1914-02-04

FIRST READINGS OF BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 46, respecting The Erie, London and Tilsonburg Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 47, respecting The Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Fisher.
Bill No. 48, to incorporate The Peace River Tramway and Navigation Company. -Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 49, respecting The Saskatchewan Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.

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

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	What sum is to he paid per annum by the Government of Canada to the Royal Mail Steamship Company of Canada for the Canada West India steamship service?
2.	For what period does the contract run?
3.	How many steamers are to be engaged in the service, and what is their tonnage, speed, passenger accommodation, and trips per month?


Mr. FOSTER:: 3. Four.
Name.	Tonnage.	Average speed- Knots.	Passenger Accommodation.	Gross.	Net.	First Class.	Second Class.	Third Class.Chignecto..	4,744	2,999	ii	41	60	90Chaleur....	4,746	2,994	ii	41	60	90Cobequid..	4,790	2,969	u	41	60	98Caraquet...	4,889	2,975	u	40	72	80
The Cobequid was wrecked off the Nova Scotia coast on January 13, 1914.
A sailing is to be made from Halifax every 14 days.


WEST INDIA TRADE COMMISSIONER.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Was Mr. Watson Griffith appointed a special travelling trade commissioner for the Government of Canada in the British West Indies?.
2.	If so, what are his duties, when did they commence, and what salary does he receive?
3.	What was Mr. Watson Griffith's occupation and where did he reside prior to his appointment as such trade commissioner?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Mr. Griffin was appointed a special trade commissioner. He has been sent on a trade mission to the West Indies.
2.	His duties are to interest the people of the West Indies in Canada and Canadian products and report regularly to the department, and to assist in securing greater publicity for such information in Canada. His duties commenced on December 17, 1913; salary, $4,000 per annum.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How many Fenian raid veterans have been paid the $100 bounty to date?


Mr. PERLEY:: 16,470.


Mr. BOIVIN:: How many Fenian raid veterans have received the Government grant of $100 provided for by law?


George Halsey Perley: 16,470.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Does the Government intend to introduce any legislation extending the time for payment of bounty under the provisions of chapter 53, 2 George V., entitled an Act to authorize a bounty to Volunteers who served the Crown during the Fenian raids?
2.	Does the Government intend to introduce any legislation providing for the payment of

bounty under said Act to the widows of volunteers who, if alive, would be entitled to said bounty?
Hon. SAM. HUGHES (Minister of Militia and Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	The bounty is payable to widows of veterans who were alive on the date of the passing of the Act, viz., April 1, 1912.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What are the conditions under which bounties are being paid to men who drilled or volunteered to repel the Fenian raid invasion of 1866?
2.	If no person in the province of Prince Edward Island has received a bounty, what is the reason for the apparent discrimination?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Proof of a corps having been called out for active service, and of a volunteer having performed service with a corps so called out during the period of a raid.
2.	There is no record or proof in the department of any corps belonging to Prince Edward Island having been called out on active service for suppression of a Fenian raid.


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What was the total number of men, women and children in Canada at the time of the Fenian raid?
2.	What was the total number, by provinces, at that time, capable of bearing arms?
3.	What was the total number of men then enlisted for military service in each province?
4.	How many applications have been made to the , Department of Militia and Defence for bounty under the Fenian Raid Bounty Act, in each province?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	To be answered by Department of Trade and Commerce.
2.	To be answered by Department of Trade and Commerce.
3.	Fenian Raid
1866.
Upper Canada	 12,199
Lower Canada	 7,398
Nova Scotia	 59,379
New Brunswick	 44,055
Total	 123,031
Fenian	Raid
1870.
Ontario	 20,956
Quebec	 15,066
Nova Scotia	 4,192
New Brunswick	 3,327
Total	 43,541
4.	Impossible to give this information at present, as applications for the bounty have not been entered by provinces.


Mr. BORDEN:: Questions 1 and 2 will
stand for further answer.


DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY STAFF.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. EMMERSON:
1.	Have any appointments been made to the official staff of the Dorchester penitentiary since January 1, 1913? If so, what are their names, to what positions respectively, and at what salaries?
2.	Have any new positions or offices been created since January 1, 1913? If so, who were the persons appointed to such positions or offices, and at what salaries respectively?
3.	tv ho recommended the creation of said new positions or offices, and what is the additional increase to the salary list of said penitentiary by reason of the creation of the new positions or offices?
Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	N. A. Macpherson, industrial guard, at $1,000, vice W. R. Burns, resigned.
2.	(a) In pursuance of the uniform schedule of last session the duties of the steward have been extended to the oversight of the clothing department in addition to the victualling department-without increase in salary, (b) Guard Gillespie, guard in charge of the kitchen, has been promoted from the rank of guard at $800 to that of assistant steward at $900. (c) Guard Elsdon who has been for a number of years in charge of the clothing department, has been promoted from the rank of guard at $800 to that of assistant steward at $900. (d) Guard McCaull, who has been in charge of the engineer's shop, has been promoted from the rank of guard at $800 to that of assistant engineer at $1,000.
3.	As regards a, b and c, the inspector of penitentiaries; as regards d the warden and the inspector. The aggregate increase in the salary list is $400 per annum.


MAISONNEUVE POSTAL STATION.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of a postal station in the city of Maisonneuve?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to utilize the plans made and approved by the department, prepared by Mr. C. A. Reeves, architect?
3.	Is Mr. Reeves still in me employ of the Department of Public. Works in respect of this postal station? If not, why not?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to change architects in that respect?
5.	If so, on whose recommendation has the change been made or will it be made?
6.	What will be the cost of such a station and wheri will operation be started?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Plans are now being prepared by Mr. M. Dufresne, architect, of Montreal.
2.	3 and 4. No. Plans were prepared by Mr. Reeves for site decided upon, but these plans were not acceptable.
5.	Change of architects was made by direction of the minister.
6.	Plans are not completed, and, in view of this, information cannot be given as to cost of building.


FRASERVIT.DE HARBOUR WORKS.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What reasons have prevented the works at the harbour of Fraserville from being started during the summer of 1913?
2.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Public Works to begin in the near future the execution of these works, which it was expected would start immediately after the session, according to promises said to have been made to that effect?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Question of design and type of the proposed works had not been agreed upon by the Department of Public Works and Department of Railways and Canals, but plan and specification are now practically ready.
2.	Minister cannot give definite answer until he has had an opportunity to examine plans and specifications.


QUEENSTON HEIGHTS PICNIC.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Did the Minister of Militia and Defence accompany Sir Ian Hamilton to the political picnic of the Ward Four Conservative Association at Queenston Heights in July last?
2.	Did the Minister, so accompanied by Sir Ian Hamilton, wear a badge inscribed 'Borden and Our Empire'?
3.	Were the Minister and Sir Ian Hamilton photographed with the officers of the Ward Four Conservative Association at such political picnic?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	General Sir Ian Hamilton was the guest of the Minister of Militia one day last July at Queenstown Heights inspecting it from a military view' point. There were a great many picnics going on.
2.	The minister did wear a very beautiful badge showing a stalwart young Canadian standing on Canadian soil, grasping, across the Atlantic the hand of John Bull, standing on British soil. The minister does not remember whether or not the very beautiful inscription ' Borden and our Empire ' was on the badge.
3.	The minister and Sir Ian were photographed some score of times that day, with a lot of very fine people. Doubtless many of them, apparently very intelligent, belonged to the Conservative Association.


HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF.
*Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Following the investigation into the duties of the staff of the House of Commons in 1912, -did Dr. Shortt, of the Civil Service Commission, make a report to His Honour the Speaker, or [DOT]to the Internal Economy Commission? If so, what was the nature of such report?
2.	Does Mr. Speaker intend to lay on the table the report in question?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A copy of the report was laid upon the table of the House for the information of members.


RIGAUD POST OFFICE.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	To whom has the Government awarded the -contract or the supervising of the construction of the concrete sidewalk in front of the Rigaud post office?
2.	What are the names of the parties who received money from the Government in view of that work, and how much did each of them get?
3.	Who supplied the material and the amount and nature of their bills?
4.	If that work has been given by contract, who has been the contractor and what was the amount of his transaction?
5.	Were there other tenders? If so, by whom have they been sent in?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1,	2, 3, and 4. Awarded by agreement to E. Monpetit, Rigaud, Quebec, for the sum of $276.50. Work done under the supervision of Clerk of Works G. S. Gingras, Montreal. 5. No other tenders.


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the work of draining, levelling and fencing done during the year 1913 on the Government ground where the post office at Rigaud has been erected, been done by the day or by *contract?
2.	In the first case, what is the name of the supervising officer and the amount he has received, and what is the name of the other employees and the salary paid to each of them?
3.	In the second case,, (a) what is the name *of the contractor, what was the amount of his tender; and were other tenders received? If so, (b) what are the names of such tenderers?
4.	What amount has been paid to date, for -the abovementioned works?


Robert Rogers: 
Mr. BOYER:: .
1.	How many tons of coal has the Government bought for the use of the Post Office of Rigaud during last season?
2.	What is the name of the purveyor?
3.	Have tenders been advertised for that object?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the price by the ton, of each tender?
5.	What was the quantity to be supplied by the party to whom the contract was awarded?
6.	What quantity has he supplied?
7.	If the contractor has not supplied the quantity for which the contract was given to him, what are the reasons for so doing?
8.	What is the cubic capacity of the coal-bunker of that post office.
9.	Who was the purveyor in 1912?
10.	How many tons has he sold to the Government and at what price?
11.	Who were the tenderers in that year and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	About 211 tons.
2.	Basile Decoste.
3.	Yes.
4.	One tender, Basil Decoste, at $7.75 a ton.
5.	35 tons egg coal.
6.	Account for 21 tons 535 lbs. amounting to $164.83, passed on the 16th September, 1913.
7.	Coal bunker would only hold about 22 tons, and when same was filled caretaker wrote to say that he thought that quantity would be sufficient for the season.
8.	780 cubic feet.
9.	Chevrier Freres.
10.	About 36J tons at $8 a ton.
11.	Only one tender, as above.


RIGAUD WHARF.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What amount has the Government paid for the repairing of the wharf at Rigaud during the season of 1913?
2.	Of what kind were these works?
3.	Who was the contractor or superintendent?
4.	What amount was paid to either of them?
5.	Who are the other parties who have received a salary and how much?
6.	Who supplied the material and what was the amount and nature of each bill?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$233.40.
2.	Minor repairs to wharf.
3.	Work done by day labour. Supervising engineer, A. E. Dubuc, assistant district engineer, Montreal. Foreman, L. J. O. Chevrier.
4.	Foreman Chevrier paid at the rate of $3 per diem, 20 days at $3, $60.
5.	Joseph Vallee, carpenter, 22 days at $2, $44; Felix Billard, labourer, 12 days at $1.75, $21; total, $125.

6.	Adolphus Cousineau, lumber, $6; Jos. Vallee, lumber, $94.40; I. L. Lafleur, hardware, $8; toal, $108.40.


GRAHAM WHARF.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What amount has the Government spent for the wharf at Graham in 1913, who has been the superintendent of such work and what daily salary did he get in whole?
2.	What are the names of the other employees and the amount of total daily salary drawn by each of them?
3.	What are the names of any purveyors and the amount of their bills?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) $1,615.67; (b) Foreman, Nap. E. N. Seguin, paid at the rate of $3.50 per day.
2.	From 12th August to 6th November,
1913: Nap. E. N. Sdguin, foreman, 72 days at $3.50 per day, $252; Leon Gauthier, carpenter, 45 days at $2.50, $113.75; Nap. Vallee, labourer, 12 days at $2, $24; Elie Lavigne, carter, 174 days at $4, $70; Peter Berry, carpenter, 404 days at $2.50, $101.25; Didasse Lavigne, labourer, 2 days at $2, $4; Alf. Seguin, labourer, 15J days at $2, $31.50; Ant. Bertrand, labourer, lOf days at $2, $21.50; Bernard Seguin, labourer, 22 days at $2, $44. Total, $662.	[DOT]
3.	Chevrier & Frferes, cable, - $6.48; J. A. Bertrand, hardware, $20.24; Hon. Gauthier, cartage, etc., $98; Wm. Graham, hardware and disbursements, $7.84; Nap. Seguin, lumber, etc., $5.75; Capt. Gedeon Vallee, freight charges and disbursements, $46.56; Caverhill, Learmont & Co., rope, $21.13; Durand Hardware Co., hardware, $3.10; Treffle Pilon, rent of winch, $5; Philippe Lefebvre, lumber, $31; W. A. Wood, rent of pile driver, $40; Alphonse Dumoulin, smithwork, $16.45; Ant. Bertrand, sundries, $1.90; Lachine sand and gravel, towing pile driver, $5; Johnny Gamelin, pilotage, $5; William Hodgson, lumber, $632.54; Montreal Hardware Co., $7.68. Total, $953.67. *Grand total, $1,615.67.


DREDGING AT DORION.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	At whose request was a dredge sent to Dorion during the season of 1913?
2.	What number of cubic yards of material have been taken away?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to have those works completed next year?
4.	Have the owners of the ground facing the spot where the work has taken place, been called on to pay any money?
5.	What is the name of the dredge?
6.	Is it the property of the Government or of a company?
7.	If it belongs to the Government, what is the daily expense of running same?
8.	How many days did it remain at Dorion?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	A. E. Labelle, S. S. McKay.
2.	8,742 cublic yards.
3.	The work has been completed.
4.	Yes.
5.	P. W. D. No. 103.
6.	Property of Department of Public Works.
7.	$64.17.
8.	40 days.


HARBOURS IN WESTMORLAND.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	(a) Is the Department of Public Works having a survey of Port Elgin harbour in Westmorland county, N.B., made? (b) If so, how many men and who are engaged in the survey?
2.	Is the department aware that a complete survey was made of this harbour a few years ago?
3.	(a) What is the estimated cost of the present survey, and (b) is it proposed to have the dredging, which was commenced in connection with this harbour, proceeded with during the coming season of navigation?
4.	(a) Is the Department of Public Works having a survey made at Little Cape, in Westmorland county, N.B., with a view of securing a site lor a wharf at that point? (b) If so, what is the estimated cost of such survey?
5.	Is the wharf proposed to be built at the west side of the river to suit the people of Little Cape, Portage and Great Shemogue or is a survey being made also on the eastern side of the Great Shemogue harbour inlet or river to suit the requirements of fish hatchery, and of the Shemogue Oyster Company comprised of Messers. M. G. Siddal, W. F. Humphrey, M.P.P., P. G. Mahoney, M.P.P., Richard O'Leary, and others, who require a wharf for the proposed oyster business at Little Cape or Great Shemogue harbour?
6.	Is there any correspondence in the department or any of the departments of the Government or in the hands of any of the members of the Government relating to this subject?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Assistant Engineer Martin and General Inspector Loggie are engaged on this survey, with five local men.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) $100 in addition to staff expenses, (b) Matter will be considered when engineer's report is received.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) The estimated cost of survey is $75.
5.	The survey is completed, but the reports are not yet to hand, and the question of site will not be considered until this data is to hand.
6.	Correspondence received was forwarded to the district engineer when the survey was ordered, and has not yet been returned.


IMPORTATION OP SLAG.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Was there an Order in Council passed recently by the Government of Canada affecting in any manner the importation of slag used by the farmers in Canada for fertilizing purposes? If so, on what date, and in what way was the importation of slag affected?
2.	Was this done at the solicitation of any persons, firms or corporations? If so, whom?
3.	Was there any duty imposed on slag used for agricultural purposes imported into Canada? If so, what was the rate of said duty previous to the passage of the said Order in Council, if any?
Mr. RI'ID:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No, duty has not been changed on blast furnace slag, as mentioned in item 372, Customs Tariff, 1907. On 9th November, 1913, the Board of Customs ruled ground basic slag dutiable as fertilizer under item 663 of Customs Tariff, 1907, at 5 per cent preferential; 10 per cent general.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to his answer to the third part of this question, and to ask him to lay on the table of the House a copy of the ruling therein referred to, together with the papers connected therewith.


Mr. REID:: I shall be very glad to get the information for my hon. friend.


MARRIAGE QUESTION ARGUMENT.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the Government for fees and disbursements to the counsel retained by them or by the Minister of Justice to argue before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, the marriage question and the Bill relating to it, introduced in this House during the session 1911-12 by the member for Lincoln, and referred by the Government to the said Supreme Court and the said Judicial Committee?
2.	Is the said counsel paid in full? If not, what amount is still owing to them?
3.	What was the amount charged to the Dominion Treasury by the Minister of Justice and paid to him for travelling and other expenses in connection with the reference of the said marriage question and of the said Bill to the said Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council?
4.	(u) Did the Minister of Justice take part in the argument before the said Judicial Committee? (6) If not, why not?
5.	What was the amount paid by the Government to their agents or solicitors in London, England, for fees and disbursements in connection with the said reference to the said Judicial Committee?
6.	Are they paid in full? If not, what is the amount still owing to them?


Mr. DOHERTY:: .
1.	$21,926.70.
2.	Paid in full as taxed by department.
3.	The Minister of Justice went to England in connection with the marriage case and other public business. Of his expenses $1,000 was charged to the marriage case.
4.	(a) No. The Minister of Justice submitted the questions-obtained leave to appeal and an order that the case be heard in the July term of 1912. (b) Because the Government had undertaken to have the questions submitted to the highest tribunal in the empire and to provide, as it did, independent counsel to represent the opposing views upon the questions submitted.
5.	$1,195.62.
6.	Paid in full.
THE MINISTER OF MILITIA IN EUROPE. Mr. PROULX:
1.	How many officers of the Canadian militia accompanied the Minister of Militia on his European trip in the summer of 1913?
2.	How many stenographers accompanied the party?
3.	How many servants were in the party?
4.	How many officers' wives and daughters, or other persons, accompanied the party?
5.	Were the expenses of said wives and daughters paid by the Department of Militia and Defence, or any portion thereof?
6.	What was the total cost to the country for the expenses of the whole party?
7.	What amount was paid to the officers, stenographers and servants as pay or allowance?
8.	What European countries were visited during the trip?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	21 officers, including 4 sent over for courses of instruction or on other special duty, and who joined the party in London.
2.	One private secretary and one assistant private secretary.
3.	Two orderlies.
4.	None officially.
5.	No, not one cent. The expenses of the ladies who accompanied the party were borne by their own husbands and fathers.
6.	$24,262, including the four special officers referred to in No. 1.
7.	To the officers-$3,984, for pay of rank. For subsistence and other allowances, $10 a day. To all others, actual expenses for subsistence only, and no pay other than their permanent pay.
8.	All the officers visited the manoeuvres of the French army along the frontier between France and Germany. They also visited the Swiss manoeuvres under the direction of General Sir Ian Hamilton and

General Ellison, for three days. They also visited the British divisional manoeuvres in one week, and the British army manoeuvres the following week. The minister personally also visited the German divisional manoeuvres, and the Belgian and Dutch military centres. A full report is being prepared, under the direction of Colonel Cruikshank, and, when published, will be placed in the hands of all the members.


LITTLE SANDS BREAKWATER.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Have tenders been invited for the breakwater at Little Sands, P.E.I. ? If so, how many were received, and from whom, and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	Has a contract been entered into with any of the tenderers, or with anybody else? If so, when will the work be commenced, and when is it expected to be completed?


Robert Rogers: Yes, tenders 'have been invited and received, but it is inadvisable to give the information until the contract has been signed.


WRIGHT COUNTY POST OFFICES.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	How many post offices have been opened,
. if any, in the county of Wright, Quebec, since
September, 1911?
2.	If any, where are said post offices located?
3.	What are the names of the postmasters of same?
4.	In what parts of the county of Wright have rural mail routes been established?


Mr. PELLETIER:: I, 2 and 3. The following post offices have been opened: At Nesbitt Comers, lot 28, concession 4, township of Masham; postmaster, John Nesbitt. At Lambert Corners, lot 16, concession B, township of Northfield; postmaster Robert Lambert. At Brennan Hills, lot 48, concession 6, township of Low; postmaster, Louis Monet te.
4.	From Wakefield to Duclos, via Ste. Cecile de Masham and Masham Mills. Established in 1909.


UN D ISCUSSED AND UNOPPOSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lemieux.-For a copy of all correspondence and papers generally concerning the
proposed changes of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Mr. Carroll.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondance of all kinds relating in any way to the applications for Fenian Raid Bounty in South Cape Breton, or relating to or touching in any way, the claims of such applications.
Mr. Carroll.-For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all persons in South Cape Breton, N.S., who made application for Fenian Raid Bounty, of all persons who made two or more applications, of all persons who have been paid the said Bounty, and of all persons whose claims have been disallowed, with the reasons therefor.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all persons from the county of Westmorland, N.B., who have applied to the department of Militia and Defence for a bounty under the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act, indicating the date on which each application was received, the names and addresses of the parties to whom such bounty has been paid; also the names and addresses of the parties to whom the bounty has not been paid, with the reason, if any, for nonpayment thereof.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-Return showing the total amount of available cash on deposit to the credit of the Government of Canada on the last day of each month between 1st April, 1913, and December 31, 1913.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-Return showing the following particulars respectively, of all loans placed or extended by the Government of Canada, upon the London market during the calendar years 1912 and 1913: loan; date and copy of prospectus; price in prospectus and price realized; date on which loan matures; rate per cent; total issue; amount realized ; charges including discount for immediate payments, &c.; net amount of cash realized; and the annual effective rate of interest per unit.
Mr. Sinclair.-Return showing the names and post office address of all parties from the county of Guysborough, N.S., who have applied to the Department of Militia and Defence for a bounty under the Fenian Raid Volunteer Act, indicating the date on which each application was received, the names of tne parties to whom such bounty has been paid, date of payments, and also the names of those parties to whom the bounty has not been paid, with the reason, if any, for non-payment thereof.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-Return showing the quantities and values of potatoes imported monthly into Canada during the years 1911, 1912 and
1913,	and the counties from which such potatoes were imported.
Mr. Kyte.-For a copy of all correspondence relative to the dismissal of Alex. W. Finlayson, keeper of light on St. Esprit Island, Richmond county, N.S., and to his resignation and the appointment of a successor.
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, &c., exchanged between the Department of Militia and Messrs. A. Macdonald, E. Mont-petit and others in connection with the organization of the 33rd Hussars, at Vaudreuil and Soulanges.
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Militia and Messrs. Archibald Macdonald, Elzear Montpetit, J. H. Che-vrier and others, relating to the repairs made or to be made to the armoury at Rigaud, from 1911 to date.

Mr. KYTE moved:: For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all persons in the county of Richmond, N.S., who made application for Fenian raid bounty, of all persons who were paid said bounty up to the 15th day of January,
1914,	and of all persons whose claims have

been disallowed, with the reasons for such disallowance.


Hon. SAM HUGHES (Minister of Militia and Defence):: I have no objection to
this and similar motions passing; but for the benefit of hon. gentlemen who are making such motions I may explain that although certain lists are available in some of the counties of Nova Scotia, it will undoubtedly take a great deal of time to obtain the necessary information as to allowances and disallowances, and if there is a little delay I hope that my hon. friends will not feel grieved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN moved:: For a return showing the names of all printing and publishing companies, and newspapers in Nova Scotia to whom any sum of money has been paid paid during the calendar years 1912 and 1913 respectively, and the nature of the service rendered therefor.
He said: In my absence the other day, some objection was made to the form of this motion, as evidently some words were omitted. I beg leave to move it with the following amendment: that after the word ' paid ' in the third line the following words be inserted, ' by any department of the Government of Canada.'
Motion as amended agreed to.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For a copy of all correspondence, papers and documents between the Department of Militia and Defence, or any of its officers, and the Halifax County Conservative Association, or any of its officers, or any individual in Halifax county, advising them or him of the sufficiency in form or otherwise of the application of any resident of Halifax county for the Fenian raid bounty.
He said: This motion. perhaps asks for a little too much, and if the minister thinks he cannot comply with it, as it stands, I would have no objection to leaving out the words in the fourth line ' or any individual in Halifax county.' I understand it would possibly be hard to comply with that part of the motion.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: I might say in regard to that, that there is no answer to the motion, but it might as well pass.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that is a mistake; I think there is an answer.

. Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Very well, then; no, nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Henry Robert Emmerson: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, reports, inquiries, and documents or other communications had with any of the departments of the Government, particularly with the Interior, Customs and Marine and Fisheries Departments, relating to Gustavus A. Colpitts, a Canadian citizen returning as a passenger on the Royal mail steamship Empress of Britain, in September, 1911, who alleged that he was not allowed by officers of the Government to disembark at Rimouski from said steamship. Also-a copy of all letters, correspondence or other communications received by any members of the Government, particularly by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and by any department of the Government, from the said Gustavus A. Colpitts, who was at the time a student at Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, and of all letters or other communications sent in reply thereto.
He said: The reading of this motion gives Dne an idea of my object in making it. I may state that my principal object inbringing this matter to the notice of the House, is to have determined, if possible, or at least understood, the status of a Canadian citizen who has travelled abroad and who is obliged to return to Canada as a steerage passenger in one of our steamers, Mr. Colpitts is a young man who was a student at Mount Allison University at Sackville, N.B. With a view to broadening his mind and getting further education in a greater university, he went to Great Britain and to other portions of Europe. Not being possessed of a large amount of this world's goods, in returning home, he travelled by the cheapest possible method, namely, by steerage. He came back to Canada on the steamship Empress of Britain in September, 1911. When the steamer reached Rimouski, on her way up the St. Lawrence, it was his desire to land at that point, instead of going on to Quebec. It would save him expense and if was nearer his home; he could take the Intercolonial railway at Rimouski at much less expense than if he were compelled to take it at Quebec. He was prevented from landing by an officer of the customs. The Canadian immigration and other officials, and indeed the officials of the steamer, were quite willing that he should be permitted to land with the other passengers at Rimouski. The first and second class passengers and the mail were landed in large measure at that point, but, forsooth, a Canadian citizen, because he came home

by steerage, was prevented from landing.
Mr. Colpitts has, I think, since completed 'his studies at the University of Mount Allison, and has removed to Macdonald, in the province of Manitoba. With that persistency that characterizes some New Brunswickers, Mr. Colpitts, desirous of having it determined as to just how far a Canadian citizen has rights in returning to his home beyond those of the ordinary immigrant coming into the country, who is limited and restricted and regulated by the regulations of the Immigration Department or the Customs Department of the Government, brought this matter to the attention of the Government and also communicated with me in regard to it. The matter was not brought before the House last session, although Mr. Colpitts had written me on several occasions. ' I found that it was too late to bring it conveniently to the notice of the House.
Recently I had a communication from Mr. Colpitts asking me to bring the matter to the notice of the House and of the Government in order that certain questions which he bad propounded to the several departments might be answered or at least considered by the Government with the view of having a change, if thought necessary and desirable, in the regulations that in any way restrict a Canadian citizen in his rights, even though he travels steerage. Mr. Colpitts, after he had reached his home, in October, 1911, wrote to several departments of the Government, or to the officials thereof, asking certain questions, thinking to learn why it was that he was thus prevented, questioning the right of the customs officials to prevent him and if there was such a right on the part of these officers to prohibit his landing, he desired to know under what regulations and principles he was prevented from enjoying his rights or the rights which he would have enjoyed had he travelled either first or second class. On the 3rd October, 1911, he wrote t*o the secretary of the Department of Immigration, asking some very pertinent questions, among them the following:
Are there any circumstances under which a Canadian custom official may refuse a Canadian citizen permission to enter Canada?
If so, what are the conditions, and what spirit prompts such regulations?
Is a Canadian citizen returning to Canada subject to the same inspection re vaccination, occupation and religion as an immigrant?
Must a child born in Canada, but returning to Canada, be vaccinated before being allowed to enter Canada?
Must a young child less than a month old be vaccinated before entering Canada?
To this, his first inquiry, he received a very courteous reply from Mr. W. D. Scott, the superintendent of immigration, acknowledging the receipt of his communication, and asking Mr. Colpitts to give him full particulars of a specific case' in which any of the difficulties referred to in his letter had been experienced. If this was furnished he would have the matter inquired into and advise him as to the result. Mr. Scott very kindly sent to him a copy of the Immigration Act which outlines clearly the procedure followed by officers of the department in their inspection of immigrants entering Canada. Further on, on the 17th October, Mr. Scotfc wrote to Mr. Colpitts, as follows:
In answer to your first question I may say that customs officials have to do only with the baggage and personal belongings of passengers. A customs official might, under Canadian law, prevent a passenger leaving a boat or train and taking his baggage until his baggage was examined, but it is unlikely that any custom officer would prevent such a. passenger leaving a ship or train under ordinary circumstances.
Replying to your second question I would say that a Canadian citizen is not subject to the same regulations as immigrants, but you can readily understand that it would be impossible for a Government officer or any other person to detect whether a passenger were a Canadian without some form of examination.
Mr. Colpitts had a further letter from Mr. Scott, dated 23rd January, 1912, which-reads:
I beg to acknowledge the receipt in due course of your letter of the 17th instant, and to say in reply that there is no regulation that third-class passengers arriving by ocean steamers via St. Lawrence route must land only at Quebec, but the immigration regulations require that no passengers shall be landed anywhere from an ocean ship without the permission of an immigration officer.
Mr. Colpitts had also written to the' Director General of Public Health on the 9th of January, and he wished to know whether there was a quarantine regulation that third-class passengers arriving by ocean steamer shall land only at Quebec.-and if so whether the regulation applied to Canadian citizens as well as immigrants. Mr. Colpitts stated in this letter:
I refer of course to the summer season and to passengers on steamers that land mails at: Rimouski. If such be the regulation I shall be glad to know the spirit that prompts such legislation.
The Director General of Public Health" sent to Mr. Colpitts a copy of the quarantine regulations of the Dominion, and on the 15th of January, 1912, he further wrote to Mr. Colpitts:

I am in receipt of your letter dated 9th instant, asking me about regulations as to the landing of third-class passengers arriving by ocean steamers at Quebec only. In reply I have to say that this is not a quarantine regulation, but one issued-whether correctly cited by you or not I do not know-but I would refer you to the immigration branch of the Interior Department for full information on the subject. Jurisdiction of the quarantine of this department ceases when the immigrants have been released from quarantine or when the vessel has passed quarantine inspection with a clean bill of health. They then pass under the jurisdiction of the immigration branch of the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Colpitts wrote to the Minister of Customs asking for a copy of
3 p.m. the Act relating to the duties of Canadian customs officials in respect of passengers arriving by ocean steamer, and on the 14th of November he wrote to the Commissioner of Customs at Ottawa from his university residence at Sackville:
I was a third-class passenger on the Empress of Britain which arrived at Rimouski on the 28th of September last. Before reaching Rimouski, I had made arrangements, so far as the officers of the boat were concerned, to land there. Upon reaching Rimouski I sought permission from the immigration officer to land there and said official was in the act of signing my landing papers when the customs official who was then in the purser's office, informed the purser that I would not be allowed to land there. I turned to another customs official, not then in the purser's office, and asked why, from the standpoint of the customs, I would not be allowed to land there. He at first said I could, but on learning that I was travelling third-class he said it was impossible for me to land there. I have been quite unable to find any legitimate reason why I was not allowed to land at Rimouski. My destination was Sackville, N.B. I was a Canadian citizen, a native of New Brunswick, and my object in wishing to land there was to save time and expense. The result was I was delayed thirty-six hours in reaching home and was at the expense of a day's board and the difference in fare on account of booking at Lf vis instead of at Rimouski. Now, the customs official was either right or w'rong. If right, I ask for a copy of the Act or a statement of the ruling under which he acted; if wrong, I wish to know.
Later in the same month, the 22nd of November, he wrote the Commissioner of Customs:
I have to-day received your letter of the 20th instant, and I beg leave to thank you for your prompt reply to my last letter. I have to say, however, that your letter does not make the matter about which I have been corresponding, clear. First, you state that the reason the landing of passengers at Rimouski was objected to was because the steamer did not make entry at the customs house at Rimouski. The fact remains that passengers did land there and further that I was not allowed to land

there. Before lodging any complaint I made careful study of the Immigration Act and of the quarantine regulations and I failed to find there anything justifying the customs officer in detaining me when the immigration officer was willing to allow me to land.
I have no disposition to continue a correspondence to make it tedious, but probably another letter will give me the desired information.
Section 6, page 5, to which you refer me, does not, so far as I can see, refer to the case in question, since the quarantine officer must have given his permission or no passengers would have landed at Rimouski. I would call your attention to section 25, page 9, which would apply to the Empress of Britain, since she carried mail, and to subsection (b) under which I claim that I should have been allowed to land.
In conclusion I will say that I wish to know why a Canadian citizen in perfect health, willing to establish the fact of his citizenship, should be detained on board a vessel by a customs official, the immigration officer having . given his permission to said citizen to land, with the result that he is carried away from his home, delayed thirty-six hours in reaching his home, and subjected to considerable expense.
On December 20, Mr. Colpitts again wrote tbe Commissioner of Customs as follows:
Your explanation of the fact that I was prevented from landing is no doubt correct. But I wish to say that a Canada customs official was the man directly responsible for preventing my landing, that is to say, the customs official was the man who prevented my name being placed on the partial clearance to which you refer in the last paragraph, and I have been asking his authority and have as yet failed to get a reply. Either the Customs Department will have to shoulder this and explain, or else shift the responsibility to some other department, As a Canadian citizen, I request an explanation. To an ordinary citizen like myself it is not apparent why a direct answer to such a question as I have been asking cannot be given by your department.
Mr. Colpitts further informed the Commissioner of Customs on the 9th of January that, before making any complaint, he had made a careful survey of the quarantine regulations and had found there no such rule as referred to in the letter of the Commissioner of Customs of the 26th of December, 1911. He also stated that, acting upon the suggestion of the Commissioner of Customs, he would write the Director General of Public Health.
On the 1st of February, 1912, Mr. Colpitts again wrote the Commissioner of Customs as follows:
Yours of the 26th December, 1911, came duly to hand. In my acknowledmgent of it on January 9, 1912, I stated that I would follow your suggestion and write the Director General of Public Health. This I did, in reference especially to your statement that 'the quarantine rules require that third class passengers shall

be landed at Quebec' and 'the quarantine rules forbid the landing of third class passengers at Rimouski.'
The reply from the Director General of Public Health was to the effect that such Is 'not a quarantine regulation' 'but one issued by the immigration branch of the Interior Department', and I was referred to your department for further information.
I then wrote the Commissioner of Immigration regarding the same matter. The reply from him states that ' there is no regulation that third class passengers arriving by ocean steamer via the St. Lawrence route must land only at Quebec.'
The discrepancy between your statement in yours of December 26 and these of these other two officials will be apparent. And the statement of these officials agrees with the opinion which I formed from a careful examination of the Immigration and Quarantine Acts made before entering any complaint, as I have already stated in my letter to you of November 22.
I beg leave also to call your attention to the fact that there is a very apparent inconsistency between your letter of November 20, in which you give as the reason why I was not allowed to land at Rimouski, that 'the steamer did not make entry at the customs house, Rimouski,' and your letter of December 11, in which the reason given is that my 'name was not included in the partial clearance granted by the quarantine officer at Rimouski for the landing of passengers at that point,' and again in your letter of December 26, in which you defend the last statement and add that 'the quarantine rules require that third class passengers shall be landed at Quebec.'
I have still to inquire then why I was not allowed to land at Rimouski from the steamer Empress of Britain on September 28, 1911, the immigration officer having given his permission, the objection to my landing having been made by an officer of Canada Customs. I trust that you will be able to give me this information, or else admit the error of the customs officer referred to above by return.
The letter of the 20th of November from Mr. John McDougald, Commissioner of Customs, written to Mr. Colpitts in reply to his letter of the 14th of November, 1911, reads as follows:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of our letter of the 14th instant, respecting the refusal of the customs officer to permit your landing at Rimouski from the steamer Empress of Britain on the 28th September, 1911, you being a third-class passenger on the said steamer.
In reply I am to say that the landing of passengers at Rimouski from the steamer Empress of Britain was objected to because the steamer did not make entry at the Customs House, Rimouski.
I enclose copy of Quarantine Regulations. You will observe in section 6, page 5, that a steamer coming from a port outside of Canada is not allowed to make customs entry at Rimouski until it has received a clean bill of health from the quarantine officer at such place. These steamers, for quarantine purposes, are inspected at Grosse Isle above Rimouski. You will observe that under section 12, page 6, there is a prohibition against the landing of passengers before the inspection of the ship for quarantine purposes.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the date of that letter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: November 20, 1911.


John Dowsley Reid: That explains the whole matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It certainly does not do so, because other passengers were permitted to land. If such a rule applied to the third-class passengers, it should have had equal application to the second and the first-class passengers. To contend that the customs official was j'ustified in preventing Mr. Colpitts from landing would be to condemn that same official for permitting the second and the first class-passengers to land, as he did on the occasion referred to.
The circumstances of this ease are quite apparent from the correspondence which I have read. Mr. Colpitts had satisfied the immigration officer that he was a Canadian citizen, that he was returning to his home, that it was desirable in his own interest- and not only in his own but in the public interest-that he should land at Rimouski. But the customs officials interposed and said: No, notwithstanding the permission of the immigration officers, notwithstanding their willingness, the Customs Department absolutely prohibit your entry. And the Commissioner of Customs puts in as a defence that the steamer had not entered at the port of Rimouski. Childish, such a statement is; for the reason that if it required an entry at the port of Rimouski to permit the landing of passengers, then none of the first-class or second-class passengers should have been permitted to land. If these rules which have been cited are applicable to third-class passengers only, it is not so stated; there is no distinction or discrimination made either in the regulations or in the law in that regard. Therefore, there cannot be, fairly, rightly or legally, any distinction made between Mr. Colpitts, a Canadian citizen travelling as a steerage passenger and Mr. Somebody-else, a Canadian citizen travelling as second-class or first-class passenger. That is the crux of the case. Mr. Colpitts is a Canadian citizen; he goes to Europe on his own affairs, and he seeks to return to his university duties. And yet he is treated as an immigrant and prevented from again landing, prevented from getting to his home; and he wants to know-and rightly wants to know-under what regulation a ban was placed upon his landing at Rimouski. Mr. McDougald wrote a letter, dated the 26th of December, as follows:-



Referring to your letter of the 20th instant, I am to state that the names of the persons to be placed on the partial clearance by the quarantine officer permitting the landing of passengers at Rimouski, are in the judgment of the quarantine officer.
The quarantine rules require that third-class passengers shall be landed at Quebec.
There are no such rules apparently: though the statement was made by the Commissioner of Customs he is entirely in error on that point.
The Canadian customs officer was performing his duty in assisting in the observance of these rules.	i
This in the face of the fact that the quarantine officer, the immigration officer on board the steamer wanted to permit Mr. Colpitts to land, and the customs officer, instead of assisting the immigration officer in the discharge of his duties or in the observance of the rules provided for his guidance. Mr. McDougald in closing his letter says:
If you desire further information as to why the quarantine rules forbid the landing of third-class passengers at Rimouski, you may communicate with the Director General of Public Health, Ottawa.
As I have already shown, Mr. Colpitts did act upon this suggestion of Mr. McDougald and made application to the Director General of Public Health, Dr. Montizambert, and that official answered to the effect that there was no such regulation preventing the landing of third-class passengers at Rimouski. Now, here is the statement made by Mr. McDougald in a letter to Mr. Colpitts dated February 6, 1912:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, in which you ask why you were not allowed to land at Rimouski from the Empress of Britain on the 28th of September last, and would state In reply that the customs officer refused to permit you to land because your name was not included in the partial clearance granted by the quarantine officer for the landing of passengers at the place mentioned.


John Dowsley Reid: That is plain enough.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it were true. The point is and the officials so state, that the immigration officials who are the ones to give this clearance wanted this man's name placed on that clearance, and the customs officials declined to permit it to be done. The customs officials, to that extent, did interfere with the duties of the quarantine officials.
Now, this case from an individual standpoint, I suppose is not a very serious one. But I apprehend that it involves a principle

of importance to every Canadian. The question is whether a Canadian citizen, having gone abroad, has a right to return to Canada at the minimum of expense without foregoing his rights as a Canadian citizen equal with those of other Canadian citizens who happen to be a little more fortunate and to be able to travel either first-class or second-class. To me it seems an amazing condition of affairs. I have no particular interest in the matter; I am simply carrying out a request made courteously of me by a gentleman who is not even a constituent of mine and who to-day resides in another province. I have letters from Mr. Colpitts repeating his declaration that his desire is to know what his rights are as a Canadian citizen under these circumstances.
If there is any misunderstanding in the several departments with respect to the matter; if there are no regulations governing the conduct of officials under such circumstances, it is time that a remedy was applied. I certainly think that it is the duty of the Government to have this matter inquired into, and to establish a precedent governing all future cases of a similar character. I have before me a letter written to Mr. Colpitts by the gentleman who was purser of the steamship Empress of Britain on her voyage to Quebec in September, 1911. He recites a condition of affairs that, to say the least, is anomalous, and refers to an order issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to its officials, which, if followed out, certainly would be, and is, an act of very grave injustice to Canadian citizens. He says:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant. I have a slight recollection of your wishing to disembark at Rimouski. I also recall the fact of the immigration officials in the act of examining you when a customs official who came on board would not allow you to land, but I do not remember the reason adduced for holding you back. .	.
The instructions issued by the Canadian Pacific railway to pursers state that no third-class passengers can land at Rimouski, and this fact I indicated to you at the time. As a special favour, however, and owing to the fact that you were a Canadian citizen, I went to see what I could do for you. If all third-class passengers wishing to do so were allowed to leave at Rimouski the ship would be detained for quite a period. I believe that no other company allows third-class passengers to land at the point mentioned.
I can quite understand that it is in the public interest that immigrants travelling by steerage should not be permitted to land at Rimouski, but I cannot for the life of me understand why any Canadian

citizen who, by reason of circumstances of whatever nature, travels third-class, should not have the privilege, in common with first and second-class passengers, of landing at Rimouski. This is the crux and gist of the whole matter. I do not bring it forward in any spirit of antagonism; in the interests of this young man and of all other Canadian citizens who may, perchance, be like situated, I invite the attention of the Government to this matter in the hope that some measure of readjustment or regulation may be effected whereby in the future no Canadian citizen will be subjected "to the inconvenience to which Mr. Colpitts was subjected in September, 1911. I think the full facts should be laid before the House, that a complete return should be made, and that an official notice should be issued to the general public detailing just what the rights of Canadian citizens under such circumstances are. I am sure that it is in the interests of the country at large that our young men should be encouraged to travel abroad, to widen their field of knowledge and improve their education. Many young men do seek thus to broaden their ideas by travelling, but they have to travel, perchance, at the minimum of cost, and I am sure it is not in the interests of this country that they should have stripped from them their rights as Canadians simply because of the impoverished condition of their finances. I commend the matter to the careful consideration of the House and of the Government.


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The motion offered by the hon. member for Westmorland asks for the production of all documents in and correspondence with any department of . the Government, particularly the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There has been no correspondence on this matter with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and that department is not concerned with it in any way. I myself had some personal correspondence with Mr. Colpitts, who, being a native of New Brunswick, wrote to me in regard to the matter, and, while I think this correspondence is of a personal nature I would not have the slightest objection to bringing it before the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In drafting the resolution in the first instance I was under the impression that the correspondence was with the hon. minister, and that is the
reason why his department was particularly mentioned.


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Colpitts wrote to me as minister from New Brunswick in the Cabinet; that is why he solicited my good offices in the matter. As I understand it, Mr. Colpitts came out from England on the Empress of Britain, which arrived at Rimouski on September 28, 19X1, at the time the Customs Department was being administered by the predecessor of the present Minister of Customs.
For some reason or other Mr. Colpitts was not allowed to land at Rimouski, and had to go on and disembark at Quebec. He felt that he had a right to disembark at Rimouski, and took the matter up with several departments of the Government, writing letters to the Customs Department, the Immigration Department, and the Department of Public Health. On the 20th of February he wrote me a letter enclosing copies of this correspondence, and stating that he had been unable to get what he considered a satisfactory explanation of his not being allowed to land at Rimouski, and he asked me if I would ascertain what the reason was. He enclosed me the original correspondence, which I returned to him, and which I have not now in my possession, I replied to him on the 26th of February, and after acknowledging receipt of his letter, said:
* The letter from Mr. R. R. Farrow, assistant Commissioner of Customs, dated the 11th of December, 1911, states the law very clearly as to why you were not permitted to land, and in view of the same, I would not care to interfere in the matter, as I am quite sure it would be of no avail.
Apparently, among the letters he enclosed me was one from Mr. Farrow, which, when I read it, seemed to me to give a correct explanation of the reason why this young man was not allowed to land at Rimouski, and in view of that letter I thought nothing was to be gained by pursuing the matter further. However, Mr. Colpitts, who seems to have been somewhat persistent, and to have had a good deal of that quality which is known as 'stiek-to-itiveness'-a very good quality to have in life-was not satisfied with this, and he wrote me again. I was absent when his letter reached here, but when I reached home from England in 1912 I wrote the Minister of Customs pointing out what Mr. Colpitts had said, and pointing out, further, that his complaint was that no explanation of the action of the customs officer in refusing to let him land at Rimouski had been given; and in my letter I said to the Minister of Customs' that I thought a satisfactory explanation could

easily be given, and that I would be very glad if he would take the matter up and write me in regard to it. In reply to that I received a letter from the Minister of Customs telling me that he had taken the matter up, and enclosing a letter which Mr McDougald, the Commissioner of Customs, had written to Mr. Colpitts on the 29th of March previously, and the minister said that he did not think he could add anything to the statements of the commissioner. Mr. McDougald's letter to Mr. Colpitts is dated the 29th of March, 1912, and reads in part as follows:
I would state in reply that I am advised by the Director General of Public Health as follows:	'The best course for a (passenger
under, the circumstances related by Mr. Colpitts would be, after arranging with the ship's officers and getting his luggage prepared, to give his name and state his desire to land to the quarantine officer, when that official is preparing a clearance for the ship, and making out a nominal roll of the partial customs clearance for those who are landing at Rimouski.
That is the last I had to do with the matter. So far as I understand it, the officials of the Customs Department or other officials on board the boat, felt that Mr. Colpitts had not complied with the necessary regulations to enable him to land at Rimouski. The matter being referred to them, they adhered to that opinion, and gave their reasons-reasons which seemed good to both the Commissioner of Customs and the permanent officers of the Immigration Department.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What are
those reasons ?


John Douglas Hazen: The reasons are given in the original letter, which I returned to Mr. Colpitts at his request, and I have not got a copy of that letter by me. So far as any injury to Mr. Colpitts is concerned, I may say that he was a student at college, and at the time was preparing to return to take up his studies. His time could not have been of very great value to him, and the only injury that was done to him was that he was carried on the Empress of Britain from Rimouski to Quebec, when he wanted to get off at Rimouski. He took the train for his home in Sackville at Quebec instead of at Rimouski. There was very little of anything that could be called damage.
Mr, EMMERSON: It is the principle.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps he has made a fight for principles, yet, after all, I do not think there is very much principle in it. The Minister of Customs points out the

steps that should be taken in order for him to land at Rimouski, and as he has had the benefit of a full inquiry on the part of the customs officials, I fail to see where any injury has been done to him. I do not think for a minute that he was not allowed to land simply because he was a third-class passenger, and not a first or second-class passenger; that is not the reason at all. He did not take the necessary steps to get what I may call a clearance (for the sake of a better word), to enable him to get off at Rimouski. I simply rose to make these remarks, as I had some correspondence with Mr. Colpitts. I have no, idea what his politics are.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nor have I.


John Douglas Hazen: It is not a matter of politics. I would have been very glad to render him any assistance in my power if any wrong had been done to him. That was my sole connection with the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: The Empress of Britain, on which Mr. Colpitts was a passenger, reached Rimouski on September 28, 1911. This man, as the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) has stated, blames the customs officer at Rimouski for not allowing him to land there. The officer, it is true, did allow a certain number of the first and second-class passengers to land there. Mr. Colpitts was, I understand, a steerage passenger. The quarantine officers did not give a clean bill of health to the steerage passengers, and for that reason Mr. Colpitts was not allowed to land. The quarantine regulations, passed by Order in Council in 1907, provide, in section 25:
In the case of a vessel carrying His Majesty's mails and arriving by the St Lawrence, clearance certificate shall be from a quarantine officer at Rimouski (or at any other port designated by the minister) or at Grosse Isle, and in the case of every other vessel from Grosse Isle only, unless special permission to the contrary be obtained from the Minister of Agriculture;
(a)	In the event of his finding a quarantin-able disease on board, the quarantine officer at Rimouski (or at any other port designated by the minister) shall withhold the final clearance for customs entry, which shall only he given to the vessel when she has been released after quarantine inspection at Grosse Isle;
(b)	When, however, in the judgment of the quarantine officer at Rimouski (or at any other port designated by the minister) mails and persons and their effects may he permitted to land at Rimouski (or at any other port designated by the minister) from such a vessel a partial clearance shall be given by such quarantine officer covering only the mails and the persons allowed to land there with their effects.

These are the regulations under which Mr. Colpitts was detained. The quarantine officer was the man to give him a clean bill of health; the customs officer had nothing to do with it. He would simply take the list made up by the quarantine officer. That was explained in the letter of Mr. Farrow on December 11, as mentioned by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Here is the answer sent to Mr. Colpitts on December 11, 1911, in which, I think, the case is explained fully by the commissioner:
Gustavus A. Colpitts,
The Residence,
Sackville, N.B.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd ult., in which you ask for further information respecting the regulations under which the customs officer refused to permit you to land from the steamer Empress of Britain at Rimouski on the 28th September, 1911.
I note your statement that before lodging any complaint in this matter you made a careful study of the Immigration Act and of the quarantine regulations, but failed to find anything therein justifying the action of the customs officer in detaining you on board the ship when the immigration officer was willing to allow you to land.
If you will refer to section 25 of the quarantine regulations you will observe that in the case of a vessel carrying His Majesty's mails and arriving by the St. Lawrence, clearance certificate shall be from the quarantine officer at Rimouski and under sub-section ' B ' of the same section mails and persons and their effects may be permitted to land at . Rimouski in the judgment of the quarantine officer, but in such instances a partial clearance shall be given by' such quarantine officer covering only the mails and the persons allowed to land there with their effects.
The form of partial clearance for use of the customs collector is shown on page 25 of the quarantine regulations and you will note that under such clearance the Customs officer is only authorized to permit the landing of designated persons with their effects.
An officer of the Department of Customs is not therefore authorized to permit the landing of a passenger who is not designated in the partial clearance granted by the quarantine officer and we are advised that your name was not included in the partial clearanoei granted by the quarantine officer at Rimouski for the landing of passengers at that port from the steamer Empress of Britain on the 28th September, 1911.
My hon. friend the member for Westmorland has explained the whole matter very fully. I suppose that, if a steerage passenger wanted to get off, the quarantine officer might have felt: If I start with the steerage I may have to go through the whole steerage and inspect the vessel to see if I can give a clean bill of health. He may have felt that he did not wish to assume that responsibility until the vessel got to Grosse
Isle, where they have a staff of officers to inspect the whole vessel.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then, it is not feasible to permit any person to leave the ship.


John Dowsley Reid: In so far as the Department of Customs is concerned, I suppose there is no reason why, if the Canadian Pacific railway wishes to have the Empress of Britain detained there, a sufficient number of quarantine officers should go on board and allow as many off as they wish. Under the quarantine regulations, when a vessel comes to Rimouski, the quarantine officer goes on board. The mails are only supposed to go off there, but if he wishes . to assume the responsibility of issuing a partial clearance for a number of persons and hand it to the officer, giving these persons a clean bill of health, the Customs Department has no alternative but to allow them off. But if the quarantine officer does not wish to certify to another man who happens to be in the steerage, or in any one of the other parts of the vessel, it is impossible, according to the law as passed, or the rules that have been in effect for years, to allow him to go off the vessel without that certificate. I think the whole matter is very plain indeed. It is not the object of the Customs Department to try and prevent any man from getting off at Rimouski or any other place so long as a bill of health is furnished, or the other requirements of the Act are carried out by other departments. The whole difficulty seems to have been that the quarantine officer, for some reason or other which I do not know, did not include on the list of those who had been passed the name of Mr. Colpitts. Otherwise, there is no doubt whatever that he would have been allowed to go off the boat with the others.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that if there is any blame in this matter, the blame is not to be attached to the customs officer. The customs officer, under the law, is prevented from passing any passenger unless upon a certificate of the quarantine officer, and if there is any blame it is upon the quarantine officer, who is an officer of the Department of Agriculture. It is well known to everybody that a steamer coming up the St. Lawrence stops at Rimouski and that passengers from the Maritime provinces are allowed to land there and take at once the train which is waiting for them to carry them home. This is what was done in this case, and there wa= no objection at all as far as the first and second-class

passengers were concerned. There was no disease on that steamer as far as I understand. The first and second-class passengers were allowed to land, and were taken to their destination at once.


John Dowsley Reid: Because they had a certificate from the quarantine officer.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not blame at all the officer of the Department of Customs. This young gentleman, Mr. Colpitts, who was from New Brunswick, came up and proposed to land also, but it appears that he was not the son of a millionaire or a millionaire himself, that he had been travelling for his education and was coming back as an ordinary steerage passenger. It is evident to me from the statement which has been made that he was not allowed to land because he was a third-class passenger. The quarantine officer may be blameable or not blameable-I do not know and I would not say; in fact we were still in office at the time when this occurred-September 28. I would not say that the officer was wrong, but the evidence is quite plain, the matter is very clear. The quarantine officer would not pass him because he was a steerage passenger, and if there is any disease in the ship it is supposed to be in the steerage and not upon deck. The officer said: You must go to Quebec and pass the examination, and if you pass the examination, you will be allowed to land. This young gentleman was sent to Quebec, he passed the examination and was released immediately. He might go home on the following day. There is no damage, but there was a great deal of inconvenience to this young man because, instead of taking the train to go home at once as he was anxious to do, no doubt, at Rimouski, he had to go to Quebec and from Quebec go back to his home, and he was detained probably twenty-four hours.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Thirty-six.


Wilfrid Laurier: Thirty-six
hours, perhaps. The question has been well put by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) in this way: You have a regulation which applies to immigrants, that is passengers who come by the steerage and who are of the class that we know as immigrants, but if a young Canadian, not only a British subject but a resident of 'Canada, chooses to come back into Canada as a steerage passenger, for reasons which are sufficient to himself, why should he not be allowed the privilege of landing at Rimouski instead of being made subject to the law which would apply to every immi-

grant; you can detain these men until they pass the examination, but that does not apply to this young gentleman. That is the only point I see in the matter, and as far as my hon. friend from Westmorland has made out his case, he has made it out in this way: Your law may be wise, there is no blame to be attached to anybody, but at the same time this law, as all laws when they are followed to their extremity, may work an individual injustice. There is no doubt that the operation of this law did work an injustice to this young gentleman in the fact that it compelled him to go to Quebec and prevented him from reaching his home thirty-six hours earlier than he would otherwise have reached it if he had been permitted to disembark at Rimouski. The suggestion made by my hon. friend from Westmorland is whether or not, under such circumstances, the quarantine officer should be instructed to allow an exemption from the laws which would apply to immigrants.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, 1 was not in the House all the time that this subject has been under discussion, and I am not very conversant with the facts. There is no doubt that the officers, whatever their course may have been, were acting in good faith and doing what they believed to be their duty. The point, as the right hon. gentleman has said, is whether or not there should be some amendment made to the regulation. In the first place, it must be patent that in such circumstances not very much change could be made unless there were some means by which persons returning to Canada as third-class passengers could be readily identified among a great number of such passengers. That seems to me to be the main essential. Perhaps the means for such identification are available at the present time if one saw fit to use them, because it would be possible, I should think, for a person going abroad in that way to get a passport from the proper department of Government here, which would absolutely identify him and upon his return enable the immigration officer to see at once that he was a resident of Canada. If the passenger then had a clean bill of health it would seem to me that he could land at Rimouski if he so desired. I speak thus without any comprehensive knowledge of the conditions, or, of the practice which is followed by the officers in respect to necessary precautions and safeguards. Now that the matter has been brought to the attention of the Government, it will receive consideration by the ministers of the various

departments which it concerns. If any possible and reasonable regulation can be made, by which delays and inconvenience of this kind may be prevented without detriment to the public interest, I need hardly assure the House that we will be very glad indeed to have such regulation put in force.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thank the Prime
Minister for his assurance that the subject will have the consideration of himself and of the heads of the different departments. I do not think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries quite recognized the
4 p.m. gravity of the case. It is true no great damage resulted, and no doubt Mr. Colpitts, like any other sturdy New Brunswicker, would be quite disposed to take the brunt of such hardships as he experienced, but this case involves a principle which should be dear to every Canadian, and that is, the liberty of the subject. I am not bringing any charges against officials, neither am I condemning the Government nor the departments concerned, nor the regulations, but it seems to me in view of all that has been said, and particularly in view of what was stated by the Minister of Customs, that there has been a manifest misinterpretation of the regulation. A regulation designed to protect this country in the matter of immigrants, has been read to include Canadians returning to Canada by third-class passage, and that, I think, was never intended. It is apparent on the face of it, and particularly from the letter of the purser of the steamship Empress of Britain, that the interpretation put upon that regulation is that under no circumstances shall a third-class passenger be permitted to land at Rimouski. The Minister of Marine referred to a letter written on the 29th of March, 1912, by Mr. McDougald, in which Mr. McDougald states:
I am advised by the Director General of Public Health as follows: the best course for a passenger under the circumstances narrated by Mr. Colpitts would be, after arranging with the ship's officers and getting his luggage prepared, to give his name and state his desire to land to the quarantine officer when that official is preparing the clearance for the ship and making out the nominal roll of the customs clearance for those who are landed at Rimouski.
Under the evidence presented, Mr. Colpitts did that very thing, and the answer given to him was: no third-class passenger can land at Rimouski. This also is apparent from the instructions given by the Canadian Pacific railway and other steamship companies to their officials, and that is
what I want the Government to inquire into. Surely that regulation is not intended to apply to Canadian citizens, surely it was never contemplated that a young man returning to his Canadian home in that way, should be prohibited from taking advantage of landing at Rimouski. I ask the Government to provide that in future every Canadian citizen whether he travels first-class, second-class, or third-class, shall have the privilege of landing at Rimouski if he so desires.	*


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and documents generally concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of His Majesty the King, appellant, and Alfred Olivier Falardeau and Constant Napoleon Farlardeau, respondents.
He said: I regret that neither the Minister of Justice nor the Solicitor General are in their seats now, but I suppose the Postmaster General who is familiar with the facts of this ease, as a resident of Que-be', will be able to give me the information I seek.
The facts are the following:	As you are
aware, the construction of the National Transcontinental railway necessitated the expropriation of lands in and around the city of Quebec. Not far from the bridge, but between the site where the bridge is ultimately to be built and the city of Quebec, there is a property owned by Alfred Olivier Falardeau and Constant Napoleon Falardeau. As that property was required for the right of way of the said National Transcontinental railway, expropriation proceedings were taken by the Crown, the information being filed in court in due form on the 2nd day of October, 1911. The information was filed by the predecessor of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, Sir Allen B. Aylesworth; and, as is usual in such proceedings, the Crown made an offer for the lands which were to be expropriated. These lands were described as follows:
A parcel of land being part of lot number 260 on the official cadastre and book of reference thereto for the parish of Sillery, in the county of Quebec, covering an area of 328,552 square feet, more or less, being a strip of fifty feet in width on each side of the central line of the Transcontinental as far as Champlain street to the east of said lot 260, bounded to the northeast by lot 232, to the southwest by lot 261, to the northwest partly by Champlain street and partly by the balance of lot 260, and to the southeast by the southeastern limit

of the right of way of the Transcontinental railway.
The offer made by His Majesty the King, through the Minister of Justice, or the Attorney General, who acts also as Minister of Justice, is as follows:
That it may be declared that the sum of $26,257.47 is sufficient and just compensation to the defendant, or to whosoever may prove to be entitled thereto, for and in respect of the above described lands and real property and for all claims in respect of any damage or loss sustained or to be sustained, by reason of the said entering upon, taking possession of and expropriation of the said lands and real property as aforesaid. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court shall deem meet.
Ottawa, 22ml September, 1911.
This information was amended a little later on. On the 19th of February, 1913, the new Minister of Justice being then represented by his solicitor, Mr. J. E. Chap-leau, a lawyer from the city of Quebec, the information as amended changed the offer that had previously been made by Sir Allen B. Aylesworth, Attorney General for the Dominion. The amendment had regard first to the area and secondly to the amount. I need not refer to the area; but as to the amount, instead of $26,257.47, the following offer was made:
That it may be declared that the sum of $39,000 is sufficient and just compensation to the defendants, or to whosoever may prove to be entitled thereto, for and in respect of the above described lands and real property, and for all claims in respect of any damage or loss sustained or to be sustained, by reason of the said entering upon, taking possession of and expropriation of the said lands and real property as aforesaid.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Was not the area increased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. That is what I
stated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not understand
you to state that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The area was increased, and the offer was amended accordingly.
The defendants were represented by Messrs. Belleau, Baillargeon and Belleau. On the 2nd of November, 1911, they filed their plea by which they averred that the offer of $26,257.47, made by His Majesty the King through his Attorney General, Sir Allen B. Aylesworth, was insufficient, and that the defendant was entitled, not to $26,257.47, but to $52,000. Later on, as the first information filed by Sir Allen B. Aylesworth had been amended by his successor, the area increased and the offer also

increased, so the defendants increased their claim, and on the 7th of February, 1913, Messrs. Belleau, Baillargeon and Belleau, attorneys for the defendants, filed an amended plea.
This time, they did not care to accept even the large amount which they had previously mentioned as being sufficient to cover their indemnity and damages, namely,, $52,000, but raised their claim to the fabulous sum of $217,261.97, with interest from the 12th of September, 1912, and costs. This case was heard before the Exchequer Court of Canada presided over by Mr. Justice Audette. And let me say in passing that it is far from my mind to cast any reflection on this judge who is integrity and honour personified, and who is one of the ablest judges I know of. On the 10th of May, 1913, Mr. Justice Audette gave judgment for the defendants to the amount of $69,256. This property, as proven in the case, was purchased in 1894 for the sum of $1,000. I have here the defendant's exhibit ' A ' filed as the case was heard in court. This document shows that on the 9th of October, 1894, an agreement was made between Eleanor Seaton Karr and other trustees represented by Charles Gauvreau, of Quebec, agent, on one side and Alfred Olivier Falardeau-the defendant in the present case-on the other, with regard to this property. The agreement contains the following clauses:
Whereas on the eleventh day of June last, 1S94, the hereinafter described property was offered for sale at public auction by Messrs. A. J. Maxham & Co. and adjudged to the said Alfred Oliver Falardeau the last and highest bidder, for the sum of one thousand dollars.
After further recitals, this document proceeds :
And lastly the present sale is thus made for and in consideration of the price of one thousand dollars current money of Canada, which the said vendors represented as aforesaid do hereby declare to have received partly before and partly at the time of the execution of these presents, whereof quit.
As I have just stated, the amount awarded by the Exchequer Court was $69,256. As soon as this award was made Mr. Chap-leau, solicitor for the Attorney General of the Dominion of Canada, served the following notice upon Messrs. Belleau, Raillar-geon and Belleau, solicitors for the defendants-respondents, as follows:
Take notice that His Majesty the King is dissatisfied with the judgment rendered in the above case by the Exchequer Court of Canada on the 10th day of March, 1913, whereby the defendants-respondents, were awarded the sum of $69,256, with interest at 5 per centum per annum upon the sum of $13,071.53 from the

15th day of February, A.D. 1910, and upon the sum of $56,184.48 from the 12th day of September, A.D. 1912, with costs, and intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from such judgment.
The defendants-respondents also filed a cross appeal which was lodged on April 7, 1913. The solicitor representing my hon. friend the Minister of Justice-I have not the pleasure of knowing him personally, but he is a young solicitor of good reputation-immediately took the proceedings in appeal. I hold in my hand the factum of the appellant-that is to say His Majesty the King-and the statement of facts by the solicitor representing the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Perhaps the House will be interested to know what was the opinion of the solicitor acting for the Minister of Justice on behalf of His Majesty the King with regard to the judgment or award made by the Exchequer Court:
On the 15th day of February, 1910, a plan and description of a strip of land, part of cadastre No. 260 of the parish of Sillery, in the county of Quebec, representing an area of 148,540 square feet, for the purpose of acquiring the right of way for the Transcontinental railway across said lot, was deposited with the Registrar of Deeds for the county of Quebec.
On the 12th day of September, 1912, a second plan and description of the said lot No. 260, representing an additional area of 638,640 square feet was also deposited with the Registrar of Deeds for the county of Quebec.
Furthermore, on the 16th day of January, 1913, another plan with full description by metes and bounds of said lot No. 260, which is all taken and expropriated by the Crown, was also deposited with the Registrar of Deeds for the County of Quebec.
This last plan which was deposited with the object of correcting all previous erroneous description shows a total area of the land taken as 780,000 square feet.
Then he goes on:
The respondents are claiming the value of two piers which are built in deep water opposite the property in question. The Crown, by the present expropriation proceedings is only taking lot No. 260, as shown on plan filed as exhibit No. 3. Therefore, as the piers in question are not erected on said lot No. 260, do not form part of the present expropriation and have not been expropriated, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for said piers; in consequence the value of the piers is not included in the amount awarded by the court below. The title of the respondents, although not admitted at the trial, was recognized by agreement of both parties before the judgment was rendered.
The solicitor continues as follows:
The Crown having found it necessary for the passage of the Transcontinental railway and the development of the harbour of Quebec to acquire lot No. 260 of the cadastre of the
parish of Sillery, took possession of said lot after having deposited plan and description of the land needed in the Registry Office at Quebec under the authority of 3 Edward VII, chapter 71.
The solicitor here recites the facts which I have already laid before the House- that the first offer was made, and then supplemented by a further offer as an indemnity. He adds:
We may say immediately that there was no proof whatsoever that the respondents might have been entitled to an indemnity of that total. This amount of $217,261.97 was merely put in the plea as imaginary figures which were not brought out at the trial by any witnesses, and which must have been put in the plea merely to fill space, under the principle that the more you ask the more you are liable to get. The learned judge who rendered judgment in the court below granted the ' respondents the sum of $62,960, plus 10 per cent of that amount for forced sale and interest. The appellant humbly submits that this judgment is erroneous, not based upon the evidence, and that the offer of $39,000 should have been declared sufficient for the market value of said lot No. 260 and all damages suffered by the respondents on account of said forced sale or expropriation.
The solicitor representing His Majesty the King says further:
There are two points which one must always keep in mind in going through the evidence submitted by the different witnesses heard in the present case, to wit: the property in question, that is cadastral No. 260, with all the dependencies, buildings, wharfs, etc., thereon was bought in 1894 by the respondents for the sum of $1,000 ; when the witnesses value today the wharfs on that property at $2 or $3 per cubic yard, their basis of valuation is totally false, so far as the market value is concerned, as these wharfs, although in a far better condition and far better state of preservation in 1894 than now, were nevertheless considered then as pretty near valueless, if we take into consideration the price of $1,000 paid for the land, buildings, wharfs, etc.
After having examined the very extraordinary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents in this case, the solicitor adds further:
We will thereupon say with the learned judge in the court below, page 189 of the case, line 31: 4 The fallacy of the assessment of the wharfs and buildings is too manifest to be dealt with any further.'
Now, let us examine the valuation given to the land per square foot by the witnesses. We must not lose sight that four-fifths of that land is covered by water at every tide.
Then follows a long analysis of the evidence as to the value of the land; and he adds:
We find in the evidence given by Mr. J. de Salaberry Bosse that the property next to Spencer Cove, on the city's side, was offered for sale at about the time the respondent's


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1911.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In 1911. Well, I venture to say that Sir Allen Aylesworth took a very small part in the valuation but I think that we can count that the officers of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, whose greater competency in that regard I am sure Sir Allen Aylesworth would be quite willing to admit, as I am myself, conceded that a very small part of

the property that is now valued, was worth $26,257.40. As .the hon. gentleman states himself, what it was then sought to expropriate, and what was valued at that figure at that time, was an area of 148,500 feet. Later on it is quite true that a further offer was made but that further offer was for the expropriation of an area of 780,000 feet. While we have this very large increase multiplying by about five the original area as asked for, we have an increase in the offer of something like $12,000, making the offer $39,000. In 1913, on the valuation of the officers of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, those who were about to expropriate, we had a property worth $39,000. I do not think there can be any serious suggestion of fault-finding with the increase in the amount offered, in view of the very large increase in the area thought to be expropriated. So that the issue in this case was as to the value of a property admittedly worth $39,000.
The claim of the defendant on the hon. gentleman's own showing, was $217,261. Undoubtedly, when the Commissioners were asking for 148,500 feet they were only asked for $52,000, but when the Commissioners were asking for 780,000 feet, the defendant asked for $217,000. If their original demand was at all reasonable I should say on the face of it that the increased demand would have at least been as reasonable. But whatever they may have asked for this large area, by the judgment of this thoroughly competent judge, they were awarded $69,256 falling very far short indeed of the demand for $217,260.
The hon. member has told us that the Crown felt dissatisfied at the judgment ordering the payment of $69,000. The respondents, who were proprietors of the property, felt also dissatisfied. On the face of things, looking at their demand and at the offer of the Crown, the respondents had very much larger reason to feel dissatisfied if they were at all earnest in their original demand. At all events, they felt dissatisfied and they appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. As the hon. member has pointed out, the learned counsel retained on behalf of the Crown put forward in as forceful a manner as possible-and making the most, I have no doubt, of what he could find in the evidence to justify his submission- an argument that he thought militated in favour of the reduction of the award against the Crown. We have not the advantage of the argument made by the other side, but I have no doubt the learned counsel retained in the case made the strongest argu-

ment they could make in support of the demand for an increase of the award. I am not quite sure that it is not a fairly strong assumption in favour of the correctness of a judgment in a case of this kind when both parties feel dissatisfied, at all events at first blush. An appeal was lodged, and it is true that the appeal was withdrawn. I am not in a position to say, that, as a matter of fact that appeal was withdrawn by my instructions and after any examination of the case. When we retain counsel to represent us in cases of this kind, we retain, like him, gentlemen of whom the hon. member himself has spoken in the terms in which he spoke of the counsel concerned in this case. In all cases of this kind where the whole question involved is a question of valuation of properties, we undoubtedly have to rely to a certain extent upon the opinions of the officers of particular departments, who have the advantage, not only of such knowledge as they may have of the property involved, and the conditions affecting its values, but in this case who had the further advantage of comparing the award in this case with the awards made either previously or subsequently in similar analogous cases, No doubt acting upon the information which was at his command, the counsel representing the Crown-and representing in a more particular manner the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, who in this instance was acting on behalf of the Crown-apparently arrived at the conclusion that being in this position, that they had an award against them of $69,000 and a claim against them of $217,000, it was under the circumstances wise that in view of the withdrawal of that other appeal making that larger demand, they should accept the award made against them. I am not in a position to speak of the particular reasons justifying the action in that particular case; but the hon. member himself, as a lawyer of distinction and of very long experience, will, I think, bear me out when I say that every lawyer who has had occasion to deal with questions. of expropriation, knows that in cases in which the entire question involved is the weight of contradictory evidence as to the value of particular properties, appellate courts are very slow indeed to interfere with the findings of the court of original jurisdiction, which has had the advantage of confronting the witnesses face to face, hearing their testimony, and which, moreover, in a case of this kind, if it chose to avail itself of it, had the opportunity of visiting the property in question
*

and familiarizing itself to a degree which no appellate court possibly could have with the circumstances of the case.
I may say, without great fear of contradiction, that the jurisprudence of the appellate courts upon questions of that kind is consistent, in the sense that an appellant, to say the very least of it, must make an exceedingly strong case, enabling the appellate court to lay its finger upon some definite error or mistake. Of course, in this case, as I trust in all cases of the judgments of our courts of original jurisdiction there can be no question, except a question of error on the part of the judge. I think I can safely say that the juris-
5 p.m. prudence of the appellate courts in a case of this kind is consistently, that it is incumbent on the appellant to make a demonstration-I do not think that is too strong a word-of some precise error or errors that have led to the finding establishing the valuation, before an appellate court will intervene to set that valuation aside. In other words, the appellate courts hesitate, rightly I think, and they even more than hesitate before undertaking to substitute what would amount to merely an opinion with regard to the relative weight of evidence upon a question of valuation-which is necessarily not susceptible of being based upon absolutely definite conclusive reasons, but which is always more or less in the domain of opinion or individual appreciation-for a judgment upon such a question of the court of first instance with all the greater advantages it has to enable it to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
I assume that these reasons would have weight with the counsel and with the commission and its officers, when they were called upon to determine what was the course of prudence for them to take in face of the award of $69,000 and the demand of $217,000. For my part I can readily appreciate that they may, under these circumstances, have considered that the part of wisdom was to accept the original judgment, though it may not have been absolutely satisfactory, rather than to incur the risk of a possible increase in the original award.
It seems to me entirely beside the question that we should be told the property sold in 1894 for $1,000 and have read to us every word of the deed by which the property was transferred. We are face to face with a property that avowedly in 1913, on the judgment of competent people, who are certainly not interested in overvaluing it, would unquestionably be worth $39,000. We have the judgment of a judge against whom nothing can be said, a judge who had the advantage over both my hon. friend and myself, and probably over every hon. member of this House, of having had long experience in dealing with cases precisely of this kind. The fact that such a judge would have found that a property avowedly worth $39,000 was in his judgment worth $65,256 does not seem to me a matter to give rise to 6uch very great surprise on the part of the hon. gentleman. If he will go through, at hapnazaru, any fifteen or twenty expropriation cases, he will find at least as great discrepancies between the offers, on the one hand, of the party expropriating and the demands on the other hand, of the party expropriated, and the final award, as exists in this particular case. I can quite understand that the counsel who instituted this appeal, having studied the case from his point of view, and havin'g that natural leaning which a lawyer has in favour of the views of his client, may have considered that this was a fair case to take to appeal. When, however, he found himself face to face with the fact that his adversaries also considered that they had a fair case to carry to a higher tribunal to make this increased demand, I think it was an act of wisdom for him seriously to consider his position. For my own part, I am not able to see, in what the hon. member has put before the House, any reason why we should assume that the advice, which that counsel gave to withdraw the appeal in view of the withdrawal of the counter appeal, was advice that we are in any position to condemn or to say was not justified by the proceedings that were taken.
As I have stated, I have not had the, advantage of personally reading the evidence in this case; but it has been read by lawyers in whom I have confidence and I may say that their appreciation of it was that it made a very strong case to support at least the amount of the award. Under these circumstances, and with what I have pointed out, the indisposition of the appellate court to interfere in cases where the whole question is one of appreciation as in this case, I for my part do not feel that I am called upon to make any apology for the fact of the Transcontinental Commission having accepted the advice that was offered to them that thi wisest course was to consent to the withdrawal of both the appeals.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no disposition at the present time to blame the Minister of Justice for having consented to the withdrawal of the appeal. This motion is made simply for purposes of information. My hon. friend has done nothing more than to relate the facts of the ease and to ask for further information as to the reasons which have prompted the Government at the last moment to withdraw the appeal from the judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Audrtte. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has disclaimed responsibility for the advice given to the Crown, and I do not blame him for doing so. He has stated that, in the discharge of his duty as Minister of Justice, in view of the numerous law cases with which the department has to deal, he cannot be expected to give his personal attention to every case, and that in all cases, when the whole question involved is one of valuation of properties, he has to rely to a certain extent upon the opinions of others. I am quite prepared to admit that. The Minister of Justice, of course, must rely upon the advice of the counsel whom he employs. The hon. gentleman in this case has entrusted the matter to Mr. Chapleau, a member of the Quebec Bar; he, I understand, has acted upon the advice of his counsel.
The only point upon which I should like to have further advice or information, information which perhaps the papers which are to be brought down will disclose, is as to who really is responsible for the action taken by the Crown. It is difficult to suppose that Mr. Chapleau would wittingly give advice to the minister in face of the strong reasons which he previously adduced for taking the case to appeal. I agree entirely with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that in a case of this kind any court of appeal would be indisposed to disturb the finding of the court below.
In this matter, the only point at issue was the value of the property. The Crown, when the matter was first brought to its attention to take action, offered the sum of $39,000 to the owners of the property. The award was almost double that amount -$69,000. That, of course, is nothing against the propriety of the award, but when there is such a large discrepancy as that, it is not improbable that there may have been an error on the part of the judge, as my hon. friend stated.
My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux), and the hon. Minister of Justice himself have paid

a tribute to the ability and character of the judge. Every one knows that Mr. Justice Audette is a most competent man; but my hon. friend knows that there is no man, however eminent he may be, who does not make mistakes at some time rr other. On reading the reasons given by the counsel for the Crown, one would come to the conclusion that in a matter of this kind the judge had made such an error that when the Superior Court of Appeal had its attention called to the matter, it would be bound to take notice of the error and come to the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has laid some stress upon the fact that Mr. Chapleau may have been induced to give to the Crown the advice of withdrawal owing to the fact that there had been a counter appeal. For my part I am not influenced very much by that, consideration, neither do I believe that counsel for the Crown was very much influenced by it. There was an expropriation demanded: and in view of the judgment which was rendered by the court, even if in the eonten-tentibn of the Crown the amount awarded was exaggerated, that would be simply further evidence that the claim had been not only exaggerated, but enormously exaggerated: therefore the counter appeal was more in the nature of a bluff than anything else, and consequently counsel would not be influenced by it.
What was the reason why, when counsel for the Crown had taken such a strong position as to advise an appeal in a pure matter of arbitration and valuation of property, he should all of a sudden change his opinion and advise the withdrawal of the appeal? That is a point as to which, for my part, I cannot see that any sound reasoning can be given. Counsel having taken the strong position which he did take could not, in my humble opinion, afterwards come to a conclusion that he had better withdraw his appeal because the other side had also withdrawn their appeal. This is a case which, I think, calls for more information than we have at the present time. The papers will be brought down, of course, and we will then see what can be the reason the Crown gives for taking the position it did take. Without going further, I can only say to my hon. friend that, on the information so far before us it would seem that the department would have been justified in deciding to get the opinion of the Supreme Court in this matter. I say no

more, at present. I know that at this time the position taken by the Minister of Justice cannot be impeached. But we are entitled to have more information to enable us to reach definite conclusions on this question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just in case I did not say it in words, let me state now that, of course, the papers will be brought down, and I should be glad to give any information on the subject that I can.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is one point which, perhaps, I did not make clear enough, and which I think the hon. minister should elucidate in the papers to he brought down, and that is why when Sir Allen Aylesworth filed an information for the small area of that property, immediately after his resignation the whole property was claimed for expropriation purposes by the Government. What was the correspondence, what was the influence which was brought to bear on the Government in favour of acquiring such increased area of that property? As is customary with him, my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) has been very courteous in this matter, and I do not doubt that he will bring the papers down as soon as possible. I can only say that there is a strange anomaly somewhere in this case. Notwithstanding the increased value which the late Government brought to land in and around Quebec by its progressive policy, there is certainly a strange anomaly in the fact that property which was bought for $1,000 years ago, has been valued at from $72,000 to $73,000. The hon. gentleman knows the city of Quebec and its suburbs; he knows Sillery where the property is situated. I know those localities also, and nobody will make me believe that the value of that property has increased to such an extent as would be indicated by these figures. Be that as it may, I can only express regret that the Minister of Justice did not himself direct the proceedings in the case. He informs the House and the country that the appeal was withdrawn without his knowledge, as I understand him to say. Although the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are not expected to follow closely every case from one end of the Dominion to the other, my hon. friend will understand that in a case of this nature when several other cases of expropriation must follow-


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend will
allow me. He understands that this is entirely the business of the Transcontinental Commission and not of the Government
directly. They retain their own counsel and direct their own cases, and this is not directly the case of the Government. It is impossible for the Government to know every step in each case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, I have every confidence that my hon. friend has a splendid grasp of his department-no one better fitted than he to be Minister of Justice. But I must express my surprise at the statement made just now by the hon. minister. He says that these expropriation cases are looked after by the Transcontinental Commission, that the commission has its own counsel and that these cases are followed by that counsel. Well, I have a copy of the case here for the Supreme Court of Canada. I have the factum of the appellant, His Majesty the King, and I see affixed to it the name of J. E. Chapleau, solicitor for the appellant. Now, the appellant is represented by the Attorney General of Canada. The proceedings, it appears, were started by Sir Allen Bristol Aylesworth, His Majesty's Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada on behalf of Hi3 Majesty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is fair to assume that the hon. gentleman knows that the case had to be entered in the name of the Attorney General.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. 'riend will pardon me, he cannot shift the responsibility of his department to the Railway Commission. This is a case before the courts, and the hon. gentleman is responsible before Parliament and before the country for the administration of justice, and as Attorney General for every case which is pending before the courts as between His Majesty the King and any one of His Majesty's subjects.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no wish to shirk any responsibility. But whatever that responsibility, the fact is, and I think the hon. gentleman knows it, that the affairs of the Transcontinental railway are by law placed in the hands of a commission, and they cannot institute an action in the name of His Majesty otherwise than in the name of the Attorney General for Canada. But, of course, they do not refer every step in every case to the Minister of Justice-this step any more than another.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I still express my confidence in my hon. friend's judgment, but, at the same time, I must express regret that he takes the position he does. No doubt,

the Transcontinental Commission have many expropriation cases throughout the country, and I warn my hon. friend he must make it a point as Minister of Justice to follow these cases lest the Crown and the country be mulcted. It is my candid opinion, my honest opinion, that the country has been mulcted in the present case, and to such an amount that my hon. friend should have been made aware of the agreement which took place between the respondents and His Majesty the King's solicitor after an appeal had been inscribed in the Supreme Court of Canada. This is one of many cases that will come before the courts, and I warn my hon. friend not to leave the cases entirely to the judgment of a young lawyer, able and honest as he may be, but to follow them very closely himself. There will be a series of cases.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: If the hon. gentleman
were acting as counsel in one of those cases, whose instructions would he take, those of the Minister of Justice or those of the Railway Commission?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would certainly take the instructions of the Minister of Justice as being the one responsible to his country and His Majesty the King. When there is something wrong you cannot shift the responsibility from the Minister of Justice to the Railway Commission; the Railway Commission has sins enough to carry. I am surprised that a gentleman of the ability of my hon. friend should try to divide the responsibility when there is a bad case before the House.


Arthur Meighen: Under what statute
would the hon. gentleman justify his taking the instructions of the Minister of Justice?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will
read the British North America Act, he will see that the Attorney General for Canada, who is the Minister of Justice, is responsible for any case pending before the courts between His Majesty and any one of His Majesty's subjects. As I said a moment ago, I do not cast any suspicion on my hon. friend. If I have one thing to regret, it is that he did not look after this case. He has just informed the House that he had no knowledge of the withdrawal of the appeal. Knowing the hon. gentleman as I have known him for many years, and recognizing his sterling character, I feel that if he had had a knowledge of that appeal and the circumstances under which it was lodged in the Supreme Court, it would not have been dropped after the respondents and the

appellant had made the agreement referred to. Once more I say that I shall await the papers, expressing the hope that nothing wrong will be found in that agreement which was made after the appeal was lodged.
Mr. SEVIGNY; Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon. member that this is a substantive motion, and that the speech of the mover closes the debate. Perhaps I should have previously reminded hon. gentlemen that after the speech of the hon. member for Rouville there could be no further debate.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: I wanted to speak after the right hon. leader of the Opposition had concluded, but the hon. member for Rouville stood up so quickly that I could not do so. I have only a few words to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My only desire is to
carry out the rules of the House. It may be well for hon. members to say 'go on', now, but there may be other times when they will say the reverse. I am doing what I conceive to be my duty in the premises, and therefore I must rule that the debate be closed.


Mr. CARVELL:: I do not think the hon. member for Rouville intended to close the debate by his last remarks. I think he was only answering an assertion made by the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for
Rouville moved a substantive motion and, according to the rule, after he speaks in answer to any observation addressed to the House on that motion, the debate is closed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all papers and documents concerning the release of one Gerolmio Fatsari, who was sentenced for attempted murder in Montreal in March 1908.
He said:	The circumstances connected
with this matter bring to my mind some of the chapters in Les Miserables of Victor Hugo. This case has occupied the attention of the country since December 25 last. Gerolmio Fatsari is an Italian who arrived in Montreal from Naples about six years ago ago. Shortly after his arrival he was arrested, charged with attempted murder. His trial took place, and on the evidence of three men he was found guilty by the jury and

sentenced to a term of fifteen years-I forget the exact number-in the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul. As I have just said, Fatsari was convicted on the evidence of three persons. Since his conviction and his subsequent incarceration in the penitentiary, one of the witnesses suffered the death penalty, another is serving a sentence in the penitentiary at Dorchester, N.B., and the other is a fugitive from justice. As soon as the facts were made known to the officers of the Montreal police force a doubt arose in their minds. They paid a visit to the judge who sentenced Gerolmio Fatsari, and after reading over the evidence the judge found that a judicial error had possibly been committed. It was many years before that discovery was made, but I am pleased to say that as soon as the judge referred the matter to the hon. Minister of Justice he, examining carefully the records, granted a pardon to the poor Italian who had been behind the walls at St. Vincent de Paul during those long years. On December 24 the news of his pardon was broken to him by the warden of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and he was given a suit of clothes and a railway ticket to take him back to Montreal, where he had been arrested five years before.
He was found stranded on the streets of Montreal the next day-perfectly helpless, penniless, and sick. He went to the police station, where five years before he had been taken, and revealed his identity. Before the officers he appeared as a perfect stranger in that great metropolis. That was on Christmas Day. I need not say that the policemen of Montreal were glad to receive poor Fatsari in their midst, and to share with him the good things that were plentiful on their table that day; they were glad to give him a roof under which he could have a little rest. The wife of Fatsarj, and his children left Canada soon after the verdict and sentence, and it is a matter of public knowledge how Fatsari was helped by means of the campaign carried on by the newspapers in Montreal and throughout the country, I am pleased to say that some of the charitable institutions in Montreal, and the Italian Consul himself, did something to relieve the anxiety of this unfortunate Italian during the month of January. I need not read to my hon. friend what has been published in the press. I am quite sure that he has been made aware of the general complaints through Canada against the dura lex sed lex with which the Crown, unfortunately, has been obliged to meet the demand of 30
compensation made by Fatsari's friend: It is stated, Mr. Speaker, that the King can do no wrong. That is a beautiful theory, but in practice it is not always true, and in the present instance that theory seems to many but a contemptible subterfuge. Surely my hon. friend knows that King Charles himself did so much wrong that he lost his head at Whitehall, surrounded by the arquebuses and pikes of Cromwell's Roundheads. But, Sir, in a case of this kind, where a foreigner-and it might have been a Canadian- has been deprived of his liberty, of his home, and deprived temporarily of what is dearer than his liberty and his home-his honour-should we not, I say, find a way for compensating such a man? I put the case to my hon. friend, and I await with anxiety the answer which he has to give not only to society, but above all to the unfortunate Fatsari. My hon. friend might perhaps say as in the olden days:	flat justitia ruat
coelum-let justice be done though the heavens fall. But in the present instance, if I had to translate the old Latin axiom, I would say, let injustice be done though the heavens fall! In this twentieth century, the theories of the middle ages are passing away. The theory that the King can do no wrong in such a case as the one I have brought to the attention of the House, can not obtain; and I ask my hon. friend what he intends to do in the case of Fatsari and in the case of other Fatsaries who may in the future be found in the same position as this man. My hon. friend remembers the case of Adolph Beck in England; and there was a more recent case in England-I forget the name. There has been considerable public resentment in the old country, as there is at present in this country, against the stand taken by the Crown that the King can do no wrong, even when a man deprived of his home, of his liberty, of his family, and honour, is, after five years spent behind the walls of a penitentiary, found innocent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt that there is very much in the case of this unfortunate man Fatsari to attract sympathy, and there is no doubt that he has received very great sympathy from a large number of people who have learned the facts of his case, as they have been very generally stated. While such statement of the facts, as I have referred to as having been very generally made, which statement is in accord practically with the facts as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) under-



stands them, has attracted a large measure of sympathy, and while, even in view of the facts, as I think I shall be called upon to more correctly state them, the unfortunate Fatsari is undoubtedly deserving of all sympathy, it is nevertheless my duty to point out that the Crown, so far as Canada is concerned, has never taken up the position that it was called upon to justify any conduct upon its part by resorting to the maxim, The King can do no wrong. I am at a loss as to the source of the hon. gentleman's information that this Government has taken up that attitude as a justification of some action of its own, or, in any way in connection with the case of Fatsari. The hon. member complains that Fatsari was the victim of a judicial error, and, as I understand it, he puts before this Government and this House that by reason of that fact, this Government should make compensation to Fatsari for the judicial error for which he alleges the Government is responsible. Let me point out at the very outset that Fatsari's trial and the verdict against Fatsari which consigned him to the penitentiary, were entirely at the instance of the Crown in the right of the province of Quebec. The entire prosecution was a prosecution at the instance of the provincial authorities. In bringing that prosecution they did their simple duty. I am not saying that they are responsible for it as imputing any fault under the circumstances as they stood at that date. It is not denied that the facts that they had before them were such as not merely justified them but called upon them to perform their duty oi putting the criminal law in operation. Over that entire action the Government of Canada had absolutely no control. They had nothing to do with what was done, they could have nothing to do with what was done. The entire share of Canada and of the Parliament of Canada was that the Parliament of Canada had enacted the criminal law which made certain acts on the part of people a certain offence and provided a certain penalty for that offence. It was the duty of the Drovince to administer that law, and in the performance of that duty the provincial authorities brought Fatsari to trial. Whether they were right or wrong this Government, and the Crown in the right of Canada, can have no responsibility. He was brought to trial before a provincial court, he was tried before that court by a jury of his peers, and upon the evidence laid before them they found him guilty of an offence which, under the law, 
subjected him to a particular penalty. The judge in the performance of his duty imposed that penalty, and this man underwent a certain portion of it. If my memory serves me, the sentence was for fifteen years. He served seven or eight years of the sentence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Six.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He at all events served a certain substantial portion of that sentence. What I want to make perfectly clear is that for all of that, and in the bringing about of that situation, the Government of Canada had absolutely no responsibility for it, and had absolutely no part in it. My hon. friend says that the verdict and the sentence following upon it constitute a judicial error. I shall have a word to say in regard to that proposition in a moment, but let us assume for the moment that my hon. friend is perfectly correct in that; I ask him who should bear the consequences of that judicial error other than the parties who brought that prosecution and who, therefore, if there were any error giving rise to a right for compensation, are the persons who ought to compensate for the error committed.
As far as the unfortunate man is concerned, he has all of my sympathy, but the case that is put forward is, in effect, a complaint, not that there was a malicious prosecution, but that there was a mistaken prosecution. I do not want to go into the question whether that was a mistaken prosecution or not, but surely, if they were mistaken in that prosecution, the responsibility is on the Crown in the right of the province of Quebec, who instituted and carried on that prosecution and brought it to the termination which came about. In doing that the province of Quebec, in my judgment, were merely doing their duty, and I do not want to discuss the question whether they, having done their duty, should be held responsible or not. All I want to point out is that if this unfortunate man suffered by an error entitling him to compensation, his compensation should come from those who, unfortunately, were led into that error, and who, acting, as I think, in perfect good faith, brought about that trial which resulted in a judicial error. Why it should be suggested that a Government that not only had nothing to do with it, but which, if it had wanted to stop it, could not have stopped it, a Government that had absolutely no control over these proceedings.

should be compelled to compensate for the mistake, for the judicial error, that occurred in a case at the instance of the Crown in the right of the province of Quebec against this man Fatsari, is more than I can understand. I confess that I cannot see upon what ground it is put up to this Government, even assuming this to be a case where the man should be compensated for what happened, to compensate him. If the hon. gentleman is right in his view that there was a judicial error, and a judicial error of that kind constitutes a proper ground why those responsible for it should make compensation to the victim, then his representations should be addressed to the Government of the province of Quebec. I am quite satisfied that whatever view that Government may entertain as to whether the facts, as the hon. gentleman states them, constitute a case for compensation, they will not repudiate the proposition that the proceedings themselves were at their instance. They did it all. I am not trying to throw the slightest blame upon the provincial authorities. Under the circumstances, as they were then known to the officers, there was no course open to them but to prosecute.
So far I have proceeded upon the assumption that it has been demonstrated that there was a judicial error. Upon that subject I do not think that the hon. gentleman's information is complete. What happened in the case was this: The man was charged with the offence which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. He was brought to trial, and at that trial there was adduced evidence which, if it were true, would undoubtedly justify the verdict that was found against this man. I have not heard it suggested that the evidence was not ample to justify the conviction of Fatsari. Fatsari was sentenced to the penitentiary in 1908. No petition, no prayer for clemency, no suggestion of the exercise of clemency on his behalf, ever reached the Department of Justice until some time in 1912. Then the unfortunate man himself petitioned for clemency. In that petition he said he did not want to enter upon a discussion of his guilt or innocence; he asked for a reconsideration of his case and for clemency. There was nothing to indicate that the convict himself then considered there had been any miscarriage of justice. I do not want to attach overdue importance to that because a man in that position would probably 30$
write such a petition as occurred to his mind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And especially when
couched in language not his mother tongue.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, that is so; he possibly may not have understood fully what was in it. I do not mention that as attaching any weight to it, further than, that as a matter of fact there was no pretension brought to the attention of the Department of Justice that this man was innocent. Upon that petition which was examined, it was not considered, in view of the gravity of the offence of which the man had been convicted and the length of the sentence and the portion of it which he had served, that it was proper to exercise clemency at that time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is six o'clock, and I understand the leader of the Opposition intends to speak.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The debate had better be adjourned; otherwise the matter would not again come up for some considerable period of time.
On motion of Mr. Doherty, the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 5, 1914.