1916-02-14

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Auditor General for the year ended 31st March, 1915; volume IV.

Right Hon.   S@: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House hath agreed to their Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Royal Highness will be pleased to transmit the joint Address to His Most Bxj-cellent Majesty the King, most humbly praying that he may graciously be pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of " The British North America Act, 1867 " by filling up the blank therein with the word " Commons."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker respecting the appointment of Mr. C. W. Boyce as Clerk of Votes and Proceedings be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. '

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) inquired as to the possibility that a subscription to the Government loan might come within the provisions of the Independence of Parliament Act. I have had that matter looked into, and have received the following memorandum on the subject:
Section 19 (c) of the Senate and House of Commons Act (Revised Statutes, chapter 10), in dealing with the independence of Parliament, enacts as follows:
19. This Act shall not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons by reason of his being...
(c) a contractor for the loan of money or of securities for the payment of money to the Government of Canada under the authority of Parliament, after public competition, or rem
specting the purchase or payment of the public stock or debentures of Canada, on terms common to all persons.



DAMAGE TO PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: Inquiry was made a few days ago as to the damage to the Library. I asked for a report from the Joint Librarians, and the report reached me to-day. I think.it desirable to read it for the information of members:
Library of Parliament,
Ottawa, February 14, 1916.
Sir,-In response to your request for a report on the condition of the Library and the losses sustained by the fire of Thursday night, February 3, we have the honour to report as follows:
Some exaggeration prevails as to the extent of the loss sustained. During the night of the fire, in accordance with instructions from the chief of the fire brigade, a large number of volumes were removed by the library staff, and by the troops kindly and promptly offered by Colonel Street, of the 77th.
These were stored in various places and the volumes that had to be left partly in the open were protected by the men of the Public Works Department as well as was possible.
Later in the night the removal was countermanded by chief of the fire brigade. The last load of these books so removed was returned on Thursday, February 10. There has therefore not been time to re-arrange the books and ascertain the loss in removal and the damage by water.
Our actual total loss by fire is certainly large, but is confined to books in the reading room and gallery above, as follows:
1st. An extensive collection of rare editions of the Bible.
2nd. A very large collection of English pamphlets.
3rd. A still larger collection of reviews magazines and periodicals of various kinds: Quarterly, monthly and weekly, both French and English.
4 th. A valuable collection of ecclesiastical literature and law covering more than a century.
5th. Some valuable scientific encyclopedias and dictionaries in the French lan-[DOT] guage.
6th. A great number of valuable donations from the Imperial Government such as the Rolls series, etc.
7th. A fine collection of the reports of the American Bar Association obtained at considerable cost not long ago.
In the course of time, and when space can be available again, the Librarians consider that the most of these losses can be repaired, through the usual library agencies, without departing from the customary routine of business, and without making undue, if any, demands on the Treasury.
Especial attention is directed to the little damage done by water. Though many millions of gallons of water covered the floor and poured out through the doors from Thursday

night to Sunday afternoon, hardly any found its way to the basement, a testimony to the honest work done by the contractors in 1876, when the Library was constructed.
Those volumes that were at all damaged by water have been placed in a position to be dried; and little fear is felt that many will be destroyed. Some rich volumes of illustrated works of the 18th century may be soiled, but at-present we know of none that will be ruined.
If exaggeration prevails as to our losses, no praise can be exaggerated in being bestowed on the work bf the Library staff on the occasion of the fire.
Mr. Hamlyn Todd, whose name is traditionally associated with the Library, was fortunately able to force his way through the cordon of military and police, and got access to the Library by the side door, in time to exhibit his usual energetic disposition and capacity in raising the lower tiers of books from the water and in directing the operations of the removal of the books by the military and messengers.
Mr. MacCormac, who was present at the outbreak of the fire, promptly had the iron doors leading into the corridor - closed against the on-rush of smoke and flame. He was probably instrumental in saving the lives of some members who were in the Library by refusing to open the doors and by sending them safely through the side door, usually kept locked and bolted since the police took charge of the buildings.
Two others of the staff, Messrs. Meiklejohn and Argue,-, who were present rendered most valuable and intelligent service on the occasion ; and since the fire and after access was had to the Library, all the staff have been most industriously and intelligently engaged in restoring order.
The clerks in charge on the occasion personally desire that credit should be given to the firemen, to the soldiers of the 77th and to the. police for the effective assistance volunteered and rendered.
The librarians are requested by Mr. Todd to particularly thank Mr. Controller Fisher and Mr. Harry Stewart who were at once able and willing to render service on the occasion.
At such a time of terror and confusion, it is gratifying to report that all who were present on the occasion, or who were able to obtain access to the Library were able to be of service in an unaccustomed and nerve-racking emergency.
Some complaint was felt and made concerning the strictness of the cordon which was kept about the Library preventing the access of those who might have been of some use. But on reflection, the librarians are bound to say that the soldiers and the police could not have been expected to discriminate among persons they did not know, and that in carrying out their orders to the best of their knowledge, they were but doing an obvious duty.
We have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servants,
A. D. DeCelles,
General Librarian. Martin J. Griffin,
Parliamentrry Librarian.
To the Honourable the Prime Minister.
[Sir Robert Borders.^



DISTURBANCES AT CALGARY AND CAMPBELLTON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister any information to give -the House respecting the riots which are reported to have occurred at Calgary?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that any report has been received in the matter; I will consult the Minister of Militia.	,


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall repeat the inquiry to-morrow.


Mr. MARCIL:: May I ask the Prime Minister if the Government has taken any measures concerning the control of enlisted men in places where liquor runs freely? In Campbellton last pay-day no less than twenty or twenty-five enlisted men were put under guard; the conditions would seem to be somewhat similar to those at Calgary.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware that the disorders in Calgary were due to the use of liquor, although it may be so. My attention has not been directed to the alleged disturbance at Campbelltoh; I shall ask the Minister of Militia to mile a statement with regard to both matters.



WAR TAX ON LAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. TURRIFF:: It is stated in the press that the Minister of the Interior told an audience of immigration agents in Chicago the other day, that "there are no war taxes on Canadian land and never will be." I wish to ask the minister if he made. that statement and if he did, is that the policy of the Government?


Mr. ROOHE:: There were no press reporters at our meeting. No statement of that kind emanated from my lips.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, respecting The Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill No. 29, respecting certain patents of The Pedlar People Limited.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 30, to incorporate Seaport Trusts Corporation.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 32, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart.

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

Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What amount of money has been paid by the Intercolonial railway or the Government of Canada to the government of New Brunswick as their proportion of the earnings of the Valley railway, so-called, down to December 31 last?
2.	Has the province of New Brunswick received 40 per cent of the gross earnings of said railway since the beginning of its operation? If not, what percentage of said earnings has the province received?
3.	Was an agreement signed between the two governments around the first of January, 1915, or shortly thereafter, for the operation of the said railway on what is known as the 40 per cent basis ?
4.	Has a new agreement been entered into between the two governments within the last month or six weeks as to the operation of the said road and the distribution of the earnings thereof?
5.	tinder said new agreement what proportion of the gross earnings are payable to the province of New Brunswick?
6.	Did the Department of Railways and Canals in the month of December last order the cessation of the operation of the said road to take effect on the 1st day of January instant?
7.	If so, what were the reasons for such order?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	None, but there is due to the province of New Brunswick, under the arrangement whereby the province was to receive 40 per cent of the gross receipts, $18,733.65, accruing during the nine months ended December 31.
2.	No. From the commencement of operation, January 1, 1915, until March 31, 1915, the arrangement was, that the provinces and the Dominion should each bear one-half of the deficit, if any. Under this arrangement, the province owes the Dominion $2,977.51.
3.	There was no formal agreement.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Ordered cessation of the temporary arrangement which led to negotiations which resulted in the order to continue operation after January 1, 1916, on terms to be arranged.
7.	The non-completion of the road.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CAR PURCHASES.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Is it the intention of the Railway Department to purchase any more cars for the Intercolonial railway during the present year?


Mr COCHRANE:: The matter is under
consideration.


WAR SUPPLIES-SHELLS.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	Has any contract been made with the' Invincible Steel and Iron Products for the manufacture of shells? If so, how many, and what is the contract price, and what is the amount?
2.	What contracts, if any, have been made with any other companies or persons for the manufacture of said shells, and at what price?
3.	Was the tender of the Invincible Steel and Iron Products the lowest tender?
4.	What other tenders were there?


Robert Laird Borden: The Government has not made any contract with the Invincible Steel and Iron Products. If my hon. friend refers to a contract made by the Shell Committee or the Imperial Munitions Board, application should be made to them for the information.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How is that information to be obtained?


Robert Laird Borden: By application
to the board.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Verbally or in writing?	w


Robert Laird Borden: In whatever way my hon. friend would think suitable.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Through the Government?


Robert Laird Borden: No, not at all.


Mr. PARDEE:: Would it be to Mr. Flavelle?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Flavelle
is chairman of the board.


WHITEHEAD COLD STORAGE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was any expenditure made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of Agriculture, or by any other department of the Government since October, 1911, to assist cold storage at Whitehead, Guysborough county, Nova Scotia?	[DOT]
2.	If so, how much was the expenditure, and to whom was the money paid?
3.	If there is a cold storage plant at said Whitehead, which has been assisted by the Government, on whose property is it situated, and in whose name does the title thereto stand?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Yes. At Whitehaven.
2.	$1,477.89. To J. S. Weils, Ltd.
3.	J. S. Wells, Limited.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY PENSIONS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is it the intention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to establish a fund by which

old and .incapacitated employees of Government railways, who do not come under the Provident Fund, can be provided for?


Mr. COCHRANE:: No.	.


COLE HARBOUR WHARF.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works taken any steps towards the expenditure of the $8,300 that was voted six years ago, and revoted every session since, for the purpose of constructing a public wharf at Cole Harbour, Guysborough county, N.E.?
2.	If not, when does the Government intend to go forward with his work?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Nothing more than to acquire the necessary land.
2.	Like many others, the construction of this wharf is held in abeyance, for the present, as it is deemed advisable to restrict expenditures to such works only as are absolutely necessary or under contract, therefore it is impossible to state when this work will be constructed.


IMPORTS OF NECKLACES.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Has the Government collected any duty on diamond or pearl necklaces, or jewellery of that description, brought into Canada from England or elsewhere, within the last six months? '
2.	If so, what amount of duty has been collected, at what port or ports were the entries made, and what are the dates of entry?
3.	By whom were the importations made, and what is their estimated value?


Mr. REID:: Diamond or pearl necklaces are not separately enumerated in the Customs statistical records, but are included under the item, "Jewellery, not otherwise provided for," and the total duty collected under the latter heading during the six months ended January 31, 1916, amounted to $175,820.13. It is impracticable to give the information asked for as a reply to an inquiry. It is not usual to give information as to the value of individual importations at the Custom House.


TELEGRAPH POLES, VICTORIA, N.S.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Did the department purchase new telegraph poles for that section of the line between Ingonish Ferry and Meat Cove, county of Victoria, Nova Scotia?
2.	When were the poles delivered, and at what price?
3.	What were the dimensions called for in those poles?
4.	Were they subject to inspection?
5.	By whom were they inspected?
6; Were they all accepted?
T. How many were rejected, and for what reason?

8.	Were tenders called for in respect to the supplying of those poles? If not, how were the contracts awarded, and to whom?
9.	Who had the giving out of the contracts?
10.	Is A. B. Macdonald still the inspector of Telegraph Lines in the Island of Cape Breton? If not, why was he removed and who was appointed in his place, and at what salary?
11.	What salary was paid to A. B. Macdonald as Inspector of Telegraph Lines?
12.	When were the telegraph poles above mentioned delivered on the ground?
13.	Have the said poles been erected? If not, when are they to.be put in place?
14.	Was there a report made to the Department of Public w'orks on the conditions of the poles from Ingonish Ferry to Meat Cove before the purchase of the new poles?
15.	By whom was the said report made and where, and was it in writing?
16.	Was the purchase of the said poles ordered by the minister? If so, when?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. Yes.
2.	Delivery of poles on ground completed as follows: John E. McLeod, March 17, 1915; Rev. R. Rankin, April 12, 1915; Jos. R. McNeil, May 1, 1915; Duncan H. McDonald, May 24, 1915. Spruce 90 cents each, fir, 85 cents each.
3.	Minimum 23 feet long, 5 inches diameter at small end.
4.	Yes.
5.	By 0. P. Livingstone, Superintendent of Construction.
6.	No.
7.	Fifty-five .of the total delivered, not being according to specification, were rejected and replaced by others of the proper size and quality.
8.	Several persons between Meat Cove and Ingonish Ferry were invited to submit offers to supply the poles, and those of John E. McLeod, Rev. R. Rankin, Joseph R. McNeil and Dufican H. MacDonald were accepted.
9.	The General Superintendent of Telegraphs at Ottawa.
10.	Yes.
11.	$1,800 per annum.
12.	Answered by No. 2.
13.	Some have been erected; the balance will be put in place when the state of the ground will permit of the work being carried on.
14.	Yes.
15.	Report made in writing by D. C. Dawson, superintendent at St. John, N.B.
16.	Yes, on February 15, 1915.


MEAT COVE BREAKWATER.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	What steps have been taken towards building the breakwater or front protection at Meat Cove, county of Victoria?
2.	(a) Was the timber for that work purchased? (b) If so, who had charge of the pur-

chasing, (c) and from whom was the timber bought?
3.	How much has been expended on the said work?
4.	What are the particulars of the expenditure?
5.	When is the work to be completed?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	In 1914-15, materials were purchased.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Wm. H. Burton, Bay St.
Lawrence, N.S. (c) 1915, February 21, H. B. McEachern, $64.56; Stephen McKinnon, $33.20; John McKinnon, $18.32; Paul McLellan, $27.20; Simon Fraser, $46.24; John D. Fraser, $11.12; John Jos. McLellan, $34.32; D. D. Fraser, $34; H. L. McEachern, $19.60; John R. Fraser, $25.60; Jas. J. Fraser, $26.80; Farquhar Fraser, $21.20; Neil D. Burton, $148.20; Sandy McKinnon, $18.48.	.	'
3.	$537.84.
4.	The purchase of timber and salary of foreman, W. H. Burton.
5.	Will be considered when Parliament provides the necessary funds.


MAGDALEN ISLANDS CABLE.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	When was the cable first laid between the Magdalen islands and Bay St. Lawrence, county of Victoria, Nova Scotia?
2.	(a) Is the said cable in working order
now? (b) If not, when did it break or cease [DOT]to be operated?	.
3.	(a) Was there any effort made to locate the break and repair the cable? (b) If so, when, and with what result, (c) where was the break, and how far from the Nova Scotia end?
4.	Is there any particular reason why the said cable was not repaired and operated during the year 1915?
5.	Who is in charge of the cable and telegraph station at Bay St. Lawrence now, when was he appointed, and at what salary?
6.	Has there been more than one man appointed by the Government to superintend said station? If so, what are the dates of appointments, names and salaries?
7.	(a) Is the present superintendent of said station, or any one appointed by the Government to assist, a competent operator? (b) If so, where did they or either of them obtain the necessary training or knowledge of telegraphy?
8.	(a) what are the duties of the superintendent of the cable station at Bay St. Lawrence, apart from his work as a telegraph operator, and (b) is the superintendent supposed to be an operator?
9.	Is the cable between Bay St. Lawrence and St. Paul's island in operation? If not, what is the matter with it?
10.	When did it go out of commission?
11.	(a) Was there any effort made to repair it? (b) If so, when and with what result?
12.	Is there any other communication between St. Paul's island and the mainland during close navigation, except the above mentioned cable?
13.	When are the cables from Magdalen islands and St. Paul's likely to be repaired?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	1st September, 1906.
2.	(a) No. (b) 26th December, 1914.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) On 19th December, 1915, an attempt was made but abandoned on account of continuous gales, (c) Nine miles off Nova Scotia shore.
4.	Yes, cable steamer Tyrian was having boilers and portion of machinery renewed.
5.	J. R. McNeil, appointed 1st October,
1914,	at $720 per annum.
6.	Yes, N. McDonald, assistant operator, appointed 28th July, 1914, at $420 per annum.
7.	(a) Presumably, as no complaints have been received "that they were incompetent, (b) Taught by one of our instructors.
8.	(a) No other duties, (b) Yes.
9.	No.
10.	Became interrupted on 30th August,
1915.
11.	(a) Yes, on 23rd December, 1915. (b) The effort had to be abandoned owing to continuous gales.
12.	Not to the knowledge of this department.
13.	During the coming spring efforts will be made to repair.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Did the British or French Governments purchase any horses in Canada for army purposes since 1st August, 1914?
2.	If so, how many, and when did they stop buying horses in this country?
3.	Has the Government made any representations to the Government of Great Britain or France in regard to the number of horses obtainable in Canada? If so, with what results?
4.	Are the British and French Governments purchasing horses in the United States for army purposes?
5.	When did the Canadian Government stop buying horses for military purposes?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	The Government is informed that the British and French Governments have purchased horses in'Canada for army purposes since the first of August, 1914. I understand also that the French Government is buying horses in Canada at the present
[DOT] time.
2.	The British Government has not been purchasing horses for some months; I think since about November. I would not feel at liberty to give information to the House as to the number of horses purchased as it would be against the policy which the British Government has pursued in such

matters. The British Government does not give information as to the numbers of horses, or munitions, or anything of that kind which they purchase.
3.	Representations were made to the Government of Great Britain with regard to the number of horses obtainable in Canada, and the British Government was asked to communicate these representations to the French Government. The result was that in August last an arrangement was made between the British Government and the French Government, by which the French Government should be permitted to purchase horses in this country.
4.	The Government is not aware whether the British and French Governments are purchasing horses in the United States for army purposes.
5.	The Canadian Government stopped
purchasing horses for the reason that an arrangement was made during the past summer by which the British Government would purchase whatever horses might be necessary, not only for the British forces but for the Canadian forces as well. That arrangement was made in the early part of August, and I believe that since about that time the Canadian Government has not been purchasing horses for military purposes.	x


SEED GRAIN LIENS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	What number of liens were taken by the Government for advances to settlers in Western Canada during 1914 and 1915 for seed grain, forage and relief?
2.	What is the total amount of the said liens?
3.	What is the total amount of money advanced for seed grain, forage and relief in Western Canada during 1914 and 1915?


Mr. ROCHE:: 


Robert Rogers: $28,034.39, expended as follows:-
1896-1897, $1,500; 1897-1898, $440; 1898-1899, $1,100; 1899-1900, $699.99; 1900-1901, $820.38; 1901-1902, $1,237.36; 1902-1903, $199.99; 19031904, $1,500.09; 1904-1905, $1,799.86; 1905-1906, $600.06; 1906-1907, $1,615.30; 1907-1908, $1,999.91; 1908-1909, $1,199.96; 1909-1910, nil; 1910-1911, $1,297.48; 1911-1912, $1,357.86; 19121913, $195.77; 1913-1914, $4,984.74; 1914-1915, $5,199.11; 1915-1916 (31st January), $286.53; total, $28,034.39.


BOUNTY TO BEAM TRAWLERS.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: 1.	What year or years was bounty paid to beam trawlers ?
2.	Was an Order in Council passed prohibiting the payment of such bounties? If so, in what year was it passed?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	1909.
2.	Yes. February 22, 1911.


EASTERN HARBOUR DREDGING.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: What is the total amount expended on dredging Eastern Harbour from 1878 down to the present time, and what year was each of the amounts which make up' this total expended?


Robert Rogers: Eastern Harbour at Cheti-camp, N.S. $113,785.93, expended yearly as, follows:
1878-1885, nil	; 1885-1886	, $9,753.09;	1886-1887,	$4,361.50;	1887-1888,	$6,491.73;	1890-1891,	$1,360.43;	1891-1892,	$4,895.75;	1894-1895,	$1,801.85;	1895-1896.	, $3,490.08;	1901-1902,	$9,655.22;	1903-1904,	$6,540.06; 1904-05,	$2,395.64; 1909-1910,	$39,051.65;	1912-1913,
$8,726.27; 1913-1914, $15,262.66; 1914-1916, nil. Total, $113,785.93.
Seed grain.
1.	Number of liens.	52,927
2.	Amount of liens.$7,569,224 68
3.	Amount expended
by Government exclusive of administration expenses	 7,924,386 55
Fodder and relief. 130,52S $4,664,324 05
4,702,645 05
As some disputed accounts are not yet paid and as apparently there has been duplication of securities in a number of cases, the figures in connection with fodder . and relief are given subject to further revision.


PORT HOOD WHARF.
Alexander William Chisholm: What amount has been expended on repairs to Port Hood wharf each year from 1896 down to the present time?


OWNERSHIP OF WATER-POWERS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Has the government or any member of it, agreed with the government of Ontario, or any person or persons, to transfer to the said Government of Ontario, any right or title it may possess in water-powers situated in the province of Ontario?
2.	If not, are negotiations in progress looking to the conclusion of such an agreement?
3.	Will 'such agreement include developed as well as undeveloped powers?


Robert Laird Borden: Litigation in
the courts is outstanding between the Government of the province of Ontario and the Govermhent of Canada with regard to the respective rights of Canada and the province of Ontario in water-powers situated in the province of Ontario.
Negotiations are in progress, but have not

yet been completed!, looking to tihe settlement of the litigation. It 'would be impossible to give any information as to what agreement may be 'arrived at until the agreement itself is actually consummated.


Mr. GRAHAM:: There is no sudh agreement then?	.


Robert Laird Borden: No agreement has yet been consummated. As I said before, the negotiations seem to be progressing (favourably.


George Perry Graham: I would like to ask the Prime Minister about part 3 of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be impossible to answer that while negotiations are still pending.


SEED GRAIN INDEBTEDNESS. .
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M-cCRANEY:	-
1.	What indebtedness was incurred to the Dominion Government by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, for seed grain supplied to settlers on patented lands in these provinces in 1908?
2.	What amount is still owing by each of these provinces in respect of these advances?
3.	What was the amount of seed grain indebtedness by settlers on unpatented lands in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, for seed grain supplied in 1908, and what amounts are still owing in each province in respect of same?
4.	What amount is now owing by settlers in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, for advances of seed grain prior to 1915?
5.	What were the total advances for seed grain and fodder to settlers in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, in 1914 and 1915, and what amounts are still owing in each province in respect of same?
William James Roche: '
1. Province of Saskatchewan...$ 714,944 09
"	Alberta	
150,914	302.	Province of Saskatchewan...	301,687	65Alberta	
6,840	653.	Province of Saskatchewan...	326,511	96"	Alberta.. ..	75,109 80Still owing in Saskatchewan and Alberta	
8,765 504.	Province of 'Saskatchewan...	[DOT]"	Alberta	
219,610 245.	Seed grain, Saskatchewan-. 5,605,945 04"	' " Alberta	
1,921,762	21Fodder 'and relief, Western Canada	
4,664,324	05
Received ait Ottawa, to date, in repayment oif 1914-15, seed grain, fodder and relief 'advances in Western Canada. 1,489,936 26
Subject to further revision. At present time these questions cannot be 'answered in exactly the form asked.


CAP A LA ROCHE CHANNEL.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	How many dredges and their equipment have been employed in dredging or deepening the channel of the St. Lawrence River at what is known as Cap 5, La Roche, between Quebec and Three Rivers, during the years 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	How many yards of earth, and how many yards of rock, were removed each year?
3.	What was the cost per yard, respectively?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	1911 and1 1912, 4 dredges, 4 tugis, 9
scows, 1 rockcutter, 2 stonClifteTs, and 1 floating shop; in 1913, 1914 and 1915,	3
dredges, 3 tugs, 7 scows, 1 rockcuitter, 2 stondifteirs and 1 floating shop.
2.	1911, 398,100 on. yds. shale rack cost $26.88 per cu. yd.; 156,950 eu. yds. hard-pan containing numerous embedded' boulders, cost $25.74 per cu. yd; 1912, 256,423 'eu. ydis. ishale rock cost $32.99 per^ cu. yd-; 92,260 cu. yds. hard-pan containing numerous embedded boulders, oat, $38.51 per cu. yd; 1913, 366,349 ou. yds. shiaile rook 'cost $35.28 per cu. yd.; 1914, 329,156 ou. yds. shade rock cost $42.41 per eu. yd; 1915, 174,063 eu. yds. skate rock; 6,733 cu. yds. hard-pan containing numerous embedded boulders. Note.-Cost per cu. yd. for 1915 cannot be given until after the end of fiscal year.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the different rural mail routes in the constituency of Qu'Appelle, their location and date of establishment, and all rural mail routes now being established or under consideration at the present time in the same constituency.-Mr. Thomson.
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions and documents of any kind, referring in any way to the application of Anes or Angus McKinnon, of Iron Mines or Orangedale, Inverness county, for the Fenian Raid bounty.-Mr. A. W. Chisholm.
For a return showing the number of persons of German or Austrian birth in the employ of the Post Office Department, their names, class of employment, and the remuneration paid to each of them?
SHELL INSPECTORS IN NOVA SCOTIA. Mr. MACDONALD moved:
For a return showing the names of all shell inspectors employed in and about the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and the other factories producing shells at New Glasgow, in the county of Pictou. .
Robert Laird Borden: As I have already pointed out, there is no information in the possession of the Government with regard to such matters. The only thing that could be done would be to transmit the ho-n. gentleman's question, or motion, to -the committee, and I suppose he could do that himself directly. I assure my hon. friend that we have no information on the subject whatever.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question is one that could be handled more rapidly if my right hon. friend would undertake to transmit it to the committee, and I would very much prefer that that should be done.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will drop the motion I will undertake to transmit the question to the chairman of the eommiHee with a request that it be attended to. In fact, I have already dictated a letter to him to that effect.
Motion allowed to stand.


THE MACE.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House takes up notices of motions, might I ask its indulgence for the purpose of reading a telegram which I have received from Sir George Perley, the Acting High Commissioner. The telegram is dated London, February 14, and reads:
Prime Minister, Ottawa:
Have received following telegram from Lord Mayor, London: " Hearing that the Dominion Parliament lost its mace in the recent fire, the sheriffs of the city of London and myself will [DOT] feel honoured if Canada allows us to replace it with, if possible, an exact replica of the one destroyed. Please cable what reply should be returned.	'
I am under the impression that arrangements have already been made here to provide a suitable mace, but I will consult with His Honour the Speaker, and with the officers of the House as to the answer to be sent.


PROCEDURE IN DIVORCE CASES.
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament, and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof, are so unsatisfactory, besides being prohibitive to the great majority of the people of Canada, the same should be taken into immediate consideration by the Government during the present session, with a view to reform.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when., two years ago, I brought this same motion before the 
House, I thought its wording was sufficiently clear to prevent any possible misunderstanding. There are two questions which can be raised with regard to divorce. The one is, as I have pointed out before, and as I may point out again, with regard to extending the grounds on which divorce should be granted, and I am sure that a casual reading of the motion will show that it in no way refers to that. The other ground is one which I would have thought conclusively and clearly set out: that the present procedure is not satisfactory, that it is unreasonably expensive, and that it is prohibitive to a great portion of the people of this country, and consequently fails to be effective. One would think, as I thought then, that there would have been no hesitation on the part of this House to remedy such an acknowledged evil. But to my surprise, when the House came to the discussion of this question on the last occasion, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) made a speech, eloquent, argumentative, perfectly .sound and unanswerable as to the point at which it was directed, bht it was a point that had not been raised by the resolution before the House. If my motion had been to extend the grounds on which divorces were granted I could have understood the pertinency of the hon. gentleman's remarks, but inasmuch as I carefully pointed out that I was not even remotely referring to that, I confess it seemed to me that his observations, however admirable, were not pertinent to the question before the House.
When the right hon. the Prime Minister came to discuss the question he, as a perusal of Hansard will show, entirely agreed with me, that the present procedure is not satisfactory. It is not only not satisfactory, but if one were speaking outside of the walls of Parliament one would say it was absolutely idiotic that men living in the twentieth century and claiming to be civilized should consent to have such an important matter carried on as it is carried on in the Dominion of Canada. When the right hon. gentleman had agreed with me that the procedure was unsatisfactory, as every member of this House must admit, a motion was made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) in these words:
A committee of seven members to be appointed to inquire into the existing procedure under which divorces are granted, and to report whether any and what more satisfactory procedure should be provided in such cases.
Personally, I had no. objection to that motion, assuming it to be made in good

faith, and therefore I did not oppose it. Really the only difference between my motion and it was that my motion called upon the Government as a Government to take proper steps to do away with a distinct evil, while the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, without differing from mine in principle, merely asked that a committee of seven should be appointed. I had no objection to that, and I have no objection to it to-day, if the committee would honestly and practically proceed to do its work. But after several members of the House had joined in the discussion, the right hon. the leader of the House moved the adjournment of the debate, which everybody .knows meant that my motion went to the foot of the Order Paper, and that was the last heard of it during that session. What has been done since? Last year I again placed the motion on the Order Paper, but that being a war session I did not wish to press it, and I was in hopes that the Government would take steps. I understood that some step was to be taken, and a step was taken.
In order to meet this evil, which no member of the House pretended to say did not exist, for the proceedings were ridiculously cumbersome, absurdly expensive and consequently prohibitory for the poor, the improvement that was made was that four gentlemen from the Private Bills Committee of this House were sent over to sit with the members of the Senate Divorce Committee so that they might personally hear the evidence which was given instead Of being compelled to read it after it was printed. I submit to this House that if we claim to be a legislative body, if we claini to be representative of the people of this country, it is hardly dealing fairly-I might almost say sincerely-with an important question such as this to give it such a remedy as the appointment of four more members to seats on a committee that, I imagine, practically every member of the House admits . never should have existed.
If we would consider the position we occupy as members of this House, it should not be very difficult to secure reform. We are very apt to speak of this member as being the member for this constituency and of that other member as being the member for that constituency, which is altogether contrary to the principle upon which we are elected to Parliament. I imagine there is no great difference of opinion as to the constitutional principle that theoretically every man in Canada has a part in the making of the laws, but
that, inasmuch as practically it is impossible for every man to come to Ottawa, the country is divided into districts in which the electors assemble to elect representatives of all the people of Canada. Each member who sits in this House to-day from the province of Quebec is just as truly a representative of the province of Ontario, Alberta, or British Columbia, as any member from any one of these provinces. It may be that the member selected by the electors in a certain constituency would be expected to be better aoquamted with the requirements of that constituency, but constitutionally, he is no more a representative of the people of that constituency than he is of any other people in any other constituency in Canada, for every member sitting in this House is the representative of all the people of Canada.
If that be the case, and the question is, I submit, beyond peradventure, and when it is shown that a grievance does exist, that some people in this country are put on a different footing from other people, is it not the duty of this House, and of each member of it, to see that whatever should be done is done in order to avoid such an unfortunate-I might almost say disastrous-result as having a line drawn, such as we have in the case of divorce, by which the rich in this country get divorces and the poor do not?
I well remembe! that in days gone by attempts have been made to remedy the law and that it has been found almost impossible. Many hon. members of .the House remember that for a long time in England there were a couple of hundred offences punishable with death. Philanthropists and legislators endeavoured, year after year, to secure some change in the law from Parliament, but their efforts were hopeless. In those days a man was hanged for stealing five shillings. It was impossible to obtain a change in the law until it happened that a servant stole a crown piece from the mantel; he was seen stealing it, he was arrested, brought before a judge and jury, the evidence given was conclusive and the jury was compelled to find that the coin had been stolen, but, unwilling to have the blood of that unfortunate man upon their heads, they said that they found him guilty of stealing a coin of the value of 4s. llid. The finding of that jury produced a change in the law of England.
It is a well-known fact that the law of divorce for many long years had been in a very unsatisfactory condition in England.

Attempt after attempt was made to change the law, but the result was very much as it is here. Divorce could only be obtained by Act of Parliament, but in order to obtain an Act of Parliament it was necessary to obtain a divorce in the ecclesiastical courts a mensa et thoro, then sue for damages, and then come to Parliament and obtain your Bill. It had been found impossible to persuade the legislature to take any steps to remedy this most ridiculous procedure until subsequent to 1845, when, in the case of Queen vs. Hall, Mr. Justice Maule gave his famous judgment. In that case a man was brought before Mr. Justice Maule charged with bigamy. The evidence was perfectly clear that the wife had run away with -another man, that she was then living with him, and that after this had continued for some time the prisoner had married again. The evidence being of this nature, the jury found the man guilty and Mr. Justice Maule proceeded to pass sentence. He told him first that he should have brought action for damages, that he should have then instituted a suit in the ecclesiastical courts for a divorce a mensa et thoro, and that he should then have obtained an act of Parliament dissolving his marriage. Then he told him that this would probably cost him a thousand pounds and that if he said he did not have that many pence it made no difference, because it was his duty to tell the prisoner that there was not one law for the rich and one for the poor, that as he had violated the law, he must be suitably punished, the punishment being imposed in these words:
You will be imprisoned for one day. And as you have now been in gaol since the commencement of the assizes, your term is more than expired; you are free.
This sentence brought the legislature in the Old Country to its senses and in consequence of that pronouncement by Mr. Justice Maule that absurd law was changed. We know that it is only a little over a century ago since legislatures were willing to have witches burned, and acts of that kind done, and we must not thinks that because laws are as they are they axe absolutely the best that can be made because changes have been made in such laws as these even within the last hundred years.
When we consider the position of Canada in regard to divorce, it seems to me that it does not require very much argument to induce the House to agree that something 
should be done. We are not the only civilized country in the world; we must admit, I suppose, that there are a few others. Yet, there are only two countries; in the world, claiming to be civilized,-which do not allow divorce-Italy and Spain. There is only one other country in which the divorce law is as it is in Canada and that is poof old Ireland. I can quite understand that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will hardly argue that the laws in force in Ireland for the last hundred years are so absolutely perfect that you cannot improve them.


Mr. DOHERTY:: They do not make the laws in Ireland; that is the trouble.


William Barton Northrup: But I am sure the Minister of Justice will say that, if they were able to make laws in Ireland, they would make a more satisfactory and Christian law than they have there at the present time on this subject. There are only these two countries, Italy and Spain, in which they have no law of divorce. Let me briefly run through the list of civilized countries as given in the report of the Matrimonial Divorce - Commission (which sat in the Old Country for several years, presided over by Lord Gorrell) which have divorce courts. In Scotland divorce is granted not merely for adultery, but for desertion, and they have divorce courts in the following parts of the Empire: England, South Africa, Natal, New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, and India.
So there is not much doubt what the feeling of British subjects is with regard to this matter. Not only 'in the Motherland, but in every part of the Empire, divorces are obtained through the court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not in Newfoundland.


William Barton Northrup: I was coming to that. Apparently, Newfoundland has no way of granting divorces, but I presume the same inherent right exists in their legislature as exists in ours, and that their legislature could grant a divorce. Divorces are granted by courts in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and in the United States. With only two exceptions then, it is an understood thing among the civilized nations of the world that divorces can be granted. It is only in Ireland that the same system of granting divorces exists as obtains here.

Up to 1857 there was no divorce court in England, and divorces were granted there the same as here, l?y Act of Parliament, but in that year a divorce court was established -a step far beyond anything we have in this country. In 1909 the warrant was issued to the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Cases, and the House will pardon me if I read a couple of sentences [DOT]of the warrant:
We do hereby empower you to make an interim report with a view of enabling such steps as you may recommend to be taken for the redress of any hardship from which, in your opinion, the poorer classes may suffer under the existing law and administration.
The commission presented a minority and a majority report, but with the latter I have nothing to do, because it does not relate in any way to the motion before us to-day. I may say, however, that it recommends that the grounds upon which divorce is granted in England should be extended; to include, for instance, such cases as incurable insanity, imprisonment for life, and desertion, but I am not concerned with the majority report at all, for my motion does not seek to extend the grounds. 'The minority report, which is signed by the Primate of England (Cosmo Ebor), Sir William Anson, M.P., and Sir Lewis T. Dibbin, tvliile differing from the majority recommendation that the grounds be extended, went as far as I am asking this House to go; that
4 p.m. is, they recommend that steps should be taken in order to secure the possibility of divorces being *granted to the poor as well as to the rich. Let me read a few words from page 189 of the minority report:
We concur in the recommendation of your colleagues that local courts exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court should be established. We also agree that it will be convenient that these courts should be held at centres where there is already a'District Registry of the High Court.
These three gentlemen, then, are willing to have the facilities for divorce, which are so much greater in England than here, extended still further.
I should like to call attention to the fact that in my motion there is not one word about a court. I am merely pointing out that the present system is not satisfactory, and I ask the Government and this House either to contradict me and say that it is satisfactory, or to agree that it is unsatisfactory, and then like men rise to the occasion and try to reform our present system. When I brought this motion before the House a couple of years ago, war had not
broken out. I think the war has in many ways changed the position of many people in this country. I confess, Sir, I cannot understand how any one in this country can appeal to our young married men to fall in under the colours and fight for our country and Empire, and at the same time say	to them,	as	we arepractically	saying to	them to-day:If you are rich and happen to be wronged in your household while you are awaj, file your petition with the Senate, and the remedy will be provided. But if you are poor we can do nothing for you, because under our Canadian la"' a divorce cannot he granted except under these two conditions : first, the crime of the offending party, and second the wealth of the injured party. Only last week a most pitiful case appeared in the Toronto papers. It was that of a married man who had been among the first to enlist. While in Europe some scoundrel took advantage of his absence. Now, under our present law, we are compelled to say to that man:	We can do nothing for you;
if you lived in Montreal and were rich, we would have been quite prepared to grant a divorce, but as you live in Toronto and are poor there is no divorce for you in Canada. Does it not strike every member of this House as an injustice that makes his blood boil that we should ask these men to go to the front, and then crawl in behind them to protect ourselves at their expense, and then stand ready to give them a kick the moment the war is over. I appeal to this House whether that is the way to treat the men who are fighting for us, and are ready to give their lives for this country and the Empire. Let us either abolish divorce so that no man in Canada can have it, or adopt such procedure that the man who is fighting for his country, and risking his life for the Empire, has the same rights as his wealthier brothers.
If I may judge from the last debate on this subject in this House, there must havn been a misunderstanding of the history of the subject. As my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) told us two years ago, we know that one great religious body, the Roman Catholic Church, is opposed to divorce. But nobody who knows anything about the subject would pretend to say that the Greek Church-another great branch of the Christian churches opposed to divorce. They have always had it, and have it to-day. The Anglican Church has never been opposed to divorce, and is not opposed to it to-day. Let me refer for a

moment to Volume 3 of the findings of the Royal Commission, page 441.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Greek Church grant divorce through, civil or ecclesiastical courts?


William Barton Northrup: Through their consis-torial courts. On page 441 of the commission's report, Sir Edward Clarke, one of the best known counsel in England, in giving his evidence before the commission says that there is a popular misunderstanding on the subject of divorce, and he i quoted to show that even among the early Fathers of the Church there was a diversity of opinion. He referred to St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Ambrose,- none more famous-all of whom at one time had supported divorce and re-marriage. St. Augustine, it is true, changed his opinion later; but even he, toward the close of his life, declared that while his own opinion was against divorce, yet the subject was so uncertain that he would not blame any man who took a different view. Then Professor Denney, at page 264 of the same volume, quotes a number of. cases from the Fathers-


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr! Northrup) say that the Catholic Church does not recognize any divorce today?


William Barton Northrup: It does not. The
Roman Catholic Church, ever since the Council of Trent in 1553, where it laid down the principle, has been absolutely against divorce and, does not recognize divorce.


William F. Carroll: I can tell my hon.
friend that he is wrong.


William Barton Northrup: Does the hon. gentleman say that the Roman Catholic Church does recognize divorce?


William F. Carroll: For certain reasons.


William Barton Northrup: Perhaps the hon.
gentleman refers to the case of marriage with a heathen?


William F. Carroll: No.
Mr. NORTHRUP. I believe the hon. gentleman is mistaken. Like a good many others he has misunderstood the case. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize divorce. It does recognize divorce a mensa et thoro, separating the parties in a manner the counterpart of our English judicial separation, but with no right in either of the parties to r.e-marry.


William F. Carroll: I beg to contradict the
hon. gentleman again, for incompetency for instance, the Catholic Church does allow divorce and re-marriage.


William Barton Northrup: I do not profess to-know more of the doctrines of the hon. gentleman's church than he knows himself,, but I think he is confusing nullification with divorce.


William F. Carroll: You go to the divorce courts to get it.


William Barton Northrup: No. I have many authorities here, but as I do not wish to encumber Hansard with a number of theological opinions, I will merely give the pages of the report in order that those who wish to do so may read for themselves. At page 264 of Volume III of these reports, Professor Denney gives a list, quoting in one case Gregory II, who was in favour of divorce. At page 437 of the same volume, Sir Frederick Pollock, professor of law in Oxford University, recognized as one of the ablest writers on English law who ever lived, gives a list of authorities of the Fathers of the early days, who, he says, were in favour of divorce. The evidence before the committee was to the effect that in England there had never been a time when it was thfi law of the land, or even the final law of the church, that divorce-could not be given. Away back in A.D. 686, Archbishop Theodore had a canon passed, a copy of which I' have before me, in which he expressed himself as opposed to divorce and re-marriage; but the same archbishop, in his Penitentials, which he put in the hands of his clergy, .authorized them, though counselling their parishioners to abstain from divorce and re-marriage, yet to allow them, if they insisted, to marry again.
My hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) has spoken about certain grounds on which the Roman Catholic Church does give divorce. As he has brought the matter up, I may be allowed to refer to it without incurring the charge of making an attack upon that Church. I would refer to the evidence of Mgr. Moyes, who attended this commission, as representative of the Archbishop of Westminster, for the purpose of stating what was the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on this subject. I cannot be accused of attacking the Church if I read what he gave as being the doctrine of the Church:
The inpediments which are held by the Catholic church -to be diriment or nullifying are the following:	1. Error, as to person. 2.

Condition (if A marries B, a slave, believing B to be free). 3. Solemn vow of chastity or entering religious order, made before consummation of marriage. 4. Consanguinity to third degree. 5. Crime (if A during a former marriage with B has committed adultery with C, with promise of marriage after death of B, and if A or C has attempted the life of B, the marriage of A and C is null). 6. Disparity of worship, viz:	marriage of a Christian with a
non-Christian. 7. Duress or violence affecting liberty of consort. 8. Holy order to which is attached obligation of chastity. 9. The bond of preceding marriage (if either party have a husband or wife still alive). 10. Public decorum (if one of the parties is solemnly or publicly betrothed to another person.) 11. Madness or amentia (viz, imbecility, precluding reasonable consent). 12. Affinity. 13. Clandestinity. 14. Impotency. 15. Rape.
So, the grounds he gives are those for nullification; not for a divorce a vinculo in our sense, with rights of the parties to re-marry. I am not finding fault with these rules of the Roman Catholic Church. There are many cases in which marriages were nullified by the church. There is one case so well known that every member of ' the House may be acquainted with it. There was a girl in England named Margaret Tudor, of very respectable family. Her father was Henry Tudor, better known as Henry VII, and her brother is more widely though less favourably known in history as Henry VIII. She married a Scotchman, known as James Stuart, afterwards James IV of Scotland. She was the sister-in-law of Louis XII of France, and so the double grandmother of Mary Queen of Soots, the direct descendant of Whom sits on the throne of Great Britain to-day. So, you see, when we speak of Margaret Tudor, we are dealing with a very respectable family. When Margaret Tudor lost her husband James, she married- that is she went through the marriage ceremony with-the Earl of Angus. Some time later, being weary of Angus, she discovered that, while he had never been married before, he had had a betrothal to the daughter of the Earl of Bothwell. So, there was a nullification of that marriage. Then, she married Lord Methven. But, wearying of him, and there being no divorce, she discovered that he was related in the fourth degree to the Earf of Angus, and so her marriage to Lord Methven was nullified. Some people might have thought that as it had been decided that she had never been married to the Earl of Angus, the law declaring that his relationship with Lord Methven was a bar to her marriage with Methven was not sound. Still, that was the law as adjudged and as administered. So that when my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll)
speaks about divorce he should remember that it is not divorce that is given, but absolute nullification of marriage. I can quite Understand that a gentleman belonging to the church of my hon. friend would have this objection to divorce, which, perhaps, is not well founded. The people affected by the nullification of marriage as it was practised in Europe for many centuries were not the lower classes or the poor-those for whom I am pleading today. At that time only the rich or the mighty were concerned either in divorce or in the nullification of marriage. Divorce, if provision had been made for it in those days, could have been comparatively simple and comparatively inexpensive; but those who desired to set aside the marriage tie-persons of nobility or crowned heads-could well afford to pay. If the grounds of application, therefore, were abstruse and difficult to prove, there would, to the ecclesiastical lawyers, be an advantage in nullification rather than in divorce. Take the case of a man who desired to be free from the marriage tie and wished to marry some one else. If he obtained a divorce, one day the eldest son would take his title or his crown, as the case might be, with all [DOT] his estates; but if he stepped out free and unencumbered, he could offer to the lady of his heart for the time being all that he had to give-title, estate, position foi^ her life and for her son after her. In the light of these facts, some people may be inclined to attach to divorce some objections that are not properly attachable' to it, but that were properly attachable to nullification. In England or in any country where divorces are granted, the children of divorced persons are protected; they go forth as free as if the marriage had not been set aside at all, with their birthright preserved.
When the hon. member for Rouville was speaking on this subject two years ago, he called attention to the fact that in the Republic to the south of us there had been a great multiplication of divorces; that there was actually one divorce to every twelve marriages. My hon. friend mentioned this as an objection to the resolution I then had before the House. But I am afraid my hon. friend's figures were such as to lead to a wrong conclusion. Apart from census statistics, what a shocking state of affairs it would be if there was one divorce to every twelve marriages in Ottawa! Similarly, I am sure our friends to the south would


Mr. PROULX:: There have been cases where the fees have been remitted, have there not?


William Barton Northrup: You can sue in forma
pauperis, and, if you do, certain disbursements in the Senate are forgiven; but you have to do your advertising, to serve the . respondent, to employ counsel, and to bring witnesses here. Suppose we take the extreme case of people from Alberta or Saskatchewan; apart from everything else, what would be the expense of bringing witness from one of those provinces to Ottawa?
I have been very careful not to advocate a court. I have been trying all the way through to confine myself to suggestions that are practicable with our existing system. 1 quite understand that if I said a word about a court different objections would be raised; but I can see ways in which a tremendous improvement could be made in the present procedure, a wonderful saving, even using the imperfect machinery we have. Therefore, I have been very careful not to suggest a court, although one cannot help seeing that to make our procedure conform with that of other civilized lands it would be necessary to have a court. But if we Canadians cannot rise to the plane of other peoples, if we do not possess the intelligence, if we do not possess the hearts of other peoples, let us at least do the best we can, and so arrange our divorce laws that as many as possible who are entitled to can avail themselves of the law. Let us not have it confined only to the few.


Mr. HAZEN:: Has the hon. member made any estimate or can he submit any figures as to the actual difference in cost to a petitioner who applies for and obtains a divorce through Parliament, and a peti-



tioner who applies for and obtains a divorce through one of the courts, say in British Columbia, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.


William Barton Northrup: I have not been able to do that, but my hon. friend from Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) gave that information. I have been told that many cases in these provinces have gone_ through for $100
or so.
;


Mr. CARVELL:: That is perfectly correct.


William Barton Northrup: It is perfectly true you might have a case in British Columbia in which you would have to bring witnesses from England.


John Douglas Hazen: It would largely depend on where the witnesses come from.


William Barton Northrup: Supposing you had a court like the judge of the Exchequer Court, who goes to Alberta, or Manitoba, or Saskatchewan, at certain times and holds court there. There is no one in Saskatchewan or Alberta so poor that lie or she could not bring witnesses to that place. But it is a different thing to employ counsel there, to have that counsel employ counsel in Ottawa, to pay the expenses of advertising and the expenses of service, to bring your witnesses to Ottawa -and then on coming here perhaps find that the Senate had adjourned for the week and that you would have to keep the witnesses waiting to be heard. It makes all the difference whether you have one procedure or the other. As my hon. friend suggests the courts, let me recite to the House a case told me by one of the leading lawyers in British Columbia, formerly a member of this House. A lady from Ontario married a gentleman who was the manager of a bank in British Columbia. Her father was a wealthy man. The boom in real estate struck British Columbia. The bank manager was carried away by it and went deeply into it. He sent for his father-in-law, who went out to British Columbia, and then the bank manager inveigled the father-in-law into real estate. They went in deeper and deeper until one fine day the son-in-law disappeared and the father-in-law found he was a ruined man. The wife was left with three children and not a penny. She who had never supported herself in her life had to go out and support herself and her three small children, and she did it with difficulty. My informant, on hearing the story, was very much affected by it and desired to do what he could. On think-
	; ;
ing it over he" said: I believe that man who came from England probably went back. He employed a detective in London and found he was living in his own village in England very comfortably with a lady, supposedly his wife, who was introduced and recognized as his wife. At once my friend told the deserted wife:	I will get
you a divorce, and he was prepared to get it. But it happens that the law of British Columbia is the law of England which was in force at the time the court was established in British Columbia, and the law of England at that time was that while a husband could obtain a divorce for adultery, the wife was obliged to show adultery plus cruelty. Since then the law has been changed in England, so that now desertion for two years is taken as cruelty. But the British Columbia law is the old English law, and although this lady was entitled to apply to the court and could show that her husband was living in the Old Country with another, woman, she could not prove cruelty, and therefore could not get a divorce in British Columbia. I said to the gentleman:	Why do you not come to
Ottawa? He said:	Why didn't I? I was
willing to put the case through for her at my own expense; I was willing to put up $500 or $1,000; but when I considered that it meant employing detectives in the Old Country, bringing them out here to give evidence, as there is no means of taking evidence under commission under our divorce proceedings, keeping them here for Heaven knows how long, and that it might then turn out that I would have to send somebody from here over there to identify the man there as being really the husband of the lady, the probable expense was so tremendous that I was obliged to abstain altogether. That is just an illustration of how, even where you have a court, if your laws are not satisfactory you may have hard cases. But if you have such a hard case as that where there is a court, as in British Columbia, it is not difficult to understand that there will be exceedingly hard cases under such circumstances as we have here.
There are a good many other things I intended to say and would have liked to say, but I feel I am trespassing on the indulgence of the House. Let me, in conclusion, merely repeat the points I would like to impress on the House-and I hope that nobody will answer what I have said to-day by presenting arguments against an extension of the grounds on which divorce

is granted, for I have not touched that at all. I hope that every member of this House will appreciate his position. Every man in this House is a representative of everybody in this country and is responsible for seeing that justice is done to everybody in this country. While I quite understand and appreciate the position of a member of a great church which is opposed to divorce who, when divorce Bills are brought before this House, does not vote on them, I think I, as a member of another faith, might well appeal to him and say:	In this case, inasmuch as you and
others of your church do not ask for divorces, as you are not affected by these divorces, it will in no way hurt you' to support the changes I propose, if you find that in every civilized land but two outside of Canada there is a simpler way of obtaining divorces. If we desire to treat the poor as we treat the rich, we must do one of two things. Take the cases I mentioned where two men went across the sea, one from Montreal and one from Toronto, both apparently entitled to apply to Parliament for divorces if one can believe the papers, and one can apply because he has money and the other cannot apply because he has not, although the facts are there, his home is broken up, a little one not his is there to meet him on his, return. It seems to me that any man who has one single drop of red blood in his veins must feel that, whatever we do, whether or not we can decide upon a complete remedy for these evils, we should at least be men enough to do the best we can, so that if only in such cases as the half dozen poor women to whom I referred a moment ago, we relieve them of the burden which is such a load upon them to-day, we could say that we had done something this session of which we would have reason to be proud until our dying day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very great interest indeed to the masterly address delivered by my hon. friend the member for East Hastings. Let me at once commend his ability, his fairness, and his broadmindedness. I say his broad-mindedness, because in the course of his speech he seemed to fear that has remarks might be taken as adverse to one church. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that he would be the last of all men in this House to use any arguments which could be taken as adverse to any of the great churches of this country. He is well known for his fairness,
49i
and he has approached the subject on this occasion, as he did on the last in a fair and broad-minded spirit. I may also tell him that it is not from a sectarian point of view that I rise to oppose his motion; I speak as a Canadian having in view the welfare of our country, and I shall try to demonstrate in as few words as possible that the position I take is in the best interests of Canada. I shall try to demonstrate in a few moments that though my hon. friend's motion apparently affects only the * procedure of divorce, it would tend to create a substantive law of divorce in provinces where it does not exist at present. I repeat that I approach this question from a national point of view.
It so happens that the Catholic Church is not the only church opposed to divorce. In the course of his very able remarks, my hon. friend said that the Anglican Church was not opposed to divorce. I do not know the tenets of the Anglican Church in England, but I know that the Anglican Church oi Canada is just as much opposed to divorce, as the Roman Catholic Church is. On the last occasion, when I spoke on this question, I quoted a canon which had been unanimously adopted on the question of marriage and divorce at the sessions of the Anglican Synod, held in Montreal in 1905. That canon read as follows:
No clergyman within the jurisdiction of the Church of England in Canada shall solemnize a marriage between persons either of whom shall have been divorced from one who is living at the time.
So, I biush aside any sectarian point of view. I do not wish to be dogmatic in the matter; I am speaking as a Canadian, feeling that if this Parliament should in any way whatsoever facilitate the procedure of divorce such a change would tend *to create a much larger number of divorces before our courts and before this Parliament, and would be detrimental to the best interests of our common country. My view, therefore, is that we should not increase the facilities for obtaining divorce, which have been criticised by my hon. friend, but that, on the contrary-and this is where I join issue with him-we should restrict these facilities, or at least we should leave the procedure as it is, and as it was intended to be at the time our Divorce Committee was organized after Confederation.
The question is not new. The hon. member has brought it before the House on several occasions, the last time being in 1914, I think, but I doubt whether; since that time, in spite of the very able address

of my hon. friend, there has been any demand in the country for the legislation which he is urging by his motion this afternoon. His address will be read with great interest from the historical point of view, as well as from the legal point of view. In fact, I am surprised that such an able gentleman as my hon. friend from Hastings does not adorn the benches of the Government, or the bench of the high courts of Ontario. Since his address in this House in 1914, I believe he has addressed two public institutions in this country, the Canadian Club and the Forum, but there has been no serious demand for the legislation which he urges *this Parliament to enact. It is a very vexed question. By many people, possibly by the majority in this House, marriage is considered as only a civil contract, but to many others, certainly to a respectable minority in this country, embracing all races and all creeds, marriage is more than a civil contract; it is also a sacrament. Therefore Parliament should be careful about opening the gates to any legislation affecting marriage, the effect of which would be to assail and endanger the very foundations of Canadian society. In four provinces they have divorce courts, and as my hon. friend has stated, five others have no divorce courts. When the subject came up before Parliament in 1914, the question of our jurisdiction in this Dominion Parliament was well put by the Minister of Justice. He gave us the meaning and the extent of the power vested in the Dominion Parliament. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, let me read the very weighty words of the Minister of Justice, who we all know has, for many years, with conspicuous ability, sat on the bench, and who is a very eminent jurist. Speaking in the course of that debate, the Minister of Justice thus defined the powers of Parliament on this question. He said:
I understand perfectly that In those provinces-
That is to say, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia

-which have divorce courts and which have also a. substantive law which those courts can administer and supply, prescribing the causes giving the right to divorce, the principle of divorce is recognized by the law. But in the five provinces where those conditions do not exist, not only the oourts have not jurisdiction to pronounce divorces but there is no law under which anybody is entitled to a divorce; and if this Parliament confined itself to giving jurisdiction to hear divorce cases to courts in

those provinces, those oourts would sit with no law to apply. You cannot, to any purpose, confide to the court the procedure-to use the word of the motion-by which divorces are to be obtained, until you have first made a substantive law to which that procedure is going to apply.
In other words, my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup), able as he is, has begun his agitation at the wrong end. He is agitating for a more pliable procedure. He *should begin by advocating in these five provinces the enactment of substantive laws on divorce. He might have a pliable procedure, but he would have no law to apply the procedure to. To go on with the remarks by the Minister of Justice on that occasion:
This Parliament, to use the expression of the hon. member, grants divorce on a particular ground, passes one Act for one individual, and why does it do it? Because that individual has come to it and said: I want to be an exception to the general law. We talk about coming to Parliament to obtain divorces and we talk about the procedure by which divorces are granted but the whole operation is a legislative Act, and when a man comes to Parliament, on the face of his application he does not ask for a Bill to divorce anybody, but he asks for an Act for the relief of so and so; and relief from what? Prom an obligation that the general law imposes upon him. In those provinces where there is no divorce court their is equally no divorce law, and the general law of those provinces, I have no hesitation in saying, does not know divorce. Most assuredly in the province I come from the law does not know divorce, and it is because there is no law in force that persons, seeking it require special legislation. Bet me speak of my own province-although I have no doubt I shall be borne out by lawyers from the other provinces *-the man who comes here, say from the province of Quebec, and asks this Parliament for a divorce, is asking to be made an exception to the law. He comes here because, by law, he has no right to a divorce. If by law he had a right to a divorce, it would naturally follow that that would be a right enforceable in a court. The reason why-people have to come here is not because the courts have not jurisdiction ; it is because there is no law which the courts could administer if they had the amplest jurisdiction.
In these words the Minister of Justice has gone to the very crux of the question. This Parliament grants relief to so and so from living according to the general law in the province where he comes from; this Parliament does not grant divorce to so and so.
.My hon. friend does not seem to attach much importance to statistics. First of all, let me tell him that the statistics which I used two years ago were taken from an address delivered by a very eminent member of the United States Congress. On that occasion I had applied to the Parlia-

mentary Library to get a special report which had been prepared by Mr. Carroll Wright in 1906. Unfortunately, that report was not on the Shelves at that time, so I had to rely on what this address of the United States senator contained. I will, however, in a few moments, give the House the statistics from the official source. My hon. friend himself will be obliged to agree with me in saying that these statistics are simply appalling, and he will be obliged to say with me that divorce, as an institution in the United States, with the facilities which have been granted by the various legislatures of the Commonwealth, has become the greatest curse of the American Republic. But first of all, let me, Mr. Speaker, give the figures which affect our own case in Canada. As the result of a motion I made the other day, I obtained the following figures with regard to divorces granted by the Parliament of Canada from 1867 to 1915 inclusive. The total number granted was 285-to husbands 158, and to wives 127. By provinces the figures are as follows: Ontario 175, Quebec 42, Manitoba 25, Saskatchewan 8, Alberta 15, British Columbia 2, Northwest Territories 7, Prince Edward Island 1. So that, on the whole, although the number of divorces has been increasing of late, we may fairly claim that in Canada we have a clean sheet compared with that of other countries. But I repeat that if we should facilitate the procedure in the way advocated by my good friend from Hastings, it would tend, in my humble judgment, to make the matrimonial tie lax instead of binding. I say again that the statistics published by the United States Government are simply appalling, and that the example of the United States should be a warning to the Canadian legislator. There are many institutions in the United States which we admire and would willingly borrow, but I regret to say that the divorce statistics published by the United States should be a warning and a lesson to us. By virtue of an Act passed by Congress, two investigations have been held in the United States on the question of divorce. The first investigation covered the period from 1867 to 1886, and the second from 1887 to 1906; that is, each investigation covered a period of twenty years. Of. course, one cannot draw up a bill of indictment against any one nation in particular, or against a whole people. I think my hon. friend in the course of his speech admitted the gravity of this question in the United States, and in this connection I should like to quote the words of a well known
ex-President of the Republic-a man whose name is highly respected in his own country and abroad. I refer to ex-President Roosevelt. As a result of petitions presented to Congress, that the
5 p.m. matter was of sufficient importance to warrant another investigation, President Roosevelt sent a special message to Congress creating a new commission. Before the commission set to work, he addressed its members in the following language:
Bishop Doane and gentlemen:
It is a very great pleasure to meet you here. There is a certain tendency to exalt the unessential in dealing with our public questions, and public men especially are apt to get their attention concentrated on questions that have an importance, but a wholly ephemeral importance, compared with the questions that go straight to the root of things. Questions like the tariff and the currency are of literally no consequence whatsoever compared with the vital question of having the unit of our social life, the home, preserved. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the cause you represent. If the average husband and wife fulfil their duties toward one another and toward their children as Christianity teaches them, then we may rest absolutely assured that the other problems will solve themselves. But if we have solved every other problem in the wisest possible way it shall profit us nothing if we have lost our own national soul, and we will have lost it if we do not have the question of the relations of the family put upon the proper basis.
I should like to call the attention of my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup.) to the sentence which follows. My hon. friend admitted that the matrimonial tie might be lax in the United States, but he suggested that that was only in the southern portion, amongst coloured people. President Roosevelt says :
One of the most unpleasant and dangerous features of our American life is the diminishing birth rate, the loosening of the marital tie among the old native American families. It goes without saying that, for the race as for the individual, no material prosperity, no business growth, no artistic or scientific development will count if the race commits suicide. Therefore, Bishop, I count myself fortunate in having the chance to work with you in this matter of vital importance to the national welfare.
From the report of that commission, which President Roosevelt addressed in these ominous words, I have collated some statistics, and to me they are simply appalling. Sir, it is terrible to think that such a great and noble democracy as the neighbouring republic to the south has fallen to such a level in one of the most vital problems of its national life. The growth of divorce in the United States

under the general divorce laws has been unprecedented, and the divorce figures exceed in number those of any other modern nation excepting Japan. Ah analysis of the statistics prepared by Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner of Labour, in 1S89, showed the total number of divorces for a period of twenty years, from 1867 to 1887, to be 328,716, an increase of 157 per cent, while the increase in population for the same period was 60 per cent. The Census Bulletin upon marriage and divorce in the United States, issued by the Department of Labour and Commerce under authority of an Act of Congress, in 1908, shows that the total number of divorces for the entire country from 1887 to 1906 inclusive was 945,625. For the earlier investigation covering tjie twenty years from 1867 to 1886 inclusive, the number reported was 328,716, or hardly more than one-third of the number reported in the second twenty years.
At the beginning of the forty-year period covered by the two investigations, divorces occurred at the rate of 10,000 a year. At the end of that period the annual number was about 66,000. This increase, however, must be considered in connection with the increase in population. An increase of 30 per cent in population between the years 1870 and 1880, was accompanied by an increase of 79 per cent in the number of divorces granted. In the next decade, 1880 to 1890, the population increased 25 per cent and divorces 70 per cent. In the following decade, 1890 to 1900, an increase of 21 per cent in population was accompanied by an increase of 66 per cent in the number of divorces. In the next six years, from 1900 to 1906, population, as estimated, increased 10-5 per cent, and divorces 29-3 per cent. It thus appears that at the end of the forty-year period divorces were increasing about three times as fast as the population, while in the first decade, 1870 to 1880, they increased only about two and two-thirds as fast.
The divorce rate per 100,000 population increased from 29 in 1870 to 82 in 1905. In the former year there was one divorce for every 3,441 persons and in the latter year one for every 1,218. The rate per 100,000 married population was 81 in the year 1870 and 200 in the year 1900. This comparison indicates that divorce is at present two and one-half times as common, compared with married population, as it was forty years ago. Divorce rates appear to be much higher in the United States than in any of the foreign countries for which statistics relating to this subject have been obtained. Two-thirds of the total number
of divorces granted in the twenty-year period covered by this investigation were granted to the wife.
The most common single ground for divorce is desertion. This accounts for 38-9 per cent of all divorces granted in the period 1887 to 1906, 49-4 per cent or almost one-half those granted to the husband, and 33-5 per cent or one-third of those granted to the wife. The next most important ground of divorce is, for husbands, adultery, and for wives, cruelty. Of the divorces granted to husbands in the period from 1887 to 1906, 28'8 per cent were for adultery, and of those granted to wives 27,5 per cent were for cruelty. Only 10 per cent of the divorces granted to wives were for adultery of the husband, and 10-5 per cent of divorces granted to husbands were for cruelty on the part of the wife. Drunkenness was the ground for divorce, in 5-3 per cent of the cases for which the wife brought suit, and in 1-4 per cent of the cases in which the suit was brought by the husband. Intemperance was reported as an indirect or contributory cause for divorce in 5 per cent of the divorces granted to the husband, and in 18 per cent of the divorces granted to the wife, and appeared as a direct or indirect cause in 19-5 per cent of all divorces, and 26-3 per cent of those granted to wives, and 6-1 per cent of those granted to husbands. Only 15 per cent of the divorces were returned as contested and probably in many of these cases the contesting was haTdly more than a formality.
The average duration of marriages terminated by divorce is about ten years. Sixty per cent, or three-fifths, last less than ten years, and 40 per cent last longer. Of the divorced couples known to have been married in the United States, 88.5 per cent were married in the same state in -which they were divorced. Of all the divorced couples known to have been married in foreign countries, 36-9 per cent were married in Canada, 12-7 per cent in England, 16-1 per cent in Germany, and 1-9 per cent in Ireland. Children were reported in 39-8 per cent of the total number of divorced cases. The proportion is much larger for divorces granted to the wife than for divorces granted to the husband; children being present in 46,8 per cent of the former class of divorces and 26 per cent of the latter. A reason suggested for this is that the children are usually assigned by the court to- the mothers, and to her, therefore, divorce does not imply separation from her

children, while to the husband it involves a severance of the parental as well as the marital relation.
In England there were 284 divorces in 1902, as compared with 177 in 1901. In Germany, at the same time, there were about 10,000, annually, and in France 21,939, with a tendency towards a rapid increase. Among the Japanese there are about 100,000 divorces per annum. It is estimated that about fifty per cent of divorced couples have children, and it is urged "that consideration for the children of divorced people should be a first concern in stimulating restrictive legislation." It has been stated that three-quarters of the boys in two reformatories, one in Ohio and one in Illinois, come from families broken up by death or divorce, "mainly by divorce."
Now, these are the statistics that I have collected; I trust I have not wearied the House in reading them. I would ask any faix'-minded member of this House if such a statement as I have given is not most significant. Are not these statistics the most palpable evidence that there is, to use the classical expression, "something rotten in the state of Denmark"? Sir, we are engaged in building up to the best of our ability this young country of ours. Canada takes her ideals from Great Britain, from France, from the United States. Is it not our duty to see to it that the moral foundations of our young country be made secure? And how can we make these foundations secure, nay, eternal, if not by first preserving the home and the sanctity of marriage?
Notwithstanding what has been said by some hon. members, I am optimistic as to the conditions that will face this country after the war. I believe that we shall receive millions of immigrants from the various countries of the world. We shall receive many from the Western States of America; we shall receive, and will welcome, many from the British Islands. Many will come from other parts of Europe, and I regret to say that among these will he some from those countries, enumerated by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), where divorce procedure is facilitated.
I freely grant that we can profit largely by the experiences of the countries of origin of our coming immigrants; permit me to say that we may benefit also by the gross errors of those countries. The compiler of this bulletin says, speaking of the United States:
Apparently the divorce rate, like the velocity of a falling body, is constantly increasing, and it is impossible to determine statistically from available data just what the results would be if the rate reached at any particular time remained constant. In other words, no statistics bearing on this question of the duration of marriages terminated by divorce have been obtained that accurately represent present conditions or conditions at any particular period; for the conditions are not static, but dynamic.
If the velocity of the divorce race is constantly increasing in the United States, I say it is our duty as Canadian legislators not to imitate the legislation under which the immigrants coming to our country from the United States have lived; it is our duty not to provide that these immigrants shall find in Canada statutory provisions in this respect similar to those in force in the Western States. If ever the adage " let well enough alone " was true, it is in regard to this matter. If you facilitate the procedure-and the motion of my hon. friend aims to facilitate it-you facilitate the causes. I say again that the greater facilities for divorce, the larger the number of divorces; more homes will be broken up, and the continuity of parental authority will be shattered. The welfare of the nation depends on the home; if you loosen the home ties, the welfare of the nation will be enormously affected.
The civil law of some provinces allows divorce a vinculo, as was stated by my hon. friend. The church law, on the contrary-when I say " church law I do not refer to the law uf one particular church, it is the law of the Anglican Church as well-allows divorce a mensa et thoro, which is the old term for separation. As I stated a moment ago, I do not wish to be dogmatic in this matter, but I say that I prefer the law of the church, whether it be the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church; whether it be the law extolled by the best minds in the Protestant as well as in the Catholic world; I accept the view which condemns divorce as a violation of natural law. Husband and wife are parents of the same child, and the natural relationship of each to the child inevitably produces, as between husband and wife, a natural relationship one to the other. No decree of a court or no Act of Parliament can undo that relationship. If marriage is temporary and ephemeral, parentship is temporary and ephemeral. If the child is educated to regard parentship as a thing which can be set aside with the help of certain legal formalities, the whole structure on which our society rests will be undermined; if we


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker I am one of those
who believe that divorce as administered in the United States has been a great curse to both the domestic and social life of that country, i I have 'been very much impressed by the speech just delivered by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). Whether I act from conscientious scruples or from the views which my church takes on divorce, whether I am against divorce or not, we meet with the condition in this country that divorce is granted, and so I, under our civil laws, come to the same conclusion as my hon. friend from Hastings: that some reform is necessary in this country in the manner of divorce procedure. I do not, however, reach that conclusion on the same premises or on the same grounds as does my hon. friend.
I reach that conclusion not because the present facilities for obtaining divorce in this country are cumbersome, nor because they are expensive; I reach that conclusion, and in this I agree with my hon. friend from Hastings, because the procedure towards obtaining divorce is absurd. My hon. friend from Hastings has pictured the facility with which rich men in this country can obtain divorce, as compared with the outlawing, so to speak, of the poor man or poor woman who has proper grounds for obtaining divorce, but who has not the money. Of course, we meet with these conditions in every walk of life; we meet with them in our courts. How often do we meet persons in this country who have good cases to take before the courts and who could legally establish their rights, but who have not the money to fee counsel to argue their cases in the courts. From that point of view, I do not think that my
hon. friend from Hastings has made a very strong case.
But, Sir, let us look for a moment at the methods by which divorces are obtained- apart from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, in the provinces whose inhabitants must come to this Parliament to obtain divorce. They go to the Senate; they make application by advertising in the Royal Gazette for six months, which is absurd; a Bill is introduced in the Senate, it is referred to a small Committee of the Senate which takes the evidence. I am not finding fault with the ability of the members of the Senate Committee to deal with any cause, and, I may say that, in my opinion, the chairman of that committee is one of the very ablest lawyers in Canada; a man well qualified to judge of what is, and what is not evidence. This small Committee of the Senate hears the evidence, passes it up to the Senate, and the evidence is printed. The Senate passes upon it, and then the evidence comes here. How many hon. members of this House ever take the trouble to yead that evidence, to see whether or not, in their estimation, as lawyers, or as citizens not of that avocation, the evidence is sufficient to justify the granting of divorce?
I say the proceeding is absurd. We vote on divorces in this House without knowing what we are voting on, and I believe that apart from the Senate Committee which hears the evidence, the Upper House is in the same position as we are.
I may point out that in the session of 1912 I took the trouble to read over the evidence in a divorce case which came from the Senate. I am a lawyer, and know something about the rules of evidence; I can distinguish fairly well what is and what is not evidence, and I came to the conclusion that, on the understanding that there was only one reason for which this Parliament can grant divorce, there was absolutely no evidence in that case which would entitle the applicant to divorce. I took the matter up in Committee of the Whole, and I got such support from the other members of this House that the Bill was thrown out. One would think that the counsel who had charge of that case, and who was paid for looking after it in the Senate would have undertaken to get all the evidence necessary to prove his case before the Senate Committee, but in the opinion of this House he did not do so. The following year he came back with an overwhelming

abundance of evidence; the application was not opposed, and I am given to understand that there was a mutual understanding between the parties that there should be no effort to oppose the divorce. That is only one instance, and I believe that Bills of divorce, or of relief, or whatever you care to call them, pass through this Parliament, and are granted by this Parliament every session where there is no evidence to support. That is the reason I agree with my hon. friend from Hastings that there should be some reform.
I believe, Sir, that this Parliament is not a proper tribunal to try divorce cases, for the reason that only a very small proportion of the members of this Parliament comes face to face, or in direct communication with the persons who seek divorce, and give their evidence. I take the ground that a judge who hears the evidence is the person qualified to grant the application or not as he deems fit. I take the stand that only one tribunal in this country is capable-I will use the word capable-of hearing and passing upon divorce cases, and that tribunal is to be found in our courts. I believe that in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick we have the very best tribunals in Canada for hearing and trying divorce cases. This Parliament is composed of men of different walks of life, it is composed, it is true, of some lawyers, and it is no reflection on the other members of the House, or of Parliament, to say that a lawyer is trained to understand what is evidence, and that the other members of Parliament are not so trained. While they have other merits far superior to those possessed by the lawyers in this Chamber or in the Senate, they have not the merit which enables them to pass upon such matters. In the province of Nova Scotia we have a divorce court, and it does not, as my hon. friend from Rouville seemed to think, if I understood him rightly, furnish a greater facility for obtaining divorce than doe3 this Parliament. I think, perhaps, it has the contrary effect, because I believe there are divorces granted by this Parliament which no judge in the country would grant if the cases came before him. So I say that, if this Parliament did undertake to reform the procedure of divorce, by handing over to the courts of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the jurisdiction for granting divorce, it would not be giving easier facilities for obtaining divorce, but it would be safe__
gg?;: - -
guarding the marriage tie in this country to a very great extent indeed. That is my personal view. While, from conscientious scruples I am opposed to divorce, we have a condition in this country to deal with, and to meet that condition we should hand over the jurisdiction of trying divorce cases to the tribunals which are competent to handle them. I am not going to develop this argument any further, but I do say that I disagree with my hon. friend from Rouville when he says that the effect of reform in the way of giving jurisdiction to the courts would be to create easier facilities for obtaining divorce. My hon. friend from Rouville says that it might enlarge the grounds on which divorce is granted, but I do not understand the motion of the hon. member for Hastings to contemplate any such enlargement; I do not understand him to ask that other grounds for divorce should be added.
I do not so understand it and I listened to him very carefully. So, I think this House will be well advised, if it does take into consideration the motion of my hon. friend from East Hastings, if it does take away jurisdiction from this Parliament to hear evidence and pass upon divorce, and if it hands that jurisdiction over to the courts of those provinces which at present have not that jurisdiction.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty, as the representative of a constituency in Quebec, to declare that it is -creditable that every Roman Catholic member and senator since Confederation has had to vote, on principle, against divorce. No divorce Bill has ever passed this House, or the Senate, except "on division," and when I had the honour of occupying your Chair, Mr. Speaker, it was always my duty to declare that a divorce Bill passed "on division." Fifty members of this House are therefore debarred from voting on the merits of any of these petitions for divorce coming before it, and we are often asked not to oppose a divorce, or not to go to the committee, and allow a petition to go through. Therefore, one-quarter of this Parliament is debarred from dealing with this question at all.
I do not want to enter into the merits of this question of divorce. I am opposed to divorce on principle. I think that, far from extending the facilities for granting divorces, we should do everything to keep the divorce evil out of Canada. At Confederation, if divorce was recognized at all by the Dominion Parliament, it was prob-

ably because divorce courts were then in existence in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They were not then in existence in Ontario, and they never will be in Quebec. But, whether they shall continue to exist or not, here or there, why we should grant greater facilities is something I cannot understand. There is no practical need of keeping up the custom of granting divorces. As far as Quebec is concerned, I do not believe any man or woman of my faith has ever applied to the Dominion Parliament for a divorce. The Roman Catholic church would not sanction it, and any person making application would be beyond the pale of the church.
I remember the late member for Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), an Anglican, making a very forcible speech in this House against divorce. Divorce appears to be one of the greatest curses in the United States to-day. Cardinal Gibbons, and a great many of the leading men in the United States, have declared against divorce. The fact that the principle has extended throughout the world is no argument in its favour. If Italy and Spain have been able to debar divorce it is to their credit. If you attack the home, you weaken the family tie, and you undermine the foundation of the state. The one great basic institution in this country is the home, and once the home is destroyed the state is of little account. I have heard distinguished lawyers in this House say that divorces have been granted on evidence on which a cat would not be hanged, and the way in which some divorce cases which I do not care to mention-have been dealt with, and are dealt with year after year, is almost a parody on justice. If the courts were to try causes as this Parliament has handled divorce cases, it would be nothing more nor less than a parody on justice. I have never given a vote for divorce, and I hope, so long as I am a member of this House, that I will do all I can to make divorce as difficult as possible to obtain. I believe that in so doing I am fulfilling the most sacred duty that a representative of the people has imposed upon him, and that is to do what he can to protect the home against an encroachment of this kind.
Mr. A. A. McLiEAN ("Queens, P.E.I.): Mr. Speaker, the statement has been made in the House that Prince Edward Island has a divorce court. We have a statute in Prince Edward Island which provides that any person who wants a divorce must petition the Lieutenant-Governor. The
expression " lieutenant-governor has been interpreted to mean the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has never authorized a court to hear divorce cases. As far as I know there has never been a divorce granted in Prince Edward Island, although the statute there provides that the lieutenant-governor may grant a fiat to the chief justice of the Supreme Court to try a divorce case. The lieutenant-governors of Prince Edward Island have always refused to grant a fiat so that in Prince Edward Island we have practically no divorce court. I do not know whether the same condition prevails in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia, but, in Prince Edward Island that statute has never been availed of and we have never had any divorces in that province. Any person who has sought a divorce, and I believe there has only been one, has had to come before the Senate Committee at great expense. The expense of a divorce to an applicant from that province would, I believe, be something like $600 or $1,000. I believe that my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) is trying to remedy that condition and to cut down the expense. The Senate is simply a court for the rich man, and the poor man has no show. If the principle of divorce is one which should prevail in this country there should be the same remedy given to all classes. I am not going to express any opinion as to the right of any person to go before any court to get a divorce, but as we have the law, surely something should be done to simplify it, and to give equal rights all our citizens.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. WILLIAM THOBURN (North Lanark); Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the discussion which took place this afternoon on divorce, particularly as I am one of the sub-committee of the Commons that was appointed to attend the Senate Committee meetings on divorce. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) approves of it or not. Personally, I think it was a step in the right direction. Before the sub-committee was appointed, the usual procedure was for the evidence to be taken before the Senate Committee; it was then printed, and circulated amongst the members of the Private Bills Committee and

the members of the House of Commons. Very few of these gentlemen took the pains to read the evidence, and the consequence was that when the Bill came up little attention was paid to it. For that reason, I think the appointing of the sub-committee was a Step in the right direction.
I heartily agree with the hon. member for East Hastings that there should be some improvement in our system of divorce. But how to go about it is a problem; and as far as I could learn, the hon. member himself did not offer any solution. I would have wished that he had gone a little further in his elucidation of the subject. From my experience I have no hesitation in saying that the power of granting divorces should be removed altogether from the Parliament of Canada, and placed in the law courts. To that extent, I agree with' the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). A very, very delicate question was touched on this afternoon in connection with church denominations. I confess, as a member of [DOT]the sub-committee, that I was somewhat surprised when I was told that gentlemen of a certain religious persuasion were entirely opposed to granting divorce, on account of the rules of itheir church. It has been stated here this afternoon that more than one denomination is opposed to divorce, and that seems to me to open up a very serious question. If I understand the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) aright, I think his statement was to the effect that in certain cases he would rather obey the laws of his church than the laws of Canada. If I have misquoted him, perhaps he will correct me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I said that on the question of divorce I preferred to follow the judgments of the ecclesiastical courts rather than the judgments of the civil courts.


Mr. THOBLTRN:: If that practice became general, where would it land the people of this country? If one denomination has a right to make laws for its members, so has every denomination in the Dominion, and if the members of these different denominations should prefer to obey the laws of their own church rather than the laws of Canada, a very serious state of affairs would develop. That is a question that might be debated in this House for several weeks, and it is one which might cause a tremendous upheaval. It does seem to me
	.
that the laws of Canada should have precedence over the laws of any church.
I wish to give some reasons why I think the power of granting divorces should be taken from Parliament and vested in the law courts of Canada. As the hon. member for Cape Breton said, there are very few members of this House who know the procedure of a divorce suit in Parliament. And let me tell the hon. member for East Hastings that it is not so much a question of cost. Let him reduce the expense of divorce proceedings here to almost any price he pleases, and still there will be danger of injustice as the court is constituted. Here is the procedure, as well as I can remember it. The case goes before the Senate Chamber and it is then relegated to the Senate Committee on Divorce. The hon. member for Cape Breton did not agree with the verdicts given by that committee. That committee is composed of eleven members, if I recollect aright, and among these are some of the brightest minds of the Senate, including some of the ablest lawyers to be found in this country. And, from my experience, I would go so far as to make this suggestion which the hon. member for East Hastings may think it worth while to consider: If divorce is to remain with this Parliament, then let the proceedings end with the Senate Divorce Committee. When the divorce Bill is brought before this House it is relegated to the Private Bills Committee, and before the subcommittee was, appointed, the Private Bills Committee took the evidence in these cases as read, and the same might almost be said when the matter came before the House of Commons. I would like to know how many members of this House ever read the evidence in divorce cases before giving their vote, if they were called upon to vote.
I have a vivid and enduring recollection of one case that came before this House last session, and which had passed the Senate Committee unanimously. Let me tell hon. members that for a divorce Bill to pass that committee the evidence has to be conclusive beyond the shadow of a doubt. This case came before the Private Bills Committee of this House and was there argued pro and con to the best of the ability of those who took part, with the result that the Bill was defeated by a majority of one. The evidence was printed, and the case was considered such a miscarriage of justice that, if I remember well, it was submitted to the Prime Minister, and he voted with others to refer it back to the Private

Bills Committee. Here is where comes in the nefarious work of which I complain, and that is a strong word, but the occasion requires strong words. When it was found that the case had to go back to the Private Bills Committee outside influence was brought in and wire-pulling engaged in. If the case had been before a bench of judges the parties would never have dared to act as they did on that occasion. I stood at the door of the corridor leading to room 16, and saw an individual standing outside that door, button-holing the members as they came out, and using his influence to get them to vote against the applicant for divorce, and this was an individual whose name was actually mentioned as one of the parties implicated. That is why I say it was a nefarious transaction. The result was that when the Bill was sent back to the Private Bills Committee, owing to the influence that had been brought to bear on some of the members, and because they had heard only one side of the question, the Bill was defeated. There were only a certain few members who were familiar with the evidence in the case, but as a result of the canvassing that was done by that individual the Bill was lost. Were the printed evidence submitted to any court of justice in Canada that decision would be reversed.
Reference was made here this afternoon to the law courts and divorce laws of the United States. It does not follow that because divorce procedure in the United States is lax that it should be lax in Canada. We know that there are many laws of the United States the enforcement of which seems to us to be lax. I have too much faith in the judiciary of Canada to be in the least afraid of the results of their decisions if suits for divorce were referred to them. There would be no chance in the world that resort would be had to such tactics as I have spoken of here to-night.
I have given, as plainly as I possibly could, my reasons, based upon personal experience, for holding that divorce cases should be removed from the Parliament of Canada and delegated to the law courts, presided over by at least three judges. I feel satisfied that if this plan were adopted, justice would be done to all persons concerned, and the expense would be small compared with what it is at the present time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We certainly have to thank the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup)
for having given occasion to the very interesting debate which we have been privileged to listen to this afternoon and evening. In the very eloquent speech with which he supported his resolution, the hon. gentleman evinced a very strong desire to make quite clear the things that he was not asking for, and he insisted that he was not asking for any addition to what he described as the existing causes for divorce. I do not think it could be suggested that his resolution looked to legislation increasing the existing causes of divorce that the law may now know, or creating any causes for divorce if the law now knows none. By his motion he further insisted that he did not ask for a transference to the courts of this country of the jurisdiction over questions of divorce, or the creation of courts for the purpose of hearing such cases. His motion did not look to the termination of the present procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament. Let us look at the words of the motion :
The procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament, and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof, are so unsatisfactory, besides being prohibitive to the great majority of the people of Canada, that the same should he taken into immediate consideration hy the Government during the present session, with a view to reform.
I am quite willing to accept the hon. gentleman's interpretation of his resolution, but I do submit that I may be excused for understanding it as calling for the substitution of some other procedure for that under which divorces are granted by Parliament, and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof. There are two things which he declared to be unsatisfactory, and I read them as moaning that the procedure by means of Acts of Parliament, and the expense that it entails, are so unsatisfactory that some remedy ought to be applied. I take from what he has said that what is intended to be conveyed by the motion is that it is the manner in which the procedure is carried out that he finds unsatisfactory. If in that regard I do not quite grasp my hon. friend's meaning, I should be glad to be corrected, because I have no doubt that he will give me credit for desiring to be perfectly fair, and desiring to understand his motion as he intended it to be understood.


William Barton Northrup: I certainly thought I
had so worded my iresolution 'aJs ito convey tfoe meaning itihiat any improvement that could be imiadie upon the present system woull'd toe desirable. Thialt improvement

might be effected by piioedure somewlbait siiniiair to the existing procedure, or by referring the .matter to the aomts bf the prtov-imces, or by establishing a special court for the purpose


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I may conclude that I was 'alt 'least (half right in my uinidieir-stamddtng. I think it is limpiortamt that we slhoiuild start out with ia clear umicteristaaid-img of wlhiat is covered by the motion and what is 'sought to Ibe obtained by it; because very imueh turns upon that. I understand nioiw that the bon gentleman is looking far ia remedy that may 'consist 5Jn doing awiay entirely with the system Of the granting of divorces toy a 'legislative Act of this Parliament, and' in the estalblilstoimeof of courts that shall have jurisdiction to grant those divorces Failing that, be would have some improvement in the nrannier in which 'the Senate and the House of Coim-imons of Canada carry on their procedure in connection with such Acts as may be passed granting relief to persons who seek to be released from their .marital obligations. Very much of the argument of the hon. gentleman, as I apprehended it,-this view was subsequently expressed toy the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mi. Carroll!) and strongly supported by the toon, gentleman who sits to my right (Mr. Ttolo-bum)-would lead to the conclusion that the proper action was the substitution of the courts of the country fox Parliament, whether existing courts, or courts created for the purpose, I do not understand that he made any distinction in that regard. He pointed out, also, as constituting grievances or giving rise to injustices, certain rules of the Senate laying down requirements from parsons applying for acts granting them release from their marital obligations. As I understand it, tine bon. gentleman did noit desire to discuss the matter of divorce as .an abstract question; he proceeded upon the 'assumption that there already existed a system under Which divorces ware granted, and, starting froim that assumption, he limited himself to ia i conisidleraltikm of the question of how the method by which that was done might be improved
In dealing with the subject the hon. -gentleman covered la very wide field; ia field wider, perhaps than was 'absolutely necessary to 'his purpose, which consisted simply in pointing out the defects in the method of procedure now followed by the Houses of this Parliament.
I am not disposed to complain of that,

however, because it gave us the advantage of listening to a very learned, a very interesting, a very eloquently, and at the same time a fairly and moderately set forth exposition of the views that have been entertained and the doctrines laid down by different churches at different -periods. I do not understand that that has any very direct bearing upon this question of procedure. It was, as I have said, most interesting, and it certainly has a bearing on the wider question that may be said to lie behind this question of procedure, namely, the great wide question as to whether we ought to have legislation providing for divorce, and what, if we had such legislation, should be the causes that would justify divorce, and, how such legislation, should be administered; how the laws in which that legislation might be embodied should be enforced. In dealing with that subject the hon. member referred to what had been in particular the teaching of the Catholic Church as it was prior to the Reformation, and as I think it has been since; and he made very clear the distinction between certain procedures which, in accordance with the doctrines of that church, were and are recognized as leading, to what he described as the nullification of marriages, and what we know as divorce.
I think the hon. gentleman made fairly clear to us that, under the teaching of the Catholic Church, the possibility of divorce-which I understand to be the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage, dissolution so complete as to destroy any link binding the two consorts and leave them both thereafter as perfectly free to marry as if they had never contracted a previous marriage-was denied. He went on to point out, in answer, I think, to an observation made by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), that, on the other hand, there were causes which gave rise to what he called the nullification of marriage; that is to say, causes which constituted impediments to the valid contracting of a marriage and which, though they existed were ascertained only after the celebration of the marriage, led to a decree of nullity of such marriage. He spoke of it as the nullification of those marriages. I think it would be more correct to describe it as a declaration that such marriages had always been null. The distinction between the divorce and the declaration of nullity being, that the divorce deals with a recognized

validly existing marriage and dissolves it, whereas the declaration of nullity rests upon different causes which were enumerated, and simply establish the fact that at the time of the entering into the marriage a cause existed which prevented its being validly entered into and, therefore, that there had been no marriage. In this connection the hon. gentleman referred to one case in particular that he thought afforded an extraordinary illustration of how that might work out; and he also gave us to understand that in the administration of that system there was liable to result, and in fact did result, the same wrong or injustice which he claims exists under the present system, whereby the rich were enabled to have a remedy and the poor were deprived of it. I am not familiar with the particular case which he cites, and, of course, I presume that no one would undertake to deny that in the determination of the numerous cases which 'arose in the application of that law, there may have been instances of very erroneous decisions of which the ease to which the hon. member refers may possibly have been one. I am not interested to contend here that there never were any incorrect decisions, nor, indeed, am I in a position to say that that particular decision was not in itself correct, because, if I followed his statement of the facts, it might be a perfectly correct decision if it were considered, as I believe at certain times it was considered, that even the illegitimate connection between two people created or 'gave rise to an affiinity, and it might be that that affinity constituted an impediment. However, I am not interested to go into that question. It may be perhaps assumed that there was a very erroneous decision or, if it were in accordance with the law, that that law worked out to very undesirable results and that a question of expense might arise under that system, the rich man having opportunity and the poor man not. I am not in a position to speak as to circumstances in those very far distant days, but I might point out that so far as those actions of nullity are concerned, they still continue to the present day, and we have them in our province of Quebec under the provisions of our civil code. I am not aware that there is any special or particular expense attached to such an action. My personal experience is that the few cases I happen to know of that kind were between very poor people, and they found mo greater obstacle in their way in having that law applied than in having any
other law applied. I make these observations because I thought it desirable to,-I would not say to correct, but to make perfectly clear some things in connection with that system, which perhaps did not come out as clearly as they might from the statement of the hon. member. In saying that I do not wish at all to suggest that he was not intending to give us a perfectly fair statement, or that his statement was not perfectly fair in every respect.
I come to this motion in so far as it may be said to involve a motion calling for action looking to the substitution of the courts of justice in the exercise of their judicial functions, for this Parliament in the exercise of its legislative powers, in dealing with applications, or petitions, of persons who desire to be relieved from their marital obligations. When this matter was before the House some few years ago on the motion of the hon. gentleman, I took occasion then to express my views on the abstract question of whether we should have divorce legislation or not, and I do not purpose to repeat them now. No good purpose would be served by my doing so; for what they are worth they are on record. Nor do I understand that the question arises here, or calls for decision upon this present motion, whether or not we ought to have such substantive legislation. The hon. member limits himself to the question of procedure. My hon. friend said in support of his position, that as a matter of procedure a court could be better trusted to deal with petitions for divorce than can be these Houses of Parliament. One thing, however, I think, must be conceded.
That is, that before any court can deal with a divorce proceeding there must be in existence a law recognizing divorce, and providing causes of divorce, a law which that court can administer and enforce. It cannot be denied that if it be true that in any part of this country there is no law giving to a party the_ right of divorce for any cause whatsoever,' it would be a vain proceeding merely to create a court, or to give to an existing court in each part of the country jurisdiction to decide upon questions of divorce, because the court to which that jurisdiction would be given, or the court- that might be so created, would find itself face to face with no law which it could administer. There would be no ground on which a party could come before that court saying: under the law I am entitled to this remedy.
I do not think it can be denied that in all the provinces of this country, save those

which had a divorce law and divorce courts when they came into Confederation, there is no substantive law providing for divorce. The law in these provinces does not know divorce, and if to-morrow we should pass a law saying that the courts in these provinces should have jurisdiction in divorce cases, we would be no further advanced than we are at this moment in the direction in which we are asked to go. Take for instance the province of Quebec, where the whole law on the subject consists in the one statement of the Code: that marriage is indissoluble except by death. Give jurisdiction to the courts there to hear divorce cases, and what could they do but say that there can be no divorce, because the law is that marriage is indissoluble except by death.


Edmond Proulx: Would not the law be
passed by this Parliament?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I am pointing out is that if we limited ourselves to saying that the courts should have jurisdiction in divorce cases, we would not produce any result. It would be necessary for us to go further and pass a law establishing divorce in those provinces in which such a law is unknown at present.


William Barton Northrup: Does the hon. minister mean to say, that if this House were to pass a law conferring jurisdiction in regard to divorce, say on the Supreme Court of the province of Ontario, the judges of that court could not give a decree of divorce whenever they saw fit.
Mr. DOHERTY [DOT] If we limit ourselves to saying that the courts of the province of Ontario should have jurisdiction in divorce cases, the duty of the judges would be to exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with the law in force in the province, determining when a man was entitled to divorce. I would ask the hon. gentleman if there is any law in force in Ontario to-day determining when a man is entitled to divorce.


William Barton Northrup: I would not venture
to place my opinion against that of the learned Minister of Justice, but Lord Campbell when Chancellor of England said most distinctly that there was such a law. I will quote his statement later.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am surprised at the
statement that Lord Campbell said so. I would be interested to know under what circumstances and conditions the question came before Lord Campbell. Will the hon.

member be good enough to quote me Lord Campbell's opinion now?


William Barton Northrup: Certainly. The point is this: in England, up to the year 1857, the law was exactly the same as it is to-day in Canada. In order to obtain divorce one had to go to Parliament, just as in Canada the parties have to go to Parliament. That procedure was described by Lord Campbell, when the report was brought in to change it and to give jurisdiction to the courts instead of to Parliament


Mr. MURPHY:: What year was that.


William Barton Northrup: 1850. Lord Campbell
said!
By these means the right to obtain a divorce a, vinculo was definitely established. It was established, however, in the rudestthat was by Parliament, as we have it to-day,
-and most inconvenient manner; for the proceeding was a judicial one by a legislative process, and it had all the inconveniences which necessarily result from the discussion of such a question in a mixed and popular assembly.
In England then the practice, or procedure was as we have it here. A commission was appointed to consider the matter, and the jurisdiction was transferred to the courts. On page 13 of the report of that Commission I find:
Lord Campbell who was chairman of the Commission of 1850, stated in the House of Lords that the object of the Commissioners was not to alter the law-
So there was a law.
-but the procedure by which the law was carried into effect.
For fifty years we have had the Senate making general rules by which, if you wish divorce, you must advertise, pay your money, and bring your witnesses to the Senate Committee. We have that law in Ontario, just as in England they used to get divorce at Westminster.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the actual practice as regards divorce before the courts of Ontario?


William Barton Northrup: No court in Ontario has jurisdiction in regard to divorce, but suppose this House were to give the Supreme Court of Ontario such jurisdiction,
I submit that it would have jurisdiction to grant divorce. Although it is the practice and custom to-day to grant divorce only on the ground of adultery, we have just as much right, if we cared to exercise it, to pass a law providing that a woman who did

not like the colour of her husband's hair should be entitled to divorce.


Edmond Proulx: By the British North
America Act, jurisdiction in regard to marriage and divorce is delegated to this Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The first statement as cited by my hon. friend is:
From the end of the 17th century, Acts of Parliament dissolving marriage became frequent.
The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the law of divorce in 1850, in the 26th paragraph of their report state as follows:-By these means-
That is, by Acts of Parliament, legislative enactments, in each particular case.
-the right to obtain a divorce a vinculo was definitely established.
I never disputed that. But each Act of Parliament is a law for each case and for no other, and the right to obtain a divorce a vinculo was definitely established by means of such Acts.


Charles Murphy: Just as it is here now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just as it is here now. He says:
It was established, however, in the rudest and most inconvenient manner; for the proceeding was a judicial one by a legislative process, and it had all the inconveniences which necessarily result from the discussion of such a question in a mixed and popular assembly.
That I do not dispute at all, but why, in England, did they then need for each particular person a legislative enactment? It was because by the general law this person had no right to a divorce. Parliament established for itself, I presume, as we have done here, a certain practice whereby, if persons established certain facts, it would enact a special law for those particular persons.
Lord Campbell, who was chairman of the commission in 1850, stated in the House of Lords that the object of the commissioners was not to alter the law but the procedure, by which the law was carried into effect.


William Barton Northrup: There was "the law."


Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt Lord Campbell used the words "the law," but when they came to carry into effect what Lord Campbell said, what did they do? They did not say that a court of justice shall have jurisdiction to hear divorce cases, and then stop there; they realized what I am contending for, that they must enact a substantive law, and they did it in that very Act of 1858. The Act does not simply say to the courts: You shall have jurisdiction in divorce cases,
but the Act goes on to say: Adultery by the wife-I am not undertaking to give the exact words, but the effect-shall be a sufficient cause; adultery by the husband, accompanied by cruelty, shall be a sufficient cause, and it goes on further to say to these courts that, even if adultery is proved, you shall not, in particular cases where there is guilt on the part of the complainant, grant a decree. Lord Campbell says, we do not want to change the law. But, when Lord Campbell said that, it is perfectly plain that he did not make the law of England. Lord Campbell, in speaking about the report of the committee, said that they did not want to change the law but the manner in which it was applied. It might as well be argued that because my hon. friend is saying to-day that he does not want to change the law, but only the procedure, he thereby establishes that there was a substantive law in this country. There was the established practice of Parliament to recognize the right to a divorce in particular cases, and to legislatively enact when certain things were proved granting this right to the persons proving them. That is the thing that the commissioners describe. I do not quite understand whether Lord Campbell is responsible for the language, but
9 p.m. he did set forth in his report the means by which the right was established; that is to say, by a legislative enactment in each particular case. I have only to say, with all respect, that I have yet to learn that the expression of a lawyer, no matter how great his distinction may be, in Parliament or in a report such as we are dealing with, makes the law.
I confess that it is a matter of some surprise-and I have read a good many books on this subject-to have it suggested to me that prior to 1857 there was a law in England establishing a right to divorce, and fixing the causes for which it might be determined. I have not before me the books, but I have taken occasion, within the last few days, to read several of the leading authors on the subject. I have a quotation here from Mr. Gemmill, who was a very distinguished lawyer in this province, and who had a very large practice in connection with divorce proceedings. He states in his work on the subject:	,
As regards divorces which rescinded the marriage contract, namely, divorces a vinculo, strictly speaking they were unknown in England. By the law of England that contract was indissoluble, and when once it had been constituted in a legal manner there were no means of putting an end to it in any of the courts, and in order to have the marriage dis-



solved Parliament stepped in to provide a special remedy by passing a particular law in favour of those who could make out a case which would warrant its interference.
Again, at page 13, it is declared:	[DOT]
Divorce a vinculo, or a dissolution of a lawful marriage was not, down to 1858, obtainable in any court of law, but only by a special Act of the legislature.
At page 12 he refers to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. With all deference, I cannot accept the proposition that because Lord Campbell used the words "the law," Tead with the context it establishes that a law existed in England.
We all know how laws are made. I understand that my hon. friend does not dispute that, by the common law and up' to the statute of 1858, marriage was indissoluble in England. Until the statute of 1858 you have mo substantive law determining under the general law the right of divorce, and prescribing causes that give rise to that right. I venture to say that in the province of Ontario, neither under the common law as it existed in 1792, nor under any statute subsequently enacted by the original province of Upper Canada, or the old province of Canada-and, of course, there could be none by the province of [DOT] Ontario-notwithstanding the citation which has been made to me-is there any law Which a divorce court, if you merely gave it jurisdiction, could proceed to enforce.


Charles Murphy: Will the hon. gentleman object if I ask him to return to an earlier observation? The minister was proceeding, in speaking of a hypothetical case, to say what the effect would be in the province of Quebec when he was interrupted. Was he about to proceed to say that you would have to establish the law in order to empower the court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I think you would have to establish the law and determine the court which would apply it. Certainly, whatever room for discussion there may be in regard to Ontario-and I feel fairly confident as to the ground upon which I stand even in that province-unquestionably, in the province of Quebec, if you did give jurisdiction, say, to the Superior Court of that province, to sit in divorce cases, they would sit there absolutely powerless in the face of the law which says that marriage is indissoluble, unless this House went further and enacted a substantive 'law of divorce. Then if I am right about Ontario I do npt think it will be disputed that in the other provinces
tMr. Doherty.]
which have since become part of the Dominion having at the time no divorce courts the condition is the same-'and there is no one of the five provinces not now having such courts in which such substantive law can be found, and where you would not have the same result.
I am not now arguing for or against a divorce court. I simply wish to point out what is involved in the proposition of referring these cases to a court. If it is to be of any use at all, this proposition involves the enactment of a substantive law. That being so, before we can determine whether to alter the procedure in the direction of transferring the jurisdiction to the courts, this House and this Parliament must make up its mind whether it is prepared to pass the legislation necessary to establish divorce in those provinces in which it is unknown to the existing law, and to determine the conditions on which it may be granted. I simply wish to point out what would have to be done to meet this motion, in so far as its purpose may be to bring about action transferring the determination of divorce ca'ses to the courts. If I am right, then we can only get a practical result from that by enacting a substantive divorce law. If I am not right, the result of our enacting legislation conferring jurisdiction upon certain courts, the effect whereof would be to bring into active operation some divorce law-such as the hon. member contends exists, for instance, in the province of Ontario-which had been dormant and inoperative up to the present. Whether we should or should not do that involves the determination by this House of the attitude it desires to take, and the action which it is prepared to adopt in the way of divorce legislation, creating, in my view, the right to a divorce in provinces where it does not exist-that will certainQy be necessary for Quebec-and making operative any such law that may exist in a dormant condition in any other province.
Having, as I think,, made that clear, I desire simply to point out that in so far as this motion calls for the transference of the jurisdiction to the courts, it is calling for legislation-and it is calling for legislation this session-upon this matter of divorce, which will either introduce divorce in provinces where it is unknown to the law, or have the effect of rousing up and making operative some dormant law that may be in any of these provinces. After the evidence we have had during the

present discussion, and during the discussion of two years ago of the strong differences of opinion as to the desirability of creating or extending legislation of this kind, as well as by reason of what is known to all of us is a matter of public notoriety, it trill, I think, be conceded there is a divided public opinion in Canada as to whether we should have divorce legislation of this kind.


William Thoburn: What law governs the Senate Committee to-day in regard to divorce? Could not the same law apply to a court? .


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Senate Committee is governed by the rules it has, laid down for itself, and it could revoke those rules to-morrow.


William Thoburn: What gives them the
exclusive jurisdiction over divorce?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have not the exclusive jursidiction. As I understand it, an Act that grants a divorce is a private Act, like any other private Act. The House as well as the Senate must enact it. The parties come here asking for it, just as they come with other private Bills when they want to get something that the general law of the country does not give them. And it is precisely because the general law of the country says: once you are married you can never marry again while your consort is alive, that when one wants to be relieved of	the operation	of	thatgeneral law, he comes to the Parliament of Canada and asks for a law for himself; and each one of these petitioners goes away, where he succeeds, carrying with him a law that is a law	for him-a law	that	takes	himout	of	the operation of the generallaw. I am not here defending the granting of private legislation of that kind; I think the objections to it are perfectly obvious. But, it is well to understand what it is. It is a law for John Smith. I am not discussing whether there may or may not	be	reasons for	doing	that,	butlet	us	clearly grasp	what	it is	thatis being done. It is the exercise of the legMaltive power, that is ail. Parliament decides in each particular ease. It will say tlo la pabticulair individual:	Yes, Sin
view iof whlat you Ihiave laid before uis, we will give you la law for yoiumseHf; yoiur imiair-riiage iis dissolved1. Butt marriage in general remains indissoluble, in all those provinces in wlhidh imiarrdaige is indissoluble, just (as if that Act had never passed.
60*
Mr. MARCIL Could the Dominion Parliament over-ride the Parliament of Quebec in that matter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think so. The htom. gentleman will understand, however, that ih giving opinions offhand in this way, one does 'sio with, ia reservation as to further consideration of 'the matter. But I do not think there lean he any doubt that this Parliament of Canada, having legislative authority to legislate as regards marriage amid divorce-I am not talking now about the solemnization of marriage-I am not talking now about the formalities or ceremonies of marriage but marriage and divorce generally-can repeal pro tanto the legislation on that subject that may at present be in force ill any particular province. The legislation in force in Quebec to-day, governing this subject of' marriage, is the legislation of the old province of Canada, which had the plenitude of the legislative power, and at that time we did not have to consider any question of division of legislative power. Where there is question of repealing some previously existing Haw in the province of Quebec wiith regard to miairriage and dlivoinoe-and I aim here again eliminating 'the question Of fomm,

alities and ceremonies or solemnization of marriage-I do not think it is disputable that this Parliament would have the jurisdiction to repeal that law.


Charles Murphy: Wlhalt will be the consequence of ttlhe passing of such an Act 'here?


Charles Joseph Doherty: For instance, when, this Parliament passes ian Act dissolving the marriage of a person domiciled in the province of Quebec, that Act is in contravention of the provision of the civil code of Quebec, which says that the marriage is dissoluble only by death. But this Parliament has power to legislate .about that, and its legislation is effective in the province of Quebec as well as anywhere else, and it overrides for the particular individual the general disposition of the provincial law.
I have pointed these things out for the purpose of making it perfectly clear that in so far as the hon. member's motion covers-and I understand it does cover but not necessarily call for-the transference of the jurisdiction to the courts, it means that he is asking the Government to give consideration, with a view to action at this session, to the suggestion that we should now legislate to alter the general law with regard to divorce in five of the provinces of this


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the very clear and logical address of the Minister of Justice, in which he dealt with the history of the law of divorce, both in England and in this country.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation 'of 1858 was merely a codification of what was really the common law of England on the subject of divorce. I do not think it will be questioned that the different Acts that were passed by the Imperial Parliament granting divorces to different persons were along even lines: that is, the same principle was recognized throughout in granting these divorces. The Minister of Justice was right when he said that the common law as it was then was not out and out a law, but a custom which was crystallized into a statute in 1858; and the hon. minister did not tell us that in the Statute of 1858 there was anything that was not really the law previous to that year. When the power to enforce the provision, which was put into the form of a statute in 1858, was transferred from the legislature to the courts of the country, I do not think that the law was changed, or that the conditions were changed so far as remedy goes; the rule or custom was simply put in the form of a statute, and its administration was entrusted to the courts instead of the legislature. There is no doubt that a court properly constituted and presided over by one or more learned jurists is more capable of properly administering the law than a mixed assembly of men, some of whom are learned in law and some of whom are not.


William Barton Northrup: I feel that I owe an apology to the House for my failure to express the ideas that were in my mind when I drafted this resolution and when I addressed the House this afternoon. Let me assure you, Sir, that it was not owing to any intentional disrespect, but to my ignorance and to the limitations of my vocabulary. I would have thought, in my innocence and ignorance, that this resolution was reasonably clear and such that a wayfaring man, though a fool, could not err very much in reading it. I hope the House will pardon me if I take the opportunity of reading it now in the hope that some person, perhaps, may be as ignorant and blind as myself, and may also think that it is a reasonably clear resolution. It 's as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament-
-not by the Senate, but by Parliament.
-and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof, are so unsatisfactory, besides being prohibitive to the great majority of the people of Canada, the same should be taken into immediate consideration by the Government during the present session, with a view to reform.
The expense and the procedure at present are so unreasonable that the Government this session should take the matter into consideration with a view to reform. That
is the whole thing. One hon. gentleman argues from that, that because divorces in the United States have multiplied to a great extent, therefore the same result would follow if there were a reform of our procedure, although everybody knows that in the United States divorces are granted on almost every ground under the sun, and that an enormous negro population greatly increases the percentage of divorces. Another hon. gentleman argued that if my motion were passed it would be an insult to the Senate because, he said, we have no right to arrogate to ourselves the power of reforming their rules. Is there a word about the Senate in this resolution? I thought that every member of this House knew that no Bill became law unless it passed both this House and the Senate. It might be that, if a Committee were appointed and sat, it would find that all the defects existing at the present time were in the procedure of this House, and not in that of the other branch of Parliament. But inasmuch as every member of the House who has spoken has admitted that the procedure is defective, it seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs that the Minister of Justice, speaking for the Government, should object to doing something to correct what he ' admits to be wrong for fear that the resolution now before the House would be a reflection on the Senate, when there is not even mention of the Senate in the resolution.
Then the Minister of Justice argued-he harped upon it again and again-that my motion must establish a court. Is there a word in the motion about a court? Is it not perfectly possible, that a committee might be formed of members of this House and of the Senate who would effect a wonderful improvement of the procedure as it exists at the present time, and that still divorce might be granted by Act of Parliament? I do not say that that is the best way of correcting the evil; I am not committing myself to that; I am not concerned in that question. But I am trying to persuade the Government, which admits that the procedure is wrong, to do something to rectify it. The appointment of a committee by this House might be ignored by the Senate, and that is the reason why I ask the Government to take the matter in hand. The Government is supposed to have its representatives in the Senate; it is supposed to pass Bills through the Senate and if my resolution is passed, would it he impossible, to have a joint


FREE WHEAT.
John Gillanders Turriff: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to secure to the farmers and people of Canada the advantages of the American market for wheat, wheat products and potatoes, steps should he taken at once to put these articles on the free list in the Canadian Tariff.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is of sueh paramount importance that I feel I should not be doing my duty to my constituents, and to my province, if I did not bring the subject up once more for debate in this House. This question of securing the American market for the western farmer is one that will not down. My hon. friends on the Government benches may try as hard as they like, but they cannot get rid of this question until a proper solution of it has been found. I remember
that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, at a bye-election in the constituency of Macdonald, a few years ago, practically promised the farmers that they would get free wheat if it was in the interests of the country. Three years have passed by since that day, and, so far as we can judge, the farmers are no nearer free wheat than they were at that time. But we have kept up the agitation, and we will keep it up until we get what we are after. In order, Mr. Speaker, that you may have a just idea of what we are talking about, I want to read to the House definitions of the different grades of Manitoba and Minneapolis wheat, and I want hon. gentlemen opposite to pay particular attention to this, so that they will see that when they quote Number 2 Manitoba Northern against Minneapolis Number 2, they are quoting Manitoba wheat that is always two grades, and sometimes more than two grades, higher than the so-called corresponding wheat at Minneapolis. For instance, Number 3 Manitoba Northern is a much better wheat than Number 2 Minneapolis Northern. Let me read the definitions :
Manitoba . Grades Spring Wheat.
No. 1 Manitoba Hard wheat shall be sound and well cleaned, weighing not less than 60 pounds to the bushel, and shall be composed of at least seventy-five per cent of hard Red Fife wheat.
No. 1 Hard White Fife wheat shall be sound and well cleaned, weighing not less than 60 pounds to the bushel, and shall be composed of not less than sixty per cent of hard White Fife wheat and shall not contain more than twenty-five per cent of soft wheat.
No. 1 Manitoba Northern wheat shall be sound and well cleaned, weighing not less than sixty pounds to the bushel, and shall be composed of at least sixty per cent of hard Red Fife wheat.	.
No. 2 Manitoba Northern wheat, shall be sound and reasonably clean, of good milling qualities and fit for warehousing, weighing nop less than 58 pounds to the bushel, and shall be composed of at least forty-five per cent of hard Red Fife wheat.
Any wheat not good enough to be graded as No. 2 Manitoba Northern shall be graded as No. 3 Manitoba Northern in the discretion of the inspector.
Minnesota Grades, Northern Spring Wheat.
No. 1 Hard Spring wheat shall be sound, bright, sweet and clean, and consist of over fifty per cent of the hard varieties, and weigh not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel.
No. 1 Northern Spring wheat shall be sound, sweet and clean, and consist of the hard and soft varieties of spring wheat, and weigh not less than 57 pounds to the measured bushel.
No. 2. Northern Spring wheat shall be spring wheat not clean enough nor sound enough for No. 1, but of good milling quality, and may

consist of the bearded varieties, and must not weigh less than 56 pounds to the measured bushel.	.
No. 3 Northern Spring wheat shall be composed of shrunken, inferior spring wheat, and weigh not less than 54 pounds to the measured bushel.
No. 4 Northern Spring wheat shall include all inferior spring wheat that is badly shrunken or damaged, and weigh not less than 49 pounds to the measured bushel.
Rejected Spring wheat shall include all varieties of Spring wheat, sprouted, badly bleached, or for any other cause unfit for No. 4.
So there is quite a difference between the Minneapolis .and Manitoba grades. No. 2 Manitoba Northern must be good milling wheat weighing not less than fifty-eight pounds to the bushel, and must be composed of at least forty-five per cent Red Fife wheat. Any of our wheat that had a less percentage of Red Fife in it than that would be graded as No. 3. Again, American No. 2 Northern has to weigh only fifty-six pounds to the bushel, whereas our so-called corresponding grade has to weigh fifty-eight, American No. 2 Northern need not have any hard wheat at all, while the Manitoba No. 2 must have at least forty-five per cent. I think hon. gentlemen opposite will now see that in quoting No. 2 Manitoba Northern against No. 2 Minneapolis they are comparing absolutely different grades. For instance, our No. 3 Northern is a far better milling wheat than No. 1 Minneapolis, and I say without a possible chance of successful contradiction that in many, cases our No. 3 is a much better milling wheat than No. 1 Minneapolis. It is therefore absolutely unfair to compare No. 3 Manitoba Northern with No. 3 Minneapolis. Our grades are practically confined to 1, 2 and 3 Northern. The grades at Minneapolis are altogether different. Taking into account the difference in the grades and the difference in the price, I make this statement on my responsibility as a member of this House, that for the last twenty years there has not been a single year in which the 'armers of Assiniboia could not, during ten or eleven months out of the year, take their wheat across the line, if it were not for the duty, and get ten to sixteen cents a bushel more for it than they could get at home.
I do not say that they could do that every day in the year, or every week in the year, but, practically speaking, they could do it for ten or eleven months out of the year.
There is another point. In the months of September, October, and November last there was a spread of seven or eight cents a bushel between the Winnipeg and the 
American price, not taking into consideration the difference in grades. But what do we find when the wheat got to Liverpool? Instead of the Manitoba wheat selling for seven or eight cents less a bushel than the American wheat it sold to the Liverpool merchant at from six to eight cents a bushel more than the American wheat, and that cannot be denied by any one who knows anything about the grain trade. Why should there be this difference? Why should every man who grows wheat in Canada be crucified to the extent of ten cents a bushel on his wheat? It was stated during the reciprocity debate that we would be paying too much for reciprocity. I do not believe it. But supposing it were true. Two years ago the United States put wheat on the free list to any country that adopted the same policy with regard to their wheat. All we have to do to secure the American market for the Canadian farmer is to put our wheat on the free list. Why should that not be done? Why does not the Government give our farmers access, to the American market?
The Minister of Finance made this statement the other day:
I always assume that those engaged in a business know the best way of carrying that business on. My hon. friend says quite truly that men can give essays and lectures as to what class of farming should be carried on, but after all the farmer knows best what kind of farming he should engage in. I have always said that.
Further, he said:
I may say, however, that the legislation has been brought forward for no other purpose ' than to meet the needs of a growing industry in the West, as presented to me by the parties engaged in that industry.
The Minister of Finance thought the Farmer knew his own business best, and that the farmer's advice should be followed. Now, if my hon. friends on the Government benches listen to these Western farmers when they ask for an amendment of the Bank Act, why should not they listen to exactly the same association and exactly the same men when they ask the right to sell their own products in the American markets? I will- tell you why. When the farmers ask for an amendment to the Bank Act, it happens to be in the interest of the Bankers' Association, and the Government are quite ready and willing to grant what is asked. But when the demand is made for free wheat, the millers and the dealers jump in and say: we do not want that; and so the Government turn a deaf

ear to the request that is made. If you ask why the interests should be favoured rather than farmers, the only reason I can suggest is that the big interests are. fat subscribers when it comes to raising election funds, and the farmers are lean subscribers.
Last summer I was out in my constituency, and one day I drove into the town of Carievale. I was accompanied by Mr. Burke, and Mr. Little, two well-to-do farmers. We went to the elevators in Carievale and asked the price of wheat. Also we went to an elevator where they sold flour, and asked the price of flour. Then we jumped into an automobile and inside of an hour and a half we were in Sherwood, North Dakota. We went to the elevators there and asked what they were paying for wheat and found that they were paying just 13 cents a bushel more than was being paid on the Canadian side at Carievale. There was a lot of Canadian wheat coming over and paying the duty of ten cents a bushel and making more by selling it in Sherwood than they could make by selling it at home. Why, Mr. Speaker, one of the big elevators in Sherwood, North Dakata is owned by my own constituents, a farmers' elevator. They own it and run it and they ship thousands, and tens of thousands, and some years hundreds of thousands, of bushels of Canadian grain to that elevator, and they send it there because they can get better prices than they can get at home! And hon. members on the other side tell us lhat wheat is lower in the United States than it is in Canada. They tell us also that the United States exports wheat as we do, and. consequently, their market can be of no use to us. I do not care whether the United States exports wheat or not. What I know is that the American elevator man is there with money ready to buy our wheat, and pay a higher price for it than we can get on our side of the line. And that argument of a higher price is good enough for me and for the farmers I represent. On that occasion at Sherwood, we asked also the price of flour, and we found that the best quality of flour-the practical farmers who were with me told me it was practically the same as the best brand of Lake of the Woods and Ogilvie flour on our side-was selling at thirty cents a sack cheaper than we could buy it in Carievale. The American miller pays 13 cents a bushel more for his wheat, and sells his flour at 60 cents 'a barrel less than on our side. Will hon. gentlemen
opposite explain that? I should like the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), who is great at explanations, to explain that. He may explain it satisfactorily to the hon. members about him, but when they go back to their constituents on the prairies they will find that their explanation is mighty thin, and that it does not explain to the farmer at all, for the simple fact is that the American miller is prepared to pay a higher price for wheat and to take a lower price for flour than the miller on our side. And remember, our farmers are practically all buyers of flour from these big milling concerns. There are practically no small mills doing business in the West. A number have been built, but the majority of them are standing idle to-day. And why? I will tell you: The moment a small mill starts in any of the towns through the West, at once the price of wheat is put up in that particular town, and also they will ship in flour and put its price away down, and they will keep that going for a year, or two years, or three years if necessary, until they have throttled that man and ruined him. Then they can put the price of wheat down and the price of flour up. That is done every day in the week in our country. I leave it to hon. members from the West to say whether it is not the same in their constituencies as it is in mine.
If Canadian wheat were put on the free list and the Canadian farmer given the right to ship to the American market, who would suffer? Let my friends opposite answer this question. The Canadian farmers are asking that wheat be put on the free list; why not grant their request? Let us suppose that the woollen and cotton manufactures came to the Government in a body and said: we have been paying duty on our products long enough; if the duties were taken off cottons and woollens, we should be able to ship a great deal more and get a much better price for our goods. Would the Government turn them down if the farmers should say that they did not want the duty taken off? No, the Government would listen to the demands of the people who were in the business. The Government are prepared to listen to the farmers of the West when they ask for an amendment of the Bank Act, because it is in the interests of the banks that they should do so, but when the farmers ask for an amendment of the Customs Act so that wheat may be put on the free list, the Government say, no. I ask again, who is going to suffer if we have free wheat, except, perhaps, the millers and a few dealers?

Will any other interest suffer? I do not see what other interest can possibly suffer. Why should half a dozen millers have more influence with the Government than all the farmers of Canada? The united farmers of Ontario have asked for free wheat; so have the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; and the only reason why their request has not been granted is that the millers and a few dealers have asked that the duty be retained.
I am free to admit that the miller will suffer from any provision for free wheat; he would have to pay more for his wheat and sell his flour at a lower price. A few of the dealers might not get so much wheat to handle, because a considerable quantity would go to the South, and there might be more competition in buying. I do think it is unfair that the interests of a few millers and a few dealers on the Grain Exchange in Winnipeg should overrule the interests of all the farmers of Canada who are asking for free wheat. I venture to say that no man in this House can get a single farmers' organization in the West to pass a motion asking that the duty on wheat be retained. It cannot be done; all the farmers of the West, Conservative as well as Liberal are in favour of free wheat. My hon. friends have been able to shuffle this question in the past, but it is getting more difficult all the time to do this, and if the matter is not soon settled in the interests of the farmers it will be hard for my hon. friends to make a satisfactory explanation of their course. The western farmer is a reasonable man; he does not try to shirk his share of taxation. He demands the right to sell his product in the best market; he is going to have that right, and if this Government will not give it to him, when the time comes there will be a Government in power that will give it to them. I would have my ftiends opposite remember that in the next Parliament there will be sixteen more members from the prairies than there are at the present time; and all of them, Liberal as well as Conservative, will be in favour of putting wheat on the free list. The Minister of Public Works and the Solicitor General are to-day in their hearts as much in favour of free wheat as I am; they know it, and they cannot honestly deny it. They cajoled the people into believing that they were going to give them free wheat, and they have been unable to do if.
It may be said by some that the removal of the duty upon wheat would not be in

the interests of the railways; the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think-one of the ministers of the Crown, in any case- said that this fact would have to be considered. Well, Mr. Lanigan, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, made the statement two or three months ago that the putting of wheat on the free list would not particularly affect the railways. I happened to have some interviews with the Railway Commission quite recently, and they told me that all the railroads were so tied up that they would be glad to see wheat go into the United States in order that the blockade might be relieved.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Has the hon. gentleman Mr. Lanigan's statement?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes; I shall be very
pleased to give it. I quote from the Grain Growers' Guide-my hon. friend the Solicitor General-knows that paper-of December 1 last, page 9:
Free Wheat Won't Hurt Railroads.
Some of the politicians who are opposed to free wheat have stated that they are against opening the United States market to Canadian farmers because it would send all our wheat south and leave the tracks of the three Canadian transcontinental railroads to become mere streaks of rust.
What fools we Canadians must have been to spend a thousand million dollars in building three Canadian railroad lines when, merely by putting wheat on the free list, we shall make them mere streaks of rust. That is kind of argument my hon. friends opposite are advancing. This article goes on to say:
That would, of course, be serious if it were true, but W. B. Lanigan, an important and well-informed official of the Canadian Pacific railway, says is is not so. In the Manitoba Free Press of November 24 was the following:
Will Equalize Prices. Lanigan Says Free Wheat
Will not Affect Canadian Pacific railway.
Free wheat would have no effect on the amount of hauling done by the Canadian Pacific railway according to W. B. Lanigan, assistant freight traffic manager. Mr. Lanigan explained the statement by saying that free wheat would equalize the prices in Canada and in the United States. Then there would be little or no incentive to ship grain south.
That is exactly what we have always claimed.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be interested to know that, he is quoting the Free Press and the Guide, instead of Mr. Lanigan. I wrote to Mr. Lanigan with regard to that statement,

and I have a letteT from him to the effect that he gave no such statement.


John Gillanders Turriff: mechanic and the consumer of Canada? Give us free wheat and the farmer who grows the wheat will get a better price and the man who is working at $1.50 or $2 or $2.50, with a big family to feed and support, will buy his flour cheaper so that it works both ways. I say that the mechanic can buy his flour cheaper. He can go into any market in the United States and buy flour cheaper than he can buy our flour made from our western wheat. Does anyone tell me that concerns like the Ogilvy Milling Company, the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, the Western Milling Company, the Maple Leaf Milling Company, with the greatest waterpowers in the world, cannot make flour as cheaply as the American millers? Our millers have the greatest water-powers in the world. For one horse-power in the United States our millers have one hundred horse-power available. We have the cheapest and best water-powers, we have the best wheat on earth, we have as able men in the milling business as stand on the face of this globe; and will anyone tell me that with all these advantaged the Canadian miller cannot hold his own against the American? He can do it but he does not want to do it.
I do not blame him for not, wanting to. As- long as he can get this Government to stand between himself and competition, why .should he not do so? Why should he not save ten or fifteen cents a bushel on his wheat and chisel the consumer out of fifty cents a barrel on the flour if he can do it and can have the Government look after him in that way so that he can rob the people to that extent? That is what the millers are doing, they are robbing the farmer on one hand and the consumer on the other-and this Government is upholding them in doing so. The millers could not do this for one moment without the assistance of this Government. The people of the West know this and the consumers of the East are beginning to learn it. Give us free wheat and you will satisfy everybody except the millers and a few dealers. You will save millions of dollars to the growers of the wheat, and you will make a great big saving to the men who have to buy the flour. If that is not a good argument why we should have free wheat I do not know what you would consider a good argument. There is no question that it is simply because this Government refuses to go against the wishes and the demands of the big in-

terests that they refuse to take action in this matter. A few months ago, when the crop was seen to be so large for the American market, the Government wavered as to whether or not they should grant the demand then made. But what did the millers tell them ? They said: You give free wheat, and then we will demand free machinery for our mills, free bags to put our flour in, and free everything that we use in the mill. The Government listened to the seductive voice of the big interests, but the demands of the farmers were of no avail whatever; the Government turned a deaf ear to them. As I said before, this is a matter that will have to be settled with the farmers the next time the Government go to the country.
Before I take up the question of the . millers, however, let me give you a quotation of the prices at Sherwood, the town in North Dakota that I spoke of a few minutes ago. I have the resolution here, copies of which some farmers- in my constituency sent- to the Prime Minister, to myself, and to the Grain Growers' Association. This resolution was p-assed by the Elmore and Fife Association on December 29, 1915. I will take the prices for the previous four months. On September 15 bonded wheat was 75 cents, and domestic wheat 86 cents, a difference of 11 cents per bushel. On October 15 bonded wheat was 83 cents, and domestic wheat 86 cents, only 3 cents better. On November 15 bonded wheat was 81 cents, and domestic wheat 89 cents, a spread of 8 cents. On December 15 bonded' wheat was 88 cents, and domestic wheat 98 cents, a difference of 10 cents per bushel. And this was at the time of the year when some of the papers were pointing out that wheat was higher in Winnipeg than it was in Minneapolis. No doubt there will be certain days when the price of wheat will be higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis, but does that prove anything? If, on one day in twenty, wheat is higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis, does that imply that the Minneapolis market is no good for us, when, on the other 19 days, there is a difference of 5, 10 or 12 cents a bushel in favour of Minneapolis? My hon. friends opposite must think the farmers are a lot of thick-headed fools if they assume that they would send their wheat to Minneapolis and take a lower price than they could get at home for it. Does anyone believe that the farmers would do that? Does anyone believe that a Canadian farmer would ship a carload of wheat to

Minneapolis if he could get a better price at home? If he can get as much at home for his wheat as at Minneapolis he will sell his wheat at home every time. If the Government believes that wheat is worth more in Winnipeg than it is in the United States, why not give the Canadian farmers what they want, because it will not do anybody any harm? It will not affect the market to the extent of the sale of a bushel of grain because the Canadian farmer will sell at home if the market is equal to the best he can get. But during September, October, and November, the farmers of the West lost over $10,000,000 in not being able to have the American market for their wheat. The Government would not give them the American market, they sent their wheat to the old country, and the farmer is paying from 40 cents to 45 cents a bushel to take his wheat from tide water to Liverpool. For the munition manufacturers who were able to charge this and the British Government four prices for their goods, they could get a rate which was practically the same as the rate before the war, but the rate for carrying wheat which, before the war, was from 5 to 7 cents a bushel, went up to from 40 to 45 cents a bushel. The Government were either powerless or careless, or they did not have the interest of the farmers at heart to the same degree that they had the interest of the manufacturers, they did not give them the American market and they allowed them to be robbed on this last year's crop to the extent of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in excessive freight rates.
That is the position that the farmer is in. Is it any wonder that he is demanding free wheat? The wonder is that any bunch of men could be got together who would refuse it. The wonder is that any Government would refuse such a reasonable demand from the people as that they be allowed to sell their wheat in the best way they could. What I say about wheat applies to wheat products and potatoes. If potatoes were put on the free list the American market would prove most profitable to the Canadian farmer who grows potatoes. We, in the West, do not grow potatoes to any considerable extent, not that we cannot grow them and grow them in abundance, but because there has never been a market. In my own constituency one year a man put in fifteen acres of potatoes and bought the necessary machinery to handle them. He had a large crop, he wrote to Winnipeg and the best price
he could get left him only six cents a bushel for the potatoes loaded on the cars, after buying the sacks to put them in and paying the freight rate. He sent a man down into the United States and he sold these potatoes, consisting of fifteen or twenty car loads at St. Louis. I cannot remember the exact figures but after paying the duty he had the big price of 30 or 40 cents a bushel for his potatoes. However, as I said, we do not grow potatoes up there because we have no steady market. If we had the American market for potatoes we could grow them profitably.
It is the same with our cattle. Formerly the-prices kept going up and down all the time. Every little while there would be a combination of the buyers, and the price would go down. Prices have been steady and higher ever since we had the American market for our cattle. Does anybody say to-day, as some people said in 1911, that because the farmer of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario sells his cattle in Buffalo and Chicago, instead of sending them to Liverpool, he is any less loyal? Nobody will advance that argument now, but it was advanced in 1911.
11 p.m. Great reams of figures. were given by Conservative candidates in 1911 to prove that if the American market was opened to Canadian cattle it would be disastrous to Canada and to the cattle raisers. But two years ago that came about, and it has been of such benefit to everybody that hon. gentlemen opposite could not go into Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba and get any farmer to advocate the Americans putting on a duty and shutting out Canadian cattle. There is another reason why we should have free wheat now; that offer is liable to be withdrawn at any time. This arrangement of free wheat is not as good as the reciprocity agreement, because, under the reciprocity agreement we would have got free wheat, and all the rest of the world would have been shut out or would have had to pay the duty. But at the present time there is a strong agitation in North Dakota, Northern Minnesota, South Dakota and Montana, amongst the farmers, who are calling on the American Government to withdraw the offer of free wheat to Canada. It is not in the interest of the American growers of hard wheat to have Canadian wheat going in there. One of these days, if we do not accept the offer, it will be withdrawn, and then we will not be able to secure it. If for no other reason than that,

my hon. friends ought to take action in the very near future.	v


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They ought to take it to-morrow.


John Gillanders Turriff: They ought to take it tomorrow, I know, but I do not anticipate that they will do it as soon as that. The Government had the opportunity to save the farmers from loss early last fall. They had the right, by Order in Council, to put wheat on the free list. In order to make that clear, I had better read the clauses of the Acts. Section 92 of the Consolidated Revenue Act reads as follows:
The Governor in Council whenever he deems it right and conducive to the public good may remit any duty or toll payable to His Majesty, imposed or authorized to be imposed by any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
If that clause was not sufficient, there is another clause that would have enabled my hon. friends opposite to have put wheat on the free list had they been so inclined. The hon. Minister of Public Works went up through the West and told the people there that he had an open mind on the subject. It was well pointed out by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that the farmers were much more interested in having an open market than in having an open mind. It takes my hon. friend's mind a long time to get fully opened, because I remember having heard him three years ago telling the farmers that free wheat was all right. In view of that statement, he believed that they were going to have it right away. However, he has not made much progress in three years, and his mind is still open. Here is another clause under which the Government could have acted. It is section 286 of the Customs Act, and it reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, and in the manner hereinafter provided in addition to the other purposes and matters in this Act mentioned, make regulations for or relating to the following purposes and matters:
" (k) Transferring to the list of goods which may be imported into Canada free of duty, any or all articles, whether natural products on products of manufacturers, used as materials in Canadian manufactures; any such materials transferred to the free list by such Order in Council, to be free of duty of customs for the/ time therein appointed for that purpose."
The Government could have passed an Act this session, but it is now almost too late. Already over two hundred million bushels have gone east of Winnipeg, that is, seven-fifteenths of the crop. Still, even at this hour, the Government could give some relief to the farmers who have not sold their

wheat. At all events a measure of relief passed now would encourage the farmer to grow another large crop next year. Hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes advance the argument that England is our natural market. Now, England consumes about three hundred million bushels of wheat a year. Of that, she grows about sixty million bushels. That leaves about two hundred and forty million bushels which she imports every year. How would the most loyal man on the opposite side of this House say that England would import all that amount from Canada? I do not think any hon. gentleman opposite would say so. England buys in the best market. She sends her ships to every country in the world, and will any one tell me that England would send a ship to the Argentine Republic, unload it there, and then have the ship come up to Halifax or Montreal for a load of Canadian wheat for England. England did not become rich by doing business on those lines, but by buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest. Why is it that we have to pay such high freight rates-and I am speaking of freight rates in ordinary times, not war times. One of the reasons is that we impose a high duty on British goods entering this country. Let the Government take off this duty, if they will not give us free wheat, and then we shall import goods from Great Britain, and send the ships back to the Old Country laden with Canadian wheat. England will then be our market, and in that way we will get reasonable freight rates. But the Government will do neither one thing nor the other. They are like the dog in the manger. They will not give us the American market, nor will they take off the duty on British goods, so as to give us cheaper freight rates and a better price to the farmer.
In spelakinig of the .millers a little time ago I forgot to say that in imy opinfiton they do not deserve much consideration. I Wave in my hand ia copy of the annual report of the Ogdlvie Milllinig Company-a company wliltlb millions of common istock that never put one dollar into the treasury. Last year the Ogilvie Milling Company earned $1,600,000, or fifity-six per cent bn their common stock. It is- for the benefit of this poor concern than hon. gentlemen opposite are taxing every farmer land every consumer of bread in Canada! The Lake olf .the Woods Milling Company unlade a more modest showing. It only .shows 'about $500,000 ox $600,000 of profit. Is it not .strange, under those cfrrcuim stances-(the

Lake of the Wioodls Milling Ctoimipany earning $600,000 profit ail'd the Ogilvie Milling Company $1,600,000-that the stock iof the Lake of the Woods Mailing Company is higher than the stock of the Ogilvie Milling Company? Does 'any one believe that tlhe Lake of the Woods MiMinig Company tmado merely that amount last year? I have never found 'a man yet who believed it. . TlhiaJt ctoimpamy is sdimply hiding its profits, 'and I understand that the Ogilvie company (have been kicking themselves ever Since for not doing the same thing. It its fbr these two concerns, 'and one or two others like them-they can be counted on the fingers of one hand)-that tlhe Govemmienlt is punishing every labouring man and every artisan in Canada, and this is soimiethaing that bon. gentlemen opposite will (have to explain to the people of Canada.
In speaking of the 'difference dtn the price of wheat, 1 mentioned omlly commercial grades, but in tlhe off grades-number 4, 5 and 6 Northern rejected, tough or smutty wheat-^tlhe farmer llosas isltil'l 'more. Many and imiany & 'time there has been a difference of twenty-five cents la buslhel between the price the Canadian farmer could get for this class of wheat on 'the 'Canadian market, and the price Ihe conlid get on the American market. During the first three months o*f last year fifteen million bushels of this tough wheat went into the (hospital elevators iat Fort William and, Port Arthur, and to-dlay in the provinces 'of Saskatchewan and Alberta millions and mdOMons of huish'eflls are lying out on the prairies, covered over with straw. The Goose Lake line of the Canadian. Northern railway, to which company the Solicitor General gave $45,000,000 two years ago, has not taken out a car load of wheat per day per station from that section of the country. The wheat is still lying on the prairie, covered with drifting snow, and unless we have wonderful weather this spring, millions olf 'bushels will get welt tand be more or lass ruined, and the farmer will have to send it to the hospital elevators ait Fort William at fifteen to twenty-five cents la bushel lass than if be sold alt 'at Minneapolis. In Minneapolis the wheat would be dried, put on the 'Market, 'and sold by sample. The intrinsic value of the grain, as a maker of flour, is not depreciated much in the process, and in many cases the American farmer gets a fair price for this class of wheat. But this Government shuts our Canadian farmer out from that market.
But this Government shuts them up. They cannot get the wheat out. They could not get it out last fall in the good weather, and now the railroads cannot haul it at all in that country. When the thaw comes in the spring the wheat will be wet and there will be millions of bushels more of tough wheat and on that wheat the farmer is bound to lose anything up to twenty-five cents a bushel. But that can be obviated by my hon. friends opposite being reasonable, being decent. The Lord knows they have stood by the manufacturers long enough. Let them take a day off and give the farmers a fair deal for just one day by passing this Act allowing the farmer to sell his wheat in the United States if he can get a better price for it there. You are not going to hurt the railroads, you are not .going to hurt the farmers, or the people generally; you are only going to cut down the profit of the miller. But no one can make me believe that the Canadian miller, with the advantage of water power, wheat, and short haul to tide-water, cannot make, under competitive conditions, all that a legitimate company is entitled to make. So I hope the Government will take that into consideration and at this session put wheat on the free list.
But the answer the Government has been making in the past is that this is too deep a question for the farmer to understand, and, therefore, they must interpret it for him. I do not know that there ever was a day when the farmer had to be looked after in that way, but I do know that that is not the case to-day. I try to represent the views of my farmers here to the best of my ability, but since the organization of the Grain Growers' Association ten or fifteen years ago I have dozens and dozens of farmers in my constituency, members of local grain-growing associations, and some of them officers in the central association, who, when it comes to a matter of marketing the farmers' crop, or a question of the tariff as it affects the farmers, or matters of transportation as affecting farmers, know a great deal more about the subject that I do, can handle it better than I can, and, if they were here, could explain it to the House better than I can. It is no use for the Government to take the position-that the farmers do not know what they are talking about, do not know what is good for them; and that, therefore, this Government-endowed, I presume, in- their own estimation, with all the brains of Canada-must tell the farmer



what is good for him. That is one of the things my hon. friends will have to explain to the farmers when the right time comes.
Not very long ago I received, as, I suppose, did other hon. members, a copy of a Fort William newspaper, I think it was the Journal, giving the reasons why wheat should not be put on the free list. But the people of Fort William did not believe their own argument. They pointed out that they had- far better facilities, that their freight was cheaper, and that the Winnipeg market was higher than the United States market, yet they still want the Government to insist that the wheat must come down that way. They must be in the same category as the members of this Government, they must think that- the farmer does not know where his best market is. Their idea is that the farmer would ship to Minneapolis even when he had a better market at home. I read that whole statement, and I did not see one argument in it that appealed to me, in fact not one that I thought the very writer of it himself believed.


Robert Rogers: Was that written by
Lanigan?


John Gillanders Turriff: Oh, no, Lanigan believed what he said all right, that unless the United States railroads would put down their rates the wheat of Minnesota and Dakota would go out by Fort William instead of by way of Duluth. But he did not write the article in the Fort William paper. They talk in that paper about unity between the East and the West. There never will be unity between the East and the West so long as the western farmer feels that he is suffering under an injustice. And for what? To bolster up a company like the one to which I referred, that makes $1,600,000 profit in a year-56 per cent on its millions of watered stock that never put a dollar into the treasury. You cannot have unity so long as one great section of the country feels that it is suffering under the greatest injustice that human beings were ever called upon to undergo. If you could show the farmer that this was on account of the war, that it was for the good of the country that it should be maintained during the war, he would be the first man to agree to it. But this is not a question of the war but a deliberate policy of this Government to stand by the interests, to stand by the millers and a few dealers in Winnipeg and Fort William, and to refuse to give the farmer even fair play.
If dissension arises the farmers of the
	.
West will not be to blame, nor the farmers of the East; nor will the labouring men of the West or of the East be to blame. But this Government will be to blame, because they are allowing this condition of affairs and continuing it with their eyes open and against the advice of their supporters from the West. And they know it.
I have articles here showing the congestion that exists in Canada to-day. I will not take up time to read them, for I have spoken already longer than I intended, and there are no doubt other hon. members who wish to express their views on the subject.
There is a way to relieve the farmers of the West. To lack of action on the part of this Government is due a large part of the extra freight, amounting to $45,Q00,000, that the farmer is paying on this year's crop to the Old Country. The Government allowed $45,000,000 to be taken out of the pockets of the people only a couple of years ago for Bill and Dan. There is the difference: hand it out to the big interests; squeeze it out of the farmers and consumers. I have not painted the picture worse than it is, I have not gone as far as I might reasonably have gone under the circumstances. I have described the conditions simply as they exist on the prairies. The question now is: are we going to have a remedy? I think that the putting of wheat on the free list would be the best thing the Government could do for themselves; I should be glad to see them do it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have the interests of my constituents-some forty or forty-five thousand people in an agricultural district-at heart more than I have the idea of an easy election. If the Government grant the faTmeTs this boon they will make it much harder for the Liberal candidates and much easier for the Conservative candidates, but they will make the conditions much better for the people of the Wtest and the people of the East, except the millers and a few of the grain dealers. I shall be more than satisfied, therefore, to have this advantage come to the people I represent. It is the duty of the Government to take some action in the matter; I ask again, Mr. Speaker, will the Government do it?
On motion of Mr. Thomas MacNutt ((Saltcoats), the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.29 p.m.	<

Tuesday, February 15, 1916.