bought at Souris, P.E.I.?
2.	Did any official or officials of the Militia Department recommend the purchase of this range? If so, who?
3.	Did any other person or persons recommend this purchase? If so, who?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1. $1,000.
2.	O. C. 6th Division.
3.	The minister assumes full responsibility in the premises, but Hon. Mr. MacLean and others were consulted and gave valuations.


BAGOT COUNTY RURAL MAIL.
Mr. J. E. MARCILE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to establish a rural mail delivery service in the Parish of St. Simon, county of Bagot?
2.	If so, have tenders been advertised for, and what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	Has the contract been awarded? If so, to whom?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. Application has been made for a rural delivery service in the vicinity of St. Simon de Yamaska. The matter is now under inquiry, and until such inquiry is completed and the inspector's report is received, the Postmaster General is unable

to say whether or not the application will be granted.
2	and 3. See answer to No. 1.


Mr. J. E. MARCILE:: 1.	Have the contracts for the rural mail delivery service in the parish of St. Theodore d'Acton been awarded?
2.	If so, what are the names of the contractors?
3.	When is such service going to start?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The contract for Acton Vale rural route No. 3 was awarded to Eugene Leclerc and the service started on 16th January,
1914.	The contracts for Acton Vale rural routes No. 1 and 2 have been awarded, but have not yet been executed. These two services will be put in operation as soon as the contracts have been executed and the necessary arrangements for the installation of boxes completed. The names of the contractors will be given when the contracts have been executed.


*Mr. J. E. MARCILE:: 1.	Have tenders been advertised for the conveyance of the mail between the station and the post office of Acton Vale?
2.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	Has the contract been awarded? If so, to whom?
4.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There are two services at that point, one for the Grand Trunk, the other for the Canadian Pacific. As the information for the Canadian Pacific has already been given, it is assumed that this question refers to the service now performed for the Grand Trunk Railway Company by J. O. Laroche. The department is now making temporary arrangements to take over on 1st April, next, this service which has been formerly performed by the Grand Trunk railway. Laroche, who did the work for the Grand Trunk railway wanted $240 per annum, but the department has succeeded in making a temporary arrangement with T. Lemieux at $235.


EMPLOYMENT OP LOUIS T. TREMPE.
[Stage Direction]
' Mr. CARDIN:
1. Has Mr. Louis T. Trempe, of Sorel, been recently appointed in connection with Government yards at St. Joseph de Sorel, or has he been invested with any charge in connection with those yards, either for the hiring of labourers, the purchase of material or the performing of the work; or has he been entrusted with the care of advising or informing the Government, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the superintendent of those yards, on matters relating thereto?
2.	If so, what is such position or employment and what are the duties connected with it?
3.	What salary does Mr. Trempe receive or will receive for his services?
4.	Was this appointment made upon the recommendation of Mr. E. A. D Morgan, of Sorel ?
5.	Was Mr. Morgan consulted about that appointment?
John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Louis T. Trempe has not been appointed to any position under the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Sorel.


RIMOUSKI LAND PURCHASE.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Was a piece of land bought by the federal Government in the parish of Ste. FSlicitS, county of Rimouski, between the years 1896 and 1905, intended for the construction thereon of a building for the Marine Department?
2.	If so, from whom has such land been bought and at what price?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Thomas Turcotte. Amount paid was $150.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of all recommendations, protests, petitions, and representations received by the Government or any department or minister thereof, regarding the appointment of the present collector of customs at Antigonish, and of all the letters, telegrams and correspondence relating thereto.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, etc., in the year 1913, relating to the carrying of the mails between Grand River falls and Grand river, county of Richmond, and the awarding of the contract to Malcolm McCuspic.
Mr. Law.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters and correspondence in connection with the dismissal of Charles S. Melanson, postmaster of Corherrie, Digby county, N.S.
Mr. Boivin.-For a copy of all charges, correspondence, letters, petitions, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Mr. Geo. F. Payne, postmaster at Granby, Shefford county, Quebec, and of the appointment of his successor, Mr. J. L. Dozois, and also of the transfer of the said office from the one to the other, together with a copy of the evidence taken at all investigations held in connection with the said dismissal, appointment and transfer, and of the reports of said investigations.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters and other documents, including pay lists, relating to the expenditure of moneys by the Public Works Department on Falmouth Township dyke, Hants county, in 1913.
Mr. Kyte.-For	a	copy	of	all	accounts,
vouchers, pay rolls, instructions, correspondence and recommendations relating to the expenditure on the public wharf at Arichat N.S., since the 11th day of October, 1911.
Mr. Kyte.-For	a	copy	of	all	accounts,
vouchers, pay rolls, instructions, correspondence and recommendations relating to the ex-
[Stage Direction]
penditure on the public building at Arichat, N.S., since the 11th day of October, 1911.
Mr. McKenzie.-For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and persons and corporations engaged in the fishing industry in Canada, in respect to the establishment of cold storage stations on the sea coast of Canada for the purpose of collecting and preserving bait.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-For a copy of all contracts by the Department of Railways or the Transcontinenetal Railway Commission with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with regard to the establishment of a joint station at the Palais, city of Quebec, and of all correspondence with regard to the same.
Mr. Carvell.-For a copy of all transfers of lands by the Militia Department to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and of all correspondence with regard to the same.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a return showing all payments made in the year 1913 in connection with repairs done to, or moneys expended on, the blue rock breakwater in An-tigonish county, with the names of the persons to whom such payments were made, the amount paid to each, and what such amounts were for.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports, petitions and communications filed in the Department of Public Works since 1910, relating to the dredging of Antigonish harbour, or the straightening or widening of the channel, or other improvements proposed to be made there.
Mr A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, complaints and of all other documents in any way referring to the operation of the salmon hatchery at North East Margaree, and the fish pond at Margaree harbour from 1911 to date.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, tenders, telegrams, letters and complaints in any way referring to the supplying of coal for the lobster hatchery at Margaree harbour.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, tenders, telegrams, complaints and of all other documents in any way referring to the collecting of spawn for the Margaree lobster hatchery during the years 1911-^2, 1912-13 and 1913-14.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of instruction sent to Mr. Wm. Flynn, advocate, to hold investigations into charges made against employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Bonaventure county, and reports made by him in such investigations.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all memoranda,
instructions and authorizations issued by the Minister of Railways and Canals since October 11, 1911, relating to the eliminating of the present grades and replacing the light bridges with heavier steel structures on the Intercolonial railway; and of all memoranda, recommendations and reports made by Mr. F. P. Gutelius or the Board of Management of the Intercolonial railway thereon.
Mr. Nesbitt.-For a return showing:	(1)
whether the Postmaster General has given a contract for rural parcel boxes, and, if so, to whom; (2) whether tenders for the boxes were asked; (3) from whom tenders were received;
(4)	the price, if any, of the different tenders;
(5)	how many boxes were ordered, and at what price; (6) whether the Postmaster General, since he came into office, has made a con-

tract for rural mail boxes, and if so, when; (7) the amount of the contract; (8) who the tenderers were and the price of the different
tenders, if any; (9) who received the contract, and the price paid per box; (10) how many boxes, If any, were ordered.
Mr. Lamarche.-For a Copy of all petitions dated the 9th of July, 1911, signed by Etienne Barre, Joseph Trudeau and others, taxpayers of the municipality of Chambly Basin, and addressed to the Minister of Justice, together with a copy of all documents and vouchers attached to said petition, and of all correspondence and other documents relating thereto.

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pietou) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, lists of shareholders, Orders in Council, licenses, certificates and other papers and documents and all renewals thereor, relating to the incorporation and licensing of the Pietou Bank, and of all papers and documents relating to the winding-up of the business of the said bank.


William Thomas White: About what date was the Pietou Bank incorporated?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: About twenty-five
years ago.
Motion agreed toi


THE CASE OF WILLIAM J. KELLY.
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) moved :: For a copy of all petitions, letters, affidavits, telegrams and documents to and by the Department of Justice, or any other department of Government, on behalf of or in reference to Wm. J. Kelly, a prisoner in the United States federal prison at Atlanta, Ga., and of all the letters, telegrams and other memoranda between the Department of Justice, or any other department of the Government, and the British Ambassador at Washington, or the Government of the United States, regarding the imprisonment and proposed liberation of the said Wm. J. Kelly.
He said: In moving for the production of these papers, I wish to draw the attention of the House to what, in my view, is one of the hardest cases that I have known for many years and which really has assumed an international aspect.
In, the month of April in the
4	p.m. year 1903, a man named William
J.	Kelly, a farmeT living within three or four miles of the boundary line, was drawing a load of potatoes from his home to the market on the American side of the line. He was doing what I am sorry to say is done by hundreds of people in that section of the country: he was drawing potatoes by night and not in the day time. I am not attempting in any way to

minimize or mitigate the offence. Between one and two o'clock on an April morning, Kelly was found about fifteen or twenty rods beyond the boundary line by a United States customs officer. He was ordered to throw up bis bands and to surrender his team and load. Kelly, however, did not feel disposed to do that. It is pretty hard	to	tell	what really	tookplace	on	that occasion. I	have
beard the matter detailed in court by both Kelly and Mr. Burns, the United States customs officer, on two occasions, one ;in the year 1903 and the other in the year 1910. They both tell practically the same story. The story brieflly is as follows: Kelly was riding on the top of a wagon containing fourteen or fifteen barrels of potatoes. The officer ordered him to halt, which I do not think he did. The officer then seized his horses' bridles, and, almost simultaneously with this act, Kelly jumped from his wagon and the officer fired at him with his revolver. The first shot took effect in Kelly's cheek, followed around under the skin and lodged in the back of the neck. The second shot struck a heavy belt buckle which Kelly was wearing around his waist; that deflected the bullet and the man's life was saved. By this time Kelly was on top of the officer with his sled stake. There is no doubt that Kelly handled the officer very roughly. I do not know that when he left the man he thought or cared very much whether he was dead or alive. The officer, however, was put out of action. Kelly then made his way back to his own side of the line and to his own home, although at that time he was suffering with a 32-calibre revolver bullet in his neck. Medical aid was summoned, the bullet was removed, and Kelly finally recovered.
Very shortly after that proceedings were taken by the United States authorities to have Kelly extradited ffor assaulting 'a customs officer in the discharge of his duties. At that time there were only a few crimes that were extraditable. The first was murder, the next manslaughter; and, of this particular class of crime, the next was assault with intent to commit murder. Therefore the United States authorities applied to have Kelly extradited on the ground that he had committed an assault on the officer Burns, with intent to commit murder. The matter was very fiercely contested. Eminent counsel were employed - by the United States authorities, and the case was tried before the late Mr. Justice Gregory, Justice of the Supreme Court. After a very extended hearing, Mr. Justice Gregory decided that Kelly's offence did not come within that clause of the Extradition Act, as he did not find that Kelly had assaulted the officer with intent to murder, but had assaulted the officer practically in self protection.
Of course, that did not alter the fact that Kelly was in violation of the customs laws of the United States. But, at that time, as I think to-day, an infraction of the customs laws either of the United States or of Canada was not an extraditable offence; therefore Kelly was liberated. He was a poor man with a farm worth probably $2,000 or $2,200. There was a small mortgage on it at'the time, and a larger mortgage was put on shortly after. He had a small amount of personal property and a family of ten or eleven children. He was barely eking out an existence. A subscription was taken up among his friends' to defray pan of the expenses, but only a small portion was defrayed. He went back to his home, and remained an honourable, law-abiding citizen for six years. It seems that about fourteen or fifteen years before this Kelly had been at Houlton, a town on the American side two or three miles from the border, and had been charged with smuggling and his team was seized. He got the team'out of the stable, and went home, considering that he had a perfect right to do so I do not think that this could have been regarded as a serious offence, because he had been back and forth to Houlton about as often as to his own market town, perhaps oftener, because up and down the boundary line, the boundary exists largely in name only so far as the ordinary small affairs of everyday life are concerned. He travelled back and forward unmolested. But it appears that an indictment had been preferred against him before the grand jury and a true Bill found. Just why, I do not know, but the fact is that the true Bill was allowed to stand, the proceedings were dropped, and nothing took place for four-teeen years-in fact, for twenty years.
Kelly received all the instruction which a counsel could give to a client-I happened to be his counsel, and I know what I am talking about-never again, as long as he lived, to set foot on American soil, because I believed that if he did the American *authorities would arrest him, and if he were arrested, having flagrantly violated their customs laws, and as their officer had been so severely handled, he would be punished to the full extent of the law. For the Am-

erican officer was severely handled. No bones were broken, but he was pounded with a stake until practically unconscious and left by the side of the road. Some one came along and took him to a neighbouring house. The extradition proceedings were on within a fortnight, and this officer, Burns, was able to come fifty miles from his home to Woodstock to give evidence. I am not trying, however, to minimize the fact that it was a pretty serious infraction of the customs laws of the United States.
Now, as I understand it, Kelly abode by the instruction of his counsel for six years. But then, relying, I am afraid, on fireside law, he seems to have believed that in that time the thing was outlawed, and so he went back; that is, it was claimed he went back, I do not know how truly. It is said that he was seen there in the summer of 1909. This angered the United States officials, and they started out to punish him. And here is where came in what I hold to be reprehensible conduct on their part and something for which our Government should call upon them to answer.
Just before the events in 1909 of which I have spoken, a man appeared at Kelly's farm representing himself to be a Mr. Black. Black wanted to buy poultry and almost anything else that a farmer had to sell for the Thanksgiving market in the United States. I may say that in that portion of New Brunswick ,a large business is carried on in raising poultry and disposing of it at very good prices. Black remained through that day and I think he came back the next day, and made a trade with Kelly to convey his purchases, consisting of poultry, a cow and a number of other items, to some point in American territory. Kelly said be only agreed to take them to the boundary line. But the American officers said he agreed to take them to Hodgdon, which by the way they travel, is three or four miles from Houlton. They went by what is called the lower road and struck the boundary line at Union Corner. For half a mile the highway is the international boundary line, the actual line being practically in the ditch on the American side. That is, the travelled roadway is on the Canadian side, though what you would call the three or four rods of the highway allowance is partly in American and partly Canadian territory. The maintenance and upkeep of that half mile of road is managed internationally in some way, and both parties do work upon it. There is no trouble to locate the boundary, because 
within the last four or five years the international boundary line has been very accurately delimited and marked out by granite posts set in concrete foundations. There is a post at Union Corner, another forty rods further north at the brow of a small hill, and another between a half and a third of a mile further north just where the road turns and goes into American territory. So, there is no difficulty in a person telling exactly where the American boundary line is. Kelly says that just before he reached the point at Crane's Corner where the road turns into American territory, he was set upon by a nUm-b'er of men who appeared in the darkness. Wherever it was, he was captured and taken to Houlton and put in jail. He was allowed during the night to telephone to some of his friends, and immediately he told his story. Of course, we have no way of proving what took place except by the evidence of Kelly and thte officers who were there. However, Kelly was entrapped and sent off to Portland and was tried there in the month of January following, I think, and was found guilty and sentenced to ten years, the full maximum penalty for assault upon a police officer,, and to four years for the old offence of twenty years before. And the sentences did not run concurrently, but the sentence for the old offence was to follow on the expiration of the first sentence of ten years.
I was present at the trial in Portland, as T was at the extradition proceedings, and I think we had the ablest counsel, probably, in that portion of the state of Maine at that time, ex-Judge Foster, formerly a judge of the Supreme Court of Maine, a man who had a long criminal experience. Mr. Foster, I am satisfied, did everything a man could do to acquit his client. And I am not prepared to say that Kelly did not receive a fair trial. The trial was conducted in as gentlemanly and proper manner as any one could wish. We tried to go into the evidence as to the manner in which Kelly was captured, but the judge held that once the prisoner was in United States territory the court had jurisdiction over the body. As a bald proposition of law, I must say I could not find very much fault with that position. However, try as hard as we would to introduce evidence as to the manner of his being captured, we were denied it, and the result was that the case went to the jury purely upon the question of whether or not he assaulted the officer.

169S


Robert Laird Borden: Was an attempt made to rely on the ground that he had really been arrested in Canada?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I was given the
right to act as counsel, to examine and cross-examine and re-examine, and I attempted to draw out that part of it, but the court, very courteously but equally firmly, refused to allow me to go into it, contending that once he was within American territory, no matter by what means, they had jurisdiction over the body, that they were trying him for an offence admittedly committed ' in American territory six years before and therefore the whole question of fact for that jury at that time was: Did he assault Burns six years previously or not. I think my right hon. friend will find that the American authorities at least would have authorities for that proposition in law. However, they so-held, and any and all evidence showing the manner in which the man had been inveigled into American territory was excluded. Therefore the only evidence that went before that jury was the question of fact:	Did Kelly
assault Officer Burns six year before or not. We attempted to. set up the defence that while he was guilty of smuggling they could not deny that his attack on Burns was purely a matter of self-preservation and selfdefence. After having listened to the* evidence of these two men on two separate occasions, after making all due allowance for the fact that he was my client and my friend, that he was a Canadian and that we were in foreign territory, yet I did come to the conclusion that Kelly was acting in self-defence. I did believe and I do now believe that Officer Burns fired on him long before there was any necessity of taking such drastic action. A man could not run away very fast with a team of horses, up a hill with an eight or ten per cent grade, when the officer was at the horses heads, as he admitted. I never could see why it was necessary to fire on the man as he did.


John Douglas Hazen: Was the officer who arrested Kelly the second time and who fired on him, tue same man whom he had assaulted six years before?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no. I have an affidavit here, which I shall read in a short time, giving Kelly's side of the case. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty and the sentence was suspended until a later day in term. A proposition was then made to Judge Foster and myself, asking us if we would plead guilty to the old indictment. After considerable consultation with the
prisoner and with the prosecuting attorney, who is called the county attorney, we agreed that Kelly was to plead guilty with a distinct understanding that extreme leniency would be shown him. I can only say that they gave him four years for the old case. They may call that extreme leniency Because they might have given him ten years, but it did seem to me that the extremeness of the leniency was not as great as I had anticipated. The result was that the man was sent to Atlanta, Georgia and he is there to-day.
You may ask me wdiat took place and what right this Parliament or this Government would have to ask for the release of this prisoner. That is a very pertinent question, because the case I have given so far has not disclosed very much ground for such a course. If that man chose to go into United States territory and commit a crime, if he were properly apprehended there, I do not see any reason why we should attempt to set the power of our Government in force to release him except on ordinary humanitarian principles. But I am about to make a statement of fact, and remember that, coupled with it, I wish it to be clearly understood that I never did believe and do not now believe that Kelly committed the crime of assaulting the customs officer or that the customs officer was justified in going to the extreme length he did in firing upon Kelly under the provocation offered. I wish to read an affidavit made by Kelly while he was incarcerated in the county jail at Portland, Maine, prior to his trial, in order to give the House Kelly's side of the case and the reasons why, in my opinion, this House and this Government should take some action in order to see if the man cannot be released from his imprisonment. He has been in prison now for four years and he has certainly paid all the penalty that any man should be compelled to pay for the assault made upon the customs officer as I have described it, and I have not minimized the offence as far as Kelly was concerned; on the contrary, I have rather given every bit of evidence which could be given against him. This affidavit was prepared by a very responsible firm of solicitors whom we employed, Messrs. Drummond and Drummond. The affidavit is as follows:
State of Maine, County of Cumberland.
I, William J. Kelly, of the parish of Richmond, in the county of Carleton in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, farmer, make oath and say:
That on Monday, the fifteenth day of Novem-

ber last past, a man calling himself Mr. Black, came to my residence in said parish of Richmond and came into the field where I was ploughing and asked me if my name was Kelly. I told him that it was and he wanted to know if I owned a Jersey cow, and I told him I did, and he wanted to know if I would sell it. I told him I would and he asked me what I wanted for it. I told him $25. He then asked me if my little girl owned turkeys at the house. I told him 'yes', and would she sell them? I told him I thought so.
He then asked me what I would take the cow and turkeys over to Hodgdon for,
Hodgdon is the name of a town corresponding to what we would call in New Brunswick a parish, or in Ontario a township.	It is immediately	across the
boundary line, although not a commercial centre or anything of that kind. Houlton would be the commercial centre:
-and I told him I would not go at all; that I would not haul them across the line; that I had made a promise at the time of the Burns scrape that I would smuggle no more. I asked him if he had ever heard of the Burns scrape and he said he never had. I asked him if he knew Burns and he said he did not. I told him something about the Burns scrape, and presently he said he would take dinner with me and we went together to my house. We looked at the cow on our way to the house, and at the house we talked with my daughter about her turkeys. From my house I went with him to my son-in-law's house where the turkeys were. He took his dinner there and asked me to take mine with him. I did so and he paid for both dinners. I left him there and went home and went to ploughing in my field again. He returned about two o'clock in the afternoon of that same day while I was still in the field ploughing and wanted me to drive him to Debec.
Debec would be the nearest railway station on the Canadian side of the line.
I drove him to Debec and left him and went home.
He paid me $1. About eight o'clock the next morning, Tuesday, November 16, he came back to me in the field again and asked me what I would take the cow and turkeys and a tub of butter and some chickens he had bought over to Hodgdon for. I again told him I would not cross the line on any consideration with them. He then asked me if I would haul them to the line and said he had a team engaged to meet him there. I told him that I would haul them to the line for $4. I was to make a box for the turkeys and chickens and help him pack them up for that sum and take them to the line. He said he was going down the road to get more chickens and look at some geese and would be back about one o'clock. He came back at about 1.30 or 2 o'clock and I was in the barn making a box for the turkeys and chickens. I then went with him to John Kirkpatricks and to Mr. Carrs and to Mr. Bearitos and got the butter and chickens and turkeys and we put them in the box. We loaded the stuff in my yard on the wagon and he went to my son-in-law's house for his supper. After supper he came back to my house and at this time he paid me $20 for the cow. I told him

I wanted $25 as the cow was my wife's, but he said he would pay the balance when I got it over to the line as I might get scared and not deliver it as X had agreed. This balance was to include the $4 for my picking up the stuff and hauling it over to the line. At this time I said to him: ' Now there will be no misunderstanding about this; that I would/ not drive my team over the line.' My wife was there and my family ' and heard me say so. This was about 7 o'clock in the evening. Presently we started with my team and two horses,-a white horse and dark bay horse,- in a sloven wagon, picking up some chickens on the road. We went by what [DOT] is called the Lower Hoad by Appleby's mill and reached Union Corner, which is in said parish of Richmond, and near the point where the highway road and international boundary line run parallel on the north at about 10 o'clock in the evening. As we were passing what appeared to be some bushes standing near Union Corner on the American side of the international boundary line he asked me what it was and I told him that I thought it was a wind-break, and shortly after that a man appeared on the road behind us. We then followed along the highway road, going north where the highway road is parallel with the boundary line but entirely on the Canadian side of the line, a distance, I should say, of about one-third of a mile, and I looked behind and saw the man hereinbefore referred to following, and finally I pulled my horses to the right-hand side of the road and stated that I would go no further. All of this time Mr. Black was on the wagon with me and he told me to get my horses back in the road. I pulled them further out of the road and got to a point just beyond where the ditch of the road^ ought to be, although it is my impression "that there was not any pronounced ditch at that point. This point would be a few rods north of the last post making the international boundary line before the road reaches that is called Crane's Corner, where it turns westerly across the line into the state of Maine. Immediately thereafter Mr. Black grabbed mo by throwing his arms around my neck. I at once grappled with him and we both rolled off the wagon. Black then called to the man whom I had seen following behind to come quick. I had recovered my feet when this man behind came up and grappled with him too and a scuffle ensued. I did everything in my power to regain my liberty but to no avail. The two men finally handcuffed me and together they loaded me into the wagon, and gagged me and the second man got astride of me. Black drove the team and carried me back into the highway road and got across the international boundary line into the town of Hodgdon. The next day I was brought to Portland and lodged in jail, where I am now confined. The man who came up from behind and who took me to Houlton and brought me to Portland I believe to be one Stevens, an officer of the United States Government, connected with the Revenue Department.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that he is right in that, because Stevens was present at the trial and there was no doubt about Stevens being the man who followed behind him.
I am well acquainted with the road from Union Corner north to Crane's Corner, and when I was assaulted and arrested, as hereinbefore described, I must have been at least

ten rods south of Crane's! Corner and the whole, or at least a part, of my wagon was all the time east of the ditch on the east side of the road, and at no time was I over on the American side of the international boundary line. When we reached, as I thought, Crane's Corner, I heard two shots from a revolver and saw the shots go in the air, and I heard some one say ' What's this? ', and then another man whom I had not seen before on that night, got on the team and took the reins. Mr. Black then left and I saw no more of him. We drove on towards Houlton, with Stevens still holding me, for about twenty or thirty rods, I should think, when Stevens said that where was a team following, and leaving me in charge of the man who got on at Crane's Corner, Stevens went back on the road ; in about ten minutes Stevens came back and said the team had gone. We then went on toward Houlton, as I have before stated. Stevens called this man who got on at Crane's Corner ' Mr. Peters.'
(Sgd) William J. Kelly.
Sworn to at the city of Portland, in the state of Maine, this fourteenth day of December, A.D. 1909, before me, Charles Drummond, a notary public in and for the county of of Cumberland, in the state of Maine.
In testimony whereof, I, the said notary public, have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal notarial at said Portland, the day and year first above written.
(Sgd) Charles M. Drummond, [Seal.] Notary Public.
Words 'where I am now confined' interlined by
me before oath.-C.M.D.
All changes from the type are in my handwriting made at the request of the affidavit before administering the oath.-C.M.D.
IE that is true, a very serious state of affairs is disclosed, and unfortunately I have no very great amount of evidence as to its truth or falsity. I have here the affidavit of a man named Read, an American citizen and a resident of the town of Houlton. This affidavit was drawn up on the 10th February, but the information was given very much earlier than that. It is short, and I shall read it because it is practically all the direct corroboration which we have in the form of an affidavit. It is as follows:
State of Maine county of Aroostook, to wit:
I, George E. Head of Houlton in the state of Maine one of the United States of American, painter and paperhanger, make oath and say:
1. That on the sixteenth day of November last, past, I started from the said town of Houlton to come to Union Corner in the parish of Richmond in the county of Carleton, in the province of New Brunswick, and was driven from said Houlton as far as Lincoln's Corner, so called, in the said state of Maine, and from said Lincoln's Corner I started to walk to the said Union Corner.
I may say that the distance between these two points would not be more than a mile.
I walked along from Lincoln's Corner the
greater part of a mile expecting that possibly I might meet on the road a friend whom I was going to see at Union Corner, Thadeus J. Furze, whom I knew would be returning from said Union Corner in a single team. T noticed ahead of me a turn in the road and after glancing along the road and seeing that there was no team near the corner or turn in the road,. I decided to cut across the field and strike the road beyond the turn. This was about 9 o'clock at night by Houlton time. I had got the greater part of the way across the field when I noticed a double team coming down the road leading from Union Comer. I stopped and watched the team. It was a double team, one horse a dark colour and the other a grey horse, and following behind the sloven wagon was a cow or a bull and also a man walking behind the wagon and there was a man driving. As I stood there I heard one of the men say * why don't you keep in the road,' and then I saw the team drive to the right into a field on the Canadian side of the road and go about two rods into the field. This would be about thirty rods from where the road turned to the left going to Houlton, and would be about three rods east from a granite post standing on the boundary line between New Brunswick and the state of Maine. About the time the team stopped I heard somebody shout * oh.' I looked up and saw a struggle going on between the two men that I had previously seen as I have mentioned. This struggle was on the ground near the team. I immediately noticed two men running from the corner that I have mentioned toward the team, and one man shouted as he came, * seize him by the legs.' These two men soon arrived at where the struggle was occurring and seemed to take part in the struggle. After a very few minutes the struggle ceased and a man was placed on top of a box which was on the forward part of the wagon. The other three men got on the wagon and the team was driven toward the American side down into the road and around the corner to the American side, then up towards Lincoln's Corner aforesaid, and went on up the hill, and passed out of my sight. I then started on my way again striking the road when I had passed through the corner of the field and noticed a single team going toward Union Corner.
That would be downhill going north to the corner where the road turns westerly
into the state of Maine.
I walked fast and overtook this team and found it was Thadeus J. Furze aforesaid and found that he had been driving from Union Corner but had turned about the time the double team had gone over the hill as aforesaid, and was going back toward Union Corner. Later in the same evening Mr. Furze and I went to Houlton, and I went to my boarding house and Mr. Furze went to his home.
(Sgd) George Edward Read.
Sworn to at Houlton in the state of Maine, this tenth day of Febraury, A.D. 1910, before me.	[DOT]
(Sgd) Roland E. Clark,
[DOT] a Notary Public,
. In and for the county of Aroostook.
In witness whereof, I, the said notary public, have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal



notarial, at said Houlton, this day and year in this certificate first above written.
[Seal.]	(Sgd) Roland E. Clark,
Notary Public.
That sums up all the evidence which we have in the form of affidavits as to [DOT] really what happened. We have never yet received any statement from the American officers, and there is no doubt whatever that they were officials, because this Mr. Black had been a sheriff and lived about thirty miles away from Union Corner. The other was Mr. Stevens, who is a United States deputy marshall, and has charge of investigating and prosecuting smuggling all along the boundary of the state of Maine. There is no doubt about the fact that Kelly was inveigled into the state of Maine. The only question of fact that is not absolutely settled is whether or not Kelly was taken there or whether he was taken in Canadian territory, true, within two or three rods of American territory, bound, gagged and hauled across the border into American territory as he describes.
We have a little more evidence, something that, while it is not in the form of an affidavit, is evidence nevertheless, because, you can understand, that a great hue and cry arose up and down the border next morning at this unfortunate occurrence. I was telephoned for from Houlton, and the officials in Woodstock, the sheriff and the deputy sheriff and everybody who was thought to have any authority, were telephoned for, and all went over. They were told by Kelly's friends that Kelly had been able to get into conversation by telephone with them, and I must say that the American authorities acted very fairly with him in that regard; they allowed him to call up his friends by phone after he had been safely locked up in the Houlton jail, and he was able to tell them what had happened. If Kelly is prevaricating he commenced prevaricating at that time, because at that time he told practically the same story that he told in this affidavit after being incarcerated at Portland some two months afterwards.
A great deal of excitement was created, and a great many people were there that day. There is no doubt in the world that the wagon tracks were there just exactly as Kelly had described them. It was in November and-the ground was -soft, so that when the wheels sank into the earth the marks were left and were visible. Any one could see that a fairly heavily loaded wagon had turned off on the right and had

gone beyond the ditch, because the tracks were there. There is no doubt that the people who visited the -spot saw the tracks, and I think the minister has in his department to-day-if not they had been sent to Washington-a number of photographs taken from all points of the compass bearing upon this road, showing the tracks, showing this corner and -showing the granite posts marking the international boundary line. The photographs -showed the existence of these tracks next morning just exactly as Kelly had described them in telephoning from the Houlton jail.
Mr. LANiCASTER: As I followed the affidavit, Kelly does not say Whether the American officers produced any warrant or not. Does the hon. gentleman know whether or not they claim to have' had a warrant when .they arrested him?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have never heard any mention of a warrant either by Kelly or the officials.


Mr. LANCASTER:: He does not mention a warrant?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; there was no warrant.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They did not pretend to have a warrant?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I think they proceeded on the ground that he had committed a crime against their laws six years before, and onoe having got him within American territory, no matter how they got him there, they arrested him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But according to
Kelly's statement, there is a question as to whether he was in American territory or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the whole question. Kelly claims that he was assaulted, bound, gagged and dragged into American territory. I am trying to give to the House and to the minister all the evidence which we believe will substantiate Kelly's story. As I said a moment ago, the American officials have maintained an absolute silence on this question. We have never been able to get from them their side of the story. They have never made an affidavit as far as we know. They would not allow us to cross-examine these witnesses in court during Kelly's trial at Portland.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As to these matters?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As to these matters. We were absolutely debarred from giving any

evidence pro or con as to what took place that night on the road, and all we have bearing upon that point is the affidavit of Kelly and the affidavit of this American, Read, and the fact of the existence of wheel tracks seen by many people next day and which were preserved by means of photographs. I think the minister has copies of these photographs here; at least, they were furnished to the department.
Mr. Speaker, you can readily understand that this created a great deal of excitement along the border, and when the man was convicted and sent to the United States prison at Atlanta we began to take steps to see if we could not have him liberated. It was a slow process, and finally, in the month of February or March, I got together all the affidavits I could. I got together probably half a dozen affidavits, which were presented to the American Government, but which are not worth reading here. For instance, there were affidavits from Kelly's wife and daughter that they were present and heard him absolutely refuse to go beyond the boundary line, and there were affidavits dealing with a number of collateral matters of that kind. I shall not take up the time of the House by reading them, because they would not be material to the case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What did Black
appear to do with these goods that he purchased, or pretended to purchase, from Kelly?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know, I am sure. Kelly had received pay for them with the exception of $5.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is there anything to show whether Black was bona fide in making these purchases, or was it a trick to get Kelly into the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was a trick, but he bought the goods, paid for them, took them over into the state of Maine and disposed of them. I think an affidavit states what became of them. The cow was taken to a farmer just near the boundary line, and later on the cow was released under instructions of the chief customs officer of that portion of the state of Maine. The goods were taken into the state of Maine, and taken charge of by the officials who, I presume, sold them or used them. I am of the opinion, although I have no evidence of the fact, that the $5 which remained unpaid was sent to Mrs. Kelly later on.
Mr. LANCASTER [DOT] By Black?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: By Black or some of the American officials. There is no doubt in the world that it was a trick of the American officials to get Kelly inffi thrir possession and they succeeded. I attempted to get the Government to ta&e this matter up some time in the early part of 1910 and I filed with the Government copies of the affidavits I have read here and perhaps hall a dozen more, giving to the department every particle of evidence which I had scraped together which was intended to substantiate the case put forward by Kelly.
I also furnished the department with copies of these affidavits and asked them to take the matter up with the British Ambassador in Washington in the effort to have Kelly liberated, but I do not know what happened. I know that international matters of this kind naturally move very slowly. I was told by the ex-Minister of Justice that they wanted more information but that was in a verbal conversation with Sir Allen Ayles-worth. I could not get any further information and I then made the proposition that the Canadian Government should endeavour to induce the American Government to appoint a commissioner to proceed to the spot or the locus in quo and make an investigation for himself. It is pretty hard to investigate an important international matter of this kind just on affidavits. I had an idea that if a commissioner could be appointed by the United States Government, that if our Government would also appoint one to act jointly with him and that, if together, they visited the neighbourhood and got their evidence at firsthand, they would be in a position to come to some reasonable conclusion as to whether Kelly was kidnapped, or whether he attempted to drive across the boundary line or whether he did drive across it. Even if Kelly deliberately drove the team across the line, he was not more than two or three rods on the other side, a fact which will not be denied by the United States customs officers.
Up to September, 1911, when the change of Ministers of Justice took place, I had not been able to accomplish my purpose. A good many things have happened in connection with this unfortunate case since I had any connection with it, and which I am sorry to say have not redounded to the credit of some of the men concerned. I do not think I would make my case complete, if I did not tell the House something about what has happened. In the first place, this matter was used as an election canvass, by my opponent in the general elections of 1911. I do not know

whether I lost any votes by it, perhaps I did, but whether I did or not one does not appreciate being charged with treachery to a client under such unfortunate circumstances as this man Kelly was placed in. A man would be venial indeed, who for any consideration in the world could be induced to betray a client who was in Kelly's position. However, that, is what 'I was charged with by my political opponents, and by no smaller a man than the Premier of New Brunswick. I would not have referred to this at all, were it not that it was also made a political football of at a later occasion, when an election for the New Brunswick Legislature occurred in 1912. I do not know what steps Mr. Fleming may have taken, in the meantime, but at all events he remained perfectly quiet about it from September 1911, until June 1912. When the local election came on then, he and his friends became very active again over the Kelly business. Kelly left at home a wife and nine or ten children. He had not more than an equity of $1,000 in his farm; his personal) property amounted to practically nothing; the family were kept together for a few months, and finally they had to break up their home. The farm was sold under a mortgage, and it was no fault of the mortgagee, because he would rather have lost the whole $1,200 than have distressed poor Mrs. Kelly in her trouble. However, she saw the impossibility of carrying on the farm. I think a relative worked the farm for her for a year, and then she asked the mortgagee to sell it and close the matter up. There is no fault to be found with the conduct of the mortgagee in the matter. The family were then scattered around amongst friends and relatives; three or four of them were old enough to earn their own living, and the poor woman went to McAdam Junction, about forty miles from her home, to keep some sort of a hoarding-house. That continued until the month of June, 1912, when Mrs. Kelly became seriously ill, and unfortunately departed this life, a' few days before the election. Her remains were brought home and she was buried in the Catholic cemetery at Debec, a day or two before the election.
What actually took place between Mr. Fleming and the Department of Justice I do not know, but I do know that it was the most beautifully staged political play, on such a sad occasion that I have ever heard of. The funeral took place about two o'clock in the afternoon, and a gentleman- who I am happy to say has been forced to 
leave the province of New Brunswick, I hope never to return-was sent post-haste in an automobile from Woodstock, just in time to arrive at Debec, eleven mi les away, when the funeral procession had been formed. He rushed up with hi3 automobile and handed a telegram to another gentleman named Fleming, who was a municipal councillor and a very important personage in that part of the country. He in turn handed the telegram to another gentleman named Kelly, an officer in the town of Woodstock, and this officer read the telegram over the open grave of this poor woman, her sorrowing children and friends standing around. All was planned and carried out with the greatest exactitude, simply for the purpose of making these people believe that the Premier of New Brunswick was trying to help the poor prisoner Kelly. I make the statement, and I am ashamed to have to make it, that it was all done purely for the purpose of gaining votes in the election which was to be held two days afterwards. Such a case of callousness; such a case of almost malice, is not to be found in the annals of Canadian history, and I hope nothing like it will ever happen again. I do not know what the telegram contained; I have tried assiduously for a year and a half to get the contents of that telegram, but I have not been successful. I have gone to the man who read it, and while I do not charge him with any duplicity, still he is not able to give me the telegram, and he says he does not know what has become of it. I have here a statement from a good old lady, the mother of a large family, who stood by the grave, and who heard the telegram read, .and I give you her version of it:
Debec Junction, February 13, 1914. Mr. F. B. Carvell,
Dear Sir,
As near as I can remember the circumstances, in re Kelly funeral, Owen Kelly told them not to bury Mrs. Kelly until William arrived, as he was now on the road, having been detained at McAdam Junction. Mr. Owen Kelly read the telegram to this effect.
Very sincerely yours,
Mary O'Donnell.
I hope the Minister of Justice will be able to throw some light on this. I have merely narrated the facts; I have shown you briefly what in my opinion is the most contemptible piece of political trickery ever heard of in the Dominion of Canada, and I pray to God that such a thing will never happen again. However, the body was buried, and whether the friends of the deceased believed it was a trick or not, I do

not know, but I think they did. I do not know that it made any difference in the result of the poll; I do not think it did; I rather believe the people refused to be caught in this way, and the burial took place that afternoon as had been planned. Of course, Kelly did not come home, and Kelly was not at McAdam Junction. But so far as I know, not a finger has been lifted by the Premier of New Brunswick from that day down to the present time to have this unfortunate man liberated. I do know that within the last three or four months, this same Mr. Kelly who read the telegram at the grave, and who is a relative of the prisoner, asked me if I would sign a petition praying the American Government to let Kelly out on ticket-of-leave, and I gladly signed the petition. I was surprised, when I was home only two weeks ago, to find that the petition had not been signed by anybody else, and the matter is dead so far as I know.
I want to appeal to the Minister of Justice to take some action, and I am doing this now when there is no election in sight; I am doing so, when I cannot be charged with trying to play the game of politics; I am doing it because I feel an injustice has been done to a British subject in the province of New Brunswick; I am doing it because now that there is no political excitement on, I cannot be charged with selfish motives. I believe something can be done for this poor man Kelly. I do not believe that the United States Government desire to play the part which Mr. Kelly in this affidavit says that they have played, and which, to a very great degre.e, has been corroborated by the evidence of one of their own citizens, Mr. George E. Read. I hope that if the Minister of Justice will take this matter up with the American authorities at Washington, he will be able to have an investigation. I think that might be done. I do not believe that the matter has ever been investigated. If it has, I have never been able to find that out as a fact. An investigation could be held, and if an honest investigation were held by a commissioner entirely removed from local prejudices and jealousies, I think that a statement of facts would be elicited that would convince the most callous that this man Kelly had been grievously wronged. His wrongs never can be righted. The man is now sixty-four or sixty-five years of age; his wife has died of a broken heart; his children are scattered to the four corners of the earth; his
property is gone, but the man would still have his liberty and the feeling that his country had done all in their power to vive him justice and to prove to him and his relatives and friends in that country eithtr that he is guilty of what the United States authorities claim he is guilty of, or that he is telling the truth and that he was really kidnapped as he says he was.
Outside of these two difficulties with the United States customs officers, no man in the province of New Brunswick ever bore a more exemplary character than Wm. J. Kelly, a man without an enemy, so far as I know, who never was in court, who never committed a crime or an offence, who was a sober, honest, industrious, hardworking Christian gentleman. You may say: Well, that is not the kind of a man who would commit such an act as you have described. A man must live along the boundary line to learn that people there do not consider it a crime to smuggle a load of potatoes, a few fowl or something of that kind across the border. It is an infraction of the law, and I am not trying to justify the offence: I am only giving the facts of the case. 1 think I am safe in saying that you would not find one in ten of the church deacons and even of the clergymen along the boundary line in the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine who have not been guilty of an infraction of the customs law at some time or other in the course of their lives. That is a pretty broad statement.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Pretty broad.
Mr; CARVELL:	The people in the province of New Brunswick who will read these words of mine will say that I have placed the number too low instead of too high. Although Kelly probably knew that he was committing an offence against the customs laws of the United States, he did not consider it an offence to which would attach that degree of moral turpitude which would attach to any other infraction of the law.
In my opinion, the Minister of Justice owes it to a Canadian citizen, to a British subject, to start an investigation of some kind in order to satisfy the people all along that boundary line, no matter whether they be Kelly's friends or opponents-and I cannot see that Kelly has an opponent in the world-whether this man was kidnapped or whether he deliberately walked into this trap and placed himself under the jurisdiction of the United States courts. If he did the latter I have no fault to find. If he did not do the latter, but if he was kid-

napped, it is the duty of this Government-to do something in order to set the man right. The only suggestion that I can make is to ask the American authorities to appoint a joint commission to investigate this matter. If they will not do so, I would be satisfied if they would appoint one of their own commissioners to come up
5	p.m. here, go over that ground, take the evidence of the people whom we can produce, get the feeling in that country, get at the facts of the case. If they will do that, I believe that this man Kelly will be liberated and that as much of the injustice will be rectified as it is possible to do Tinder the very sad circumstances of this man and his family at the present time.


David Henderson: Would the hon. gentleman tell us when this occurrence took place? I was not able to follow him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The 16th day of
November, 1909. The trial took place two months after that.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: The hon. gentleman is quite right in stating that the Minister of Justice would realize that in a case such as he has described it would be incumbent upon the Government of this country to take some steps, at all events, to assure an investigation. I would like to point out that that was as true from the time that this thing happened up to 1911 as it has been since, and I am glad to add that in the time that elapsed before 1911, the hon. Minister of Justice of that date was quite awake to the desirability and the necessity of something being done in this regard, and that he did do something. After the change of government, the appeal to this Governor ent was again renewed. The renewal of that appeal came from the Government of New Brunswick through its Attorney General, from whom had come-my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) being at that time the Prime Minister of New Brunswick- the original appeal upon which the operations of the Minister of Justice of that day had been begun. Immediately after, not waiting for any local provincial elections at all, but towards the end of the year 1911, shortly after this Government had come into power, the Attorney General of New Brunswick again took the matter up with the Justice Department, and I think I shall be able to show to the House that if everything that could be done had not already been done by the previous Minister ' 
of Justice, no effort was spared by the present Minister of Justice and by the Secretary of State of this Government to bring about a result that would prove favourable to this unfortunate man; because, whether he was rightfully arrested in the United States or not, I am sure that we can all agree in sympathizing with the misfortune that has befallen him. He may possibly have deserved punishment,; but even where men deserve punishment, the punishment inflicted upon them may very well elicit sympathy, and I am quite satisfied that the records show that on the part of both the Minister of Justice at the time the occurrence took place and on the part of the Minister of Justice since it took place, there has been no lack of sympathy and no want of endeavour to bring about the liberation of this unfortunate man.
The last arrest of Kelly took place in 1909. On the 3rd of December, 1909, my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), then Prime Minister pf the province of New Brunswick, communicated with the Department of Justice at Ottawa. I wish to give credit wherever it belongs, and I may say that about the same date my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) also communicated with the Minister	of	Justice of	that day.
Their presentations made at that time were, in substance, the representations as regards the circumstances of the arrest which we have just heard from the hon. member. These were supported by affidavits- the affidvait of Kelly himself which, if I mistake not, was in the terms of the affidavit which the hon. gentleman has read, and also the affidavit of Mr. Read,-I have no doubt the same affidavit which the hon. gentleman has read. Basing himself on the action of the Prime Minister of New Brunswick, the then Minister of Justice, who, I may say, seemed to have considered that a strong prima facie case was made out in behalf of Kelly-and I do not think he was mistaken in that, having before him the evidence laid before him-reported to Council, and upon his report an Order in Council was adopted, and through the British Ambassador the matter was brought to the attention of the American Government. The American Government seem to have acted with a desire to verify the facts and to do justice in accordance with the findings as to the facts. They would appear to have named a special agent, who, so far as I can gather from his report, must have gone upon the ground and investigated this mat-

ter very thoroughly. He made a report, accompanying that report if I mistake not with the statements of the persons whom he examined. He furnished also a number of photographs of the place, as bearing, I take it, upon the statement made that the carriage containing the party at the time of the arrest had turned out on the Canadian side. Having gone into the details he reported to the Attorney General of the United States, if I mistake not, and his report was communicated to the British Ambassador and through him transmitted to this Government. As to that report, I find a memorandum on the file expressing the opinion of the then Minister of Justice to the effect that from the evidence adduced in this investigation-and from what is mentioned in it I would infer that in some way that had been communicated to the hon. member for Carleton, inasmuch as the minister makes mention of the desirability of such communication-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I am permitted, 1 desire to say that I received no such communication in writing from any one. X think Sir Allen Aylesworth spoke to me on the subject, and thought the chances of success were not very great. This is the-first I have heard of an American official being sent to investigate. If he did investigate, no Canadian official or authority, and no friend of Kelly's knew anything about it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not wish to state it definitely, but I think a careful reading of the documents will show that this investigator did go upon the spot. But perhaps that is not material in view of what I have to point out as to what transpired afterwards. There is a memorandum of the 16th May, 1910, addressed to Mr. Power and signed by the deputy Minister of Justice, in which he says:
The minister passed these papers to me yesterday with the statement that he considered that the evidence produced with the United States reply preponderates, and that we probably cannot pursue the matter successfully. He desired, however, that a copy of the reply should he sent to Mr. Carvell, M.P., for any observations which he may desire to offer.
I have not gone all through the file, nor do I wish, the hon. gentleman having stated that he had no information, to imply that he had-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What date?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The 6th of May, 1910.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no recollection of having received it. .


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not trying to make the point that the hon. gentleman had the information; all I am trying to show is that the Minister of Justice of that day seems to have been satisfied from the evidence given that the matter could not be pursued with hope of result. And the question dealt with in this investigation, as shown by the report, is the question where this man was laid hands on; it was not a question of his guilt or innocence that is referred to. I see nothing further with regard to the case until December, 1911. I am. not affirming positively that there is nothing, but am only giving the result of my examination of such papers as I have been able to find. In December, 1911, the Attorney General of New Brunswick again called the attention of the present Minister of Justice to the case. The case was again taken up through the British Ambassador, and there was a good deal of correspondence exchanged, with the result that the American Government caused another investigation to be made. I shall have a word to say in a moment with regard to the reports made in that investigation. As I have said, the matter was taken up in December, 1911, and was pending with the American authorities, I think, until October, 1912. The result was that the American Government informed the British Ambassador, and he communicated the information to this Government, that the matter had been gone over again by the American authorities, with a result similar to that which had been readied in the previous investigation. The last despatch that came bearing upon the subject I will give. It is a communication from the Acting Secretary of State to His Excellency the Ambassador, and dated the 11th of October, 1?1?-
The United States Attorney has informed ine Department of Justice that he has no hesitancy in saying that the allegation made by the prisoner's daughters that Kelly was forcibly abducted and taken across the line into the United States for trial is absolutely untrue;
That he has ample and reliable evidence to establish the fact beyond controversy that Kelly came across the line voluntarily for the purpose of committing the act of smuggling for which he was to receive compensation; that he was not arrested nor was any force used upon him until after he had come well within the borders of the state of Maine; that it was no fault of the prisoner's that he is not now serving a life sentence for murder.
He goes on to speak of the gravity of the* first offence, with which I do not think

we are concerned at the moment. Certainly there is no desire on my part to dwell upon that in any manner that might perhaps be injurious to this unfortunate man. I am quite sure that my hon. friend does not desire that I should. The result of that second action of the American authorities was as set forth in this letter from the ambassador, which was in answer to a telegram we had sent in October, at the instance of the Government of New Brunswick, pressing for action in the matter:
With reference to Your Royal Highness's telegram of October 16, 1912, and my reply thereto regarding the case of William Kelly, I have the honour to transmit herewith copy of a note received yesterday from the United States Government in reply to the representations in Kelly'S favour which 1 made in pursuance of Your Royal Highness' despatch No. 97 of August 14.
Owing to the absence of the Embassy in Washington, it has not been possible hitherto to take up the case personally with the pardon authorities of the Department of Justice. This will now be done with a view to effecting some arrangement, if such should appear feasible. Your Royal Highness will, however, observe that, from the nature of the case, the United States Government is provided with better evidence wherewith to support their contention than is now in the possession of the Embassy and that this is especially true with regard to the question whether Kelly was or was not on United States territory at the time of the arrest.
An official application for clemency on the double ground of irregularity in the arrest and of the destitution of the prisoner's family-
Because that has been put forward also.
-having now been officially refused, there are but two ways in which further effective action could be taken. Either the contention as to irregularity in the arrest must be supported by stronger evidence of a more exact kind, such as could form the basis of renewed official representations, or an unofficial and informal appeal can be made, based on general considerations of humanity, on the existence of strong local feeling in New Brunswick and possibly on the action of Your Royal Highness's Government in similar cases, involving citizens of the United States.
Until I am placed in a position to pursue the first course, I will follow the second alternative and will take such informal action as may be possible.
That was in October, 1912. To show that the matter was not dropped there and that the promise I have just read was carried out, in January 1913, we had a further communication from the Embassy, dated January 29, 1913, in which we were informed that His Majesty's Embassy had a copy of the report from the British Vice-Consul at Portland, Maine, embodying the result of an investigation made by him- under the instructions of -the Embassy into

the circumstances of Kelly's arrest. The ambassador writes:
The conclusions of this report do not appear favourable to any representations to the United States Government based on the circumstances of that arrest, but I should be glad to know whether, in the view of Your Royal Highness's Government, any further investigation would be desirable.
Your Royal Highness is doubtless aware that the question of Kelly's alleged abduction was the subject of correspondence between Lord Grey and myself in 1910.
The report of the consul shows that he himself went personally on the ground and made what would appear, from his report, to have been a very careful investigation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand that
the report was made by the British ViceConsul?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the report of Mr. Bagley, special agent of the United States, shows that he went on the ground. At all events after the American authorities had made the investigation which they thought proper, and which absolutely satisfied them, the British Ambassador, as the result of the communications we had had with them, caused an investigation to be made by the British Vice Consul at Portland.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a most remarkable thing that no person in New Brunswick, none of the officers, none of Kelly's friends or relatives, no person concerned was ever notified. Of course, if the minister says it took place I presume it did, but it only shows that it was nothing short of a farce of an investigation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman has told us he has no evidence on Kelly's side, but Kelly's affidavit, the affidavit of a man named Read and the affidavits of Kelly's relatives, which had no direct bearing on the question. That was the case that was put before the American authorities and it is the case as we have it upon which it is contended that Kelly was arrested on the Canadian side of the line. If the hon. gentleman can suggest anybody or any witness that might have been examined to throw further light upon this matter we would be glad to try to find a method of examining him.. But there is the case that was put forward by the hon. gentleman himself and there is the material in support of it; and I may say that the testimony sent with report and the report of the American investigation, to my mind quite justifies the view of the late Minister of Justice that the evidence of the United States preponderated and that this matter could not be

pushed further with any useful result. Notwithstanding that, at the repeated instance of the New Brunswick Government, we did try to push it farther and the final result was that the British consul at Portland made an investigation which satisfied himself that the arrest was made upon American territory. After stating that he went over the ground he says:	-
It has taken a great deal of time to connect with various officers and attorneys and obtain copies, etc., of the evidence and summarize the fullest particulars.
I have interviewed all the United States marshals and listened to the reading of the shorthand notes taken at the trial. In between times I quietly went over the ground travelled on the night of his arrest and I am, briefly speaking, of the firm opinion that there is every evidence to prove that this man was arrested when he was clearly on United States territory.
I enclose an extract of Kelly's own statement on the witness stand, also the particulars of his murderous assault. For sixteen years past I have frequently been passing and repassing the border-line. I am aware of the fact that the officers of both governments co-operate in the detection and arrest of confirmed smugglers. With this knowledge I carefully interrogated the officers who planned and carried out the * trap ' which Kelly fell into and I tried to get some evidence of overzeal, etc. Undoubtedly precise and full instructions were given to the officers to avoid the slightest infringement of international rights. The officers were particularly bright and clean set men. The instructions given to Deputy Stevens and officer Bragg were so definite that they were positively forbidden to arrest Kelly at or near the line. Mr. Smith, the deputy marshal, whom I have known for a number of years, and whose integrity is unquestionable, informed me that he even told the officers that if Kelly * shyed ' before getting well into the United States territory they were not to arrest him, and I am of the opinion that the officers were very careful to obey these instructions.
I am not going to take up the time of the House in reading all this report; but there is the situation. This matter has been investigated by the American authorities through the Attorney General's department, and there is the evidence and their report, concerning which I have given the opinion of my predecessor, which is also my own opinion. Not willing to drop it there, we have pressed the matter further. The American authorities have gone over it again, and have come to the same conclusion, and this has been confirmed by what looks to me a very painstaking investigation by the British Consul. 1 would be glad if it ceuld be shown to me that there is anything that can be done that would establish the facts to be as this unfortunate man Kelly contends they aTe, but both my predecessor and myself have
done the very best we could with the material we had at our disposal, and the American authorities have, I think, shown every disposition to look into the facts and not to take a one-sided position on it. We find that their investigation is confirmed by the investigation of the British Consul.
I must confess that for myself I am at a loss to see what further it is possible for this Government to do in the direction of claiming that Kelly is wrongfully _ imprisoned, and should, as a matter of right, be discharged because he was arrested on Canadian territory. Whether we can add any further weight to any further application for clemency that can be made on behalf of Kelly, is perhaps a question. I need only say that we will be very glad indeed _ to do anything we can do that may add weight to representations of that kind. We have done everything that is humanly possible to do. If Kelly be right in his statement that be was taken by force on the Canadian side, it is unfortunate, but it does not seem to me that there is proof of that, whereas upon the other side you have the evidence of a number of witnesses actually present, and who have been examined not only by the American authorities but by the British Consul, and unless we are prepared to take the position that these American officers are necessarily liars because they are officers, the evidence does, as Sir Allen Aylesworth says, preponderate absolutely in favour of the American contention. As pointed out by the Embassy, their position is just what would naturally happen. These American officers went out to inveigle Kelly to go across the line, and when they got him across to arrest him. They went out with the idea in their minds that they must observe just the exact circumstances in order to be in a position to say that they did not lay hands on him till he was in American territory. Unless you assume them to be absolutely lying, they are in a position to know and they are more in a position to know than anyone except Kelly himself. There is the testimony. I do not argue for its being well founded. I will be glad if the hon. gentleman can show me a ground on which I could urge that it is not. If such a ground could be shown I would urge it with all the force in my power. But I cannot at the present moment see, nny more than my predecessor Sir Allen Aylesworth could see, how I can, upon the evid-

enee available, establish anything to the contrary of the conclusion arrived at in these previous investigations. If any suggestion could be made of any means by which I, personally, or this Government could do anything to help this man to obtain clemency I would be very glad indeed, and I am satisfied the Government would be very glad, to give him that aid.
Now, to deal with the telegram. I do not understand that the hon. gentleman imputed anything derogatory to this department in that connection.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. It was down in New Brunswick.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Might I then be excused for suggesting that if that be true there is an arena in which this question might be brought up-an arena where it would be more creditable to the courage of the hon. member to bring it up if he could find means of bringing it up there. The New Brunswick Government is not here, Mr. Fleming is not here, and the gentlemen who are charged are not here, and very naturally there is nobody here to meet the statements made. But may I point out the facts? A gentleman named Owen Kelly stated that Mr. Kelly was on his way there and suggested that the funeral be stopped. He read a telegram to that effect. But I am not in a position to say how it was connected with the New Brunswick Government; it is absolutely impossible for anybody here to meet what after all is a pure insinuation so far as the Government of New Brunswick is concerned. I think this file makes manifest that the hon. gentleman was wrong when he said that it was only when the provincial elections were coming on that the Attorney General of New Brunswick became interested in this case. The file shows that from the outset the Government of New Brunswick had set this matter in motion, and it shows that shortly after this Government came into power the Attorney General of New Brunswick, as early as December, 1911, took the matter up with this Government and set the machinery to work. That was a long time before the provincial election in-New Brunswick, and the insinuation that this telegram was the result of any sudden zeal developed by the Government of New Brunswick in view of a coming election is clearly unfounded, in face of the fact that they were interesting themselves in that matter at least since November, 1911-'if we are to deal only with the period this Government has been in power-and had 
been interested in it since December, 1909. So far as this Government is concerned, certainly no telegram was sent from anybody connected with this Government, susceptible of the same meaning as the telegram read at the funeral of this unfortunate woman. Just about that time the wife of this man Kelly was taken very ill. Her death was anticipated. The matter was brought to the knowledge of the Attorney General of Ne^ Brunswick, and what was the result? On the 12th June, 1912, the Premier telegraphed to the Secretary of State setting forth the facts which have been referred to by my hon. friend, that Mrs. Kelly was ill unto death, and pleading that an additional effort be made to get a ticket-of-leave for this man.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was the date of
that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The 12th June, 1912.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ten days before the
elections.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Exactly, and two days before Mrs. Kelly died. I suppose the hon. gentleman would suggest that her illness and death were all arranged as a part of the scheme. People die at election time and there are men who have courage enough to show sympathy with dying people even at election time, even though they have to face the possibility of large minded people taking their action as a basis for imputations such as the hon. gentleman is pleased to make against the Government of New Brunswick. Mr. Flemming sent this telegram :
William Kelly, of Richmond, N.B., was convicted about two years ago for assault on customs officer and for smuggling and sentenced to Atlanta, Ga., to prison for fourteen years ; there has been serious doubts whether he was arrested in the United States, it being strongly claimed he was on British soil when arrested. His wife is now seriously ill with an incurable disease and will probably not live more than a month. He has nine helpless children. Will you not make earnest appeal on his behalf; humanity calls for his being allowed to see his wife before she dies. Feeling very strong that he should be liberated on ticket of leave. Kindly appeal to President Taft if necessary.
The hon. gentleman suggested that Mr. Flemming, instead of sending that message, should have remembered tha,t there was an election on and that there were people capable of twisting fiis charitable action and imputing it to some of the motives which the hon. gentleman is prepared to impute to Mr. Flemming and his officers. But Mr. Flemming did not; he sent this mes-

sage and I think every one will say that he did the right thing even if it brings down the condemnation which has been visited upon him to-day. That was followed by the answer of the Secretary of State acknowledging it. The Secretary of State at once put himself in communication with the Governor General by whom a message was communicated to the embassy and through them to the American authorities, and as a result of the sending of that message there came a message from the embassy on the 15th June to the following effect:
Referring to your telegram 11th June, United States must be informed where Kelly will go if released on ticket of leave. Is his wife at Richmond? Telegraph reply with least possible delay to Percy, 26 East Erie street, Chicago.
Xnnes.
I suppose the hon. gentleman will take the responsibility of suggesting that Mr. Innes was in this deep laid plot. Mr. Innes, I may say, is the officer next in authority to the British Ambassador at Washington. That message was communicated, just as it stood, to the Attorney General of New Brunswick by the Secretary of State:
Referring to your telegram of 10th June instant re application for release of William Kelly, of Richmond, N.B., United States Government must be informed where Kelly will go if released on ticket of leave and also if his wife is at Richmond. Answer immediately.
There came back to that this answer from Mr. Flemming:
Telegram received. William Kelly's wife died yesterday. Nine children without any one to care for them. Kelly would no doubt desire to come home to Richmond, N.B., if released.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the date of that, please?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The 18th June, 1912.
After that the Secretary of State continued in correspondence with the embassy and through them with the American authorities. During the course of that correspondence a number of letters were received from Mr. Flemming urging activity in connection with the matter. This was after the election was all over. He was just as energetic after the election as he had been before and just as much interested and it was with regret that we got the despatch of October, 1912, announcing the decision of the American Government and subsequently the report of the investigation by the British Consul at Portland.
There may be on this file some communications which may be confidential from the
point of view of other matters, but there is no objection to produce the papers bearing upon this question, so that my hon. friend may have an opportunity of perusing them.
I hope that after this statement and after being made aware of what these papers disclosed, he will be fair enough to recognize that the Premier of New Brunswick and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries have shown no indifference to the claims of this man, and that he will likewise be fair enough to say that after this Government came into power, notwithstanding this memorandum that was not encouraging, we did take the matter up with energy and that we did the best that was in our poweT to bring about a result favourable to this man. It is neither the fault of my predecessor in office, nor my fault, nor the fault of this Government, that the evidence should preponderate against this unfortunate man. We did our best to make a case for this man with the evidence that was available. If the hon.. member can suggest any further evidence that will be of use I shall have much pleasure in doing my best to make the best use out of it, but I think that my hon. friend will admit that we have endeavoured to do everything that could be done with the material at our disposal. The appeal, in so far as it was an appeal to this Government to do something, was not unanswered.
In regard to the incident that happened at the time of the death of this unfortunate man's wife, who perhaps, very fortunately for the argument of the hon. gentlemen, happened to die a couple of days before the election, I hope, in view of the explanations contained in these two telegrams, that my hon. friend will be generous enough to acquit the man whom he was ungenerous enough to attack this afternoon and who has had no opportunity of defending himself.
Hon. J. D. HAZEN Minister of Marine and Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, I feel that as this matter appertains to a case that arose in the province of New Brunswick, and one with which I had something to do when I was Premier and Attorney General of that province, and with which I have had something to do since coming to Ottawa as a member of the present Administration, it is only proper and right that I should say a few words in Tespect to it. I listened to tire first three-quarters of the case as presented by the hon. member for the county of Carleton, (Mr. Carvell) with a great deal

of interest and I -was impressed with the clarity and fairness with which the hon. gentleman presented the question down to a certain point. I could not help feeling very great regret that at that point in his address the hon. gentleman indulged in a line of criticism which might justify any one in coming to the conclusion that in bringing this matter 'before Parliament and the country he was more anxious to score against a political opponent in his own county and province than to advance the interests of the man whose case has been brought to the attention of the House.
My attention was first called to this case of William Kelly in 1909, when I was Attorney General of New Brunswick. I received a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman of Debee, Father Murphy, telling me of the circumstances of Kelly's arrest, and appealing to me for any assistance 1 could possibly render, as Attorney General of the province, to have Kelly relieved from the most unfortunate position in which he had been placed. I acknowledged that letter from Father Murphy, and curiously enough I find my original letter here on the file of the Department of Justice. How it came to be on this file I do not know, but it is the original letter, on the letterhead of the Prime Minister's Department of the province, and signed by myself. I wrote to Father Murphy on the 22nd of November, 1909:
St. John, N.B., November 22, 1909. Rev. M. T. Murphy,
Debec, Carleton county, N.B.
Dear Father Murphy,-I am in receipt of yours of the 20th instant, with regard to ' your unfortunate parishioner ' and my countryman, Mr. William Kelly, who is now lying1 in Portland jail. It would certainly appear from your letter as if means were used to induce Kelly to cross the line which were, td say the least, of very doubtful character, still we all know that detectives do resort to such means, and if Kelly was actually induced to go across the line and was arrested there, the authorities in Maine would be quite within their right in doing so; if, however, he was forcibly taken possession of on the New Brunswick side of the line, hauled over into Maine and1 then arrested, the question assumes an entirely different complexion, and steps might be taken through the Department of Justice at Ottawa, and through my own department as Attorney General of New Brunswick, to have the wrong that was thereby created set right. In order to accomplish this, however, the first thing that will be necessary it seems to me is to obtain evidence to the effect that Kelly was forcibly dragged across the line into the state of Maine. With such evidence we would know-where he stood and his only course without it would be to get a lawyer and have himself defended as well as possible when the case comes to trial.
It would seem about incredible that Kelly should have gone willingly across the line in
[Mr. Hazen. 2
view of the statement which he made to his wife to the effect that he 'would not haul the produce across the line for $1,000, no, not foil all Houlton."
I think the best course for Kelly's friends to take is to consult a lawyer in Woodstock and obtain from him (Kelly) a statement} as to exactly what occurred so that we may know his version at least of what took place and whether or not he was arrested on the New Brunswick side of the line. It would also be well, I think, to have all the facts communicated to Mr. Carvell, M.P., at Ottawa, so that he may bring the case to the attention of the Department of Justice.
I can assure you of my profound sympathy with you in regard to this matter and my desire if I possibly can be of service to Kelly and his friends in view to of the manner in which he was enticed away from home after having for years abandoned any business as a smuggler.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd) J. D. Hazen.
On the third of December, 1909, a short time after Kelly's arrest, I communicated with the Department of Justice, and curiously enough my letter to the department is not on the file, as it should be, but there is a letter from the Department of Justice to me, acknowledging the receipt of that letter, and it reads:
December 9, 1909.
Dear sir,-I am directed by the Minister of Justice to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 3rd instant, relative to the case of William Kelly, alleged to have been kidnapped to the United States from the province of New Brunswick.
The matter is at present receiving the attention of the department, and Father Murphy has been requested to obtain the requisite evidence in order that the matter may be brought to the attention of the United States Government.
I have the honour to be, sir,	[DOT]
Tour obedient servant,
(Signed) A. Power,
for D.M.J.
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Attorney General,
St. John, N.B.
Then follows on the file a letter from the department to Mr. Carvell, dated December 17, though Mr. Carvell's letter does not appear to be on file. There is also a letter from Mr. Carvell, dated 20th December, asking that the documents in reference to the Kelly matter should be held until he is again heard from, and he states he hopes to get further information. On January 3 there is a furtjiei. letter from Mr. Carvell, enclosing another affidavit in the Kelly matter, which he asks should be put with the other documents, and he is still in hope of obtaining further affidavits. On January 18 a report was made to Council, upon which an Order in Council is ba^ed, that report being signed by Sir

Allen Aylesworth, then Minister of Justice. Tt- reads:
January 18, 1910.
To His Excellency the Governor General in Council:
The undersigned has the honour to submit a corfimunication from the Attorney General of New Brunswick, dated the 3rd ult., in connection with the forcible abduction from Canadian territory by officers of the United States Government, or of the Government of the state of Maine, of one William Kelly, of Richmond, New Brunswick, also three affidavits and two declarations under the statute with reference to the affair, and eight photographs illustrating the locus. Kelly is now said to be In custody in the state of Maine awaiting trial on a charge of assaulting a United States customs officer six years ago, a charge for which he was tried in New Brunswick at the time, and of which he was found not guilty.
From the affidavits and declarations submitted, there appears to be every reason to believe that the United States, or date officers came into Canada and, without any authority of law, forcibly seized a Canadian citizen and took him into the United States against his will.
The undersigned has the ..onour to recommend that the communication of the Attorney General of New Brunswick, as well as the affidavits, declarations and photographs referred to, be transmitted to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, to the end that such representations may be made to the Government of the United States as shall secure that Kelly be at once set at liberty, so that he may return to his home, reserving, in the meantime, the discussion of the questions of reparation and compensation.
(Signed) A. B. Aylesworth,
Minister of Justice.
An Order in Council, baaed upon the report to Council made by Sir Allen Aylesworth, was passed and that Order in Council is attached here, being couched in practically the same terms as the report to Council. This Order in Council was forwarded to the British Embassy at Washington.
In passing, I would like to call attention to the fact that in December, 1909, when there was no prospect of any election in New Brunswick for years to come, I, as Attorney General of New Brunswick, took the action upon which Sir Allen Aylesworth based his report to Council, asking the United States authorities to have this matter looked into, with a view of seeing that justice and fair play was dealt out to the unfortunate man who had been sent to the penitentiary for this long term of imprisonment. My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) has discussed this matter as though those who were endeavouring to bring about the release of Kelly, or those who were making representations to the Government in the matter, were actuated simply by a desire of making political capital and gain. I desire to say to my bon. friend, that when I got that letter from Father Murphy it appealed to my sympathies at once, for I felt that even if Kelly six years before had been guilty of smuggling into the United States, while it is a crime against the law of the country, yet, to a certain extent, it is, as my hon. friend stated, an offence which a great many people have indulged in on both sides of the line. I remember very [DOT] well the circumstances of the Kelly trial in the first instance, and I did not think there was justification on the part of the American officer in 1903 for drawing his revolver and firing twice at Kelly.
I felt that the action had not come to that point where it was necessary, in order to effect the arrest, that the officer should do so, and I felt under those circumstances that, a man being fired at twice and practically being struck twice, it was little wonder that his blood got up and that there were most extenuating circumstances for his assaulting the officer and giving him a very severe beating. I had those facts in my mind, but I had a further very strong appeal made to me in very strong, pathetic language by Father Murphy with regard to the condition of this man's unfortunate wife and family. Knowing these circumstances, and even if those circumstances had not existed, if there was a doubt as to whether this man had been arrested on the Canadian side of the line instead of on the American side, I would have felt it to be my duty to have that doubt dispelled and to bring it to the attention of Sir Allen Aylesworth, then Minister of Justice. I have pointed out to the House that it was on my communication to Sir Allen Aylesworth that he made the report to Council that I have read, on which the Order in Council was passed that set in motion the machinery of the British Consul at Washington.
Following along the file, and I do not want to take up much time with it because it has been referred to by the Minister of Justice, I find that Mr. Bryce acknowledged the receipt of the Order in Council and that he wrote a letter to the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, as follows:
British Embassy,
Washington, February 7, 1910.
Sir,
I have received from the Governor General of Canada copy of an approved Minute of His Majesty's Privy Council for Canada together with certain documents regarding the forcible abduction from Canadian territory by officers

of the United States Government, or of the Government of the state of Maine, of one William Kelly of Richmond, N.B.
As will be seen from the affidavits and declarations enclosed herein, there appear good reasons to believe that on November 16 last Kelly was forcibly removed by these officers from the Canadian side of the international boundary in the province of New Brunswick and taken into the state of Maine, where he is now awaiting trial on the charge of assaulting a United States customs officer six years ago-a charge for which he was tried in New Brunswick at the time of the alleged assault and of which he was found not guilty.
I have the honour to request that you will move the proper authorities to make an immediate investigation into the circumstances attending the alleged abduction of Kelly, and that, should it be found that the statements contained in the enclosed declarations are in accordance with the facts of the case, Kelly may be at once released, reserving the question which may hereafter have to be considered whether or not he is entitled to reparation and compensation.
I have the honour to further enclose a list of the documents which accompany this note.
(Sgd) James Bryce.
It seems to me that the Government of my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition took the only course that .was open for them. They made these representations to the British Ambassador, and he communicated with the Secretary of State of the United States, with the result that the report was made to the proper officials of the United States and they found from the information before them that there was no cause for them to doubt that Kelly had been arrested on the United States side of the line, and they, therefore, refused to interfere. I do not see what other course the Minister of Justice of that day could have taken. Later on I will show that I do not see what further course the Minister of Justice of the present day could have taken after the matter was called to his attention by myself and others almost continuously from 1911 down to a few years ago.
At sir o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Douglas Hazen: At six o'clock I had pointed out that the Government which preceded the present Government, had passed an Order in Council with regard to this matter a copy of which was forwarded, through the proper channels, to the British Ambassador at Washington. It would appear from the reply that the British Ambassador promptly took the matter up with the Secretary of State for the United States on the 7th of February. On the same day, he informed the Government in Ottawa that he
[Mr. Hazen.J
had the honour to transmit a copy of the note which he had addressed to the United States Government calling the attention of the Secretary of State to the forceful abduction of William Kelly on Canadian territory and requesting that the matter might "be inquired into forthwith by competent authority. The Minister of Jad:

3 has told us what occurred, of the correspondence which was received and the inquiry made into the matter in the United States and the conclusion come to by the United States authorities. He has also told us of the memorandum of the Minister of Justice of the preceding Government with regard to the subject. My hon. friend from Carleton evidently heard of that for the first time today, as I judge from the remarks he made. It is almost incredible to me that my hon. friend, if he had the interest in this case that he would have it believed he had, should not have known what was done with regard to it by the Government he supported. He was in this Parliament during the session of 1910 and the session of 1911, yet he knew nothing of what had taken place. One would imagine if he had any interest in the case that he would not have allowed a single session to pass without going to the Department of Justice, and discussing the matter with the minister, the deputy minister and the officials there and learning what had taken place. Yet, on his own admission, he did not know what had taken place, and so the conclusion is almost irresistible that he was not really interested in the case of William Kelly. He moved in the matter when approached, as I moved, as Attorney-General of New Brunswick when I was approached on the subject in November, 1910. But apparently he then allowed the matter to stand and did nothing further about it; and revives it now, when, having heard a rumour of some telegram about Mrs. Kelly's death and funeral he thinks he can make party capital against his fellow townsman who is now Prime Minister of New Brunswick.
We have the facts of what occurred down to the time when the Government supported by the hon. gentleman went out of power. The new Administration wais sworn into office on the 11th of October, 1911. I have a private file in my office with a number of letters bearing on the case and to isome of these letters I wish to ask the consideration of the House. In 1911, while I was at my home in St. John on the occasion of the Christmas festival, I was called on by Mr. Frank Smith, of Florenceville, in the

county of Carleton, a gentleman who has been a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and came near being a member of the House of Commons, being defeated by only nine votes, if I remember well. He told me of the existence of intense feeling in the county of Carle-ton over this case of William Kelly. He said that the sympathy of the people irrespective of politics was with Kelly and that there was the greatest desire that he should be released from prison. Mr. Smith asked if something could not be done through Government intervention to get Kelly released that he might return to his wife and family and his home in Richmond, in Carleton county. I promised I would take the matter up with the Department of Justice. When I returned here, I found a letter from Mr. Kirkpatrick, who had been Trade Commissioner of the Dominion in the West Indies. I will just read a few sentences from Mr. Kirkpatrick's letter:
I have learned from Mr. B. Prank Smith that he has taken up through you the question of the case of William Kelly, a Canadian citizen, who is undergoing one of the most barbarous punishmehts in the United States federal prison that I have ever heard of. 1
I have known William Kelly quite intimately for a life-time and his only crime was that of being an inveterate smuggler. He was a struggling farmer having a wife and ten children to support. He was a sober and peaceful citizen and a man who was well liked by every one.
When the United States authorities sought to have him extradited a number of years ago on the charge of smuggling and assault, the late Justice Gregory who heard the case decided that there were no grounds on which he should be given up and was set free. Seven years later he was kidnapped and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment while his wife was left in poverty with ten children to support.
I took the mutter up with the Minister of Justice and urged him to see if something could not be done in order that the sentence might be commuted or lessened, so that this man might return to jhis home. It has always seemed to me that fourteen years' imprisonment, the punishment meted out to him, was a punishment too great for the crime. And in view of what my hon. friend from Carleton said this afternoon, while he was most moderate in stating it, it would almost look as if there had been a breach of faith, in view of the understanding arrived at at Portland in giving the man four years' imprisonment for the old offence in addition to the ten years for the assault on the United States customs officer-an assault, I do not hesitate to say again, which was largely provoked by that officer himself, who, I think had no justification whatever in shooting at Kelly under the circumstances, and in view of that shooting Kelly did what any man, I think, would have done, assaulted . the officer believing he was doing it m defence of his own life. I had a strong letter from Mr. Frank Smith also in which he said:
'He Wm Kelly of Debec' I have received your favour June S enclosing copy of letter to you from E. S. Kirkpatrick of Debec. This is the case I talked with you about at your own home in St. John during the holiday. I asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to write you with regard to same, as he lives very near Kelly's home, and I felt that he knew quite a lot about the details of the case.
When I talked with you in St. John, we agreed that you would examine the flies of the Minister of Justice, when you went back to Ottawa, to learn exactly what progress had been made with this case under the Laurier Government.
If you will kindly do this, and take the case up with the Minister of Justice, I shall then be glad to work along the lines that you may suggest, and furnish you with the fullest detailed evidence.
It really is a most important matter that every effort should be made to liberate this man who was without a doubt kidnapped.
And I think that is the universal opinion in Carleton county; everybody you speak to there believes that the man was kidnapped and dragged over the line, though the American authorities refuse to believe anything of the sort and say they have complete evidence that the arrest took place on the American side. I understood my hon. friend from Carleton, who took part in the defence of Kelly in Portland, to say that the judge there ruled that he could not go into the evidence whether Kelly was on the Canadian or American side at the time of his arrest, contending that if he was in the United States, regardless of how he got there, he was within their jurisdiction, and that even if it were shown that he had been dragged over the line, that would be no defence against the charge brought against him and would not go in mitigation of the charge. I hope I have correctly repeated what my hon. friend said.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman is quite correct.


John Douglas Hazen: That -being the case, if that view were taken by the higher authorities at Washington, then, even though the former Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Ayles-worth, and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) had evidence in support of the contention made as to kidnapping those authorities, I assume, would not

regard that as suffiicent reason why Kelly should be given up or why he should be pardoned.
I understood my hon. friend to say that undoubtedly there was American authority that was produced on the trial to show that the contention made by those acting for the state, for the prosecution at the trial, and by the judge, was correct. Therefore, even if it had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authorities at Washington that Kelly was not arrested in the first instance on the American side of the line, but had been dragged over the line by forcible means, if the law as laid down by the learned judge who tried the case at Portland was correct law from the standpoint of the United States, the reason would not exist why they should give Kelly up and send him back to Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish my hon. friend or any member of the House to draw any inference as to what I stated except the actual facts of the case, because this may be brought to the notice of the United States officials and of Judge Hale, the presiding judge at Portland. I do not know that any authorities were quoted by either the prosecuting counsel or by the judge to substantiate that position. They simply took that position and maintained it, and absolutely refused to allow any evidence bearing on the question of how Kelly got into American jurisdiction. They simply said: He is here in our jurisdiction, an indictment has been found against him, and we are going to try him on that indictment.


John Douglas Hazen: I understood my hon. friend to say that there were American authorities. Of course, it may be said that in some encyclopedia of law in the United States you can get some authority from some state that will support almost any contention. It would seem to me, as an international matter, that no country would approve of its officials crossing the boundary into another country, absolutely kidnapping a man, taking him by foree across the boundary line, then arresting him and trying him on a charge six years old. I should think that if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State at Washington that this man had been kidnapped and by force dragged across the line and arrested and tried, the authorities of the United States, looking at it from the broad standpoint of international law and justice, would say that the man ought 
to be given up and returned to the country from which he came. That may or may not be the case, but that is the way it presents itself to me. But, at the same time, up to the present neither the Minister of Justice of the Laurier Government nor the present Minister of Justice nor any information that has been given to the State Departmefit at Washington, has convinced them that that was the case. On the contrary they have the opinion read this afternoon in the report from the British Consul at Portland, a man who investigated the matter, who \yent into the country and along the boundary line where the offence was committed, who makes a report certainly against the contention made by those on the Canadian side. Still I do not think there is a man in the county of Carleton who does not believe that the man was kidnapped and dragged across the line and was arrested when he got across the line. There is no doubt on this point, that the man was enticed to go near the boundary line by the action of detectives sent by the United States Government for that purpose. Of course, it may be said that that is a method that detectives generally adopt, and that they have a perfect right to do it, but it does seem a most harsh and cruel 'proceeding, six years after an offence for which a man was found not guilty in a court of justice in a British country, that he should, by means of that sort adopted by detectives, be taken across the boundary line and then arrested and taken off and sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment for an offence of which he was practically acquitted when a court in New Brunswick refused to allow him to be extradited for the offence. Six years had passed since then, during which time he had been an exemplary member of society and a good citizen in the community in which he lived.
Referring to further correspondence which I had on this matter, I acknowledged Mr. Kirkpatrick's letter and took up the matter with the Minister of Justice. But I did more than that, I wrote a personal letter on the subject to the British Ambassador at Washington, the Right Hon. James Bryce. I ventured to do this because I have known Mr. Bryce quite a while. I had the honour of entertaining him at my house in St. John when he was in New Brunswick. He visited Ottawa afterwards, where I again met him and I had the honour of being his guest in Washington. He had told me here and in Wash-

ington if there was any matter of a personal character, apart from any official matter in my department, about which I wished to communicate with him, to write him a letter directly, a personal letter, and he would be only too pleased to take the matter up and to deal with it in the way that he thought best. Therefore, interested as I was and believing that an act of very great hardship had been done to the unfortunate man Kelly, on the 22nd of June, 1912, I wrote this letter to Mr. Bryce:
My dear Mr. Bryce:
Sometime ago a man named Kelly, a British subject, residing in New Brunswick, in the county of Carleton, was arrested by United States officials and taken to Portland and tried lor assaulting a customs officer, many years before, and sent to prison in the United States.
I understand the facts of the case have all been laid before you. There is very great local indignation felt in regard to the matter, and great sympathy for Kelly and his family. His wife died a few days ago and this makes the case exceedingly hard for his family. The universal belief in New Brunswick is that Kelly was on the Canadian side of the line and was forcibly dragged across into the United States at the time of his arrest. I am not going to weary you with a recital of the facts for, as I said before, I understand they have been submitted to you. I merely wish to say that if you can in any way bring influence to bear on the United States authorities to secure Kelly's release, then you will be doing an act which I believe is one of justice and mercy as well.
I am, yours very sincerely,
(Sgu) J. D. Hazen.
Let me say that about a week before this I had been approached in regard to the matter by a gentleman named John E. McCloskey, of St. John, an officer of the Inland Eevenue Department who died about a year ago, who was then secretary of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in New Brunswick. He told me the members of that order were very much interested in the case and he would be very much indebted to me if I could do anything to assist to bring the matter prominently before the authorities in Washington. On the 12th of June I received a letter from Mr. McCloskey in which he says:
I received the enclosed this morning. This makes the case extremely sad. Kindly return the letter.
It was a letter announcing the death of Mrs. Kelly. That was on June 12, eight days before the general election in New Brunswick; and I am quite sure that Mr. McCloskey had no thought in writing that letter of assisting any party in New Brunswick in the election. I wrote acknowledging the receipt of this, and it was a 109
few days later that I wrote the letter to Mr. Bryce to which I referred, personally asking him to interest himself in the matter as an act of justice and mercy. Mr. Bryce wrote back on the 28th of June, six days after the election, saying this:
My dear Mr. Hazen:
Many thanks for your letter June 22 regarding the man named Kelly. At the request of His Royal Highness the Embassy applied a fortnight ago for his release on ticket of leave.
That was the time Mr. Flemming sent a telegram here and it was forwarded to Washington.
And the matter is still under consideration by the Department of Justice at Washington. Some difficulty has been experienced owing to the fact that such ticket of leave would npt,
X understand, hold In Canada and the United States authorities would therefore have to trust to his honour to return. Mainly for this reason it was impossible to secure his release before his wife's death.
Then he suggests that he should be put in possession of all the facts in regard to the ease, as this would enable him to set on foot an application for his pardon. I think Mr. Bryce was mistaken in thinking the embassy was not in possession of all the facts, because the facts had been communicated to them, in the first place by Sir Allen Aylesworth as Minister of Justice, through the Department of the Secretary of State, and, in the second place, by the present Minister of Justice. There was some further correspondence. I wrote Mr. Bryce again, reminding him of the matter, and I wrote to Mr. McCloskey, and on the 25th of October, 1912, I received this from the Department of Justice:
I am desired by the minister to send you herewith, for your information, copy of a despatch of 16th instant from the British Ambassador, recently referred to this department.
Tours sincerely,
E. L. Newcombe.
That was a result of the representations made in Mr. Flemming's telegram and of the representations made by myself and by the Minister of Justice. It contains a copy of a letter to Mr. Bryce signed by Huntingdon Wilson, acting Secretary of 'State, which I will read:
Department of State,
Washington, October 11, 1912.
Excellency,-Referring to previous correspondence relative to the petition in behalf of William J. Kelly, a federal prisoner at! Atlanta, Georgia, convicted of resisting a United States officer and smuggling, I have the honour to inform you that a letter on the subject has been received from the acting Attorney General in which he states that Kelly brutally assaulted Mr. Frank Burns, a United


J718 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
States customs officer, who was endeavouring to apprehend him while he was engaged in smuggling a load of merchandise into thid country; that he left Mr. Burns for dead and afterwards stated that he thought the man was dead and was sorry he had not finished the job.
The United States Attorney has informed the Department of Justice that he has no hesitancy in saying that the allegation made by the prisoner's daughters that Kelly was forcibly abducted and taken across the line! into the United States for trial is absolutely untrue; that he has ample and reliable evidence* to establish the fact beyond controversy that) Kelly came across the line voluntarily for the purpose of committing the act of smuggling' for which he was to receive compensation that he was not arrested nor was any force used upon him until after he had come well within the borders of the state of Maine; that it was no fault of the prisoner's that he is not now serving a life sentence for murder ; that the man's conviction has done more by force of example to quiet outlaws and pre-1 serve respect for this Government and itd officers along the border than anything that! has been done in the last 50 years, and that) to pardon the man now after only two years' imprisonment would undo all that has beenl accomplished.	.
While this Government greatly regrets the privations suffered by Kelly's family as a con-! sequence of his imprisonment it does not appear from all the facts and circumstances! in the case that the ends of justice would be subserved by the pardon of the prisoner.
I have the honour to be,
With the highest consideration,
Tour Excellency's most obedient, humble servant,
(Sgd) Huntingdon Wilson,
Acting Secretary of State.
There was a covering letter to that from the British Embassy, signed by A. Clark Kerr (for the Ambassador) which reads as follows:
British Embassy,
Washington, October 16, 1912.
Sir,-With reference to Tour Royal High-I ness' telegram of to-day and my reply thereto! regarding the case of William Kelly, 1 have1 the honour to transmit herewith copy of a! note received yesterday from the United States Government in reply to the repre-) sentations in Kelly's favour which I made inj pursuance of Your Royal Highness' despatch! No. 97 of August 14.
Owing to the absence of the Embassy in Washington, it has not been possible hitherto! to take up the case personally with the pardon' authorities of the Department of Justice. Thiif will now be done with a view to effecting! some arrangement, if such should appear1 feasible. Your Royal Highness will, however,' observe that, from the nature of the case, the' United States Government is provided with better evidence wherewith to support their* contention than is now in the possession of thd Embassy and this is especially true with re-' gard to the question whether Kelly was or! was not on United States territory at the! time of the arrest.
An official application for clemency on the double ground of irregularity in the arrest and of the destitution of the prisoner's family, having now been officially refused, there are'

but two ways in which further effective action' could be taken. Either the contention as tc< irregularity in the arrest must be supported' by stronger evidence of a more exact kind, such as could form the basis of renewed official representations, or an unofficial, and informal appeal can be made, based on general considerations of humanity on the existences of strong local feeling in New Brunswick and! possibly on the action of Your Royal Highness'' Government in similar cases, involving citizens of the United States.
Until I am placed in a position to pursue the first course, I will follow the second alternative and will take such informal action as may be possible.
I sent a copy of this to Mr. McCloskey who had been corresponding with me and to Mr. Smith of East Florenceville. Mr. Smith asked me to advise him what could be done and I wrote to him and Mr. McCloskey as follows:
31st October, 1912.
Dear Frank,-I am in receipt of yours of the 29th instant. I hardly know what to advise you with regard to the Kelly matter. Everything has been done, apparently, that can be done, up to the present time, but the authorities in the United States evidently feel very bitterly over the matter, and are not disposed to be lenient in their treatment of the unfortunate man. However, I presume they are humane as well as other people and in view of the death of Kelly's wife, might be subject to some influence of a personal character that might be brought to bear upon them.
How would it do to get up petitions in the county of Carleton and elsewhere throughout New Brunswick, setting forth, ,clearly and, well, the unfortunate circumstances in which Kelly's family are left, and have them presented through the British Ambassador at Washington? If it would be productive of any good, I would be willing myself to go to Washington with these petitions, and see the British Ambassador and the authorities of the United States, in regard to the matter. I can only do this in my personal capacity. I do nof think it would be proper to do so as a member of the Government, but I will gladly do so, and the fact that I am a member of the! Government would not in any way lessen the effect which my presentation of these petitions in my personal capacity might have. If you determine to get up petitions, and I only throw the suggestion out for your consideration-it should be done very thoroughly, and thousands of names should be obtained. From what I learned of the case I think the feeling against Kelly is very strong on the part of the United States authorities, and knowing as they must have known that he was watched for in consequence of his assault upon the American customs officer, years before, he should have kept away from the border, but I suppose he was .quite careless in consequence of the lapse of time, and thought that the' trouble was all over. Apparently, however, the man whom he assaulted, never let off his track and watched him for years for the purpose of bringing him to justice and having him punished. There is no use, however, harping on this; the thing is to get the man out of prison if it can be done, for the sake of his family, and I can conceive of no other step that can be taken. I understand that the members of the

Ancient Order of Hibernians are moving in the matter and that they can bring influence to bear through their society in the United States. ,T. R. McCloskey of St. John is secretary I believe of the Order. He spoke to me about the matter some time ago, and perhaps you might correspond with him and get his views as to what action had better be taken.
I had an acknowledgement from Mr. Smith saying he was corresponding with McCloskey. Unfortunately McCloskey died not long afterwards. I received, however, on January 16, last year, a letter from McCloskey enclosing a copy of a letter from Joseph D. Sullivan in which he refers to a meeting of the Ancient Hibernian officers in Washington and to having discussed the matter of Kelly's release with several of them at great length. He says:
The situation has not been materially changed. I called at the British Embassy in Washington1 and they advised me that they have no papers bearing upon this subject whatsoever except a letter received from Mr. J. D. Hazen of Ottawa.
That is absolutely incorrect and Mr. Sullivan must have been misinformed. All of this information was there. The letter concludes:
On my call at the British Embassy I was advised by one of the under-secretaries that! they would ascertain from Mr. Hazen what the feeling of the Canadian Government was towards obtaining Kelly's release, that if they were still anxious to have if brought about they would take further action.	'
I answered Mr. McCloskey saying that if I received a letter from the Embassy at Washington I would reply at once and would give them my own personal views very strongly. I said that the Canadian Government was anxious for Kelly's release and in no way lukewarm on the subject. I added * I am telling my secretary to-day to ascertain from the Justice Department and the Secretary of State if any matter has been sent from Ottawa to Mr. Bryce.'
I have gone somewhat at length into that because I thought I would like the House to know the facts, in view of the inference, and practically, I believe, the assertion, contained in the speech of the hon. member for Carleton to the effect that in this matter those who were not of his own political faith and who had been endeavouring to get Kelly's release were being actuated simply by political considerations. As far as I am concerned I want to disavow any such intention from start' to finish. The touching letter that was sent to me by Father Murphy in 'November, 1909, aroused	my	pity,	as	it would	havearoused	the	pity	of	any man	who
109i
possessed the slightest feeling of human sympathy. From that moment down to the present hour I have felt interested in the case. I have felt that a great hardship has been done and that the punishment imposed waS altogether in excess of what the crime imputed to this man deserved. I felt further that, if Kelly had been induced into the United States, even if he was not arrested on the Canadian side and dragged in, it was a most reprehensible proceeding and that, in addition, the long period which had elapsed since the offence charged against him had occurred, made the sentence of ten years imposed by the judge for that offence a sentence which was thoroughly and absolutely in excess of what the justice of the case demanded and that the imposition of a further penalty of four years was little less than an outrage and something that the courts of the United States should not regard with pride in view of the sentences which they impose for such offences throughout the country. On the 3rd December, 1910, I communicated to Sir Allen Aylesworth the facts of the case in consequence of the representations made to me by Father Murphy. 1 did not know Father Murphy. I did not know whether Father Murphy or whether Kelly was a Conservative or Liberal. I never asked anybody what their politics were and I did not care. If it had been represented to me that Kelly was the strongest Liberal to be found in New Brunswick, having some little feeling of decency and humanity, I would have exerted myself just as strongly to secure his freedom as I would if I had known him to have been a Conservative. I doubt if there is an hon. gentleman in this House, realizing the responsibility, I care not on 'what side of the House he is, who would for one moment have stopped to ask the question in a matter of this sort as to what the political faith or the political principles of this man might be on whose behalf he was asked to interest himself. He would only regard him as a citizen of Canada who had been unfairly and unjustly treated and from that standpoint, and that standpoint alone, he would exert himself and do all he could for him irrespective ef what his politics might be.
My hon. friend has gone out of his way- and one would almost think that that was the object of his bringing this matter before the House-to make an attack upon the Premier of New Brunswick by intimating that that gentleman took advantage of the death of Mrs. Kelly and the sad circumstances surrounding that
[Stage Direction]
event to make political capital on the eve of the elections which occurred on the 20th June, 1912. I think, in view of the documents read by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and the explanations he gave of these telegrams, that the hon.' member for Carleton must now be'assured that he was not justified in making this attack upon the Premier of New Brunswick, an attack which was unwarranted and which my hon. friend will recognize himself was made without sufficient justification.
What was th * charge that the hon. member for Carleton made against the Premier [DOT]of New Brunswick? The general local elections in New Brunswick were held on the 20th June, 1912. Mr. Flemming, the Premier, was, as he always had been, during his political career, a candidate for re-election in Carleton county with two other gentlemen on the ticket, the constituency re- . turning three members. Shortly before the election, it would appear from the correspondence, Mrs. Kelly was (Seized with what proved to be her last illness. Relatives and friends of Mrs. Kelly went to the Premier, who was the nearest member of the Government available and who was residing in the county not f-ar from where Mrs. Kelly lived, and asked him if he would not make a last effort so that Kelly might get out of the penitentiary and return to his home before his wife passed away. I care not whether an election is being held or not, is there a man in Canada who would refuse an appeal of that sort? The Premier of New Brunswick did just what my lion, friend would have done, just what I would have done, or what any other man in this House would have done. He addressed the following telegraphic communication on the 10th June to thq Secretary of State at Ottawa:
William Kelly, of Richmond, N.B., was convicted about two years ago for assault on a customs officer and for smuggling and sentenced to Atlanta, Ga„ prison for 14 years. There have been serious doubts whether he was arrested in the United States it being strongly claimed that he was on British soil when arrested. His wife is now seriously ill with an incurable disease and will probably not live more than a month. He has nine helpless children. Will you not make an earnest appeal on his behalf? Humanity calls for his being allowed to see his wife before she dies; feeling very strong that he should be liberated on ticket-of-leave; kindly appeal to President Taft if necessary.
(Sgd) J. K. Flemming, Premier New Brunswick.
That telegram was received in Ottawa on the llt-h instant, and Mr. Flemming was sent the following reply by the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Thomas MuJvey:

Your telegram respecting case of William Kelly received and transmitted to Governor General for action.
On June 11 Mr. Mulvey sent this communication, which I should judge to be a letter and not a telegram, to Mr. Flemming:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt to-day of your telegram of the 16th instant.
Then the telegram is given in full and the letter concludes:
This message has been communicated to the Governor General's office, in order that His Royal Highness, may, if he deems it proper to do so, transmit it to the Hon. Mr. Bryce, British Ambassador at Washington.
On the 15th June this telegram was received at the Governor General's office:
Washington, D.C., June 15, 1912.
Referring to your telegram, 11th June United States must be informed where Kelly will go if released on ticket-of-leave. Is his wife at Richmond? Telegraph reply with least possible delay to Percy, 26 East Erie street, Chicago.
(Sgd) Innes.
That is the signature of Mr. Mitchell Innes who was the principal official in [DOT]the British Embassy during the time that the Hon. James Bryce was British Ambassador. Having received that, Mr. Pelletier, an official in the Department of the Secretary of State, on the 17th June, three days before the election, wires this to Mr. Flemming:
Hon. J. K. Flemming,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Hartland, N.B.
Referring to your telegram of 10th of June instant re application for release of William Kelly of Richmond, N.B., United States Government must be informed where Kelly will go if released on ticket-of-leave and also if his wife is at Richmond; answer immediately.
On the I8th Mr. Flemming wired from Harland, N.B., to Mr. Pelletier, Acting Under Secretary of State, Ottawa:
Telegram received. William Kelly's wife died yesterday, nine children without any one to care for them, Kelly would no doubt desire to come home to Richmond, N. B., if released.
J. K. Flemming.
That is the whole correspondence with regard to this matter, so far as 1 can see. I think that if I had received that telegram from Mr. Mitchell Innes of the Ambassador's office, asking to be informed where Kelly would go if released, I would have felt buoyed up with the hope that the question was being asked because it was the intention of the United States authorities to release him forthwith. I do not for a moment hesitate to say that, and

I submit to the judgment of hon. gentlemen in that regard.
That telegram was received by Mr. Flemming, and the charge which my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) makes is, that on the day of the funeral of Mrs. Kelly-I presume it was the day before the election, or the day of the election, because she died on the 17th, a telegram was received at the grave announcing that Kelly had been released and was on his way home.
I see from the correspondence; the telegram from Mr. Flemming is dated on the 18th, and he says she died last evening, so that the funeral would not be earlier than the 19th or 20th-Mr. Flemming no doubt communicated, as it was his duty to do, to those friends who had been "urging Kelly's release, a copy of the telegram received from Mr. Mitchell Innes at Washington, and they may have come to the conclusion, and I would not blame them for doing so, that it meant that Kelly was going to be released. My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) has referred to the impression which a lady, no doubt acting in good faith, who was present at the funeral, gave as to what she understood the telegram to contain, but I would not be a bit surprised, and I think the fact is, that the telegram referred to was the one from Mr. Mitchell Innes to Premier Flemming, and from the fact that it is asked, in the- event of his being released, to what place he would be returned, they jumped to the conclusion that negotiations had proceeded so far that the American Government had decided to discharge him.
I know Mr. Flemming probably as well as any man knows him. He was an associate of mine, and was my right-hand man in the House of Assembly for twelve years. We sat together in opposition, and we sat together as members of the same government, and knowing Mr. Flemming as I do I have no hesitation in saying that he would under no possible circumstances, whether he needed votes-and he did not need them much at that election, judging by the result-or whether he did not, be guilty of the act insinuated against him by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell). Under no circumstances would Mr. Flemming, nor would any other man with the slightest sense of decency or respectability endeavour to make political capital out of so sad an event as the death of Mrs. Kelly, and out of the circumstances of her husband being confined in a penitentiary in the States. The idea that-when friends were assembled at them, when the Angel
of Death was hovering over a household, when the people were wrapped in grief and mourning-that any man with any sense of decency would resort to a trick of that sort, is beyond comprehension. Knowing Mr. Flemming as I do, I unhesitatingly say that he never would be a party to a proceeding of that sort. Mr. Flemming in making that request to the Department of the Secretary of State acted as any one else would under the circumstances, and in addition to that he no doubt handed to the relatives of Mrs. Kelly the telegram that had been received by him from Ottawa, and which had been sent first to the State Department at Ottawa and then forwarded to Mr. Flemming. From that telegram, they would without doubt have reasonably buoyed themselves up with the hope that a decision had been come to and that Kelly was going to be released. Perhaps I have taken up the time of the House at too great length.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would my hon. friend
give the date of the telegram from Mr. Mitchell Innes?


John Douglas Hazen: The telegram from Mr. Mitchell Innes to the Governor General's secretary is dated the 15th of June; the telegram from the State Department here to Mr. Flemming is dated 17th June, and it was on the 18th of June that Mr. Flemming telegraphed back to the acting Secretary of State, Mr. Pelletier, telling him Mr. Kelly's wife had died the previous day, which would be the 17th, the day that telegram, which had been received by the Governor General, was sent out from the Secretary of State's Department. Perhaps I have trespassed too long upon the attention of the House, but it is a serious question and a most serious charge has been made by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell). I thought it was only right to give the full particulars to him. I can say that from the time I was first approached by Father Murphy of Debec in 1909 down to the present hour, the thought of making any political capital out of this event has never once entered my mind. I would like further to say, that I still believe, as strongly as I have felt all through, that a very great hardship has been done to Kelly. I do not attempt to excuse him for smuggling, but admitting he did the worst that is charged against him, he has done nothing under all the circumstances which, to my mind, as I said before would justify such a punishment as has been meted out to him. And, while everything possible has been done by the Depart-

ment of Justice under both Governments to bring about his release and his restoration to his nine unfortunate children, deprived of a mother's tender care in their childhood, we still have the fact that Kelly has been in the penitentiary for a period of nearly four years. Perhaps, a strong appeal might now be made-I am sorry it was not made along the lines I suggested a year ago-on the ground of humanity and on the ground of mercy, to have the man released from the penitentiary before his sentence has expired.
I do not think there is any more to be gained by presenting arguments on the grounds already advanced. Apparently, everything has been done in that direction that could be done, but something might be done emanating perhaps from the province of New Brunswick and the citizens of New Brunswick, by means of the presentation of a petition to the President of the United States, and by strong urging of this petition, to have the sentence passed on this unfortunate man commuted. If I can contribute anything to that by my personal service, as I said in the letter I wrote, by even going to Washington personally to see the President, or the other proper authority, I will only be too glad to do so, and in doing so I would not feel that I was doing any more than one man should do for another, in the interests of our common humanity.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is somewhat surprising to learn that a member occupying a seat in this House has not the right to make a plain statement of fact, such as I did this afternoon, without being charged by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine with having made an attack on a man who is not here to defend himself. I supposed that every member of this House had an absolute right to state facts. If the only argument that can be adduced from these facts implies underhand methods, so much the worse for the men who made that possible, and if the Minister of Marine can read from these facts, as he said himself : 'No man with the slightest sense of decency would state such a thing,' and if he can apply that to his friend Mr. Flemming, then I am sorry for Mr. Flemming. But after all the castigation of the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Justice, I have not a word to withdraw. On the contrary, if I would do what I ought to do here, I would read to the Minister of Marine some editorials and some correspondence which 
appeared in his newspaper, the St. John Standard, within the five or six days prior to the election of 1911, and perhaps the Minister of Marine would then be able to appreciate the standpoint from which I view this, as well as from his own broad humanitarian standpoint. I did not charge the Minister of Marine with being guilty of any underhand or unfair tactics. He was only the method or the means by which the other fellows did it. When my hon. friend harps back to 1909 and tells this House what he did after receiving a letter from Father Murphy, he only did what any man would have done under the circumstances; he did only what it was his duty as Attorney General of New Brunswick to do. I give him neither credit' nor blame. I would have blamed him if he had done less, and I do not know that I would have asked him to do more. He set the machinery in operation; he corresponded with the Department of Justice. I can tell him how his letter got into the hands of the Minister of Justice. It was handed to me by Father Murphy, and I handed it to the Minister of Justice. I have tried to give the House and the department all the information I possibly could.
Knowing what I do about what took place in the election of 1911, knowing all the charges of perfidy that were made against me by a man whose name has been drawn in here-and before I am through I will have something to say about this Dr. Kirkpatrick, the man who had been my political friend, whom I had recommended and succeeded in having appointed to office, the man who turned traitor for a consideration, the man who became the partner of B. F. Smith afterwards, the man who with B. F. Smith organized the West India Trading Company, about which my hon. friend knows something, the man who robbed the farmers of the county of Carle-ton of about $15,000 and who had to flee the country. This is the man who wrote the article in the Standard and who carried the telegram of Mr. Flemming to that woman's grave and had it read there in the presence of her relatives and friends. After what had taken place in the election of 1911, it was pretty hard to do less than they did, because I find a letter from Mr. Smith's friend, Dr. Kirkpatrick, asking the minister to' do something. That was in January, and the whole matter ceased and not a finger was lifted before the local election in June, six months afterwards. Then my friends got busy again. Then Mr. MARCH 16, 1914
B. F. Smith thought it an outrage that Mr. Kelly should be left in prison. Then Mr. Flemming sent a telegram to the minister, and the correspondence took place which we have heard read to-night from my hon. friend's private file. I want to know if it happened only as an incident, if it was only an accident that Mr. Flemming got that telegram on the 17th day of June?


John Douglas Hazen: Does the hon. gentleman accuse the British Embassy at Washington and the office of the Secretary of State?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


John Douglas Hazen: You are doing it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend cannot
draw me away from what I have in my mind; I will get through with it. Mr. Flemming got that telegram on the 17th day of June. It may be the one which went to Debec, but I have very serious doubts about it. I will, however, give my hon. friend the benefit of the doubt. The telegram read at the grave was addressed to Mr. Flemming. If my hon. friend wants to say that this was the document, of course, I cannot gainsay it.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know whether it * was the document or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know there was what purported to be a telegram from Ottawa, addressed to the Hon. J. K. Flemming, read at that woman's grave. My hon. friend says that it was the telegram sent to him on the 17th day of June. If it was not that telegram, it was manufactured. If we can believe the story of this lady, whom everybody in Carleton county will believe, I have very grave doubts if it was the telegram. But if it was, it is a most amazing thing that Mr. Flemming and his friends could keep that telegram in their possession for two days and then time the thing so perfectly that this same Dr. Kirkpatrick could arrive at the village of Debec just when the funeral procession was being formed, could have handed the telegram to the chief henchmen of the parish and [DOT]	9 p.m. have bad it read at the graveside in the presence of tho.se people. It is a most wonderful coincidence. I think my hon. friend had better have saved his friend the Premier of New_ Brunswick from the humiliation of having the facts laid bare before the people. I made no charge .against the Premier of New Brunswick; I simply laid bare the facts. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice accuses me of saying something behind Mr. Flemming's back that I would not say to his face." I do not think Mr. Flemming will ever charge me with going behind his back or with refusing to say' to his face anything that I have to say to him. I do not think I have that reputation anywhere in the province of New Brunswick. I usually say to people's faces what I have to say to them.
I wish to discuss the other branch of the case just for a moment, because we must remember that since October 12 this matter has been a dead letter. The department have, taken it for granted that no case can be made out for Kelly, and that Kelly must stay out his term in jail unless the United States Government see fit in the goodness of their heart to release him. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has touched upon an argument which I put forward on many occasions to the late Minister of Justice, and I almost think it will be found in the correspondence. If not, however, it was certainly used by me. The argument which I always thought should be put up to the United States Government is this question: Can a friendly civilized nation afford to allow its officials to go into the territory of another civilized nation and by deceit or trickery inveigle a citizen of that civilized nation into their territory in order to apprehend him for a crime, no matter how heinous it may be ? I have never believed that the United States officials were justified under international comity, if not under international law, to proceed in that way. If this Government will put up the argument to the United States Government whether they feel that they are justified in sending their officials over to the Dominion of Canada, there by bribery and cajolery to induce one of our citizens to cross over into their territory in order to liiive him arrested, I think the United States Government would listen to such an argument. Of course, I do not admit for a moment that Kelly voluntarily crossed the boundary line. I do not believe that he did so. I believe that if they would send a responsible commissioner to the county of Carleton, or to that vicinity, he would have very grave doubts as to whether this man voluntarily went into the United States. I am amazed to learn that the British consul at Washington came up there to investigate matters, because, if he did, he took very great pains not to let anybody on our side of the line know that he was coming there. If this be the way in which the British officials look after our interests, the sooner that the Can-

adian Government look after our interests in international matters the better. Perhaps I am now travelling outside the realm of this discussion, but that view has been forced upon me this afternoon and evening in a manner in which I have never looked at it before. To think of the British consul coming to investigate the question of the freedom of a British subject, taking the evidence of American officials, taking the evidence only of the men who were interested in maintaining one side of the discussion and absolutely ignoring the parties themselves who were most vitally interested in this matter, is a condition of affairs which I can hardly conceive, although it must be true, because we have it in the return and the name of the offi-'cial who came here. Let that be as it will, I still believe that, if a commissioner were appointed, came to that country, took the evidence of both sides, allowing both sides to be represented by counsel, and got down to the very bottom of the matter, he would be able to shake the faith of the United States Government in the story told by their officials. But above and beyond all other questions is the broad question, as I have said, whether the United States Government can afford to stand before the world as being the means of sending their officials to our country to bribe and trap and inveigle our citizens to their country in order that they may aTrest and prosecute them for offences committed years before. I hope the Minister of Justice will take note of what has been said by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and by myself, and that one more attempt will be made to release William Kelly. If nothing more has been accomplished by the discussion to-night, I trust we shall at least have taken this matter out of politics never to return. It has played too great a part among Tory politicians in the province of New Brunswick within the last four or five years. I hope that is ended, and in future this unfortunate man and his family will be treated as British subjects, as human beings, and not as the football for certain politicians.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland) moved:: For a copy of all orders, reports, applications, letters, telegrams and other documents connected with or in any manner relating to the retirement of Amasa E. Killam, an official of the [Mr. Carvel 1. |
Intercolonial railway, from the employment of the said railway, and to his claim for a retiring allowance, under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act; and also of all letters showing the date of his beginning work in the service of the said railway and of his appointment to a position in the employ of said railway on the first of April, 1897, or at any other date. Also a copy of all instructions and letters from the then Minister of Railways to the general manager or to any other official of the Intercolonial, relating to engagement or employment of the said Amasa E. Killam, and of all letters, correspondence, instructions, reports, or other documents in any way relating thereto and to the engagement of the said Amasa E. Killam, during the month of March, 1897, to take, the position of bridge and building inspector on the Intercolonial railway, to commence work on the first day of April, 1897.


John Douglas Hazen: If my hon. friend will permit me-I presume be is going to speak on this motion?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: May I ask if he has given notice to the Minister of Railways of his intention to bring it up to-night?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He has gone away.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows it is customary to let the minister know when a question of this kind is to be brought up. I sent for the acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), but I have not found him. I would ask my hon. friend to allow the motion to stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the last opportunity I .shall have to move it. I put this off on several occasions because of the absence of the minister (Mr. Cochrane); I do not wish to put it off again on account of the absence of the acting minister. But that hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) knows about it, and I think he is -now in the Railway Committee of the Senate and can easily be sent for.


John Douglas Hazen: I withdraw the objection.
It is customary to give notice in such cases. Of course, I am not accusing my hon. friend of discourtesy. As this is the last chance, it would not do to ask him to forego that chance of discussing our old * friend Mr. Killam.


George Perry Graham: The adoption of the motion which makes this the last day for private members ought surely to have served as notice to every person that every notice of motion that can be reached is likely to come up to-day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is not a very contentious matter. In moving it, I wish to

bring to .the attention of the Government a condition of things relating to this gentleman, and to a number of others, in connection with the Provident Fund Act, which, I think, calls for consideration by the Administration, and particularly by the Department of Railways. Mr. Killam, the gentleman named in the resolution, was appointed early in 1897 as inspector of bridges and buildings on the Intercolonial railway. He occupied that position with credit, I am sure, to himself, and with advantage to the railway and the country. He attended closely to the duties of his position, I think to the satisfaction of all concerned. Mr. Killam had been for many yeaTs a bridge-builder of great and good repute, a man with probably the greatest experience in bridge building of any man in the province of New Brunswick. He stood high in the estimation of the people of his native county of Westmorland, so much so that on more than one occasion he was elected to represent them in the legislature of that province. Indeed, at the time of his appointment he was a membeT of the legislature representing the county of Westmorland. His fitness for the position led to the then Minister of Railways, the late Hon. Mr. Blair, tendering him the appointment to this office which was vacant. Mr. Killam was appointed, and served, I think, down to August last. His duties required him to travel over the whole length of the Intercolonial railway, because he had jurisdiction over all the bridges from 8te. Rosalie to Halifax and from Truro to Sydney, and on the branches of the railway also. In August, or at some other time in 1913, his services were dispensed with, for what reason I know not, nor is it material. I am sure there was no dissatisfaction with the way in which he performed his duties. For it was from some other cause, reorganization or whatever it may have been, that his services were dispensed with. It was within the knowledge of this House that on the 1st of April, 1907, there came into force an Act known as the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act which provided that every employee of the Intercolonial, of date April 1, would be entitled to participate in the provisions of the Act, whereby a fund was provided which would be a safeguard and .a protection to them when they had. severed their connection with the railway, according to the provisions of the Act. I need not refer at length to the provisions of the Act. Section 12 provides:
The following classes of persons shall, upon the recommendation of the hoard and the approval of the minister, subject to this Act and to the rules and regulations of the board, upon being retired by the minister from service, be entitled, for the remainder of their lives, to monthly allowances as provided for in this Act.
Then it goes on to recite the different classes of employees-a, b, c, d; and then we had class e:
Those who, previous to the coming into force of this Act, entered the service at such an advanced age as to cause them to reach the age of seventy years before being fifteen years in the service, provided that on attaining the age of seventy years they have been at least ten years in the service.
A question has arisen as to whether Mr. Killam is entitled to participate in the benefits of this Act. It will be borne in mind that he joined the service in 1897. Mr. Killam claimed that he was engaged as such bridge and building inspector in March, 1897, and that his engagement, made in that month, was with the Minister of Railways, then the late Hon. Mr. Blair. Mr. Killam reached the age of seventy in 1906. Mr. Killam claims that he was an employee engaged' April 1, 1897, and that he had served ten years previous to the date when he reached the age of seventy years. It appears that the Provident Fund Board claim that he was one month short of having served ten years previous to reaching the age of seventy years. Mr. Killam states that there is evidence in the department corroborating the fact that he was employed on April 1, 1896. The manager of the Intercolonial railway in dispensing with his -services, claimed that he was one month short and therein lies the contention between Mr. Killam and the railway. Under this Act, every employee of date April 1, 1907, participates in its benefits and should pay monthly into the fund established by the Act a certain percentage of his wages or salary. This was done in the ease of Mr. Killam, as it was done in the case of every other employee; and down to the month when his services were dispensed with he paid into that fund a certain percentage of his salary, which wa3 $150 a month, that is at the rate of $1,800 a year. The position of the department in relation to Mr. Killam s claim is purely technical; it certainly is not equitable. At any rate if they had a record of his age and of the date when he

would have reached seventy years, if the Act is to be strictly observed, when an employee reaches seventy years his payments cease and it would be the duty of the Secretary of the Provident Fund Board to cut off the exaction, of his monthly contributions to that fund as soon as he reaches the age of seventy years. After he had reached that age he was still called upon to contribute to the fund, and continued to do so as long as he was employed by the Government. When 'his services were dispensed with, naturally supposing that he would be entitled to the retiring allowance provided for under the Act, he made a claim for it, but his claim has not been recognized. I had hoped that the matter could have been discussed when the Minister of Railways was in the House. Naturally he is more familiar with the working of the Act and probably has cognizance of this particular case. I had hoped to bring it to his attention publicly in the House-I have already spoken to him about it privately-in order that he might make provision for the payment of this retiring 'allowance even though there might be some technical objection against it. I have not, however, been able to claim the attention of the Minister of Railways who is unfortunately absent through illness, and as this is the last day on which I can present the case it is my desire to emphasize the ifaets to the acting Minister of Railways in the hope that he will be able to deal with the case and do justice to the claim of Mr. Kjllani. The fact that his services were dispensed with after he had passed the age of seventy in no way affects the ease. But even if the law is strictly interpreted and rigidly applied, yet the Minister of Railways in a meritorious case could arrange for this man to get his retiring allowance. Let me explain. The length of service may be either the actual service or the actual length of service with an addition by the Government. If the contention of the Department of Railways is correct, Mr. Killam would be short in the service just one month of the time when he would be entitled to the retiring allowance. It has been usual in all the departments at Ottawa, and in the case of the Intercolonial railway at Moncton, to extend the period of service in cases of retirement. We all know that judges of the Supreme Court and county courts are emitted to retire and receive an allowance by adding to the term of their service, which action is taken by the Treasury Board. The same thing applies to the Intercolonial railway. I have in my mind 
the case of Mr. J. J. Wallace, whose term of service was added to. That was some few years ago. Mr. Wallace had been in the employ of the Intercolonial railway for many years. His first employment dated back to the eighties and perhaps earlier. Exception was made in his case; also in the case of Mr. Tiffin who occupied the position of general traffic manager of the Intercolonial railway. He was transferred to Toronto at a lower salary. He continued at the same salary for a certain period and there are other cases which I could give my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways. In many instances parties retiring from the service are allowed three, four or six months ahead. In one particular instance an allowance of a year was made. In this particular case, we have a gentleman occupying a high position in the confidence of his fellow^men, and who is recognized as having been a very faithful servant of the public for many years, and it seems to me that bis case is certainly entitled to all the consideration that the department can give it. It is said that Mr. Killam's services were dispensed with because he had attained the age of seventy in 1906, and that he was, therefore, seventy-six or seventy-seven when he retired. Whatever his age in years, no one who knows his robust physique, his strong mentality, his activity in the discharge of his duties, will say that he was incapacitated in any degree because of his years.
Mr. Killam to-day, active, hale, hearty, physically and mentally, is as capable of the performance and discharge of his duties as he was fifteen or twenty years ago. This may possibly be an extravagant statement, but it will he confirmed by all those who have knowledge of hiin. He discharged the duties of that position with satisfaction to the railway authorities and in the interest of the railway itself. By whom are those duties discharged to-day? By a civil engineer and an assistant engineer, both of whom have a staff of assistants. Mr. Killam did the work alone and single-handed. If age is to be a bar, if he is to be removed from the service because of his age, and if the Intercolonial railway are going upon that principle, I wonder why it is that They should bring from Nova Scotia as a consulting engineer in respect to bridges and all other matters, a gentleman who is upwards of 83 years of age.	.


Mr. J. D. REID:: Who is he?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Murphy.


John Douglas Hazen: Is that Mr. Martin Murphy?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Martin Murphy, and. my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) will know something of his age. For many years he had been provincial engineer in the province of Nova Scotia. He was retired on a pension in that province; an Act was passed recognizing his services and granting him a pension of $2,000 a year. He is today in the enjoyment of that pension. As a matter of fact, it has been stated that Mr. Killam's services were dispensed with because of age. If he should be discharged by reason of his age, upon what principle can the management turn around and employ a gentleman-and I have not anything to say against Mr. Murphy-who is to my knowledge upwards of 83? I have been told that he is nearer 87 than 83. He was brought there just about the time Mr. Killam's connection with the railway was severed. But that is not material to the question to which I would invite the attention of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals. Now there is the case of Mr. Killam. There are several other cases. I .am familiar with two or three people who have been for a number of years employed on the railway, the circumstances of whose employment are entirely similar to those of Mr. Killam's. There is the case of Mr. J. B. Tingley, the case of Mr. Isaac Hicks, the case of Mr. Sears and perhaps one or two others. There are some six cases that stand exactly in the same position. These persons were in the employment of the Intercolonial railway on the 1st April, 1897, and they had been continued in the employment of that railway down to within the last few months. The services of Mr. Tingley, of Mr. Hicks and the others were dispensed with but a few months ago. Although they have contributed to this fund and anticipated that they would be entitled to retire with all the benefits and -advantages accruing out of the fund, they have been retired and the benefits have been denied to them. The railway may be justified in refusing, under the law, and I am not sufficiently familiar with the facts to allow me to pass judgment upon that, but, be that as it may, I think they are cases that should receive the equitable consideration of the Railway Department by reason of the long and faithful services of these men, by reason of the fact that they have contributed, and by reason of the further fact that they have made these contributions under the impression that they would be entitled
to the receipt of a retiring allowance. The Act is explicit and I think that in this particular case, as indeed, in the other cases, the department will be justified in extending the length of service for the short period of one month at least, thereby enabling them under the law to receive the benefits which are provided under this Act. I suppose that any one of us holding a position, and with the years creeping upon us, would naturally be shocked at being summarily dismissed from the service of the railway. I do not know, I am sure, that any charges were brought against Mr. Killam. It is true that he was a Liberal. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) knows that, but certainly the law was enacted for the benefit of all shades of political faith. When that law was passed in 1907, it was in contemplation that the ones who would receive the first benefits were those who were not ini sympathy with the Government that enacted the legislation and took the responsibility of it. The large proportion of the men to retire under the provisions of that Act were not those of the Liberal faith in politics. It is natural that those who had been the longest in the service were those who had been appointed by Conservative Governments. Presumably they were appointed because they were friends of Conservative Governments. That was the practice and let us not be hypocritical about it. The same practice was pursued by the Liberal Administration when they had appointments to make. Mr. Killam, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Tingley and the others whom I have named-and perhaps still others whose names I have not given because they do not occur to me at the moment-were appointees of the Liberal Administration. That certainly would not be recognized by this Administration even as a bar to their receipt of a fair and decent allowance under the provisions of the Act, providing they could come under the provisions of the Act.


John Dowsley Reid: Did Mr. Killam come under the Act?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The claim of the department is that he was one month short of the ten years of service. My contention is, as is that of Mr. Killam, that he was appointed on the 1st of April, 1897. The contention of the department is that he did not come into the service until the 1st May, 1897, one month short of the required ten years of service.


John Douglas Hazen: Did the department say

that? Was it a committee of the Government or a committee of the employees?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is controlled by
the Provident Fund Board.


John Douglas Hazen: The board is composed
largely of employees of the railway?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are all employees of the railway. A certain number of them are elected by the employees of the railway. There are three appointed, not by the Government, but by the minister, and they are selected from amongst the officials. I do not know what the personnel of the board is, but I think that up to the time of his retirement Mr. Pottinger was chairman of the board and that Mr. Gutelius has succeeded him. Mri Killam was for many years a respected member of the New Brunswick Legislature, as the Minister of Marine knows, and he is a gentleman who stands high in the estimation of the people of the whole province. His services to the railway had been faithful; he was retired through no fault of his own, and his case is, in my opinion, so meritorious as to entitle him to special consideration, and the extension of his time of service for at least one month. There are men who came under the provisions of that Act, within three months after it was enacted, who had never paid one dollar into the fund, and who retired with the full benefit of the Act. It was contemplated, and I think wisely contemplated, that long and faithful service to the railway should be recognized, and the retirement of these men enabled the railway to promote the younger element, which was a benefit to the railway. Mr. Killam's place was not filled by promotion; tne gentleman who is discharging the duties formerly discharged by him had no connection with the Intercolonial previously, and did not even come from the Maritime provinces. I have no reflection at all to cast upon that gentleman, but I do ask that Mr. Killam shall receive full consideration. I have moved for these papers in order that I might present to the Department of Railways the merits of Mr. Killam's claim, and I trust the acting minister will see that full justice be done him.	*


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection to bringing
down the papers asked for. It is not to be expected that I should have as full knowledge of the working of the department as the minister, who is unfortunately absent through illness, and I know very little of this particular case. The hon. gentleman

(Mr. Emmerson) complains because Mr. Killam has not received the benefit of the Provident Fund Act. That Act was passed in 1907 when the hon. gentleman was a member of the Government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I had to do with the drafting, the introduction, and the passing of that Act.


John Dowsley Reid: If it were possible, under the Act, for the Minister of Railways to grant Mr. Killam the benefit of the Act, there is not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Railways would do so. But the employees are parties to the disposal of this fund, under the law, and it is impossible for the minister to deal with the matter alone, and to extend the time, as has been asked for. The hon. gentleman has stated that it is usual for the Government to add to the years of service of employees in the inside Civil Service.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that it had not been an unusual thing.


John Dowsley Reid: All right. The hon. member knows that that law was passed giving that power to the Council on a recommendation from the minister. What surprised me was that the hon. member for Westmorland, who is so anxious now for the employees of the Intercolonial, did not at that time make sure that a similar clause was in the Provident Fund Act, so that Mr. Killam and many others whose names he has mentioned would have been protected by having the additional time necessary for them to receive the benefit. My hon. friend was not so anxious for Mr. Killam at that time as he is this evening. Therefore I feel that, if any one is to blame for Mr. Killam not having received the benefit of this Provident Fund, it is the hon. member for Westmorland; for the reason that at that time he did not provide in the statute power for the Minister of Railways and Canals to add the time and see that Mr. Killam and the others got the benefit therefrom. '
As to Mr. Killam being retired, the hon. member states-and he, of course, knows the facts-that Mr. Killam is seventy-seven years of age. My hon. friend knows that all along the Intercolonial practically all the bridges have to be replaced by stronger ones, because many of them were built many years ago when the cars and engines were much lighter in weight than they are now. Mr. Killam, as I understand from this motion, was a bridge expert. Even although he only had to inspect wooden

17J9
bridges and not iron ones, does my hon. friend think that a man seventy-seven years of age has not arrived at a time bf life when his services cannot be depended upon to inspect and look after bridges suck as would be required for a line of railway? My hon. friend knows that a Tailway must be protected in every way. ' Safety first ' should be the policy of this Government or of any railway company. In any train that runs over a railway, lives are at stake if the railway is not in first-class condition. The hon. member has mentioned several names of those who, he states, have retired. Amongst them is Mr. J. B. Tingley. My hon. friend comes from Moncton; Mr. Tingley lives in Moncton, and the hon. member tells this House that Mr. Tingley has retired and is not now in the employ of the Intercolonial railway. The hon. member coming from Moncton, getting letters from Moncton every day, knows as well as I do that Mr. Tingley is still in the employ of the Intercolonial railway and has never severed his connection with that railway.	[DOT]	"I :


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon.
friend is confusing the name. Mr. J. B. Tingley was in the employ of the stores department. When I left Moncton two or three weeks ago, Mr. Tingley had been out of the service of the railway since December. My hon. friend has in mind Mr. A. J. Tingley, chief of the detectives. My hon. friend cannot stick me on the names of the employees on the Intercolonial railway, even outside of Moncton or of the province of New Brunswick. I would not make the statement had I not a full knowledge of the facts. My hon. friend need not attempt to make merry at my expense, because I live and practise law in Moncton and should know. I do know. It is my hon. friend who does not know.


John Dowsley Reid: I must admit, of course, that my hon. friend should know and knows more about the employees on the Intercolonial railway than I do. The reason I mentioned Mr. Tingley's name was that I understood there was a Mr. Tingley at Moncton in the employ of the Intercolonial railway. Of course, if there are two Mr. Tingleys, I must take it back.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not your fault.


John Dowsley Reid: I certainly thought it was
the same man. When I mentioned Mr. Tingley's name as having sev-
10 p.m. ered his connection with the railway, I supposed that it was the same gentleman.
My. hon. friend said that time could be extended; but that is not in accordance with the facts. The minister has not the power. I find a little fault with the hon. member for Westmorland for this also, that when the Conservative party went out of power in 1896, a superannuation Act was in force; when the Government changed, the Liberal party abolished the Superannuation Act; and to-day many of the older employees, men who have been appointed since the Liberal party came into power, men who have served probably fifteen or sixteen years, have to retire perhaps on account of being too feeble to perform their duties and are asking for their retiring allowance, but the Government is not in a position to grant them the retiring allowance that they would have had if the Superannuation Act had remained on the statute book. At that time the Liberal party were not anxious to protect the employees in the service, and the hon. member himself, who was Minister of Railways and Canals when this Provident Fund Act was passed, took good care to see that there was no clause in that Act such as in the other Act. Therefore Mr. Killam has only one man to blame because he cannot be paid out of the Provident Fund Act to-day, and that is the hon. member for Westmorland.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: When does my hon. friend expect to lay on the table of the House the report of the Department of Railways and Canals? There are some requests for it. Perhaps if the report was on the table, we would be enlightened on many subjects in connection with the department.


John Dowsley Reid: I laid on the table a few days ago a report as to canals. I suppose there is one on the railways. If so, I will inquire and let the hon. member know to-morrow.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I regret that in every instance in regard to matters brought to the notice of the House by any member, it has become a fixed habit, a very bad habit to import into the discussion a purely partisan and political phase; and the tu quo-que argument is always used: 'The Liberals did so and so, and therefore we are justified in doing so and so.' I did not feel that I was presenting the case from the standpoint of either Liberal of Conservative; 1 was simply presenting the facts. It is true I did say that it seemed strange if Mr. Killam's services were dispensed with on account of his age, that the railway management Should have secured the services of a gentleman who was ten years his senior.


John Douglas Hazen: Is he bridge inspector?


John Dowsley Reid: He is not in that position.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is in the service of the railway and necessarily, as an engineer, he is called upon to do active' work. But my hon. friend says it is necessary to have the bridges strengthened. He thereby displayed his ignorance with respect to the Intercolonial railway. I wish to tell him that the bridges on the Intercolonial railway have been strengthened to enable them to carry the heaviest engines. True, there is one small portion of the road where that work has not been completed, and that is in Cape Breton. But on the'main line of the Intercolonial railway, from Ste. Rosalie clear through to Halifax, the bridges have been renewed and strengthened. And if he visits the Intercolonial railway, at Boundary Creek and at other places along the line, he will find the old bridges that were taken from the Intercolonial railway piled up. He seems to think that it would not be possible in any way to interfere with this because there would be some disturbance in connection with the employees. He himself is the party who is every day doing the very thing that is disturbing -the equilibrium of this Provident Fund Act. That Act says that among those who can participate in the benefits of the Act are:
Class C. Those who have attained the age of sixty years after being fifteen years in the service, and request to be retired from the service.
They cannot be removed from their positions, except for cause, and they cannot be given a retiring allowance until the request has been made by them to be retired. But, during the last six months the Intercolonial railway officials have been working overtime removing men from office in order to replace them with adherents of the Conservative party. When my hon. friend takes his ground in answer to a simple request made by me, I would call his attention to some wholesome truths with respect to the ' disturbance of the equilibrium of the Provident Fund Act,' which disturbance is greatly to the injury of the employees of the railway and to the damage of the younger generation who are called upon to make good the losses which result from this dismissing of men without cause and without any charge made against them. Letters are written to these men: You had better retire; make your request to retire under the Provident Fund Act. These letters do

not say in so many words: If you do not make your request we will dismiss you,- but they coerce the employees into asking for retirement under the Act. I can cite dozens of cases within my own knowledge. And yet, because I ask that consideration shall be given to this particular ease, my hon. friend says, that I am responsible. It is true, no provision was made with respect to this matter. I should have protected those who were appointed, because I might have known that those who would suffer would be my own political friends. In so far as I showed lack of foresight, I acknowledge my mistake. But I certainly did not contemplate that ever an administration would come into power that would ruthlessly trample upon or ignore the provisions of the Act, and the rights of the employees of the railway and their claims as men. I dealt with the matter on the basis of even-handed justice, and while I was there even-handed justice was dealt out. When I was Minister of Railways, and afterwards when that office was filled by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), in the administration of this Act it made no difference whether a man was a Liberal or a Conservative; and there are hundreds to-day who retired under the Liberal Administration, men who were Conservatives in politics and whose declining years are safeguarded and protected by the operation of this Act. Yet, because I ask that the acting minister should give personal consideration to the merits of this case, he enters into a partisan controversy. I am sorry the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) is not here. I think he wrote a letter with respect to this very case, stating that if it were necessary in order to do justice, he would have an amendment made to the Act. If injustice was done by reason of my want of foresight in the framing of the Act, it is open to my hon. friend now, during this very session, to make a simple amendment to provide that justice shall be done where injustice is now being done. I had some hopes that the Minister of Railways, had he been here, would have treated this matter from the standpoint of one desirous of dealing justly with the employees of the Intercolonial railway. But I lose hope in connection with this case as long as it is under the control of the acting minister, after the exhibition he has made of his animus in this particular case and in other cases to which I have called attention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

mi

Charles Avila Wilson: For a return showing all persons, male or female, who have been capitally convicted in Canada, and each province, for each year, from the 1st of July, 1867, to the 2nd of February, 1914, specifying the offences and whether and how the sentences were carried into effect by execution, or otherwise, with the name of convicts ; dates of conviction; crime of which committed ; sentences passed; judges by whom sentenced; and how dealt with.
2.	For a return showing all convicts, male or female, who have been reprieved from the execution of capital sentences passed upon them during the above-mentioned period, with the names of convicts; dates of conviction; crime of which convicted; sentences passed; by whom sentenced; sentences commuted, and if so, to what.
3.	For a return showing all persons in Can-female, who have been reprived from the above-mentioned period, of murder, whose sentences have been mitigated, or who have received a free pardon, together with a statement of the offences of which they were severally convicted, with the name of convicts; dates of conviction; nature of offence; sentences ; and extent of mitigation of sentences and dates.
4.	For a return of instances, during the above-mentioned period, in which appeal has been made on behalf of the persons convicted of capital offences to His Excellency the Governor in Council, for the exercise of the Royal prerogative of pardon, or mitigation of sentences, with the name of convicts; dates of conviction and place; crime of which committed; dates of appeal, and the result.
He said: Without referring to any previous debate, when the Bill of the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Biekerdike) came before the House, I had this motion in view in order to get more information. It may appear at first sight, as I fancy this is the first time a proposition like this has been made since Confederation, that I was actuated by motives of morbid curiosity. Since the motion was put on the Order Paper judges of the Superior Court having jurisdiction in different districts of my province, have asked me to send them these reports. It may be that the return will not be fit for publication, although this resolution is almost a verbatim copy of many resolutions brought before the Imperial House of Commons in connection with Bills similar to that proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence division. None of those Bills have become law in England, but I think, in the interest of the public at large, in the interest of this Parliament and in the interest of justice, this return should be brought before the House for our information. It will furnish material
for studies in criminology and sociology, and may be useful to members in preparing for the consideration of Bills of the nature of the one to which I have referred.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his seat, but I shall be pleased to direct his attention to what my hon. friend has said in connection with the motion which he has just moved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Avila Wilson: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, recommendations and reports, respecting the dredging of Des Prairies) river, the work' done, depth, length and width of channel dredged, the list of men employed to perform that work, their salaries respectively, and the amount of money spent on that work since the 22nd of November, 1912, up to the 2nd of February, 1914.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is in his seat. If he will refer to the debates of this House as far back as 1908 or 1909, he will find that, at my request and with the approval of one of his friends then sitting near me, the Hon. Mr. Monk, certain sums of money were put in the Estimates for the dredging of Des Prairies river. At that time the question of the Georgian Bay canal was a live topic and, according to the very valuable report of four engineers appointed by this Government, there was a question as to whether the Georgian Bay canal should enter the St. Lawrence by the southern route, via Ste. Anne, or by another route north of the island of Montreal, known as the alternative route. My contention was that, even without reference to that grand canal project, any money spent for dredging the river Des Prairies would be well spent, if only for the purpose of improving navigation in that river, while the improvement wouild, of course, be useful when the Georgian Bay canal project became an actuality. I was listened to, and I think very properly, and an amount of 860,000 was put in the Estimates of 1909 and of 1910 and of 1911. I do not mean that an amount of $60,000 was put in the Estimates each of these years and spent. Everybody knows what the Des Prairies river is. It is about thirty-two miles long. It runs from Bout de L'Isle, below the island of Montreal, to the lake of Two Mountains, and if you follow the southern shore of lake of Two Mountains you reach Ste. Anne and Vaudreuil. We need improvements on that river. The population living

on the shore is very large. It was not very numerous fifteen or twenty years ago, but now the city of Montreal has increased so that there are no less than two wards on the 'river, Ahunt-sic ward and Bordeaux ward. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State (Mr. Coderre) in his seat. He knows that where there were only farms a few years ago there are now thriving towns. We have many institutions on the shores of that river. One of them is rather an ancient one, having existed since Confederation-the penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul. The population there is now five hundred, and the Government are spending about $150,000 a year for the support of the institution. The consumption of one article, coal, varies between $3,000 and $5,000 a year. The transportation of coal to that institution is most expensive. According to the reports in the Department of Justice from the inspectors of prisons, to mention only two, Mr. Douglas Stewart and Mr.	Dawson, it will
be seen that they have calculated that at the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul the Government could save a $1 a ton on the transportation of coal, which would come to between $1,000 and $2,000 a year. That would be a good investment even if we spend $50,000 or $100,000 just to dredge that river. This is no new scheme. In 1865, when the old convent of the Sacred Heart was transformed into a reform prison to start with and then into a penitentiary, convicts were brought down to St. Vincent de Paul at high water in the spring by a boat named the Eagle. There was a wharf there. The wharf has been destroyed, and I am now asking for the restoration of navigation. I understand that transportation was one of the difficulties in that period; but to-day building materials of every kind -nstone, wood, lumber, shingles, and cement -can be transported from Montreal and at a much cheaper rate than we could transport them then. I was delighted to see in the Estimates for 1911 the sum of $25,000; it was rather small, but on this side we are happy when we can get even a little piece of those Estimates. Every year since 1911, $25,000 has been set aside for dredging, but we have no dredge. We have dredge No. 6, a special one, and I feel certain that we have dredged right across the St. Lawrence from the main channel and under the Canadian Northern railway bridge as far as Rivi&re des Prairies a good channel eight feet deep at low water and 100 feet wide. It allows to come up scows with a [Mr. C. A. Wilson '
draught of five or six feet and tugs drawing six or seven feet. I cannot see why this sum of $25,000 which appears in the Estimates each year has not been wiped out. The dredge has now reached a point below St. Vincent de Paul. I urge my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to get some information on this point from the Minister of Inland Revenue or the Secretary of State, who are very familiar with the case. I am sorry that the late member for Jacques Cartier is not here to deal with this question, as he could do it much more eloquently than I. The dredge could proceed right up to the lake of Two Mountains, for the benefit of residents of Riviere des Prairies, St. Vincent de Paul, Bordeaux, and St. Martin Dorothea. We need navigation up there, and I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works with his big heart will not only put $25,000 in the Estimates, but will . add to that the $25,000 of last year and the $25,000 of the year before, making $75,000, and I hope he will not merely have it printed on a sheet of paper by the King's Printer, but will see that dredge No. 6, which he will find behind St. Helen's island, gets to work. The mow is melting, the ice will soon be drifting down and the river will be clear, and now is the time to get the dredge in good working shape, and to get the tug under steam and painted-painted blue if you like, but get it to work anyway.


Mr. LAMARCHE:: Does my hon. friend consider the dredging of Des Prairies as a separate undertaking, or as necessarily forming a part of the Georgian Bay canal scheme? It makes a lot of difference.


Charles Avila Wilson: I do not think it makes any difference at all whether a shovelful of mud is taken out of a river for navigation at the present time or for the Georgian Bay canal scheme later on. I do not see Why when the Georgian Bay canal scheme comes into effect, if it ever does, it will be necessary to throw that shovelful of mud back again.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: If my hon. friend refers to the plans made by the eminent engineers of the Government, Mr. Lafleur and others, he will find that the Georgian Bay canal is constructed at that part of the river by elevating the surface of the water by means of dams, one of them being situated at Bout de l'lle and the other in the neighbourhood of the projection of St. Denis street. I think it is very important to decide first whether or not this enterprise is to be a part of the Georgian Bay canal scheme, or whether it is simply a matter of the construction-of a channel eight

173J
to ten feet deep, although the latter would also be very useful, I admit, for navigation between Montreal and the Back River district.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) :: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson), I may say that I agree heartily with him in the statements he has made. There is no finer prospect in the world than that part of the river Ottawa which extends from Bout de l'lle and passes by St. Vincent de Paul, Ahuntsic, Sault au Recollet, Cartierville, l'lle Bizard and St. Genevieve and then enters the lake of Two Mountains.
It is certainly the most beautiful stretch of the river Ottawa. Residents along the banks of that part of the river are many of them very influential people, rich property owners. The reasons set forth by the hon. member for Lavall are very cogent, but he has let slip one of them, Mr. Speaker, and to my mind, the most weighty: we are the owners at St. Vincent de Paul of 800 ar-pents of land, and I may assure you, sir, that should those improvements be carried out, the value of that property would be very materially increased.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Who is the owner?


David Arthur Lafortune: My family owns it. It is the best reason I could urge, although possibly I had better not mention it, since the hon. gentleman is not likely to take much stock in considerations of that kind. And in the direction of Cartierville and St. Laurent we hold also large interests. But apart from any personal motives, improvements such as those projected are surely in order. It is a pity to see such a fine stream left in a state unsuitable for navigation. Such improvements would certainly enhance materially the value of every property bordering the river, whether situated on the island of Montreal or on the ile JAsus.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What is the average depth of the river des Prairies?


Charles Avila Wilson: Seven feet on an average if the boulders referred to by me were removed.


David Arthur Lafortune: Some parts of the river are very deep. Between the Sault au Recollet and the confluence of the Ottawa with the St. Lawrence, the depth at some places is sixty feet. You may be sure, sir, that if the Government wishes to spend to advantage public moneys, they cannot find a better place for effecting improvements.
There is some pretty heavy work to do at Moulin du Crochet; rapids to do away with. Those rapids are a little lower down than St. Vincent de Paul.
Once those improvements are carried out, a cruise along that river will afford the finest pleasure trip imaginable, between Bout de File and the lake of Two Mountains, and besides the land values would go up materially.


Mr. RAINVILLE :: That would be more profitable than the pleasure trip.


David Arthur Lafortune: Of course, when i speak of pleasure trips, I do not wish to dissociate business from pleasure. A new institution has been established on the banks of the river des Prairies, I mean the new Montreal gaol. As is generality known, large amounts have been expended on that building, and large quantities of materials and supplies are being constantly forwarded there. Were it possible to ship them by boat, a great saving would be effected. There are mills in operation in that vicinity and the establishment of others is forecasted.
As pointed out by the hon. gentleman from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), a still more pressing scheme is that for the building of the Georgian Bay canal. I visited that part of the country; I even went as far as Georgian bay, and I well satisfied myself as to the advantages which the citizens of Montreal, as well as residents on the banks of the river Ottawa, would reap through the building of that canal. All agree on that point; and you must have perceived with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that in Montreal particularly there is but one opinion on that point. Boards of trade, municipal corporations, all public bodies are unanimous in urging that this work be carried out as soon as possible.
We are in the habit of quarrelling about this and that and the other thing; but in regard to this matter there is only one opinion, and the country could not make too great sacrifices for the purpose of starting the work at the earliest possible date. All the same, let us not lose sight of St. Vincent de Paul and St. Laurent.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Speaker, first let me
say in reply to the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) that the reasons which he advanced for the necessity of this work certainly appeal to me. To some extent, at all events, this work would be an advantage for the transportation of prisoners to the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul.



That would be a certain advantage to the country and the work would be deserving of consideration from that point of view. The additional reason which my hon. friend from Montcalm advanced, that he was the happy possessor, together with his family, of 700 acres of land which would be very much benefited by the construction of this work, which he thinks should be undertaken, is another reason which appeals to myself. Let me say to my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) that there will not be the slightest objection to bringing down all the papers that his motion calls for. I quite agree with my hon. friend that this is not a new question and I might inform him that it has been pressed upon my attention, not only by those representing the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, but by others. In view of the fact that before the work of the Georgian Bay canal can be undertaken we must have the report of the commission that is about to be named to take into consideration the commercial feasibility of the enterprise, my hon. friend from Laval may not wish in connection with this local work, to wait for the report of that commission. However, as he has stated, it i3 no new question and I may say to him that it has been pressed from the local point of view upon my attention on two or three occasions by deputations from that locality. About a month ago a very strong deputation, headed by Mr. Leonard, presented very forcibly the necessity of the work which my hon. friend has spoken about to-night.


Charles Avila Wilson: Not on that river?


Robert Rogers: Yes, the same one.


Charles Avila Wilson: Well, you will hear from me on the motion which follows.


Robert Rogers: He was very anxious for this as for other works in connection with the river des Prairies. I promised the deputation that the matter would receive the consideration of the Government, the officials of the department are giving their attention to the matter with that end in view and I can only hope that the result will be in accordance with the wishes of my hon. friend when, a conclusion is reached.


Charles Avila Wilson: In reply to the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), let me say that we must understand each other. The other night we agreed about the Georgian Bay canal and we still agree, but before the commencement of the work in the river des Prairies in 1909 Mr. Languedoc, an engineer of the Department of Public

Works, was asked to make a special survey, and, basing his figures upon the Georgian Bay canal report, he came to the conclusion that the work would cost $100,000, of which $15,000 could be applied to the construction of a lock at the rapide du Moulin du Crochet. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), when he crosses the river going to Quebec, crosses the rapide du Moulin du Crochet. The lock at the rapide could be built for about $15,000, and then we would have a depth of seven or eight feet of water from Vercheres to Two Mountains.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: The Georgian Bay
canal locks are designed to be 22 feet deep.


Charles Avila Wilson: No, my hon. friend is
mistaken. The dredging from Vercheres straight from the river St. Lawrence channel, up through the rapide la Passe, the first rapid met on that river, will give us the depth of the locks of the Georgian Bay canal. The lock at the rapide la Passe will be 25 feet high, 650 feet long and about 60 feet wide. That is the first lock. There will here be a barrage extending out in the river, and the level of the river from that point will be raised 13 feet. You do not require any dredging from the rapide la Passe to the Sault au Recollet, because as a result of raising the water thirteen feet the rapid will be reduced to that extent and there will be no more Sault au Recollet rapid. If we do not start the Georgian Bay canal now, and if we start with the smaller scheme that I am speaking of, in order to have navigation between Bout de l'Isle and Two Mountains of seven or eight feet, all that is necessary is to dredge the rapide la Passe, build a lock at the Sault au Recollet, and dredge Whitehorse rapids and the rapide Lallemant.
To relieve the anxiety of my hon. friend (Mr. Lamarche) I may tell him that this is no promenade at all, but there are numbers of promenades on the St. Lawrence route. If the hon. gentleman will consult his good friend Sir Rodolphe Forget, the member for Montmorency, he .will find in the archives of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, that for fifteen years the steamer Terrebonne was carrying on a service from Montreal to Bout de l'lle, thence to Macdonald's wharf at L'Assomp-tion, and thence to St. Vincent de Paul, and back to Montreal. For fifteen years these wharfs were leased by the federal Government, and the steamer did a large traffic at them. The Minister of Public Works seems to have the idea that we need this

navigation for the transport of convicts to the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, but he is mistaken as to that. We used to get some convicts from Kingston, and a couple of years ago we got two carloads from Stony mountain, but that kind of interprovincial trade has now been stopped. The convicts at St. Vincent de Paul come mostly from the city of Montreal, and they are brought sometimes by boat but mostly by cabs. What the wharf is needed for mostly, is, for the coal and the general merchandise that is required at the penitentiary. The wharf would also be useful for the municipalities along the river, where there is considerable building going on, and quite a large trade.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Avila Wilson: promenade of its banks, or running motor boats on the river. I have no doubt it would be approved of by the Minister of Militia, who seems to be anxious to start a little flotilla of his own little dreadnoughts, by arming motor boats with a Ross rifle at the head and the blue ensign I suppose, waving at the stern. Neither would my hon. friend from Vercherea (Mr. Rainville) nor my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), object because they are both enthusiastic motorists. My hon. friend from Nicolet could bring his motor boat up there and salute with the Ross rifle, which would be given him by the Minister of Militia, his good friend the Minister of Inland Revenue at the other side of the river, and in passing he could also salute his ex-colleague at Ste. Rose. If he stops at St. Vincent de Paul his present colleague will receive him hospitably.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime provinces within reasonable range of the said railway?
He said: The subject of my resolution is of such importance that I must ask for a few minutes to place the more salient of the facts in connection with it before the House. I regret that I am obliged to bring this resolution forward when the Minister of Railways is not in his seat, and still more do I regret the cause of the absence of that hon. gentleman. I trust the time is not far distant when he will be able to be back to discharge his departmental and parliamentary duties. I do not profess to be able to enumerate the different sections of the Maritime provinces which require a further extension of railway facilities. No doubt the great province of Quebec, which we regard in Nova Scotia as a Maritime province, has now a great many railway facilities, but there are sections of the province which have no railway facilities, and which look forward with some hope to further extensions of the Intercolonial railway. What I say of the province of Quebec, no doubt applies with greater force to the province of New Brunswick and the province of Prince Edward Island.
But the observations I wish to address to the House to-night have more particular

reference to Nova Scotia, and more especially to the eastern part of that province. The western part of the province of Nova Scotia has from its earlier history better railway accommodation than we have in the far east. Particularly has this reference to the island of Cape Breton, one of the counties of which I have the honour to represent. The strait of Canso cutting off the important island of Cape Breton from the mainland made it for many years difficult for railways to be extended in the island, and even now we have some difficulty in having the better class of railway accommodation on the island because of the strait of Canso and by reason of the fact that that strait is crossed only by a boat instead of by a bridge.
The subject which I am now bringing to the attention o'f the House is not by any means a new one. In 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and now in 1914 I have brought this subject repeatedly before the attention of the House. Until something is done towards the advancement of railway accommodation, particularly in the county of Victoria which I have the honour to represent, I think it is my duty to continue bringing this matter to the notice of Parliament. It might perhaps be argued, as is argued sometimes, that we are fervent in regard to matters of expenditure of this character now that we are in opposition. So far as I am concerned, that argument cannot be applied for I was just as strenuous and just as diligent in bringing this matter to the notice of the House when I was supporting a government as I have been since the change of government took place.
I was much struck the other night in listening to the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) place before this House the great claims the pioneers of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and,the claims of those western provinces. I do not for a moment- wish to belittle the claims of the pioneers of those provinces, but the pioneering there was never as strenuous or as difficult as the pioneering in the Maritime provinces, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. I do not say that pioneering in that province was any more difficult than in the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec or Ontario, because the character of the country that had to be dealt with in the province of Nova Scotia was mhch the same as that of the other provinces I have mentioned. Our forefathers in coming t-o Nova -Scotia had to

deal with huge forests covering the land right down to the water's edge. There were no roads, certainly no facilities of any kind except blazed trees along the rivers and lakes. Our forefathers in Nova Scotia, and particularly in the county of Victoria and North Cape Breton, which I have the honour to represent, hewed out for themselves homes in these woods and made a part of Canada which I am sure is entitled to as much recognition and consideration by any government that might be in power as any other part of the Dominion of Canada. When we talk about pioneering and what should be done to encourage pioneering, I submit to the Department of Railways and Canals and to the Prime Minister that the people of Nova Scotia who have settled on those shores some 100 or 150 years ago, and who are to-day something like 100 or 150 miles away from any railway, are entitled to the consideration of the Government and of this House.
When we live in a great country like Canada, a country that is pulsating with development from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and when we find that the interior of this vast land of ours is receiving the benefit of railways and of modern development, it is rather a pity and rather a reflection on our consideration for the earlier parts of Canada that they are yet without those railway facilities for which I am craving the attention of the Government to-night. There is no good reason at all why a county like the county of Victoria, which I am representing here, and in reference to which I am particularly urging this railway, should not have the great boon of railway connection with the outside world.
It might be asked if we have any particularly important industries in that part of the country. I find that we have in the small province of Nova Scotia a great many industries, large exports and large developments, and th(it in the island of Cape Breton we have no doubt the largest of those developments. I wish to point out very briefly from a calculation made about the yearly production of wealth in the province of Nova Scotia that in coal we produced last year $22,500,000; in coke, $2,600,000; in gold and other minerals, $125,000; in gypsum, limestone, etc., $800,000; in building materials, $410,000; in pigiron, $2,500,000; in steel, steel rails and rods, $17,550,000 ; in fisheries, $8,000,000 in manufactures, ships and freight, $46,250,000; in the products of
the farm, $31,100,000; in the products of the forest, $5,000,000; in game and furs, $500,000. For the small province of Nova Scotia with a population of only about 500,000 or 600,000, I submit that the record is very creditable and that, when we are asking that something should be done for us in the way of further railway extension, we are only asking what we think the importance of the province demands, and particularly the importance of that section which now has no railway facilities at all.
It is a policy expatiated upon >by my hon. friends opposite that we should not by any aet'of our own permit our raw material to go out of the country, if it is going out of the country to our disadvantage. I submit that there is no better or more important raw material within the confines of our Dominion than our fisheries. Fish may be considered a raw material; it is not of course manufactured to any great extent, but it is a material, a product, a property of this country which is exceedingly important, and in the provinces of Nova Scotia and- New Brunswick our fisheries are one of the greatest assets we have, as witness in this statement that the fisheries in the province of Nova Scotia last year were $8,000,000, and this produced under great disadvantages. For the transportation of fish we have practically no facilities whatever. One of the best sections for fisheries is along the coast of the county of Victoria, which I have the honour to represent, and in which we have practically no railway facilities at all. The reason I say that this raw material goes out of the Dominion of Canada, because we are not able to handle it ourselves, is that American fishermen in large numbers visit the coast of the island of Cape Breton, of the county of Victoria, anchor off our coast, load up with our fish and go away to the United States. The fish is then put under some process and kept in the United States until they can take advantage of our markets in Ottawa, Montreal, Winnipeg and other Canadian cities. The fish comes back to us; we pay duty on it and pay much higher prices than we would have to pay if we kept that fish in the first instance in our own province and under our own control.
I submit that it is impossible to keep these American vessels from fishing inside the three-mile limit, and it is impossible to keep them from taking away our fish when we have not proper facilities to deal with it ourselves. If we had the extension of the Intercolonial railway through the

island of Cape Breton along these fishing places, both on the south of the island and on the north and along the coast of the county of Victoria, we should be in a position at all seasons to reach our own markets and prevent the necessity of our people dealing entirely with a foreign country, and prevent this excellent food which is so much needed and would be so much appreciated by our own people, from going out of our own country. At present, it is impossible for our people generally to take advantage of it, because the transportation to the United States, the handling of it there, the bringing of it back again and paying the duty, puts it at such a price that the ordinary man is not able to take advantage of it. If this railway were built through the county of Victoria down to Bay St. Lawrence, touching at the different fishing stations along that coast, with proper cold-storage along the line and also in the city of Montreal, which is the western terminus of the Intercolonial railway, we should be able without difficulty to place this magnificent fish, fresh out of the water, at the disposal of the people of our own country. And this is only one of the industries the resources for which are to be found in that part of the country. We have a good lumbering country, we have vast quantities of gypsum, and we have incalculable quantities of limestone along these hills, which is in great demand at the steel works at Sydney and North Sydney, which markets at present it cannot reach. These resources also could be developed if we had this railway.
The whole length of the road of which I speak would be about 125 miles. We had 22 miles of that road practically under contract before the change in Government took place. Reference to the speeches of the Minister of Railways last year will show that $22,000 was voted in 1911 to make a start on the road. Some money was voted to start in tire county of Guys-borough under the same conditions and the same provisions made by the late Government for a railway started between Dartmouth and Dean, in the county of Halifax. That is under construction. It was the scheme of the Government of that day to carry all these lines along at the same time. I have repeatedly brought to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Government the fact that they dropped the Victoria end of this proposition and went on with the Halifax end. I cannot go into that to-night. The Government know

the attitude that I have taken; they know that I have complained, somewhat bitterly, that all the lines under construction by the late Government and provided for by them were not treated alike, but that different treatment has been meted out to the county of Victoria from that of the county of Halifax. The great necessity of building this road in the county' of Victoria has been again and again pressed upon the attention of the Government, and I am sure that the Prime Minister, himself a Nova Scotian and who knows the county of which I am talking, realizes the importance of dealing with this question. As I have said, I regret that the Minister of Railways is not in his place. I served notice on the acting Minister of Railways that this resolution was to be moved, and I hope he will be able to give us some idea of what the prospects are of this being taken up by the Government and carried out at an early date. The good people of the county of Victoria have been contributing their part to the building of railways in this country for the sixty years, or whatever the time may be, since the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of the Dominion undertook the building of railways as a Government business. We have never found fault with the development of other parts of the country. But I am sure you will admit, Mr. Speaker, that now, after about 150 years of settlement, in that old part of this great country, that a settlement, with the products they already have to send to market and the developments that they have a right to look for, shall be obliged to send for 150 miles to a railway without the Government immediately attempting to take away the disability under which they have suffered for so many years. I trust the Government will at an early day revive the interest that was taken in 1911 in this railway extension into the county of Victoria, and will re-vote that money and start in anew for the development of that railway-not only the few miles in contemplation then but the extension throughout the length of the county of Victoria to these fishing villages and other places capable of yielding traffic to which I have referred. So far as the fishing villages are concerned, we shall never deal properly with this great industry of fishing until we have a line of railways not only in Victoria, but through the counties of Inverness, Richmond and Cape Breton, where there are the same facilities for the fishing industry, and where railway facilities are equally required.


Mr. MONDOU:: I regret that the hon.
member has not seen fit to ask for an extension of the Intercolonial railway into the non-railway sections of the .province of Quebec as well as into those of the Maritime provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I mentioned in my
speech the province of Quebec, and we in Hova Scotia regard Quebec as a Maritime province, as I maintained in my address.


Albéric Archie Mondou: I am glad to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. But as the resolution reads it does not cover that .point. There is a peculiar case regarding the county I have the honour to represent in this House, so far as the extension of the Intercolonial railway in the province of Quebec is concerned. The Intercolonial railway from Levis to Montreal is the old Drummond County railway. At the time the Drummond County railway was purchased, I complained in my county, as did all the counties of the south shore of the Sti Lawrence from Levis to Montreal, that the Intercolonial railway was not built along the .south shore. It is a good section of the country, a good farming district, and of course the present route of the Intercolonial railway from Montreal to Levis was then served by the Drummond County railway, which had been subsidized by the federal and local governments and all the municipalities. There was a branch of the Drummond County line starting from St. Leonard junction running to the shores of lake St. Peter, to the town of Nicolefc. The Drummond County railway had to be completely rebuilt by the Intercolonial railway. It was an old road which had been used for lumber purposes by the company which had control of it, and now again the road has to be practically rebuilt from St. Leonard junction up to Nicolet. I would submit that when this .Government decide to make extensions of the Intercolonial railway, instead of .starting from St. Leonard and running to Nicolet, they should run from Drummondville to Nicolet, going through the parishes of St. Joachim de Courval, St. Zephyrin de Courval, La Visitation and Ste. Monique de Nicolet. At present the road runs from St. Leonard through Ste. Monique to Nicolet. If it started from Drummondville, going through the parishes I have mentioned into Nicolet, it would be quite an important change, and that part of the railroad would be put on a paying basis, although it is not at present paying. It is
absolutely plain building; no bridges would be required, and the Intercolonial railway could start at Drummondville, from the east side of the St. Francis river, going to the north side of the Nicolet river. There would be no bridges, and I really think that the municipalities of St. Joachim, St. Zephyrin, La Visitation and Ste. Monique	would help, by	giving
rights of way or perhaps subsidies, to rebuild that section of the Intercolonial railway. The town of Drummondville is a very important point. It connects with the Canadian Pacific railway going to the United States and with the Intercolonial railway going to St. Hyacinthe. St. Leonard junction is not an important point on the Intercolonial railway, but it was used in former times by the Drummond County railway as a shipping point for St. Lawrence traffic. A petition will be placed before the Minister of Railways by the population of those parishes, which comprise a very important farming district. I thought this was a convenient time to express my opinion as far as the electors of my county have expressed it to me. The Intercolonial railway now coming to Montreal should make every effort possible to help the south shore of the St. Lawrence. It has been deprived of very important railway facilities. The Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway, which starts at St. Lambert and goes, to Fortier-ville, is a very poor railroad. It gives the poorest service in the province of Quebec. The Intercolonial railway is about twenty-five miles from the shore of the St. Lawrence. I would advise that if the Government is making extensions it should serve the parishes I have just mentioned, so that the line, instead of running from St. Leonard to Nicolet, would run from Drummondville to Nicolet. Undoubtedly it would then be on a paying basis and help considerably that part of the county of Yam-aska, a certain part of the county of Nico-let, and a certain part of Drummond county. That proposition would have the support of the boards of trade of Drummond and Nicolet. However, I shall not go into the details at this late hour. I hope that when the Government decide to extend the Intercolonial railway _ in the Maritime provinces, in the sections of country which are not now served by railways, they will do the same to the province of Quebec, and especially improve, in all possible ways, the branches of the Intercolonial railway that it now has in that province.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Oil account of the lateness of the hour and the failure of the minister to bring down the report for which I asked a year ago, I shall not address the House to-night. I would ask if there is any reason why I cannot have this report for which I moved a year ago. I may say that I received from the minister permission to read the report and have done so. It is very favourable to the construction of the road I propose to speak on, but there are certain facts contained in it which I would like to place on ' Hansard.'


John Dowsley Reid: I inquired in the
department about this report. I find that it has been prepared and it would have been placed on the table to-day were it not that it has to go to the Secretary of State's Department. It will be laid on the table to-morrow or the next day. The hon. member will have an opportunity of taking up this subject on the Estimates, when the Intercolonial railway .is under discussion.


Robert Rogers: In answer t>t my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), I acknowledge with appreciation his kindly reference to my friend the Minister of Railways (.Mr. Cochrane), and I am sure my hon. friend will be pleased to know, as will all other members of the House, that my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways had a cablegram today which goes to show that the Minister of Railways is making very marked improvement as a result of his trip and the rest he is having since he left here.
I regret that the Prime Minister is not in his seat this evening, as, in my humble judgment, the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House in respect not alone to Nova Scotia but to Quebec, in connection with the extensions of the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway to these various portions of the provinces where such extensions are required, is one of serious moment and one of such importance that undoubtedly it will receive the special consideration of the Prime Minister, as I am sure it will of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals. We all agree with what has been said. I was struck by the figures which the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) gave in regard to production in the province of Nova Scotia. Those figures give evidence of the great natural resources of that province, and the same applies to the province of Quebec and to the other provinces directly interested in this matter. I will

take an early opportunity of drawing the attention of the Prime Minister to the statements which have been made this evening with respect to this matter. As my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton well knows, the Prime Minister is very deeply interested in everything that will promote the welfare and development not only of the Maritime provinces but of all the provinces of the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, March 17, 1914.