1917-04-19

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Hon. Joseph Pierre Albert Sevigny, for the electoral district of Dorchester.



VACANCY.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have also the honour to inform the House that I have received a notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the electoral district of Terrebonne by the death of Gedeon Rochon, Esquire, member for the said electoral district. I accordingly issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Joseph Pierre Albert Sevigny, member-elect for the electoral district of Dorchester, introduced by Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster and Hon. E. L. Patenaude.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, respecting certain patents of George C. Breidert and Burton W. Mudge- Mr. Macdonald.
Bill No. 39, respecting The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company- Mr. T. J. Stewart.

[Stage Direction]
Report of Militia Council for the year ended March 31, 1916.-Sir Edward Kemp.
Report of the Board of Visitors, Royal Military College, Kingston, for the year 1916.-Sir Edward Kemp.
General orders promulgated to the Militia by the Minister of Militia and Defence in Militia Council, between December 30, 1915, and February 8, 1917.-Sir Edward Kemp.
Summary report of the Mines Branch of the Department of Mines for the year ended December 31, 1915.-Hon. Mr. Patenaude.
Eighth Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission of Canada for the year ended August 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Patenaude.
Annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Cochrane.
Twelfth Annual Report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Cochrane.
Telegraph statistics of the Dominion of Canada for the year ended June 30, 1916.- Hon. Mr. Cochrane.
Telephone statistics of the Dominion of Canada for the year ended June 30, 1916.- Hon. Mr. Cochrane.
Report of the Royal North West Mounted Police.-Sir George Foster.
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916-Parts 1 and 3.-Sir George Foster.
Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916, volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4.-Sir Thomas White.

Hon. FRANK COCHRANE moved:: That the resolution adopted by the House on the 7th February, 1917, referring to Bill No. 13, an Act to consolidate and amend the Railway Act, to a special committee (of twenty-six) members, be amended by adding thereto:
1.	That Rule 11 be suspended in connection therewith;
2.	That the quorum of the said Committee be of nine members ;
3.	That the said Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time; and have leave to sit while the House is in session; and also be authorized to have their proceedings and such evidence as may be taken, printed from day to day for the use of the Committee, and that Rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto; and
4.	That the name "Kamouraska" be inserted immediately after the name "Lapointe".


Mr. GRAHAM:: I am told that this is not really a consolidation of the Railway Act, hut that it contains much new and important matter. I understand that the committee has not yet had a quorum and

has not made the recommepd-ation embodied in the resolution. Would it not be wiser and more in accordance with the rules of the House for the minister ito call his committee together and have it recommend that this resolution be submitted to the House?
Mr. COCHRANE-:	It was an oversight
that this was not done when, the committee was moved. The committee is called to meet to-morrow morning and it would help things along if this motion were allowed to pass.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I would not suppose
that much progress could be made by proceeding as suggested by the minister, because the ordinary notice of motion would have to be given before the rule could be suspended. I should like to -make an inquiry as to a point raised by the hon. member for East Lamtoton (Mr. Armstrong), who was informally named as chairman in the absence of a quorum. He took the point that the appointment of the committee might be irregular, the rule providing that no committee of the House should consist of more than fifteen members unless toy special leave of the House. I understood that the matter was to be looked into by the hon. Minister of Customs or by the -hon. Minister of Railways. Has any decision been arrived at as to that point?


Mr. REID:: I have not gone into the matter. I do not think that I agreed to- look into it any more than any other member of the committee. I thought that perhaps the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley), knowing the rules of the House much better than I, would look into the matter and be able to say whether there was any irregularity. Personally, I do- not agree with the interpretation of the rules by the hon. member for East Lamtoton.


George Perry Graham: There is another point.
This committee is to consist of a joint committee of both Houses.	.


Francis Cochrane: No.


George Perry Graham: I understood so.


John Dowsley Reid: That was last year.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. minister will look at Hansard he will find that that was to be the proceeding this yeaT as well, in order to save time. That committee, therefore, will not be fully constituted if it meets before the Senate Committee joins with ours. It would be very much out of
[Mr. Graham. 1
place for this House to say that its committee should sit while the House is in session -until the Senate agrees to the same procedure.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Would it not be more respectful to the committee to sit and see whether or not the suggestion has been made? As the committee has been appointed by unanimous resolution of the House, I would understand that it -is regularly appointed. No committee can be appointed to be composed of more than fifteen members, unless by special permission of the House, and this committee has been so appointed. The committee has not yet sat and, it seems to me these questions should be referred to it for its consideration. The meeting of the committee was called, but there was no quorum and so there has been no- real sitting of the committee yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am of the opinion
that this resolution is of -such character as -to require unanimous consent for its adoption. In the absence of such consent it cannot properly be put at this stage.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: There is mot
unanimous consent?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. VERVILLE:: What were the names
and occupations of the gentlemen sent to Thetfo-rd Mines to get information or to settle the labour trouble during last year?


Mr. CROTHERS:: Stand. .
Sir WILFRID [LAURIER:	This question has been standing since the 25th of January. When may we expect an answer?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I can give a verbal
answer now. I was not in the city on the 25th of January and I was not here until after the House rose, so my attention was not called to the question. Two gentlemen were sent; one was Mr. Archand who was at th-at time one of the fair-wage officers of the 'department, and the other was Mr. Blanchet, a barrister of Ottawa.


POTATO CONSIGNMENTS.
Mr. CHARLES WILSON:: 1.	Has the Government been informed that it is alleged a large quantity of potatoes have been kept in cars, since first of November, 1916, on some lines of Canadian Government or other railways in Canada, and that said potatoes were frozen or spoiled, consequently having to be thrown away and thus unavailable for consumption?
2.	Has the Government received, any complaints in the matter? If so, from whom?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Under a joint agreement the Grand Trunk railway handles Intercolonial freight at Montreal, and on November 15, that company complained that a large number of Intercolonial railway cars of potatoes had accumulated in their Montreal yards. The Intercolonial railway authorities urged consignees as. strongly as possible to take delivery, and finally were obliged to threaten to unload if consignees would not.
2.	No complaint since that time. The Government has no further information on the subject.


CIVIL, SERVICE APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 21 OP THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How many appointments have been made by the present Administration since they took office, under the provision of Section 21 of the Civil Service Act?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: Certificates of Qualification issued by the commission since October 15, 1911, under the provisions of section 21 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908-174.


OUTLOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What amounts, if any, were paid to the Outlook Publishing Company, Limited, or to F. C. Cox, of Middleton, N.S., during the year 1916, for printing and advertising?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Agriculture Department, $24; Post Office Department, $7.60, Public Works Department, $6.20.


COST OF HANSARD.
Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: What has been the total cost of the Hansard yearly for the last three years, as to cost of staff, translation, printing and distribution respectively ?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Service	1914-1915	1915-1916	1916-1917 TotalReporters	
28,400	00	29,025	00	29,333	34	86,758	34Translators	
34,790	00	36,225	00	36,475	00	107,490	00Extra Translators	
1,358	35	245	50	1,918	50	3,522	35Amanuenses	
6,937	50	3,637	50	5,222	13	15,797	13Express Charges	
523	70	300	19	248	43	1,072	32Analytical Index	
1,500 00	1,650 00	3,150 00$	217,790 14
It is impossible to give the cost of distribution as all parliamentary papers are distributed from the one office and the exact cost of Hansard cannot.be given.


FOOD INSPECTORS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many food inspectors are in the employ of the Canadian Government?
2.	What was the total amount paid for remuneration of food inspectors in 1916?
3.	How many new appointments were made in 1916?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Agriculture:	1. 197 food inspectors (inspectors of meats, meat food products, canned fruits, vegetables and milk), appointed under the Meat an4 Canned Foods Act, are at the present time in the employ of the Department of Agriculture.
2.	$254,729.95.
3.	42 new appointments were made in 1916, but of these 23 were made to replace officers who left the service during 1916.
Inland revenue: 1. 35.
2.	$7,374.02.
3.	9 new appointments were made in 1916, but of these two were made to replace officers who left the service during 1916.


NORTH SYDNEY CUSTOMS SERVICE.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	How many persons are employed in the customs service at the port of North Sydney?
2.	What were the names, dates of appointments and respective salaries, on appointment of these persons?
3.	Have any of these persons received any increase in salary since appointment?
4.	If so, what are the names of the persons receiving increase and the respective amounts of said increases?

5.	What amounts have been collected at the salt port of North Sydney during the years 1900 to 1916, inclusive?


John Dowsley Reid: I.	Ten-one of whom is absent on active military service.
Name.
1 'ate of first Date of perm, employment, appointment.
Sal. at date first
employment.
Present salary Overtime	1916-17
1915-16. besides overtime.
Jos McPherson.. J. L. Brennan.. David Edwards. J. H. Cameron.. F. E. Jackson. . John Cogan.... J. J. McDonald. H. W. McNeil.
Jas. McLeod___
Angus Young...
JAug. 17/99 May 31/13 June 5/12 Jan. 14/13 March 4/12 May 18/14 Aug. 30/97 Oct. 9/15 April 29/07 April 17/13
Aug. 17/99 Aug. 29/14 April 1 /13 Aug. 29/14 April 1/13 April 19/15 Nov. 1/98
Aug. 1/11 Aug. 29/14


ABBOTSFORD POSTMASTER.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: What is the salary of the Postmaster of Abbotsford, in the County of Rouville?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Salary, $343; rent, $40; total, $383.


ROUVILLE COUNTY MAIL CARRIER.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What is the name of the party carrying the mail between the Post Office of Abbotsford, in the County of Rouville, and the Canadian Pacific station?
2.	What is his salary?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Azarias Maynard.
2.	He is paid a contract price of $199 per annum.


PENSION COMMISSIONER'S STAFF.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What are the names of those who compose the Pensions Commissioners' Staff of Canada?	.
2.	What is the salary of each commissioner?
3.	Where are their offices?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1. Lieut. J. K. L. Ross, Chairman of the Commission; Col.- R. H. Labatt, Commissioner; Major J. L. Todd, Commissioner.


MR. H. B. TREMAIN, M.P.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is Mr. H. B. Tremain, M.P. for Hants, N.S., in the military service of this Government or of the Imperial Government?
2.	If in the Canadian military service, what is his position and what are his duties, andi has he received1 or does he receive pay or allowances, salary or expenses in connection with the same?
3.	If so, what amount has been paid him on such accounts ?

_ 4. If in such military employment, does he receive allowances for servants? If so, for how many?
5.	If in military service during- the last year, has he drawn sessional indemnity as member of Parliament? If so, what amount?


Mr. KEMP:: 1. Lieut.-Colonel H. B. Tremain is in the military service of the Government of Canada.
1. Lieut.-Colonel Tremain is attached to the staff of the Overseas Minister and is performing general secretary duties. He is in receipt of the following daily pay and allowances of his rank: Pay, $5; field allowance, $1.25; messing allowance, $1; London subsistence allowance, $2.
3.	$2,575.25.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What are the names, of the members of Parliament who now belong, or who did belong to the Overseas Forces or the Militia Forces of Canada since the present war was declared?
2.	Were, or are, these members, or any of -them, in receipt of pay from the Militia Department and in receipt of their indemnity as members at the same time?
3.	Were, or are, the wives of these members, or any of them, in receipt of separation allowance?


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What amounts have been given to the Canadian Patriotic Fund to December 31, 1916, and what amounts have been promised for 1917, by the different counties, towns and cities in each of the different provinces?
2.	What are the names of the different counties, towns and cities, and the respective amounts subscribed and promised by each?
3.	What counties, cities and towns in each province, if any, have not contributed any amount to the said' fund up to the present time?


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How much money has been subscribed and voted to the Canadian Patriotic Fund by each of the different provinces to December 31 1916?
2.	How much money has been paid to the Canadian Patriotic Fund by each of the different provinces during the same time?
3.	How much money has been promised by county, township, city or other grants by each province for the year 1917?
4.	How many persons in each province have received assistance from the Canadian Patriotic Fund to December 31, 1916?
5.	What was the total amount so expended in each province?


Mr. MACNUTT:: 1.	.Is the Government aware as to whether there are cases in the Military Service in which men after enlistment have been given leave on harvesting furlough, and during such leave have been injured by accident, and who have in consequence of such accident incurred hospital bills, and who having been treated in hospital have returned to military duty and1 been discharged on account of injuries so received?
2.	If so, have claims been "made for hospital care and treatment?
3.	Have such claims been recognized by the Government?
4.	If not, why not?
5.	If so, what action has been taken in connection therewith?
6.	In such cases is not the enlisted person entitled to pay up to time of discharge, and also the payment of his hospital account?



DEATH OF HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUCHESS OF CONNAUGHT.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER: I should like to call the attention of the House briefly, and I hope fittingly, to a sad event which has occurred since the House adjourned. I allude to the death of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Connaught, who passed away on the 14th of March at Clarence House in London after a brief illness. I very well remember the beautiful autumn day on which His Royal Highness and the Duchess of Connaught made their entry into the capital city of the Dominion, passing along in front of the old Parliament Building, and on to their new home farther down on the banks of the Ottawa. Her Royal Highness was by person entirely unknown to us at that time, bht she was heartily welcomed as the consort of the soldier son of the well beloved Queen Victoria. As the wife of a soldier whom she accompanied on his journeyings around the Empire she became known to all, and her grace and dignity endeared her to the hearts .of British subjects the wide world over., Her Royal Highness eooin, entered, dinto the life of Gaimad-a, quietly but with zest. Canadian sports and social activities attracted her attention, atid participation. Local charities, and the wider charities of the provinces and of the Dominion claimed her devotion. In all of these she participated unobtrusively, kindly, and effectively. The war brought about a situation very trying to Her Royal Highness, in that the land of her birth was involved in hostility to the land of her adoption. Her Royal High-
[Stage Direction]


ness ably seconded the untiring efforts of the Duke of Connaught in everything that had for its object the welfare and comfort of the soldier, whether in Canada or at the front, and more particularly those whose lot it was, in the fortunes of war, to become prisoners in a hostile country. Great charities were inaugurated or helped by Her Royal Highness, and which, owing to her strong sympathy and tactful manner, were crowned with success. On leaving Canada in October, 1916, after a sojourn here of almost five years, she continued to go about doing good in London and its vicinity, the soldiers chiefly being the object of 'solicitude, and more particularly those from the country of her five years' sojourn. She has passed away, but not from our memories. Her singular directness of manner, her innate kindness, the personal touch which she seemed to give to her acquaintanceship and her friendships, remain with us. When the news of her death came across the ocean it left us all with a sense of personal loss. I think I may take it upon myself to say that I am voicing the opinion of this Parliament and of the people of Canada in asking this House to convey to His Royal Highness and to the family so sadly bereaved our deepest and most heartfelt sympathy.
Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, the members of the House of Commons will, I km sure, aviail themselves of this, the first opportunity at their disposal, to express their deep sense of reverence for the memory of the noble lady who for five years was associated with the life of this country. Every word that has fallen from the lips of my right hon. friend is true to the very letter. The memory of Her Royal Highness will ever be cherished by the Canadian people, who had learned to appreciate her many noble qualities. As has been observed by my right hon. friend, Her Royal Highness was of a retiring and unobtrusive disposition. The duties of her office, whether public or private, she carried out in a most admirable manner, never sparing herself so far as her health would permit. Notwithstanding her ill health, which prevented her during her residence in Canada from participating to the extent she would wish in philanthropic and social duties, the people of Canada had opportunity to appreciate to some extent her kindness of heart and her beneficence. It was her fate, as has been observed by my right hon. friend, to have the last years of her life 
saddened by this terrible war between two countries to which she was bound by such close ties. It is written that a daughter will leave the house of her father to follow her husband. This Her Royal Highness did. When she wedded a son of Queen Victoria she was not only wedded to the life of her husband but also to his country. No one within the wide -range of the British Empire could suffer more than she, the agony that has resulted from this war. Her heart ever beat true to the cause of her adopted, country. I 'hope (that our expression of to-day will convey to her husband and to her children some -consolation in the knowledge that her memory will ever endure in the hearts of the people of Canada.



DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: I wish Mr. Speaker to allude to an event of very great importance, namely, the entrance of the United States of (America into (the war which for nearly three years now has plagued the world -and ihas iraged with unexampled destructiveness. Yesterday the British Parliament passed a resolution affirming their appreciation and gratefully recognizing the fact that at this supreme juncture the United States had elected to take its place on the side of the Allies, in vindication of the cause of right, and justice, and freedom for which the Allies have so long been fighting. While there are many considerations which attach to such action by the United States when its President made his memorable address on the second of April, there are some which make it peculiarly important and peculiarly fateful. The United States, for a hundred years and more, by its traditions and its practice had kept almost completely aloof from European wars and contentions. It had -enjoyed for a century uninterrupted peace with outside powers of great strength. It had successfully passed through a period of internal struggle, the greatest which ever fell to the lot of a nation. The result of that struggle was to reaffirm freedom; and in the succeeding years the North and the South, at one time rent apart by this internal war, had been welded together in peace, - concord, and union. The country s traditions, its history, its pacific pursuits, its geographical position, the allocation of its popu-

lation with so many millions dwelling at a distance from the sea-coast and far from the menace or the allurements of possible warfare, had bred in its people a spirit of antagonism to war itself, and particularly to war , in which the 'territorial possessions or the general rights of the nation were not attacked or infringed upon. When the German hordes smashed through Belgium defying its guaranteed immunity from invasion, a sentiment was violated which was possibly as strong in the United States of America as in any other country. The developments of the war, from the first- outbreak until it included virtually the whole world, involved in many cases the defiance of principles of international action and of humanitarianism which were held dear by the people of the United States. Yet for two years and a half that nation maintained its position of neutrality, maintained it honestly, maintained it thoroughly, even under conditions of great provocation and difficulty. The United States had no territory to gain by entering into the war, it had no- selfish motives so far as power territorial or political was concerned. It stood as a great neutral power, carefully noting the trend and development of the war; protesting on one side and on the other at the violation or infringement of rights. But at last the nation came to the conclusion that it could no longer remain neutral, and it felt compelled to throw its ' weight of one hundred millions of peace-loving, liberty-loving, democratic people with the cause of the Allies.
To my mind, outside of any armies which the United States may gather, drill, and send to a fighting front; outside of any aid which can be given toy her fleet, now large and capable of being made much larger and more powerful; outside of any strength which she may bring to this contest by virtue of her resources, the supremest effect of the entrance of the United States into this war is that in the gradual clarifying of the issues she came to the conclusion that the moral and international sanctions were against the Germans and in favour of the Allies. It is something when such a nation, trying by every possible means to avoid entrance upon the arena, finds itself at last compelled by virtue of its high traditions of morality, humanitarianism and regard for international rights, to come to the conclusion that it can stay . out no longer, but must throw its sword into the scale in favour of democracy, of justice, and of the liberties of small nations.
39J
That, to my mind, is the greatest factor which the entrance of the United States imports into this contest, and history, I believe, will so record it.
As was voiced yesterday in the Mother of Parliaments, in both branches, the United States brings at once, by the position she has taken, a wealth of and a quickly utilizable power of resource, which is of immense benefit to the allied forces in this war against Germany. I think sometimes we can easily make the mistake of not properly understanding and adequately weighing the immense drain upon the warring nations in blood and resources during the last two years and eight months. France stood to her trenches week after week, month after month, year after year, to beat back the millions of her enemies who already had desecrated and destroyed one-itenith of her territory and were seeking to wreak upon the other nine-tenths the same vengeance and destruction. France did not def that without the shedding of blood almost without parallel, without a drain upon her resources of moral and human fibre that cannot be calculated and which cannot be portrayed by pencil or by tongue. If that be true in reference to France, it is measureably true with the other warring nations and allies. Great Britain herself, who has taken a tremendous part in this contest both by sea and by land, who has borne the brunt of practically the whole of the burden by sea, has within two years made out of her peace-loving citizens, an army that in number, in calibre, in courage and in skill in armed warfare, has never been surpassed by the soldiers of any nation however long they may have been trained and drilled in the exercises of war. Great Britain has felt the drain, and felt the drain in a way which we, who are so far distant from the scene of action, find it difficult to have adequate conception of.
Leaving that argument to apply to all the forces which have been in this war for these two years and eight months, what an immense thing it is that new resources, virgin and untouched, new resources in material and new resources in men, come now upon the theatre of this contest to take their vital and strong part in the ultimate decision that has been so long and so destructively fought for on all the fronts in this war.
It not only imparts courage to the soldiers who have been long warring, but it gives actual sustenance, food, munitions and support in a way in which these things were not given before at a time when they

are badly needed, and in the way of finance itself-moneys which make it possible for Russia, Italy, France, if not for Great Britain herself, to go forward in the remaining months of the war with a feeling of confidence and trust that financial resources will not be failing them, and that in these last decisive months of the war what the United States has to give in that respect will be to a large extent determining factors in the result that shall be attained.
If we come down to the actual forces now in the field, Great Britain's experience is rich and ripe and will be availed of. Great Britain sent her whole standing army in the early part of the war into France. The men who were the fighters in the ranks were the officers and trainers of the fighters who took part in the gallant contests in France and Belgium which ultimately resulted in the victory of the Marne, suffered a great depletion in their ranks. There was not only the loss of actual numbers, but the loss as [DOT]well of those officers and trained men who were fitted for training the soldiers to take the vacant places in the depleted ranks of that first British army. The United States to-day could possibly send a good, well-organized little army to the front, but if they did they would deprive themselves of those very factors which are necessary to the early and complete training of that large army which in the end might be effective. So that, we come down to the conclusion that, with all the wisdom that has been gained from the past, and having regard to all the necessities of the situation, a large army from the United States cannot find its way to the battle front for eight, or nine, or twelve months at the very least. But, even though that be so, that might be the very time at which the coming of a new, fresh army of a million or two million might be the deciding factor in the war.
We do not know when this war shall cease. It is endless, its lengthening out has paralyzed the thought and conception of all men who thought about it and its possible time of conclusion. Three months [DOT]-six months we said; nine months, a year, we said; and yet two years and eight months have passed their long, dreary and sanguinary length and there is no man who can tell how long this gigantic struggle may yet last. If it turns out that this war, holding all these different points of vantage, works its weary length along for another year, with the increasing exhaustion of the Allies and enemy forces, then the importation of a fresh, virile force of a mil-
[Slr George Poster.]
lion or two millions of men spells absolute victory for the side upon which it fights and absolute defeat for the side against which it fights. I think it was Count Reventlow, who, after two years of cogitation, in a sentence or two, placed the issue ' between the two parties pretty accurately when he said: There is a necessity for victory for Germany or it will spell the downfall of the German monarchy. That is really the clarified issue to-day-the democracies of the world are at war with the autocratic bureaus and kaisers of the world and the ultimate grinding down of the whole issue must be this: That in Germany the people must rule, and only by a victory of the Allies does it seem possible that the results which we are fighting for can be won.
The United States entered upon this undertaking not yet a month ago and with characteristic energy it is preparing in a scientific and energetic way. It has the wide and sometimes bitter, experience of the nations which have been warring from which to get its information so that it may avoid the mistakes, and at the same time avail of those things which have been most effective. The United States having entered into this war, and living up to the declaration of its president, will without doubt carry out the work to which it has set itself with the same characteristic energy and, we trust, with the same success as has characterized 'the efforts of the other allied nations. To us who live here, along a border of 4,000 miles, neighbours in peace for a hundred years now with the people to the south of us, it is very gratifying that our neighbours, with whom we are upon such good terms and with whom we have so much to do, have agreed with us in our conception of the rights of the issues in this warfare and have now joined with us, and with the other defenders of those rights, in pushing the war to a successful conclusion and in bringing about an era when the democracies of the world shall enjoy the freedom and peace to which they are entitled.


Right Hon.   S@: JMr. Speaker, the entrance of the United States into this world-wide war introduces a new chapter not only into the history of the United States itself, but into the history of the world. If, in the month of August 1914, any citizen of the United States had ventured to predict that in this conflict the United States itself would take
t

a part, that man, at that time, would not have been taken seriously. Many people indeed outside of the United States, and perhaps also within the United States, were sorry, when the neutrality of Belgium was invaded, that the United States did not raise its powerful voice to at least protest against that outrage. But such a course of action would not have been in accordance with the traditions of the Republic. The founders of the American nation had hoped, and indeed they in solemn terms .warned their people, that they should forever keep away from the conflicts of Europe. They had hoped that the young nation which had just had its birth, would initiate a new civilization which would furnish an example to the rest of the world, and that as far as they were concerned they would live at peace with every nation. But, they had counted without regard to the march of events, the discoveries of science, the facilities of locomotion and communication which have brought the nations of the earth very close to One another. The principle has at last found expression in the United States itself that no nation which pretends to be civilized can keep outside the pale of civilization, that there is a solidarity amongst all nations and that the law of might against right cannot go unchallenged. Therefore, they have thrown their sword into the balance.
[Some people, in fact many people, have found fault with what they called the hesitation of- the President. We in this House and in this country do not share those views. President Wilson has acted with great caution; he has acted with great prudence; but at the same time he has,always maintained high ideals of the civilization of the world. He had to contend not only with the German element in the population of the Republic, but also with' the great body of pacifists who hoped against all hope that they would forever keep their country free from the bane of war. But by the course he has pursued the President has at last brought the whole of the American people, almost without exception, to stand 'behind him in support of the cause of the Allies. No more than this could be expected from that nation. I share in everything that has been said by my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster).
We do not know when thie war will end. We all hope that it will end even before the American Army is called upon to fight. If it is called upon to fight, then there can be no doubt as to the issue. But we hope
that the issue will be decided even before the armies of the United States cross the sea, and that the weight of their moral action alone will be a decisive factor in favour of victory. We, more than any other part of the British Empire, more than any other part of the civilized world, are interested in the. action which has just been taken by the United States. We share with them this continent. We hope that henceforth, as a result of this war, the solidarity of the nations will be established; not only that the solidarity of nations will be established but that the brotherhood of man will be the basis of the future relationships of the world. Let us hope that thie brotherhood of man with -man will commence in our relationship with the United States. There were some men amongst us who were afraid of too close relations with the United States. We have no such fear on one side of the House at all events, and I am glad to say that now there is not much fear on the other side either. My hon. friends on the other side now realize that there are no dregs in the cup of freedom, that it is wholesome to the last drop. Free wheat has come about as the result of the present situation. I shall not dilate upon this point, it may come up for discussion later on; but upon the present occa-
4 p.m. sion I join my voice most gladly in everything that has been said by my right hon. friend.



MR. BALFOUR AND GENERAL JOFFRE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the Acting Prime Minister inform us if the report in the press of this morning is true, that the Right Hon. Mr. Balfour and General Joffre are to be officially invited by the Government to visit Canada?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know the source of my hon. friend's information


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Ottawa morning papers.


George Eulas Foster: I shall be better able to answer that question in the course of a day or two than at present. In the meantime, my hon. friend may rest assured that it would be a source of the greatest possible satisfaction to us if we could prevail upon Mr. Balfour and his distinguished colleagues on that Commission, when they have coipe to this side of the water, to pay Canada a visit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: There is this other consideration, that it is a wonderful thing that such men in such positions could have taken the time to have crossed the Atlantic-to say nothing of the perils of the crossing-out of the midst of the business of this war, and it is very likely that they will want to get back again just as quickly as their most urgent business will permit.



LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN MINES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The Minister of Labour to-day referred to the fact that previous to the adjournment of the House in February he had been absent from the House for some time in connection with labour matters in the West; and the House will recall that the Premier announced that on his return the minister would give to the House a statement as to what he had done in the West in regard to adjusting the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the mining situation there. I understand that while in the West the minister made some arrangement of a character which assured the temporary resumption of work by the men; but I see the following dispatch in yesterday's paper:
Calgary, April 17.-The coal miners of nearly every mine of the district are out on strike because of the delay in the settlement of the men's affairs.
The ranks of idle miners were augmented this morning by the other places in the Crow's Nest Pass country going out.
The miners now out are at Michel, Blair-more, Canmore, Hillcrest, Bellevue, and Frank.
Those at Drumheller also are out, but the difficulty in the latter company is of a different nature.
The minister is well aware that this subject is of very great importance and is regarded as such not only by the men interested but by labour everywhere. I would ask the minister to give to the House a statement such as was promised by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Who?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Harrison, fair wage officer, whose headquarters are at Calgary. He did not complete the inquiry until some time in January, when the operators refused to contribute any money towards this increase in the cost of living. The immediate conditions -were worse, in a sense, than they had been in November. I went out in the latter part of January, when the thermometer registered 48 degrees below zero. Intense suffering would follow if these coal mines were closed up. Hon. gentlemen know that the domestic coal used in the West does not endure for any length of time unless it is very carefully stored, it disintegrates, slackens and becomes useless. Generally speaking, no large stocks
of coal, therefore, are kept on hand for domestic purposes, and the closing of these mines for a few days would mean great suffering. The operators refused to do anything. It was found by the Commissioner that the increase in the cost of living was equivalent to $1.75 a week in wages. In order that the mines might be continued, I undertook that we would check up the amount that would be payable to these miners at the rate of $1.75 per week from and after the 15th of November until the 4th of February, and that we would advance that amount in the first instance and take our chances of getting it back from the larger consumers, several of whom had undertaken to pay, for the coal shipped to them during that period, a sum equivalent to this $1.75 in addition to the price that they had arranged to pay for it. The operators undertook to pay that $1.75 per week from and after the 3rd of February until the 1st of April when the current agreement would expire. This agreement provides that thirty days before its expiration, which would be the '31st of March, the operators and the representatives of the miners should meet together and endeavour to negotiate a new agreement to become effective on the first of April, this proviso being intended to prevent a cessation of work at the end of the period covered by the agreement, as had occurred three or four times previously. A conference was held at Calgary early in March, but the operators felt that the new demands made by the miners were so great that there was no probability of any understanding being reached. I went out there and spent nine days with them, and two weeks ago last Monday I succeeded in inducing them to appoint a sub-committee of four representatives of the operators and * four representatives of the miners, which sub-committee has been in session ever since. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to some of the mines in which the men have gone out on strike. My advice is that they have done so as their protest against the protracted negotiations going on at Calgary. They have got the impression that the operators and the miners should have reached a conclusion earlier. The last word I received in regard to the matter was from my officer at Calgary who said it was expected that the joint conference of operators and miners would to-day report a conclusion reached by this sub-committee. I have no doubt the conclusion will be accepted by the operators, but it will have to be submitted

to the miners of the different mines throughout that district for their approval. If, as is anticipated, an agreement is reached to the satisfaction of the gentlemen representing the miners, I am confident that they will induce the miners to accept it and that there will he no further trouble.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How much money
has the Government paid out in conset-quence of the undertaking given by the minister to make up this difference in regard to the cost of living? ' Has the Minister received from the parties who have got the coal anything to compensate the Government for the disbursement, and if so, how much?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It has been a very
slow process to get the reports as to the quantifies that have been shipped to different people, but the amount paid out by the Government is about $92,000, and I believe that we shall receive every dollar of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How much have you received now?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We have not seceived any. The time has not arrived for its return. The other day I wrote to the president of a company in the United States which had received 41,000 tons from one mine, pointing out to him the arrangement that had been made and telling him that we expected his company to contribute. I was very much gratified at his prompt reply: "Certainly, we will contribute whatever is said to be right." It was thought that contributions should be 25 cents per ton, and that is what I believe the operators have added to their prices from and after the 3rd of February to cover the payment of $1.75 per week. Three or four of the larger consumers agreed to contribute before we undertook to advance the money, so that I do not think the Government will lose a dollar in the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was the payment provided for by a special Order in Council, and, if so, would the minister bring down the Order in Council and any other papers relating to the matter?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The money was advanced under the authority of an Order in Council, and I shall be glad to bring it down.


Mr. OLIVER:: Would the minister say if the conference sitting at Calgary has relation to the domestic coal mines or to the steam coal mines?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It has relation to all the mines, the lignite mines as well as the bituminous mines, to all the members of the association operating in District 18, or about twenty mines.


Frank Oliver: Is it the domestic miners that are making trouble or the steam coal miners?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Most of the domestic coal is produced at the Galt mine at Lethbridge, and the men there are working. There is another mine at Bankhead, where domestic coal is produced chiefly, and the men there are also working. I do not think that lignite coal is produced at any of the mines where the men are out at the present time.


Frank Oliver: The position is that it is not the domestic coal mines, the mines upon which the prairie farmer or dweller depends for his coal, that are being shut down.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not at the present time.


Frank Oliver: It is the mines that provide the steam and smelting coal.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But they were all
involved last winter. They all belong to the same association. I am not sure that any of the mines producing lignite coal are shut down, but I rather think not.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Mr. Speaker, this discussion is all more or less in violation of the rules of the House, and I do not wish to aggravate that condition, but I hope the House will pardon me for saying, in connection with this discussion, that I was yesterday in conference with representatives of the mining industries of Cobalt and Porcupine and the adjacent camps, and they feel that trouble is coming in that quarter, their view, and probably that of a large number of the people of this country, being that labour strikes in connection with mining ought in a time of war to be dealt with under the War Measures Act, if we have one, in the way that similar strikes have been dealt with in England. Such strikes have been anticipated there in this way, and as a consequence they have not occurred. We ought to find a way, in the state of war that obtains in Canada to-day, of approaching these mining labour troubles before they reach a head and if possible preventing a strike occurring. It is not a hard thing to do. The War Measures method must be adopted by Parliament and this Government in connection with the failure of our railways to deliver coal and

freight of other kind to onr cities, in particular to the manufacturing cities of Ontario.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In reply to my hon.
friend, I would say that no other country in the world that I am aware of has had so few labour troubles as Canada has had in the last few years. Australia is sometimes referred to. Last year, with only two-thirds of our population, they had four times the number of strikes we had, and so with the United States and with England. Things are not just as we would like to have them in Canada in this respect, but our wage-earners have shown up well in the matter Of freedom from strikes.



RAILWAY SERVICE BETWEEN MURRAY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: I am sorry that the Minister of Railways has left the House, but perhaps some other member of the Government will bring to his attention the question I desire to ask. It was reported a few days ago that the branch line of the Intercolonial from Rivibre Ouelle would be discontinued and a new service inaugurated on the north shore of the river between Murray Bay and Ste. Anne de Beaupre, running through Ste. Irenes to Ste. Anne de Beaupre and connecting up with the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix railway. One report said that the rails of this branch line had already been carried over to the other 6ide to be used on the Quebec and Saguenay line. I sent a telegram to the Minister of Railways, and another to the Minister of Inland Revenue, whom I am happy to see in the House, and four days later the Minister of Inland Revenue informed me that the report was erroneous and without foundation. But since that time the new service has practically been advertised in the ministerial papers of the province. Yesterday, in La Patrie, of Montreal, the fare between Murray Bay and Quebec was announced. I think-the people of the district are entitled to know the intention of the Government in this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Railways is out of the chamber at the moment, but I shall see him directly, and will give my hon. friend the information he desires to-morrow.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask that the information be made public, because many people are interested in this service. In
addition to what my hon. friend from Kamouraska has pointed out, there is a large colony of Americans, who come up every year to spend the summer at Murray Bay and in the neighbouring district, who would be very much inconvenienced if they were deprived of this valuable service.


George Eulas Foster: They will be soldiering this summer.



SUPPLY.

['No. This afternoon I flatly contradicted the Solicitor General, [DOT]one of the men I have the most respect for in this House, and I wish to convince him that I am right. I have not the necessary documents with me to do that, but I have wired to Montreal for them, and it is for that reason that I ask for the adjournment of the debate.\t-\n\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned. On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.\nFriday, April 20, 1917.']
Wilfrid Laurier: I would point out that according to Rule 17 (c) the House has no Supply ready to take to-day. I would not make any objection because we might take Civil Government Estimates as we have done before, but as we got the Auditor General's Report only the other day, we are not in a position to take Civil Government Estimates now.


George Eulas Foster: It is Civil Government that we propose to go on with, if my right hon. friend has no objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest that we take it up to-morrow. I will raise no objection then.



[Stage Direction]
The House again proceeded to consideration of the motion of Mr. R. Bickerdike (Montreal, St. Lawrence) for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code and to abolish capital punishment.
He said: Since the House adjourned there have been a number of occurrences bearing on this question, one of the most important of which is the fact that Russia in the last week of the month of March abolished capital punishment, and I hope that this Parliament will at an early date pass a resolution congratulating them on having abolished not only capital punishment, but also the Romanoff dynasty. Another important occurrence was the sentencing to death of a young boy of sixteen in Manitoba. I did not think it was possible to find in this country a judge or a jury that would condemn a child to be hanged. However, such is the case. This boy is to be hanged on the 15th of May. A large number of petitions have been circulated throughout the country asking for clemency, not only to save the life of this young boy, but to save this young nation
[Stage Direction]
from the everlasting disgrace of hanging a child of sixteen. If there is one thing on which we all are agreed it is the fact that women and children should be exempt from hanging in Canada. We have had several mass meetings in different places in the province of Quebec, one in Montreal and another in Sherbrooke, and with the permission of the House I shall read the following resolution, which was passed at a meeting of the citizens of Montreal, held in the Windsor Hall on Monday evening, April 2, 1917, and which is identical with the resolutions passed at the other meetings:
BE IT RESOLVED, That whereas there now lies within the Dominion of Ca'.uni \ & young lad of sixteen under the condemnation of death and whose father is at the present moment fighting with his regiment in the British army in Prance in defence of the Empire; and
WHEREAS this meeting has heard read a petition addressed to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada praying for the commutation of his sentence of death to one of imprisonment:
BE IT RESOLVED that it is the sense of this meeting that the infliction of the death penalty is contrary to the dictates of civilization and Christianity, and we hereby protest against the proposed hanging of this young boy of the tender years of sixteen and which we consider would be a blot on the fair name of the Dominion of Canada;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution he forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada and all members of the Dominion Parliament.
If we cannot all agree that capital punishment should be abolished entirely at this time, we can surely all agree that the day has gone by for hanging women and children. And I hope that every member of this House will have an opportunity to declare by his vote Whether he is in favour oi hanging this boy or not.
Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman object to shooting?


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: I do.


John Hampden Burnham: Then, he must object to the war?


Robert Bickerdike: I do.


John Hampden Burnham: Gracious, this is terrible.


Robert Bickerdike: If I had to shoot the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham) I would, as the Irishman says, only wing him, not kill him.
When the House adjourned on January 31st, I was about to say that in the early days I had had my attention called to the

brutal and inhuman practice of hanging in this and other countries whose citizens lay claim to being quite civilized and generally as enlightened as those of other communities, where this horrible practice of the Middle Ages has long since been abolished. Having first been actuated by sentiment in my opposition to the infliction of the death penalty, I began to read upon the subject, and from being an opponent on the ground that it was brutal and inhuman, I finally have come to the further belief that the question is one of government, as it relates to the safety of life and the more certain and unerring enforcement of law.
In presenting an argument in support of these measures for the abolishment of capital punishment, I have endeavoured to show that the main defence in support of the death penalty inflicted by .the state, to wit: that its infliction is a prevention of crime and therefore insures greater safety of life, is wholly and absolutely in error. I have endeavoured also to show that the example set by the state in taking human life, is at once brutalizing and demoralizing; that it has a strong tendency to destroy in the breasts of men the sense of the sacredness of life; and that it acts as a dangerous suggestion to the vicious mind. I have endeavoured to show that in communities where the death penalty is not inflicted, life is quite as secure, as there is far more certainty of conviction than in communities where capital punishment is enforced. For the purpose of setting forth the best possible data upon this subject, I have used statistics and quotations taken from numerous and well informed authorities.
We are told that " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, 'by man shall his blood be shed." This is quite true, but it has nothing to d.o with the penal laws of to-day. Moses may have decreed that " Witches shall be put to death," but because of this there is no reason why any statute should exist today perpetuating this decree. Moses may have laid down that if A destroys B's eye, then shall A have his own eye burst or excised, or that if A breaks B's tooth, then shall a dental surgeon be told .off to draw a similar tooth of his. Because a certain code of laws was suitable for a nomadic people many thousands of years ago, it is absurd to quote them as having binding force today under very, different conditions.
Capital punishment by legal statutes has been an institution rock-buttressed, respected, protected and even fawned upon by the elect as one of the indispensable pillars of

a righteous and self-respecting government. The following are the names of some who have declared against the death penalty: Abraham Lincoln, Senator Sherman, Roscpe Conkling, Horatio Seymour, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, A. B. Richmond, Wendell Phillips. Catherine, Empress of Russia, said, " We must punish crime without imitating it. The punishment by death is rarely anything but a useless barbarity." Elizabeth, another of the Russian empresses, said:	" Experience demonstrates
that capital punishment never yet made man better." The Right Hon. John Bright said:
Whenever you hang a man in the face of the public under the circumstances to which we are so accustomed, if you do in the slightest degree deter from crime by the shocking nature of the punishment, I will undertake to say that you, by so much, may by much more, weaken that very and greater security which arises from the reverence with which human life is regarded.
The State does not kill people merely hecause they are worthless and to be rid >f them. Insane asylums are built at great expenses for the incurable, upon whom relatives cannot bear to look, who personally may be better off dead. The State tenderly cares for all such cases. This is done because the example of kindness and humanity to the unfortunate is of an inestimable benefit to society. A man would 'be 'a brute 

lower than the dogs that devoured the body of Jezebel-who would say, kill them to be rid of these imbecile burdens. It is not possible to imagine the effect society would feel if we were to destroy all imbeciles and the incurable insane. What a horrible example would be set for the people of the State to follow. No calculation could be made of the injury to the morals of the State by countenancing such conduct. One of the greatest advantages t.o the State from the preservation and tender care and treatment of the hopeless insane is this example of humane treatment and of tender consideration of a human life however useless and pitiable it may seem. Our citizens are taught to be kind and gentle to the unfortunate by this example of the State.
As professors of the religion of Jesus Christ, we find no sanction in the record of His life and teachings to the shedding of human blood by judicial process. The whole trend of His example and precept was in the direction of love for the whole brotherhood of man.


John Hampden Burnham: Was i)ot He sacrificed
in o/der that the word of God might be fulfilled?


Robert Bickerdike: Surely.


John Hampden Burnham: Well, what is the matter with that?


Robert Bickerdike: The only thing the matter with it is that you do n.ot believe it. Revenge and the retaliation had no place in the heart of the Redeemer, and if we are Christians, they can have no place in our hearts, and certainly should not have in the State. As we apprehend, the attitude of the State .towards its criminals should be one of reformation, coupled always with such powerful restraint as will ensure the safety of society. That the substitution of life imprisonment for the death penalty is a step that may be taken with safety is manifest not only from years of successful experience in those States where capital punishment has been abolished, but also in our own country, where we have criminals serving life sentences in the penitentiary, whose crimes were as atrocious as those of others who were executed.
May I now ask the members of this House if they believe any boy sixteen years of age, any mother's son, either black or white, should be hanged? His father is right in the trenches, where our friend came from recently, fighting the battles of the Empire. I have much pleasure in moving the second reading of the Bill.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Bickerdike) has introduced the same subject on several occasions in this House and, I believe, moved the adoption of practically the same Bill. On each occasion the position assumed by the Government was stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who, unfortunately, is not in the House at present. I believe, however, that my views on the question, never before expressed in Parliament or elsewhere, as far as I remember, coincide in principle with those of the minister and are line for line and precept for precept opposed to those of the hon. member.
Perhaps it would be better for me first to state the points which he has advanced upon which we are in agreement. I agree with the hon. member in this, that in all cases where the crime of murder, or treason, or rape, or any crime punishable by death under the code is committed, it would be inconsistent with the principles

of humanity that the supreme penalty should be exacted. I agree with Mm further that we are not able to justify the exaction of the supreme penalty in any ease by reference to any doctrine merely because such doctrine is laid down in the Mosaic law. But, I cannot carry my agreement with the hon. member for Montreal any further than that. I do not know, if ever, in the course of my life, I bad sympathy with the movement for the abolition of capital punishment, but I do know this, that my experience in the criminal courts in Canada, and my experience later on in connection with the applications for clemency, have driven me from any sympathy that at any time I might have had with the opposition to capital punishment. The hon. member this afternoon endeavoured to get the assent of the House to this modification of his request, namely: if we cannot look for entire abolition, we must at least look for the abolition of the punishment as applicable to children and women. I do not think that the adoption of even that restriction in the absolute could possibly be made. He has referred to a case which is just now, or very shortly will be, before His Royal Highness, that of the convicted murderer Spain from the courts of Manitoba. That was the case where a boy of sixteen, himself not a native of this country, a native of England, murdered in cold blood- and the adjective cannot be too strongly emphasized so far as my information at present goes-two innocent people, two respectable citizens of that province, under most revolting circumstances. It would ill-become me to make any statement-because I do not know all the circumstances, although I know some of them-as to what should be the attitude of the Governor in Council and of His Royal Highness with regard to that case. I have simply to say that the circumstances already made known need only be considered to convince hon. members of this House that if capital punishment is to still remain the final, supreme penalty in the worst cases of murder, it might well be that that case would show that there should be no restriction in its application merely on the score of age. It must be remembered that though the Code lays down the penalty of death as the last supreme penalty that can be exacted in cases of murder, cases of rape and cases of treason, still it is well known everywhere, of course well known in this House and I think well known to juries, in almost every case explained specifically to juries by the [Mr. Meighen 1
trial judges, that there is a prerogative of clemency that still remains, and that the mere finding of a verdict of guilty by no means necessarily entails punishment by death. Consequently the objection raised by my hon. friend this afternoon and at other times has not the force he desires to give it. It is true that juries are more careful, more cautious before they bring in a verdict of guilty in a trial for murder or treason-but particularly in a case of murder where a judge has no option but to impose a penalty of death-than in other cases; and as a consequence it happens no doubt that there are many murderers who escape, proportionately more perhaps than of those who are guilty of other crimes. That may be one of the results that we must suffer by reason of our jurisprudence in this regard. But while juries are more careful, it does not go to the extreme the hon. member fears. Juries are well aware and they are well instructed that the prerogative of clemency lies behind, securely reposing in the Crown; the Crown has power to reduce and to exact only such punishment as to the Crown may 5 p.m. seem mete. The duty upon the judge in case of murder-in other cases it is optional-is imperative; he must, where a verdict of guilty is brought in, himself sentence the prisoner to be hanged. I cannot speak from as wide an experience as perhaps other members of this House, but I can speak from some experience, and I can say that I never knew a jury to whom was committed this awful trust of determining upon the guilt or innocence of a person accused of murder who did not know and who did not admit that they knew that there was a prerogative of mercy, and that their verdict in itself should not mean an irremediable sentence of death. To my mind that disposes in the main of the objection which the. hon. gentleman raises. I am quite willing to admit that the fear, if you may call it so, that the verdict of the jury may result in the taking of a human life does bring on them a caution that sometimes is extreme; that as a consequence perhaps a disproportionate number escape; but I cannot go further and say that the result of that small number, whatever it may be, escaping is anything like so disastrous in relation to the commission of the crime of murder throughout the country as would be the enactment of legislation that would take away the terror and fear of death which deters evi'l-doers. The

Mosaic law must be read with reference to the conditions that existed in Mosaic times; our law must be read with reference to conditions that now obtain. What was necessary then is vital now and that is to see that there is held before the wrongdoer and the criminal such a punishment as bears fitting proportion to the crime he contemplates, and bears a character that becomes the crime he contemplates. It must hot be of such a kind as has been found insufficient to deter even those who contemplate lesser wrongs.
I have been impressed with this as I have walked through jails and prisons on many occasions long* before I entered this House, that the mere punishment by incarceration as incarceration is now in these later days understood and practised, while it has a terror of a character, while it is a punishment of a character and a fitting punishment, would weigh very little in the mind of a man whose lust or greed or passion was so violent or so sordid as would drive him to the taking of human life. It is true that certain portions of civilization, intelligent portions of civilization, have moved beyond the point that we have gone, and have carried the attribute of mercy so far as to abolish capital punishment in every case. But I do not think the movement has been very general. I think this has been a slow movement for many years gone by, and my hon. friend is bound to admit, from instances that have been cited to the House by the minister in other debates, that while it has gone forward and has resulted in the abolition of capital punishment in certain cases, there are many others where it has gone the other way and where public opinion that once went as far as abolition has been reversed and where the old punishment has been restored.


Robert Bickerdike: You cannot name one.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot name them, but I think I could name them after very little inquiry. Does the hon. member say that in no state of the Union has a reversal of legislation taken place? That may be, but it does not apply the world over. It may be, as the hon. gentleman says, that there is no state in the American Union that once has abolished capital punishment and later returned to it, but I am quite sure that I myself have read of cases in which countries where they have at one time gone that length and later gone back again.


Robert Bickerdike: No country and no state that has abolished capital punishment has ever returned to it.


Arthur Meighen: The 'hon. gentleman
says that it applies to all countries as well as to all states of the Union. I do not think he is correct in that. He may be correct as to the states, but, correct or not, the records do show that in 6ome of the cases, at all events, where the abolition took place the result has not been by any means a diminution of the crime of murder. There might result an increase in the proportion of convictions of murder known to have been committed, 'but cases are undoubtedly recorded in well authenticated works where there has been a pronounced increase in the perpetration of the crime of murder.


Robert Bickerdike: Can the hon. gentleman put his finger on a single case or a single statement to that effect? I challenge that statement. I have the facts here.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman may not have all the facts.


Robert Bickerdike: I have sufficient.


Arthur Meighen: While the rules of the House may prevent my speaking again in this debate, the hon. gentleman will introduce his Bill again and we shall have an opportunity of threshing this out. There may be differences of opinion on that point; there may be differences of authority, and the hon. gentleman may have one side and we may have to other; but what appeals to me most of all is this: the character of the punishment must be such as will appeal as a fitting punishment; as will appeal with sufficient terror to the type of man who would contemplate the crime of murder. It would take a great deal of argument to convince me that incarceration as now necessarily practiced can be made eueh a dreaded punishment as will hold in check the passions of men who contemplate the crime of murder. Remember again that in this country-and I believe the same principles apply in the old land and in other countries as well-though the supreme penalty is exacted by law, that is to say, is called for on the part of the bench ae the sentence that must follow conviction for murder, certain well known principles obtain in the execution of that sentence after it is pronounced. One principle I might state is this: it is well known that insanity as defined by the Code, while not a defence, may be pleaded in several ways

and may result in there being no possibility of conviction, because of proven incapacity to commit the crime. But insanity is there defined as insanity in such a degree as in stated degree to paralyse the intellect and prevent the man from knowing in reality the difference between right and wrong. Now, while there may not be incapacitation of intellect to that extent, there may be such a condition of mind, such a lack of development of intellect, such an absence of the full human faculties, as would make it not a fitting case in which to exact the extreme penalty: such a failure fully to appreciate the nature and consequence of the act as, while it would not render the man incapable of committing an act under the definition of the Code, still makes a proper case for interposition on the part of the Crown and of reducing the conviction to imprisonment for a term of years or foi life. That is one principle, and the utmost care is exercised in every case to ascertain whether or not in each individual conviction the prisoner comes within its terms. There are other principles that obtain. It would be impossible for example to deny that if, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, given in the immediate presence of the witnesses and in the hearing of all the evidence, there should develop other evidence not at the trial producable, or other proper ground to create a reasonable doubt, that reasonable doubt finds interpretation in the decision as to the execution of the penalty. I do not need to pass over again the arguments that have been advanced, much more ably than I can advance them, by the Minister of Justice in previous debates. I think the sense of the House remains pretty much as it was in those previous sessions; I do not know that my own conviction on the subject remains undisturbed by the discussions that have taken place. It would seem to me hard to credit that any one could during many years come in contact with the administration of criminal law and come in contact with the criminal himself as one in the practice of such law must necessarily come, and still believe that there could be as full and adequate prevention of the crime- of murder by any system of imprisonment as there is by the holding out of the possibility of death itself.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) deserves very great credit for the persistence with which he has been bringing forward this Bill year after year against the manifest conviction of the House. His motives

are certainly most honourable, and they are dictated by a cause which everybody appreciates, even if we do not agree with his convictions. To-day, if I understood his observations aright, I thought that he would have been satisfied if the Government had seen its way to accept his Bill partially if not in toto; if the Government had been willing to abolish capital punishment in the case of rape and in the case of murder committed by women and children. At the present time, so far as the first of these is concerned, I do not think that there is any necessity of changing the law. The offence, if I remember aright, is punishable by death or by imprisonment for life or for a period subject to the discretion of the court. The offence is, we are all happy to observe, one of rare occurrence in this country. In the province from which I come, I know of only one conviction during the last fifty years. In that case the prisoner convicted was sentenced, not to death, but to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. Whether he fulfilled his whole term I do not know. As far as crimes committed by women are concerned, in the province from which I come only two sentences have been executed against women during the last sixty years. Undoubtedly there is something revolting in the idea that a woman should be sentenced to death. The member for St. Lawrence must remember the case which occurred in the county of Terrebonne not far from Montreal. The woman was convicted the same time as the person who actually perpetrated the crime. There is no doubt whatever, notwithstanding the sympathy we may have for her case, that of the two she was the more guilty. She enticed a young boy to commit an awful murder, and if there was more guilt on the head of one than on the other, no man could resist the conviction that the woman was the more guilty than the actual perpetrator of the deed. The question as to whether the woman or the actual perpetrator df the deed should be executed is one worthy of consideration. I mention this to my hon. friend simply to show that it is not sufficient to be guided solely by sentiment, and that there may be reasons why the law should be left as it is at present, whether the offender be a man or a woman. I am not aware that a boy has been executed in Canada within the memory of any living man. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and roy hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) have

alluded to the painful case of that boy in Manitoba. So far as we can judge from the reports in the newspapers, it is a horrible case, but I hope there may be redeeming features which will permit the Minister of Justice to report favourably to His Excellency in the matter.
My hon. friend has stated that capital punishment has been abolished in several countries. I do not know whether it is on this occasion or on a previous occasion that he referred to France. Capital punishment, so far as I am aware, has not been abolished in France; but in that country, during the presidency of Mr. Fallieres, it is well known that during the first six years of his seven years tenure of office he would not sign a single sentence of execution, but public opinion at last revolted, and under the powerful force of public opinion President Fallieres had to abandon his own private [DOT] views and at length was compelled to see that the law was carried out.
The matter to which my hon. friend has given his attention, and to which I have no doubt he will give his attention again if the House does not agree with him to-day, is one which has appealed to many thinkers, and we have had very weighty opinions on both sides - of the question, some holding that the death penalty should never be abolished in the case of murder. At the present time, although rape carries with it nominally the penalty of death, with the alternative of imprisonment, no man, no matter what the circumstances are, is sentenced to death for that crime, so that there is no necessity for considering that aspect of the case. But, there has undoubtedly been a sense prevailing in the great majority of the nations of the earth that murder should be punished by death. It is a painful thing to say so; it is a thing against which our instincts revolt; but, after all, if the crime is to be thus punished, I do not know that any serious injustice has taken place. I know that there is no duty which comes within the purview of the Government-I am sure it is the same with the present Government as it was with the last Government-which is more painful than to have to pronounce whether or not a prisoner shall be condemned to death. I am sure that with the present Government, as with the previous Government, the facts of the case are scanned with' great diligence and always with the view, if possible, to find any reason for exercising clemency, and if any reason be found, clemency is recommended to the Governor General. There
are cases, however, so heinous that it is felt that the ends of justice would not be met if the penalty provided by the law were, not carried out.
Whether or not the penalty of death is a deterrent is a much mooted question. Education has more to do with the prevention of crime than even the deterrent effect of the punishment, and in this country it can happily be said that cases of murder are very few in fact, amongst the native population they are becoming less and less frequent. All the cases which have taken place recently have been amongst a class of foreigners who come from a country in which the crime of murder is a daily custom. Without being invidious, I believe that many crimes of that nature have been committed by Italians who came from the south of Italy, where it is the pernicious habit of every man to carry a stiletto. The carrying of weapons is prohibited in this country by law, and I have no doubt that a generation hence these citizens will be just as peaceful and orderly as are our own people. We come, however, always to the same problem: What is the most effective law? Shall we continue the law which we have had on the Statute Book ever since the country has been a country, and which is still the law amongst the most civilized nations of the earth, or shall we be carried away by a feeling of humanity, which is most commendable and most honourable, I admit, but which, after all, will not serve the ends of justice as well as does the present law?


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all delighted with the humane tendencies of the gentleman who has introduced this Bill so frequently and who hopes by knocking at the door of Parliament continuously to at last effect an entrance because of the very weariness of the inmates. I am not attributing to the hon. gentleman, I hope, an unworthy motive. We are well aware that he is a gentleman of such distinguished characteristics that his influence in Canada-is always for the best and his views are always regarded with great respect. There can be no question allso that it is advisable that a leaning to gentleness and kindness should, if possible, characterize a nation as well as an individual, and the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) exhibits on behalf of this House those very advanced characteristics which possibly at some time in the future may be crystallized into a form of law. No one, I pre-

sume, says his views are inadvisable in the abstract or that they are wrong in principle. but they are not adoptable at present because they are inexpedient. That, I believe is the general view of the most advanced thinkers. We must however, say that all credit is due to the hon. gentler man for leading us in the paths of virtue and human kindness, and we recognize this and the country recognizes this, and the persistence of the hon. gentleman will no doubt, in itself, have a very salutary influence'.
There are some very singular things in connection with the consideration of human life and the taking of it away. God takes away human life. If we believe in God-and I presume the hon. member for St. Lawrence does-God takes away human life through at least His natural instruments. He has arranged it so that the slightest infraction of His law meets with the penalty, and if at any time a deadly sin is committed, that penalty is death. There is no consideration, except perhaps it may be through an abstract principle of the grace of God or some other remote consideration of that kind, such as an analysis of the prompting of the Divine mercy which we cannot consider since they are infinite, and since therefore, they are beyond the grasp of a finite mind, they can be dealt with only in an approximate way. And since they can be dealt with only dn an approximate way, these are matters simply for analysis and not for final decision. Whilst we cann.ot argue about it for the reasons I have given, we can, nevertheless, adopt the means that we see employed by the highest power in carrying out the purposes of the world, and if, therefore, we would imitate the Creator, for a deadly sin we would provide the penalty of death. It must be remembered that there is a very great deal in this which the hon. member has not touched upon. He represents with all his kindness the advanced school of pure utilitarism, that is to say, what, ministers to the general comfort and to the general peace of mind. What is influencing him is what we might call the general well-being in an abstract condition of perfection in humanity That ,s the undercurrent of his thought, and the consideration that is influencing him in bringing forward this measure. Such a consideration as that is absolutely the wrong point of view to take in considering this or any other question founded upon the principles of conduct. It is to deny altogether the priori

and to say that there are no abstract abiding principals in the world which aTe infused into us in some way which we cannot grasp, but which, nevertheless, come to us exactly as the principle of life itself comes to us. We can make nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen and those other things which go to make up the hemoglobin, but we cannot infuse into the compound the vital spark which starts off the circulation and produces the life of man. Therefore, there is something behind it all which . we are ignoring when we are eternally looking at our own reflection in the mirror of nature. That must be thoroughly recognized or else we sink down to the level of the brute that crawls upon all fours. We have, strange to say, recognized the extraordinary character of the universe, its illimit-ability, the fact that space is infinite and beyond our comprehension, that the theory of motion itself is beyond our comprehension. Nevertheless, the principles of conduct move us to an immediate and final consideration, without giving to them in any sense that which we would give to them in reference to these eternal principles to which I have referred. If we are circumscribed within the confines of this narrow sphere within which we live, then those principles of utilitarianism which the hon. gentlemen advocates might well be so considered. But it is not so, and when we see that the eternal Creator of it all has laid down an inviolable law which cannot be infringed, which even the youngest child that ever was horn and some indeed that are not born cannot infrirtge without the penalty being exacted mercilessly, it must be apparent that we cannot regard these things as some humane gentlemen pretend to do. The hon. gentleman himself is not so much older than I am, that it would be presumptuous in me to say he has made a mistake in his consideration of life. Life is not a Sunday school, nor is it, for most of us, that easy affair which possibly it has been to him. It is a most serious and awful thing. It is not a comedy nor a drama, but a tragedy. We must bear in mind that life is not to be considered in the light of these humane principles which the hon. gentleman has laid down. If we are to be scientific, we must examine the facts as they are. If we are to be philosophical ,or religious, we must examine the facts as they are. If however, we are simply to be utilitarian without regard to those other two great divisions of thought, we will no doubt follow the course adopted by the hon. gentleman. We will live in places where it is more

offensive to have a hanging or an execution than it is to face the alternatives. If the hon. gentleman lived in a mining camp, where murders were frequently committed, he would at last beyond a doubt be prevailed upon to say, "This must be stopped; the men who have committed these crimes cannot be confined, and because we have no place within which to confine them, so we will have to take them out and shoot them." Why is the extreme penalty necessary? We admit that in many cases confinement would probably do, and I must confess that I shudder at the thought of hanging the young. I shudder also at Hell, not from fear of it, but at the awfulness of it. I suppose the hon. member (Mr. Bicker-dike) has not given up his belief in Hell, and if he has not, he must know that while the torment of a hanging or execution ceases after a few struggles from the unfortunate victim, the torments of Hell endure forever. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is versed in Purgatory.


Robert Bickerdike: I . have never been there.


John Hampden Burnham: The toon, gentleman
will do well if he ever gets there. In this., system of the Almighty a form of punishment is exacted, not merely, as I understand it, for the purification of the individual concerned, but as an example to all mankind, and it must be remembered that example, and not vengeance, is at the basis of all this. The lax and the lazy, the indolent and the vagrant, all who axe inclined to degenerate, must understand that when they commit a terrible sin they must pay the penalty. If we adopted the plan of turning the other cheek, our act might be, according to the theory, a very fine one. But strange to say, the Son of God who advocated that cause, was himself the victim o| a different system. We can only understand these things as they are presented to us. The Highest Power of all exacted the penalty of death-there must toe satisfaction. I do not suppose that the satisfaction was that of vengeance, for though the men of whom we read in the Old Testament gloried in the vengeance which they considered so delightful and so necessary, it would be absurd to suppose that the Creator of the universe would execute vengeance upon mortals who exist upon a planet so small as to be invisible from the sun. These things must give us pause. We think too highly of ourselves and too little of the Almighty, I believe A
40	[DOT]	i.
It is upon a different ground, upon the ground of necessity, that this infliction of the last dread penalty is to be justified. In the family, mistaken kindness to a son may cause his ideas to become lax, with the consequence that he grows up a shiftless good-for-nothing. But had he been dealt with a little more stringently, a little more strictly, he might grow up a good man. That may be the basis of it all. We are not competent to form opinions in opposition to the laws of Almighty God. One must not set up his theories, collected here in the House of Commons or in his study, in opposition to these laws. In olden times people followed more ox less the dictates of nature, tout we now-a-days have become so refined that we regard nature rather as a nuisance, as a very vulgar means to an entirely different end. People should study the natural sciences. Our study of those sciences has taught us that that which was once thought to be the thunderbolt of Jupiter is in reality a fusion of hydrogen and nitrogen gases at high electric tension. These studies have caused us to understand that the form of the crystal is due to a certain degree of chemical tension, of heat or otherwise, a regular falling into their places of the molecules that compose it. And so the common carbon, under intense heat and vast pressure, becomes the clarified crystal that we call the diamond. These things give us a different conception of life and cause us to see that there is something in the purpose which God has unfolded, something in the law and order which he has inculcated. They teach us that we must not give way to every little heartfelt impulse, for that course is not in accordance with the laws that govern our life. If what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) says is true, that we should always be kindly, long-suffering, humane and forgiving, then the Maker of the universe has made a huge mistake, for he has not brought it about that way at all. Nor is there any warrant for it in the Scripture nor in history. Possibly the evolution of mankind and of nature, by strong and subtle promptings, may bring us to that conclusion, as it has brought us from time to time to other conclusions, but we shoidd not reach such conclusions by argument that is in direct opposition to the natural manifestations to which I have been referring. The case of rape referred to by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) calls to mind the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). That hon. gentleman said that whatever might be the



theory of the speakers in the House with regard to the necessity or otherwise of capital punishment, it was necessary if the lives of the lonely settlers on the prairie were to be preserved, and if the women were to stay upon the farms. He said, as nearly as 1 can remember: If you remove the dread of the death penalty you will make it impossible for farmers of the West to continue their work, for their womenfolk will not remain in remote parts of the country but will come nearer to the centres of population where they will be able to feel safe. There you have the natural necessity of the case. One statement of that kind is worth all the theoretical argument that might he advanced in a week's time in this House. Facts are the things which must rule us. The mere taking of life is, I fancy, that which presents the picture of the greatest horror to the hon. member for St. Lawrence. Is not that so?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


John Hampden Burnham: I can well understand that to a gentle soul things of that description are dreadful. And, that being so, a war such as the present is beyond all conception dreadful. But it so happens that it is sometimes necessary, in order to stop an assailant, to take his life. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that if he were attacked, and if it were a question of his own life or that of his assailant he would not kill that assailant if he had the power?


Robert Bickerdike: That is the only
ground, I believe, on which the killing of a man is justified-self-defence. That is the only ground upon which such an act is justified by Scripture, history or reason.


Mr BURNHAM:: That is the ground
upon which men are hanged; self-defence is the justification advanced for capital punishment. I repeat that no one for a moment accepts the ghastly doctrine that the reason for capital punishment is that ^society must wreak vengeance upon the criminal. It is because we must defend ourselves. This modification is asked for not so much in the interest of men as of women and children. That lets the cat out of the bag. There is no justification for the rest of the hon. gentleman's argument. We are not concerned with the rest of his argument because, if he admits that self-defence justifies decapitation, or hanging, or any other form of capital punishment, if .that is the ground upon which he bases his argument, it is met. The equation being declared, there is no difficulty 
and therefore no justification for his Bill. We have met his objections; we meet them now.


Robert Bickerdike: Would you hang the boy?	__


John Hampden Burnham: No. The reason I
would not hang the hoy is not because it is a violation of the principle I have laid down but I do not think that a boy could be competent within the meaning of the law. I think that a boy .should be taken as not possessing the ability-the ability of a man-to consider what he did. If a boy of sixteen is as old as a man is at twenty-one, if he thoroughly understands the nature of his action, I would say hang him. So far as my experience goes, boys of sixteen are very irresponsible. They might be influenced on the spur of the moment by some one else, ot through Some fascination amounting to hypnotism to do something which, with consideration, they would not do. But, I do not believe that they can be guilty of the nefarious and hideous villainy that must characterize the act of .the true murderer. I do not think they are capable of it. Therefore, I would say that I would not hang a boy under any circumstances. But nowadays women are to be considered as men. They do not want woman suffrage; they want equal suffrage. They do not want to be distinguished as elector's they wish to co-operate with men and since men and women are to be the same electoral entities, they must appear before the law on an equal footing without distinction in every possible case. This is one of them. If I am liable to be banged, my wife, if I have one, must be liable also.


George Perry Graham: Ypu ought to have one.


John Hampden Burnham: Of course, that is another matter.


Robert Bickerdike: It is time you had.


John Hampden Burnham: Now, you are trying
to put me off the track. I think we should deal with these questions on their merits. I would like to say, with the permission of the House, that I desire to resume this question at eight o'clock, when I shall have given it further consideration.
At six o'clock th House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose to continue my

remarks at length, but T would say that before six o'clock I understood that we had arrived at an amicable conclusion, namely that the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) agreed that we were entitled to slay people if they desired to take our lives, or in other words, in self defence. The theory of capital punishment is founded on self defence. On that we agreed, and the necessity of the Bill is therefore not apparent. It is, of course, possible to substitute imprisonment for capital punishment; but it has been ascertained in many countries that life imprisonment is not by any means the deterrent that capital punishment is. In those countries where it has been thought expedient to inflict capital punishment as rarely as possible, in the absence of superior conditions and the progress of education, it has been found that serious crime increased. I make this statement, but I do not intend to back it up by statistics, nor to implement it in any way. I simply wish to say that I am aware that in some countries or states wnere they had capital punishment and gave it up from humanitarian impulses, they had to restore it, serious crime became so rampant. The corrective which the hon. member for St. Lawrence is looking for is that of superior education and a general improvement of general conditions. Those things alone will bring about that state of things to which the hon. member looks forward; and when it comes it will be recognized and the various measures which are now employed, which are extremely severe and whose ghastliness alone the hon. member admits is the cause of his dislike for them, will disappear. Conditions are not so savage as they used to be. People do not hang for sheep stealing or poaching or other little amusements of that kind; but there was a time, and there are conditions in this world, in which the very	severest and most
terrible measures	may be necessary
in self defence; and it would be a serious thing if a Bill like this should pass before its time. From the testimony given by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and some other western -gentlemen, it would be a very serious mistake to bring it on even if it resulted in only one or two serious crimes before the impropriety of its abolishment was discovered. We must safeguard life at all hazards, we must be extremely careful of it, much more so thin of those who commit the crime of murder. 40J
In the course of time we all hope to abolish capital punishment, or rather hope that it will render itself unnecessary; it will abolish itself, and we hope indeed that all forms of punishment will in time disappear since the necessity for them will have disappeared; and we hope also that the whole human race will find that its future does not prevent the terrible aspect it does at the present time. I might as well go further in my spirit of altruism and hope for the best for the Opposition.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) endeavouring, as he says, to explain the inexplicable. Whether he succeeded or not I am really at a loss to know; he may have and he may not have. But although he is not in'favour of .capital punishment, he nearly smothered us with language. He has arrived, at the conclusion, however, that the abolition of capital punishment is right, and his concluding remark is'that this is not an opportune time to enact such legislation. He has converted himself at least, by his argument, to practically the same viewpoint as the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike). I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) that this is not a proper time, unless we are prepared to say that we are less advanced than many states of the Union which, having passed Acts for the abolition of capital punishment, have not re-enacted that legislation again, so far as I know. It is not to my mind a matter of theology, and I would not like to undertake the task of discussing that deep subject with any person, much less with my well-informed friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), because I admit he would have me lost in that discussion. It It is a question of the protection of society, and how that can be accomplished with the minimum of harm dome. It must be remembered, in listening to the arguments against thie legislation, that the same arguments were advanced, in every country where it was proposed, but the answer has been as I have said a moment ago, that with one or two exceptions no country has returned to capital punishment that ever made the experiment of its abolition. The result must have been good, else that would not have been the case. It is true also that in every reform there are men who put their feet against the cleats as if they were in a tug-of-war and refuse to be pulled so long as they can keep their dead weight holding back. But public opinion is going to crowd
*

the Parliament of Canada, whatever Government is at the head of affairs in this country, on until it gets the courage to adopt this great measure of reform. A few years ago had anybody told members of this House that practically all Canada would have adopted woman suffrage, he would have -been laughed at. There were a few advocates of woman, suffrage in the legislature of Ontario, in which I had the honour of having a seat at that time, but so few that it was difficult when the late Mr. Smith of Peel, a few years ago, introduced a resolution to that, effect for him to get a sufficient number of members to stand up and have a vote taken on the question; there was almost a solid legislature against it. Now there is a solid legislature for it. Go through the western provinces, as I had the privilege of doing a few weeks ago, and we find the people unanimous for women being put on a plane of equality with men in this respect. I venture the assertion that it will not be very long before this House takes the same stand, and I think it should. Then take the temperance question. It is not so many years ago since prohibition was looked upon as a movement so far in advance of the time that the majority were against it. To-day the people are almost unanimous in favour of very advanced legislation, and most of them, I think, are in favour of the complete -abolition of the traffic in intoxicating liquor as a beverage. It should not be discouraging to the member for St. Lawrence division to find that even in the parliamentary ranks there are men with these old conservative ideas of going slowly in these matters.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Because you have so many Conservatives over there.


George Perry Graham: ,1 do not know that there -are many anywhere now who would call themselves Convervatives. However, Sir, that does not mean that this legislation should not be passed. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the member for St. Lawrence for continually pressing this matter. It is the one great thing he has in his -mind, and I heartily approve his stand in regard to it.
* From my earliest recollection I have been impressed with the view that capital punishment should not be exercised in any country in the world. In our present con-, dition of enlightenment there is no need for it. On what ground do we punish the criminal? The chief ground is the protection of society. The second, which ought 
not to be forgotten, is that of giving. the individual an opportunity of reformation. That is not a light matter. It is not within the purview of man to take away from any human .being the opportunity of reformation, unless he is absolutely sure that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the public. Is the punishment of hanging or the death penalty an example more striking or more effective than- any other form of punishment? I can answer only by presenting the experience of countries which have abolished capital punishment-I have read everything I could get on this question during the last twenty years and I am firmly convinced that the experience of other countries teaches most clearly that life imprisonment has just as deterrent an effect on crime as has capital punishment. It may not be your view; it may not be the view of others, but the practical test of the correctness of that view must be found in the experience of other countries. That is as to the past. As to the future, surely imprisonment for life protects the public just as much as hanging. The criminal is shut out from society and has no opportunity of committing crime, but he has an opportunity, if the reforms which ought to take place and must take place are carried out, to contribute to the maintenance of himself and his family, or if he has no family, to contribute something to the welfare of the public. I have always taken the position that our criminal law should be so administered that the man who by his own act has caused the support of those depending upon him to be taken away should be allowed a certain amount every day for his work and that a portion of that amount should go to the sustenance of his family. Tc- come back to my contention, surely if a man be incarcerated the public is just as safe from his depredations as they would be if his life were taken.
The next point is the reformation of the individual. This may be called sentimental. Some will say- that ,a imam Sufficiently hardened to take the life of a fellow-being is not susceptible of reformation; that it is sufficient to give him two or three months to make his peace with his Maker. I cannot accept that view; I believe that is going beyond the purview of mankind. No human being is so bereft of all that is right that in his constitution there is nothing good. It may be small; from the human standpoint it may be almost imperceptible to some, but I contend that the Creator never sent a being into this world who did not possess some

good traits of character which if developed would lead him into a higher and better life. Our criminals become such largely through neglect during childhood and youth, and through the influence of their surroundings. Some are criminals through heredity, and that brings us back to the original position that the forebears of this man, who is said to be a criminal through hereditary instinct, must have been surrounded by conditions and circumstances that led him into criminality. I must admit that in these times of stress, we are, perhaps, losing sight of the proportion and value of human life; but if we value the future of the human family as well as the present, is it not well worth while to make an attempt, on behalf of those by whom we are surrounded, on behalf of the criminal, to secure the reformation of that criminal?
. If there be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, is it not worth while that the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada should give several sinners each year full opportunity for repentance? The evidence on which a criminal is convicted is, I suppose, in nine cases out of ten, purely circumstantial. I admit that in very few cases does the administration of justice, as justice is displayed on our statute book, go wrong in Canada. Perhaps there is no country in the world where justice is meted out so efficiently as it is under the British flag. But notwithstanding that, we do take human life; we take it by statute. There are over two hundred men in this Parliament, and we arrogate to ourselves the right to pass a law which gives one human being the right under certain conditions to take the life of his fellow-being. I could never bring myself to feel that I was justified in going that far. Fully convinced as I am that society would be as thoroughly protected by life imprisonment of the convicted -one as it is by capital punishment, and that an opportunity should be given for the reformation of the criminal, I am unable to see any reason why I should change my mind in favour of the death penalty.
I was pleased to see to-day on the floor of the House a former member of the Ontario Government, and I am of the opinion that if he could have spoken his mind in this House this afternoon, his views would have, partially at least, coincided with those of the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division. I had the honour of preceding as Provincial Secretary of Ontario the Hon. Mr. Hanna, and my predecessor was the late Mr. Stratton, who.had
the idea that the Central Prison at Toronto should be removed from the centre of that city and that different treatment should be meted out to those sent up for less than two years. I was very strongly of the same view. When the Hon. Mr. Hanna came into office, he proceeded along lines of prison reform, and the very same arguments that I have heard here this afternoon in favour of capital punishment were uttered against his propositions for prison reform. He took the ground, after full investigation in some of the states of the Union where the methods of dealing with criminals have been greatly revised, where capital punishment has been abolished, that there was a better method of treating our unfortunate brethren than by the utmost severity of the law. He took the viewpoint expressed a moment ago by myself, that if there was something good \in humanity it should be cultivated, and that it was the duty of the state not to crush out with an iron hand what is good, but to give it an opportunity to develop, and sooner or later, in the majority of cases, the man whom we formerly looked upon as a criminal might become a benefit and even an ornament to society. He established the prison farm system, and the prisoners do the work of the ' ordinary farmer; out of doors engaged in healthy occupation. They are not only improving themselves physically, but they are earning for the State and they are producing for their own maintenance as well as for the maintenance of others, and although it is true that occasionally a man does not respect the liberty thus given him, the records of the Province of Ontario will show that this reformation in the treatment of prisoners has been good not only for the individual, but for the State.
From various states of the Union and from other countries have come men to investigate the system of prison reform which is in its early stages in Ontario, with the object of adapting that system in their own country. The very same principle that applies to the treatment of men convicted of minor offences can be applied to the treatment of our unfortunate, yes, vicious fellow men who have committed greater crimes. This advance movement in the mehod of treating criminals may be slow, but leading men of the Dominion, who are not in public life, but who have the keeping of their brethren in their care, men high up in the ministry, men in the professions, thinking business-men, are joining


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer humble apologies on behalf of that section of our community which obeys the law, which maintains the State, and which, speaking generally, conforms to the rules of life laid down by God and man. It is apparently the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Bicker-dike) that this element of the community is of a negligible character, and the only thing to be considered is the right, interest, and advantage of those who set at defiance the laws of God and man. In my view there is no foundation for the suggestion that the proposal now before the House is in the interest of the sacredness of human life. My emphatic protest against it is that it is an attack upon the saoredness of human life. I have listened to the eloquence of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in regard to the opportunity that should be given to the convicted murderer for reformation. I am here to speak on behalf of the victim, and to ask where does consideration for the victim come in? Where and how does the victim have an opportunity to make his peace with God, who has been hurried into the presence of his Maker by the hand of a murderer? You say, but the murder has been done. That is true, but murders are done to-day, and other murders are done to-morrow, and the obligation is laid upon the members of this House, representing the people of Canada, to see that such measures are placed upon the statute book and such administration given as will secure as far as possible, that no man, woman or child shall be hurried unprepared into the presence of their Maker by the hand of a murderer.
I was somewhat touched by the suggestion that those who are not in favour of the murderer as against the murdered are therein non-progiressive. Permit me to point out that all that has been argued here to-day was argued thousands of years ago amongst many savage tribes, and amongst many tribes (the principle still prevails to-day that a murder can be condoned by the payment jyt money. Surely ithiat de ia much better primuiple than destroying tlie life of the murderer, better than placing the murderer in duress at the expense of the state? We are not going forward when we are heading to the condition

of savagery which prevailed thousands of years ago, as history tells us and which prevails to-day, as we know of our own knowledge.
It is a question of stupendous importance; it touches the heart and mind of every responsible member of Parliament, of every man charged with responsibility in connection with the matter, and I certainly want to discharge my duty, as our Mends here want to discharge theirs. It is an easy way of escaping responsibility-and this is the logic <of the attitude taken-to say that the murder having been committed the only question to be considered is the good of the murderer. I submit that the question to be considered is the future good of society and of the State, and if it should unfortunately be the case that the good of the murderer does not run on all fours with the good of the State, then in my humble judgment so much the worse for the murderer. His was the choice not the unfortunate victim's. The State has to consider the question of the greatest good to the greatest number, and I submit that that question is decided by taking such a course as shall tend in the largest possible measure to protect the interests of the law-abiding section <of the community against the passion or rapacity or other evil desires that may !be conjured up by those who are not of a law-abiding character. It has been stated that some pf the .states of the Union have declared against capital punishment. 1 am sorry I am not as familiar with the course of history in the neighbouring republic as some of our friends seem to be. I am somewhat familiar with recent history, hpwever, and I would ask whether the state of California ,is one of those that have abolished capital punishment.


Robert Bickerdike: Not yet.


Frank Oliver: Because I recall that at
the time of the San Francisco earthquake advantage was taken of that terrible tragedy by the criminally inclined to commit murders and robbery, and under the authority of the Governor of the state, so I am credibly informed, the late General .Funston posted soldiers in the streets with orders to shoot on sight any one caught in the act of robbing a .body, or pillaging of any kind. Who will say that that was not a wise and humane course to take? Or are those states in which we read of lynehings *taking place, the states that have declared against capital punishment?


William Pugsley: No.


Frank Oliver: Well, I aiu here to make this argument Wherever an aggrieved c;ti-zcn or family few that substantial justice cannot be expected at the hands of authority, then under the law of God that is planted in the heart of man, the law will be taken in the hands of those that are aggrieved. That is the lynch law that prevails and has prevailed for ages throughout the United States. There is no state of the Union today where it does not prevail on occasion. I do not think there is any example that can be drawn from history, recent or ancient, that will prove that those who commit the most terrible oflence against humanity should not be dealt with according to the laws laid down in Scripture and implanted by the Divine Power in the heart of mankind.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY. (St. John City): I desire to say a very few words upon this question. I agree that the measure introduced by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) is one of very great importance, and deserving, I think, of the very serious consideration of this House. I notice that a difference of opinion has been expressed as to what has taken place in other countries which have done away with capital punishment. My hon. friend the Solicitor General stated that he knew of countries which had adopted legislation abolishing capital punishment, but which had gone back to the law as they had it before. That statement was denied by my hon. friend who has introduced this Bill, and I am inclined to think that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence is in the right, and that there are very few, if any, countries, that have taken what is regarded by a great many people, and myself among the number, as a forward movement, and have afterwards reversed their action. I think the measure is one that ought fairly to go to a special committee to investigate the results of similar legislation in other countries, more particularly in the United States. I am inclined to think that the records will show that, so far from the abolition of capital punishment leading to an increase of crime, the effect has been quite the reverse. I am inclined to think that those persons who commit murder have but little regard to the consequences to themselves; I doubt if many who have in their hearts the desire to do murder are deterred by the knowledge that the penalty may be the loss of their own lives.


Mr. LAFORJUNE (Montcalm) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, kindly allow me a few remarks ament the question mow before the House. The subject is of the greatest importance and deserving of our very earnest consideration. Every year the House is called upon to pronounce on this proposition, which our learned friend brings forward with characteristic perseverance, study and energy. I do not intend this evening to repeat all the arguments which I have had the opportunity already of bringing to bear in this debate, I merely wish to call attention to a few points, the House having long ago heard the pro and con "of this important discussion. Any lengthy remarks on my part would be out of place.
First of all, I may be permitted to reply to the honourable and learned member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) who, when this question was last debated, took me to task because I did not share his views. My object in taking the floor is to reply to the unfair references of the learned member. He states I am in favour of capital punishment because the more hangings, the better for me. That is quite uncalled for, and the distinguished member in speaking thus was most unfair.

What benefit does a Crown attorney reap when cases of capital punishment increase in number? That does not add to his fees? What interest can the legal representative of the Crown have in the matter? None whatever. Our grief is profound and our misgivings many when we have to insist on the daw taking its course after a jury has brought in a verdict of guilty against am individual. How deep our regret when we have to move for a sentence of death! How cautiously we proceed! First of all the facte are investigated by men quite competent and wise. They decide as to whether any one is liable to prosecution. Then the grand jury takes the matter in hand, and no precaution is overlooked that may prevent a possible mistake. Yes, I reiterate my statement, nothing is neglected and in case of doubt, if we are not fully convinced of the guilt of the accused, we instruct the jury to render a verdict in favour of the prisoner. People are fond of talking against miscarriages of justice, miscarriages that never have taken place. It has been stated that an Italian who. had been adjudged guilty and wras reprieved' later on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice had been the victim of a judicial error. I was Crown prosecutor at the first trial. The jury failed to agree and the case was postponed to the next assizes. The prisoner claimed that he had not produced all his witnesses and -taken advantage of all his privileges. For those xeiasons we adjourned his case to the next term so as to give him an opportunity of preparing his defence. His means being insufficient to allow him to bring his witnesses to court, the Crown undertook to pay their conduct-money. So we obtained the evidence of witnesses whom he claimed would testify on his behalf, but their testimony went against him and'left no doubt as to his guilt. Later on, after serving a term in gaol, he was sentenced to hang, but the Minister of Justice thought fit to recommend his enlargement. I do not blame the hon. the minister but there had certainly been no miscarriage of justice. The guilt had been established beyond all doubt, but certain parties who had testified against the prisoner thought fit for one reason or another to swear to an affidavit that might justify the Minister of Justice setting him free. Again I say there had been no error, but the pardon was a mere act of clemency on the part of the minister.
It has been said and repeated on all occasions that capital punishment is absolutely ineffective and does not act as a deterrent; that it is too severe, and should
be abolished; that the laws of humanity do not countenance the infliction of the sentence of death on human being. Quite easy to argue and quite easy to bring to pass. My observation, however, and my experience have fully satisfied me that since the infliction of the death penalty on murderers, there has been a marked decrease in the number of murders.
One can easily make the statement that the extreme penalty is no deterrent; but I claim that if capital punishment be done away with, crime will increase a hundredfold. Many criminally inclined wisely fear the scaffold, and were confinement the only punishment, many more among them would become murderers. It has been urged that it is wrong and inhuman to take the lives of the culprits; but when assassins; bandits and murderers kill; when they strike right and left, who among them has ever stayed his hand, impelled by like consideration for hte victim? Murderers find time to effect their reconoidiaition with society and make their peace with their own conscience and with God. They have ample opportunity to arrange their domestic matters, while the victims they- have ushered unprepared into eternity without a moment's notice may not have had the opportunity of making preparation, of putting their affairs in order, -and) especially making themselves ready for the life eternal.	-
Well, my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that such an argument takes into account only one side of the question. Had this mode of dealing with criminals not been attempted elsewhere, were we without any experience from other countries, we might perhaps say: Let us do away with capital punishment and judge of the results in the next few years to come. But the experiment has been tried and the states which introduced the new system had to return to the old, on account of the large increase in crime.
I am quite aware that no reasoning on my part will convince any of the hon. members who have taken sides on this question; and it is far from my thought, quite far indeed, to say anything that may stand in the way of my hon. friend's efforts.
Should his proposition prevail, so much the better for him; and if I could anywise help him, I should do it -quite heartily. What could I deny the hon. member from St. Lawrence? He is an old friend of mine, a generous man, an old fighter who always answered the call when his services were required. Were my convictions different, I should be the first to side with him; but it is a matter of conscience with me to raise my voice against this Bill.


Robert Bickerdike: Intentionally?


George Henry Bradbury: It is the plea of the young man himself that the shooting of Mrs. Vincent was accidental, but he is the only one who says so. He made no attempt at all to render any assistance to the woman after she was shot. When the husband came home he took the first opportunity to shoot him too. He shot him, rendering

him unconscious, and then he went and got a shot gun, blew the man's head off, got the money and got away with it. Yet, we are asked to believe that the shooting of Mrs. Vincent was accidental.
I do not understand that the enforcement of the death penalty is a matter of vengeance. The law, I believe, is administered for the purpose of preventing the perpetration of crimes of this character. If there ever was a case calling for very careful consideration by council I would think it would be this one. I am not going to discuss the general principles of the Bill submitted by my hon. friend. There is room for discussion both ways. There is no doubt that there are cases in which there are extenuating circumstances, where murders are committed hastily, where, for instance, a man in a passion will lift up a gun or an axe and take another man's life. These are cases in which there might be some jurisdiction for granting a reprieve, but careful consideration must be given when it is evident that a coldblooded murder has been committed after having been planned, no doubt as this murder must have been planned, by this young man. They claim he is only sixteen years of age. I have not been in the district since this murder was committed, but I have letters from my friends there who claim that the boy is over twenty years and that he has the appearance of a man. I think that indicates that he is much older than he claims to be. But, whether he is sixteen years of age or not, he had been working for some years in the district, he was thoroughly responsible and knew what he was doing, and if crimes of this kind are to be committed in this country without punishment such as the law provides. I have very grave doubts as to the country being able to maintain its proud boast that it has never had a lynching. Why? Simply because the law has been administered. If a man was guilty of murder he was almost sure to suffer the penalty provided for the offence. When I went to the West some thirty years ago gamblers used to come across from the other side of the line. The red-coated mounted police were patrolling the boundary in southern Manitoba and when these gamblers would fall out, one would say to the other: If I had you over on the other side of the line I would blow your brains out. Why did they not do it on this side of the line?-because they knew that if they did it they would suffer the death penalty.


Robert Bickerdike: Was there not capital punishment on the other side?


George Henry Bradbury: There was, but, unfortunately, the law was not administered as it was here. With reference to this murder of which I have spoken, I hope that this application will receive very careful consideration at the hands of the Government, as all matters of that kind must. It is a very serious matter to take the life of any man either by law or otherwise, but I firmly believe that if capital punishment were done away with there would be more lives taken in this country than there are at the present time.
There is no question but that the fear of the gallows has saved' many a man's life. Everybody dm the western country knows that this is the case and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) who spoke so feelingly, knows that it is true. I am not bloodthirsty enough to wish to take any man's life. I heard the hon. member for St. John (M.r. Pugsley) a few moments ago make the statement that the taking of a life by. larw would not do any
9 p.m. good to the party who had been murdered. I agree with my hon. friend thoroughly, but the law was not designed as a matter of vengeance, or to do any good to the party murdered. It was designed to set an example, to deter others from committing the same crime that the condemned person was suffering for. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) made an eloquent appeal. I sympathize with the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentlemen who are advocating this bill, but, there is no analogy between the prison reforms that are taking place in Ontario and in other parts of this great continent, or between men who have committed some petty crime and found their way into the penitentiary, and a coldblooded murder where a man premeditates a crime and gees out and deliberately murders another.
Another argument advanced by these hon. gentlemen is that you are ushering a man into eternity without giving him an opportunity to prepare. That is a sound argument, but what about that man and woman who were ushered into eternity by this young man without a moment's notice? They were given no time to prepare. It might as well have been their own son that committed that murder as the man who did it because he was treated as a member of the family. What about the children, the orphans, the brothers and sisters left to mourn the death of their

parents? If this crime is not punished according to our present law, what is there to prevent other crimes being committed by men of this stamp? We have had several cases in that western country of young English boys coming out and committing horrible crimes.


Robert Bickerdike: N.ot English boys.


George Henry Bradbury: English boys from the Bernardo school-more than half a dozen cases of them. It is a serious question and one that ought to be weighed very seriously bj every member of this House before voting for a bill that would in any way lessen the penalty for murder. In view of that fact, in view of the murder that has been [DOT] committed among my own friends, and the possibility that this matter will come before the Government on an application for a reprieve and that petitions have been largely signed all over the country-for it is no trouble to get a petition of this kind signed, as people become hysterical on such occasions and thousands and thousands of people will sign it who know nothing at all about the evidence, who do not weigh the matter but simply sign the petition because they think it is kindly and right thing to ask for the life of this young man- I take the position I have taken. I do not intend to say anything more on this Bill and would not have spoken if this case had not been brought forward as one reason why a Bill of this kind should be passed. This is a case which I think should emphasize the necessity of keeping the law just as it is, leaving the law to take its course.


Arthur Meighen: I have no right to
further intervene in the debate, having spoken once. I simply rise to refer to the request of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) to allow the Bill to pass the second reading and be submitted to a committee of the House, and to give my reason foi the position I think the House should take. He based his request upon the fact that a statement of mine to the effect that there have been countries in Europe, if not States in the American Republic, which had abolished capital punishment and afterwards reverted to it, was denied by the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike), and that consequently there was a state of disputed facts that might well be submitted to a committee.
I do not think that a very strong case could be made for a submission to a committee on so narrow a dispute on facts as that. I observe this, and I had it in mind at the time I was speaking before, that in the debate in 1915 the Minister of Justice referred to several countries as in the category

I described. He referred to Austria-Hungary as having abolished capital punishment and having again returned to that treatment of murderers, and asserted as a fact that this had been the case. He referred also to the cases of Brunswick, Cobourg, Nassau, and Oidenburg which abolished capital punishment in 1849; Saxe-Meiningen and Saxe-Weimar in 1862 and Baden in 1863 and to Saxony which abolished it in 1868, all of whom returned to capital punishment under the Imperial Criminal Code of 1872. He referred further to the case of Russia who abolished capital punishment in 1850 and again returned to it, and for many years continued the practice of capital punishment.


William Pugsley: Then repealed it again.


Arthur Meighen: Not altogether. But
even if they ihad it would still be a case of a country that had abolished capital punishment and returned to it and so would come within the class to which I referred. It is true that in 1907 capital punishment was again abolished in Russia, and again I am relying upon the minister's statement, which he says he very carefully affirmed. He says that while it was abolished in 1907 it was not wholly abolished, but was retained only for the offence of the murder of the Emperor or Empress of Russia or the heir to the throne. It may be. that under the newer conditions that now obtain in Russia the lives of the people generally may be considered as sacred as those of the Emperor or Empress and the heir to the throne. He referred also to certain .states of the American Union as hawing long ago abolished capital punishment and having then found the error of their ways. He referred to Rhode Island, Colorado and the state of Maine, and said:
It is true, some of these states have since abolished it again. But, so far as the hon. gentleman seems to find what he regards as an unanswerable argument in the fact that that those states that have abolished capital punishment have, never repented their action.
Those are cases, several of them in Europe especially, where there has been reversion, that is where capital punishment once abolished was afterwards restored. I have read the speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence division following the Minister of Justice. I have read his speech again in 1916, and I listened to his speech to-day; but I have seen nothing to contradict the individual instances given by the Minister of Justice. I shall not refer to the subject further than to eay that if I have observed the course of the debate cor-

rectly I do not think that the sense of this House is to the effect that there should be any serious intention on the part of this Parliament at this time to abolish capital punishment. The discussion is well worth while, but it would be saying too much to gather from this debate that there appears to be a sense of the House looking to a serious consideration of its abolition now. I think myself the vote of the second reading might well take place.


Robert Bickerdike: I presume I shall
be expected to Teply to some of the very unjust criticisms that have been offered to the Bill which I introduced. I would say to my good friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) that the statement I made was this, that no country or no state in the world that had abolished capital punishment had resumed it at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Resumed it since.


Robert Bickerdike: Resumed it at the
present time. I know that there were some cases, as in Russia, which, as my hon. friend said, abolished capital punishment for everything except the murder of the crowned heads.


Arthur Meighen: What about those states in Germany?


Robert Bickerdike: I have some doubt
about them. But it may be possible that Austria-Hungary, from some things that they have done recently, would return to capital puishment. But I do not think that our House should follow .them.


John Hampden Burnham: Would the hon. member prefer to follow the examples he has cited or those in Great Britain and France?


Robert Bickerdike: I would prefer to follow Russia just now.


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, I thought so.


Robert Bickerdike: I hope that within a week this House will send a cable to Petrograd congratulating Russia on having abolished capital punishment entirely, and also upon the removal of all .German influences in that country.
My good friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) has undertaken to say that that young man was guilty of murder. I have in my possession ten thousand or fifteen thousand signatures of people who say he was not.


George Henry Bradbury: He was found guilty by the trial judge.


Robert Bickerdike: Found guilty by the jury and sentenced by Judge Macdonald- and I hope Judge Macdonald will be ashamed of himself for doing so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I hope the hon. member does not mean to cast any reflection upon the Bench, because he would be distinctly out of order in doing so.


Robert Bickerdike: Well, may I express my opinion about the jury? I still say that I am ashamed of him, if he is not ashamed of himself. I am sure there is not any man in Canada, in this House or out of it, who would stand for hanging a woman or a child, notwithstanding what my leader said this afternoon. I cannot believe it possible that a man who is a man would stand foT hanging a woman or a child, and I do not think that any of those who have spoken to-day would do so. They might give somebody else thirty pieces of silver to go and do it, but they would not do it themselves. The right hon. leader of the Opposition spoke of President Fallieres this afternoon. I think that President Fallieres was the greatest and best man that France ever produced. What did President Failures say? He said that if the judges who condemned a man to death had to do the hanging, there would be no more hanging. I have a better suggestion than that, I should like to see my good friend the leader of the Opposition and my good friend the member for West Peterborough do the hanging. I think that under those conditions hanging would soon stop.


John Hampden Burnham: I have seen men whom I would hang with pleasure.


Robert Bickerdike: I have not the
slightest doubt of that. Any man who would stand up in this House and say he wanted to hang that boy would do almost anything.


John Hampden Burnham: I did not say that.


Robert Bickerdike: The eix-Mindster of
Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) said that he was very much pleased that justice in Canada was administered in such a just and equitable manner. I question very much whether he was correct in that view. I knew a man not four hundred miles from Montreal who stole a horse and buggy. He was sentenced to penitentiary for two years, persecuted right to the end by the man he stole the horse and buggy from, while the man he stole the horse and buggy from stole a whole -railroad and- burst a bank-and he was knighted. I think your

whole system of punishment is wrong. You should punish with a view to making better men and women when you put them into prison. You punish for revenge, but you have no authority from Scripture to punish at aid. There is not a verse in the word of God from Genesis to Revelation that gives you authority to punish a man at all or to hang him. I challenge the whole House to find it.


William Pugsley: There is no use appeal-iny to the other side; they are not familiar with the Scriptures.


John Hampden Burnham: I asked you about hell.


Robert Bickerdike: The member for
Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) apologized for what he was doing. What do they say in France-qui s'excuse s'accuse? He said he was sorry when he had to hang these men; it pains him very much-but he takes the pay all the same. It is blood money, but, like Pilate of old, he washes his hands of it and turns jfrover to the jury, asking them to be merciful-after saying everything he could against the prisoner.
The Minister of Justice said that he had divine sanction for hanging these poor criminals and sending their souls into eternity. I challenged him then to produce that authority, and I challenge him now to do so. The Minister has no divine mandate to hang a boy. If he has such a mandate, it should be placed on the Table of the House so that members on each side may examine it, so that it may be incorporated in the Canadian Archives, to enable generations yet unborn to realize that in the year 1917 there was in the Canadian Government a Minister of Justice who had divine authority for hanging a boy. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice, his extravagant utterances on this subject could have been inspired only by a prejudice. Take the case of self-defence. I contend that only in self-defence, if at all, are we justified in taking human life.
Conceiving that a man has the right under natural instinct and statutory laws to kill another in self-defence, can any man establish self-defence by shooting another who was known to be as helpless as if handcuffed with his hands behind his back? Then, it is no better in principle for the state to do this than it is for a citizen. Society has no more right to trifle with the most sacred work of God than the individual has. The minister sends a young 'boy, handcuffed and guarded by the police, from a modern penitentiary of cement, granite, steel and armour plate, takes him out

upon the gallows and hangs him until he is dead. Surely my friends won't say that that boy was hanged in self-defence.


John Hampden Burnham: I ask the hon. gentleman, since he draws so much upon his vivid imagination-


Robert Bickerdike: That is no imagination. The boy is condemned there in Winnipeg-


John Hampden Burnham: -regarding the horrors of condemning this young man to death-


Robert Bickerdike: This child.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask the hon. gentlemen, then, how he escapes condemning the work of the Creator in condemning to eternal punishment a man who had committed a sin like that?


Robert Bickerdike: That is too deep for me; I give it up. It is a question that would require a notice of motion. Seven and one-half millions against one poor unfortunate fellow locked up in a penitentiary -and yet you say you are going to hang him in self-defence. I should like very much to touch the heart of the Solicitor General. I know it is difficult. I mentioned a case last session, and as I think he did not grasp it, I submit again that where the equities are equal, the element of mercy should hold the balance of power in deciding this question-the awful suffering and remorse of the family of the victim of a homicide. I agree that it is hard on the family of the deceased, and my sympathy goes out to them. Whether his death was the result of an assassination or a justifiable homicide, it is all the same to them. But, for that reason, would you have two widows, two sets of orphans, and two sorrowing parents? I do not think that capital punishment does any good. The family of the prisoner are just as innocent of an offence as the family of the deceased, and are just as much entitled to compassion and sympathy. For example, a man commits murder. He probably got drunk, or was by environment made a criminal. He has a good wife and also children; a good mother and father, and a large number of relatives, all innocent people, and profoundly grieved that the offense was committed. The accused is tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged. The very thought of taking the life of the husband, father, brother and son breaks a multitude of hearts. The time has healed the wounds that grief for the victim rent, but as the

days roll by and the time approaches for the execution of the prisoner, the heart of the mother and the father all but breaks, the affectionate and tender cord of love that stretches from the altar to the scaffold is crushed hut not broken, and the heart of the wife is burned to its very socket. She goes tp and from the awful death cell. Little innocent hearts of children are crushed like the tender blades of grass beneath the angry heels of cannon on the German battlefield, yet they are all innocent. The brother and sister suffer for his sins, and see his ghost-like form in their dreams of repose. As the day draws.near, the father and mother with tittering footsteps visit the death cell, and their minds wander back to the time when a little boy said his prayers at his mother's knee, and they ask God why they have this affliction to hear. The wife, children, relatives and friends all bid Ihiim good-bye and leave with breaking hearts, bitterly thinking of tomorrow. With 'heart-breaking despair, the mother prays Gpd to spare her son, and as , the time flies by the height of Heaven could not measure her sorrow. The father's hair turns gray over night, and the very souls are all scarred and forever seared over by the thought of the vengeance visited on their unfortunate relative, son and husband .and father. The parents are hurried to itheir graves; by broken hearts; the wife tries to forget, but cannot forgive; and the hearts of the children, relatives 'and friends are hardened by the harrowing example of killiflg by the State. Two families are in mourning, and the prisoner's family crushed and heart-broken by a protracted suspense, and that amounts to cruelty to the innocents. Then why make two families instead of one desolate.
Then, suppose he was innocent? There have been oases-we have hiad such cases right here: dri Oamada-of ibnooenlt men, being hanged:. There was such a case molt long ago in the United States, and I will mention others before I get through. The State cannot retract what it has done. If life imprisonment would serve the same purpose, would you not prefer iit to1 (the death penalty?
It is this spirit which must modify the law. Even if hell and death alike were -necessary to be emphasized as penalties for the wicked in more barbarous ages, it is heaven and life which are to be chiefly taught as rewards for the good in the better and gentler days that are dawning. And this expresses a similar view to that maintained by the most competent judges, that
pushing the death penalty only makes it worthless as a deterrent in communities that have reached the state of settled obedience to law.
It appears to me, therefore, to be in harmony with the highest teaching of life that if the death penalty be the greatest deterrent in Canada in the twentieth century, then Christianity has not succeeded in influencing men's thoughts as much as the so-called pagan pre-Christian philosophers of Rome. They had so prepared men's minds and developed men's characters that the death penalty was able to be -abolished in Rome within five hundred years of Rome being founded, whereas some of our judges on the bench and most of our Christian bishops to-day in England say that capital punishment should not be abolished because it is the most powerful deterrent.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) spoke about this young man who had committed murder. To hear the hon. gentleman talk you would think that there was no capital punishment in Manitoba, and that it was for that reason that this crime took place. But that is not the case at all, for capital punishment is the law for Manitoba. I hope it will not be so for long.
Theoretically, from a contemplation of the claims of a Christianity exercised for nearly two thousand years, I should have expected that capital punishment would not now be the only and best deterrent from crime, and upon grounds of theory alone I should have felt justified in advocating that England, the professed pioneer in our humanitarian reforms, should have . been willing to set the great example to the world of abolishing capital punishment as the proof of the sincerity of her claim. She has, however, lost that honour. Others have preceded her in the field, and with more matured faith in human nature and in the progress of culture, have removed its stigma from their statute-books. The result has been so thoroughly satisfactory, and the success has been so commensurate with the state of cultured civilization, that Canada has no excuse for now holding back ' from the same step, unless she is willing to stand self-convicted of a lower civilization and of a more perpetuated brutality than those nations who have found themselves fit to be freed from the yoke of death.
If Canada is lower in civilization than the countries wherein capital punishment has been successfully abolished, where is the boasted value of the freedom of her institutions, of her religion, of the development of her humanity and of her culture?

Any sufficiently civilized country that has enough faith may fearlessly abolish capital punishment from her statute-book. The actual valuelessness of capital punishment as a deterrent, and of its evil effect as an incentive to induce similar crimes, is to be gathered from the records of every land.
With the progress of civilization the inviolability of human life is more and more recognized. _The idea of the dignity of man, of the inviolability of life even in the newborn child, is derived from Christianity, and a higher civilization must seek to 'proclaim it in legislation. But each execution speaks a different language. It proclaims in a loud voice to the crowd assembled round the scaffold that the State does not consider itself bound to respect human life, and that it regards itself as authorized to db that Which is a crime in the individual.
My hon. friend from Edmonton said that there was Scripture authority for hanging. I maintain that there is no such authority. But there is a commandment which says "Thou shalt not kill;" and all the legislation in the country will never get the "not" out of that commandment. That applies to the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) as well as the leader of the Opposition and the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). That commandment was given amidst the thunders of Sinai. It does not say that the state may kill and that the individual must not; that the state may. murder a man but that the individual must not murder. There are no exceptions to that law.


John Hampden Burnham: How does the hon.
member then make an exception?


Robert Bickerdike: I do not.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman
makes an exception of self-defence.


Robert Bickerdike: I say the command is plain-"Thou shalt not kill". Of course, the hon. member (Mr. Burnham) will say that the word "not" should not be there.


Mr. BALL:: The Old Testament Scriptures say "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood 'be shed." And Christ himself when he was being taken, and when Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant, said "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword." What construction does the hon. gentelman put upon these words in the Old Testament Scriptures and in the New?
Mr. BICKERDIKE- It seems to me the matter is very simple. Christ's words

were "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword." But does that mean that all our returned soldiers must be killed? Surely there is no argument jn these words against what I have said. And it is true the Old Testament Scriptures contain the words the hon gentleman (Mr. Ball) has quoted. And thoise words are perfectly true. For that is what has been done, and is being done today even here in Canada. But the "shall" there was not a command but a prophecy.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What word, then, would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) have used?


Robert Bickerdike: You find the -same used in the declaration that in the latter days perilous times shall, come. Why, Moses himself was a murderer. He killed the Egyptian with whom he contended. Yet his blood was not shed by man.


Robert James Ball: What construction do you place upon the words, "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword"?


Robert Bickerdike: Why, that means
that the-Lord was opposed to war. There is no other construction possible. Any Sunday-School child will tell you that. The construction is that the law does not approve of killing at all, neither with the sword of Peter nor the sword of anybody else, not even with the sword of the Kaiser.


George Perry Graham: Christ would not allow even the ear of the murderer to be cut off.


Robert Bickerdike: There is a justification for everything I say to-night, because we find that the only letter that was ever written by our Lord Jesus Christ was the one written by Him in the sand when He sat as a jury trying a poor woman who had made a mistake. When He finished He, as if to interpret the letter He had written, said to the woman: Where are thy accusers? and the woman answered him, Sir, there are none. That was the letter supposed to be written in the sand.


John Hampden Burnham: What about those people who go into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth?


Robert Bickerdike: The only one that I have seen gnashing his teeth to-day has been my good friend the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). When I hear a minister of the gospel-I am speaking about Protestant	ministerspreaching in the pulpit on Sunday about Jesus Christ's sacrifices and the forgiveness

of sins, and on Monday advocating capital punishment and revenge, I say that he is neither more nor less than a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal, and I ask the old question: Was it he or his parents who sinned? for that man was certainly born blind.
May I be permitted to quote from a good friend of mine in New York, Mr. Thomas Mott Osborne, one of the greatest authorities on capital punishment on this side of the Atlantic, if not in the world. He says:
Certainly we ought to be in no way behind Russia in conserving human life. There is no question as this one of capital punishment which calls for plain common sense in dealing with it. It is not an abstruse question. The ridiculous thing we do in prisons with our prisoners will not bear being brought to light. For instance, what is the advantage in shaving the heads of prisoners? What is the use of treating a man in such a way that he is stamped as a convict when he goes back into civil life? I plead for this question to be approached in a reasonable and intelligent manner without trace of hysteria. There is no doubt that a lot of men are in prison who ought not to be there, but it is equally true that there are a lot who are not there and ought to be there.
Perhaps my hon. friend who was knighted might be amongst them. Mr. Osborne goes on to say:	,
It is not advisable to get sentimental about the men in prison, for in all my experience I have discovered only two men whom I thought were really innocent and ought not be in prison.
The whole question of capital punishment must be viewed from the point of the advantage of society.
It is no use discussing that question from any other point of view in any country.
If it is for the advantage of society that men ought to be killed, then let them be killed.
But we have first of all to see that it is for the advantage of society. If it is for the advantage and protection of society that men should be killed, let us kill them; but if not, let us not do so.
Equally, if it Is to the advantage of society that a .man should be shackled for life, then let him be shackled. The advantage and interests of society must be the first consideration. As with a man who has the smallpox. You send him to the hospital and quarantine him. not only to protect society, but also to *protect himself.
That is what we do when we send a man to penitentiary for life.
The certainty of punishment is far more effective than the magnitude of it. A man will be in more fear of punishment if he knows that when found guilty the hand of the
law will certainly fall upon him, and exact the penalty. That is clearly seen in the punishment of our own children. It is also proved by statistics. In the state of Maine capital punishment has been abolished, re-Tntroduced and abolished again, with the result that there has been a greater percentage of convictions with the absence of capital punishment than with it. A jury is not so ready to convict a man if they know that the penalty will be death, blit they will find a man guilty more often if the punishment is a mere nominal one. The statistics for the state of Maine show that when capital punishment was in force only 27 per cent of convictions followed the indictments. When it was removed that number increasid to 59 per cent. Wren capital punishment was re-introduced the figure dropped to 30 per cent., and when it was abolished again the number increased to 60' per cent, thus showing that there are a greater number of convictions with the absence of capital punishment.


George Perry Graham: Maine was one of the states that the minister said had abolished capital punishment and had reinstated it.
I see it has abolished it again.


Mr BURNHAM:: Does the hon. member overlook the fact that some of the states abolished capital punishment because the citizens wished to have the privilege of killing people without being punished for it? You will find that to be the case in some remote districts.


Robert Bickerdike: Mr. Osborne goes on to say:
I personally have put more men to death than any other man in the United States. I have executed forty men during my term or two and a half years as warden of Sing Sing prison. I did not attend the executions, and on all occasions except two I was absent from the prison as a protest. But there is not a man who has anything to do with executions directly who does not hate it.
There is also the uncertainty of execution which has a great influence on crime.
He goes on to prove that of the criminals condemned in the state of New York only about 1.3 per cent were executed. He goes on to say:
It is claimed that capital punishment frightens people from committing crime, and because of fear they will refrain from murder. But where is there a man worth his salt who will change his line of conduct because of a fear of punishment? I have never yet found a crook who is frightened by the severity of the law. There might be a few cowards outside who are prevented from murder by fear of the chair. But the example of the state makes murderers. There are boys in the' underworld who regard the men who go to the chair as heroes, and there is not one man who goes to the chair who does not go there bravely and ready to meet his fate. For every man you put to death, there are six boys ready to spring up in his place. The



fear of punishment is not a deterrent. There are two kinds of a murderer-one who commits a crime in the heat of passion or when enraged by liquor, and the other who deliberately plans a murder and who a'so at the same time plans his escape from the law.
It has been conceded by some of the most eminent physicians that any man committing a murder has an unbalanced mind at the moment. At the moment, at least, he is temporarily insane. He may be enraged through a sense of being wronged, or through kindred emotions, and is in no mood to weigh the results of his acts, or to take account of punishments confronting him. It is sad to believe that much of the prejudice in favour of the gallows may be traced to three discreditable sources. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has cited those.
Let me close by saying that capital punishment, although sanctioned by the letter of the old Biblical law, is contrary to its interpretation in the light of Christianity.
I would like to have an opportunity of making good the statement I made to my hon. friend, the Solicitor General, because I would not like to have him think for a moment that I would contradict him without being quite sure. Therefore, if it is agreeable to the House, I would move the adjournment of the debate to enable me to bring the documents down.


Arthur Meighen: The debate cannot be adjourned after the mover of the second reading has replied. There cannot be any more debate.


Robert Bickerdike: The second readingha:; not been passed yet. If my hon. friend is going to adopt the Bill, all right.
Up to now the Bill has not had a second reading. We have simply been debating it. For that reason I would move that the debate be adjourned.


William Pugsley: I understand the hon.
gentleman is not through -with his speech, and it is on this account he asks for the adjournment of the debate.


George Eulas Foster: Is the hon. gentleman tired out?


Robert Bickerdike: No. This afternoon I flatly contradicted the Solicitor General, [DOT]one of the men I have the most respect for in this House, and I wish to convince him that I am right. I have not the necessary documents with me to do that, but I have wired to Montreal for them, and it is for that reason that I ask for the adjournment of the debate.	-

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
Friday, April 20, 1917.