1917-05-02

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Abstract of Statements of Insurance Companies in Canada for the year ending 31st December, 1916. Sir Thomas White.

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

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is It the intention of the Minister of Inland Revenue to propose at the present Session a Bill respecting patent medicines?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Has a repeal of the old law been requested by the different medical associations throughout the country?

4.	Was there a formal promise made to these Associations that the present law would be repealed and that a new Bill would be brought down based on the reports and suggestions of the said Medical Associations?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	No.
2.	This subject is still under consideration.
3.	The department has received a number of communications on the subject.
4.	No, but the matter has been under consideration.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has Dr. Magnan resigned as Controller jf Patent Medicines?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government or Minister of Inland Revenue to appoint anybody in his place?
3.	If he has resigned, what are the reasons of his resignation, and was it given of his own free will or forced upon him?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	Yes.	*
2.	Yes.
3.	He was given the choice between resigning and being dismissed.


ADVERTISING FOR RECRUITS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: How much has been paid or spent by the Department of Militia in advertising for recruits in Canada?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands as order for return.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is a categorical question, Mr. Speaker, and the answer must be very brief. I do not see why it should stand as an order for return.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: It is in form a simple question, but the answer involves the examination of tens of thousands of files in the Department of Militia. It will take a long time to go through these files and collect the information upon which the answer must be based. I will have the information prepared as soon as possible.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the hon. minister agree, if it goes as an order for a return, that it should cover the names of the persons to whom the moneys were paid?


Albert Edward Kemp: I would suggest that the hon. member put it on the Order Paper for, let us say, to-morrow.


MAJOR GENERAL CARSON.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has Major-General Carson resigned his military position overseas?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


LIEUT. F. J. S. MACKENZIE.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	What amount of money was paid to Lieutenant F. J. S. MacKenzie for services while recruiting for the Kitchener Platoon of the 131st Battalion, C.E.F.?
2.	What amount, if any, was paid for expenses while at this work?
3.	What amount, if any, was paid to his wife as separation allowance during same period?
4.	What number of recruits were secured for this platoon in the 131st Battalion by his efforts during this period, who went overseas?


Albert Edward Kemp: 1, 2, 3 and A. None.


LT. COL. J. D. TAYLOR, M.P.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Has any sum of money been paid to, or accepted by, Lieut-Colonel James Davis Taylor of the 104th Regiment, Westminster Fusiliers of Canada, for military duty, and as a Member of the House of Commons since August, 1914?
2.	If so, what amounts have been paid to him for military salary, military expenses, separation allowance to his wife and family and indemnity as Member of the House of Commons, respect ively ?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes. (To 16th January, 1917, when he returned to Canada on leave.)
2.	As Officer Commanding 104th Regiment Active Militia, Home Guard duty, Military District No. 11, from August, 1914, to February, 1915, $1,162.50; as Officer Commanding 131st Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force, from January 1st, 1916, to January 16th, 1917, $2,733.30; total, $3,895.80. Expenses, $323.93; separation allowance, nil; indemnity as member of the House of Commons, $910..


INTERIOR STORAGE ELEVATORS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Grain Commission made any report recently on the establishment of new Interior Storage elevators in Western Canada?
2.	If so, what were its recommendations and is it the intention of the Government to act upon these recommendations?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
TAXATION OF DOMINION & HUDSON BAY COMPANY'S LANDS.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government received the following Resolutions from the Alberta Association of Local Improvement Districts and Rural Municipalities?

"No. 17. R. M. Dowling- Lake, No. 305. Whereas certain lands are being held in various Rural Municipalities of the Province of Alberta by the Dominion Government for the Hudson's Bay Company, and known as The Hudson's Bay Company's Reserves, and whereas, the municipalities are deprived of all revrnue from taxes on such lands.
"Be it resolved, that we petition the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada to force the Hudson's Bay Company to accept title to such lands, that they may be taxed; or in lieu thereof to have the said lands thrown open for homestead entry.
"No. 18. R. M. Dowling Lake, No. 305. Whereas certain persons have been making a practice of holding Crown lands either as homestead entries, preemption entries or purchased homestead entries, for a number of years without paying their taxes to the various municipalities, >and whereas, when such lands are cancelled and revert to the Crown the various municipalities are deprived of the accumulated taxes against the said lands.
"Be it resolved, that we petition the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada to amend the Dominion Lands Act so that the taxes accumulated on lands reverting to the Crown shall be the first charge against moneys paid in by the entrants on account of improvements or moneys to be refunded to the former entrants on account of purchased moneys paid by them."
2.	Does the Government purpose taking action to meet the requests made in these resolutions?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Complete information was sent the Association mentioned as to the action being taken in these matters.


EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What was the number of people who left the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for the United States between the first of August, 1916, and the first of February, 1917, during each of the calendar months?


Mr. ROCHE:: The Canadian Government does not collect data regarding persons leaving Canada.


CAPT. RAMSAY RANKIN.
Mr. BEST:: T. Has the attention of the Government been called to an alleged interview published in the Stratford Herald with one Captain Dr. Ramsay Rankin to the following effect:
"Captain Ramsay Rankin, formerly Medical Officer of the 110th Battalion, arrived home last night from England. He is home on an extended leave and will not likely be called on to go back before the fall of the year. "I figured that I was not going to stick around England for two years,' said Dr. Rankin, speaking to the Herald this afternoon. 'There are medical men in England now who have been there for two years and have not got to France yet.' Dr. Rankin said that there was a surplus of medical officers with the Canadian Forces in England and at the present
time there are far more than will be needed
for some time to come."
2.	Is Captain Rankin still a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
3.	If so, in what capacity?
4.	Is he drawing pay? M
5.	Is Captain Rankin qualified professionally as a Medical Officer?
6.	Did Captain Rankin come to Canada on leave?
7.	If Captain Rankin is not on the Canadian Expeditionary Force, when were his services dispensed with, and why?
Sir EDWARD KEMP-
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.
7.	April 22nd, 1917, Captain Rankin requested permission to resign his commission in the Canadian Army Medical Corps, C.E.F., and permission to do so has been granted.


BRITISH EMBARGO ON CANADIAN CATTLE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Have any representations been made by the Minister of Agriculture to the British Government with a view to raising the embargo on live Canadian cattle entering the Mother Country?
2.	If so, has there been any answer received?
3.	What is the nature of said answer?


Mr. BURRELL:: The Prime Minister is taking up this matter with the British authorities, but I am not aware that any answer has yet been received from him.


THE LATE JOHN BRIGHT.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Was the late John Bright, Live Stock Commissioner, a graduate of any Canadian university?
2.	If so, what degree, what university, and in what year did he graduate?


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


VETERINARY DIRECTOR GENERAL.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Is Mr. Frederic Torrance, Chief Veterinary Inspector of Canada, a graduate of any Canadian university?	,
2.	If so, what degree, what university, and in what year did he graduate?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Graduate of McGill University, with the following degrees: B.A., 1878; D.V. Sc., 1890. It is presumed that this question

refers to Doctor Frederick Torrance, the Veterinary Director General.


LIEUT.-COL. CHABOT, M.D.
Mr. CRUISE:: 1.	Is Dr. Chabot connected in any way with the Militia Department or any other department of the Government?
2.	If so, is he drawing pay and at what rate?
3.	Is his wife drawing separation allowance?
4.	If so. how much?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes; Lieutenant-Colonel in the Canadian Army Medical Corps, and is at present the Medical Officer in charge of the Military Section of the Ottawa General Hospital, Water Street.
2.	Yes; $5 per diem, pay of his rank.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CONTROLLER OP FOOD PRODUCTS.
Mr. KYTE:: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint an official Controller of Food Products in Canada?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Any announcement that the Government may have to make respecting the matter in question will be made to the House in due course.


SHIGAWAKE EAST P.O.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What service is given at the new Shiga-wake East post office?
2.	Who carries the mail, and* what amount is paid him?
3.	Were tenders called for this work?
4.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of their respective tenders?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Shigawake East Post Office is to be established on the 3rd May, 1917, with mail service twice a day from the Gaspe and Matapedia Railway post office.
2.	The postmaster elect, W. D. Sullivan, will perform the service at $80 per annum.
3 and 4. The offer received from the postmaster elect being reasonable, it was not considered necessary to invite public tenders. It is the usual practice in offices of small revenue to award the contracts to the postmaster if his offer is a reasonable one.


BRIDGING RESTIGOUOHE RIVER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works received any requests within the last two years for the erection of a bridge over the Restigouehe River between Campbelltown and Cross Point. Quebec?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What answer was given?


Mr. REID:: 1 and 2. On March 2, 1915, Mr. W. S. Montgomery, of Dalhousie, N.B., requested that a survey be made.
3.	That instructions would be given to make a survey, and report on the estimated cost of construction.


PASPBBIAC WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has any arrangement been arrived at between the Government and the firm of Robin, Jones & Whitman, regarding the use by purchase or lease, of the company's wharf at Paspebiac. Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the arrangement?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. No arrangement has been made.


CROSS POINT WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What has been the cost of the Government wharf at Cross Point, Quebec?
2.	How much was expended there (a) previous to 1911, and (b) how much since that date?
3.	Has the work since 1911 been done by day work or by contract?
4.	If by contract, who was the contractor, and how much was he paid?
5.	How much has been paid to D. Champoux in connection with this work, and when was the money paid?
6.	Were tenders called for the timber and lumber supplied for this work, and who were the tenderers?
7.	Was D. Champoux one of the tenderers?
8.	What were the amounts of the respective tenders?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$31,241.04.
2.	(a) $26,451.81; (b) $4,789.23.	.
3.	Day labour.
4.	Answered as above.
5.	Nothing.
6.	7 and 8. No tenders were called for. Materials were purchased at market prices from local dealers.


BONAVENTURE BREAKWATER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What amount has been expended in the breakwater at Bonaventure, Quebec, (a) on the breakwater, and (b) dredging?
2.	How much has been expended there since 1911?
3.	Is any work contemplated there this
year?
4.	If so, what is the nature of this work?


Mr. REID:: 
HOPETOWN POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What is the service at the Hopetown, Quebec, post' office?
2.	Has there been any change since 1911?
3.	If so, what was the change?
4.	What amount is paid the mail carrier, and when was the contract awarded?
5.	Were tenders called for this work?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Daily except Sunday from Paspebiac.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The original contract, which provided for a semi-daily service between Paspebiac and railway station and for a daily service between Paspebiac and Hopetown, was entered into at the rate of $260 per annum, but, owing to the fact that one train per day which carried mail to Paspebiac was cut off, the service between Paspebiac and railway station was reduced to six trips per week, and a corresponding reduction was made in the rate of payment to the contractor, thereby bringing the present amount paid him to $208 per annum. The contract was awarded on April 12, 1915.
5.	Yes.


GEORGIAN BAY CANAX, COMMISSION.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What was the cost of the Georgian Bay Canal Commission during the past year to January 1, 1917?
2.	Has any report been presented from the Commission?
3.	How much longer, in view of the necessity of economy, is this commission to be continued in existence?


Mr. REID:: 1.	From January 1 to December 31, 1916, $18,170.18.
2.	Yes, preliminary report laid on table of House and subsequently printed and distributed.
3.	The Government is not in a position to say, at the present moment, how much longer it will be necessary to continue this commission.
INDIAN RESERVES. *


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government attempted to secure any portion of any Indian reserve for the purpose of land settlement for returned soldiers?
2.	Have any definite arrangements been made in that connection? If so, where?


William Roche: 1 and 2. No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

['President Fallieres claims that if this were the case it would do away with all legalized homicide. He further says:\nI will not ask any man to do that which I myself am unwilling to do. I will do no murder, even for the State.\nPresident Fallieres therefore commuted all death penalties to life imprisonment. Where there was a reasonable doubt about a man\'s guilt he pardoned him. He also says:\nFrance must learn to take care of her criminals without killing them. It is a poor use to make of a man to take his life. It is an acknowledgment of our inefficiency. Then, a life sentence should hold out to a man the promise that a number of years of good behaviour and useful work will make him free. Penology must be made a science to the end that when we imprison a man we do it for his own good, with the intention of turning out a better man than we took in. Just as long as the State sets an example of killing its enemies, they must expect that individuals will occasionally kill theirs.\nThe right hon. leader of the Opposition says:\n\nWhether 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.\nWith that statement I quite agree. The right hon. leader of the Opposition goes on:\nAll 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 w-ho came from the South of Italy, where It is the ____imnnD ii.iV.it nf every man to carry a stiletto.\nWith -this latter statement I can hardly agree. The only execution in the province of Quebec during 1916 was that of Paul dit-Lepine Renaud, and judging by the name, he could have hardly been an Italian.\nThe name of the young lad 10 p.m. lying under sentence of death in Winnipeg is Patrick Spain; that does not sound like an Italian either. So I think the contention of the right hon. leader of the Opposition that all the murders in Canada are committed by men who come from the south of Italy is wrong. I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman is aware that Italy abolished capital punishment years ago. Further on he said:\nWhat 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 a law among 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?\nNow, Sir, I think I- have proved to the right hon. gentleman that it is not the foreign element in Canada who are committing all the murders. With regard to the claim that capital punishment is right because it has been on the statute book ever since this country has been a country, and because it is still the law among the most civilized nations of the earth. I remember welil the time when the right hon. gentleman refused to follow custom, and claimed that this young nation was now grown up and should make the laws that were considered most necessary for our Dominion. Custom never did make right. With regard to his claim that this is still the law among the most civilized nations of the earth, I must also join issue with him. He claims that it is the most civilized nations of the world that retain capital punishment. On the contrary, the nations that have abolished capital punishment are not the\n\nheathen or uncivilized nations, but just the reverse. According to the right hon. leader of the Opposition China is one of the most civilized nations of the world. China, Turkey, Japan, \'Germany and Austria-Hungary all have capital punishment. The other three nations that retain capital punishment are England, France and Spain. I am prepared to say that these are civilized nations, but they are the only civilized nations that retain capital punishment. Now, I desire to place opposite to these the names of the anti-hanging countries-I suppose, the right hon. gentleman would call them "the uncivilized nations." They are: Russia-surely, not an uncivilized country- Italy, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Haiti, Switzerland and the United States (in part). I cannot understand the statement made by the right hon. gentleman. He quotes the "civilized nations" as the excuse for retaining capital punishment, and the greatest nation that retains it is China. If he holds China to be one of the civilized Christian nations of the world, of course he is quite entitled to his opinion.\nI hold that the death penalty is the most atrocious form of bookkeeping in existence. The only way we can balance a debit is by a credit; you can only balance a negative by a positive; the only way to balance evil is by good. It is a most ridiculous thing to have a death entered on one side of the ledger, and then expect to balance it by turning\'to the other side and writing down another death. That is the style of bookkeeping of the Minister of Justice, so far as this branch of his business is concerned. I would like to see capital punishment abolished for the sake of the innocent men who have been executed, and there have been a numbed of them. I wish to quote from a letter written by the man who, I suppose, is the greatest authority on prison reform on this side of the water, if not in the -world-Thomas Mott Osborne, of Sing Sing fame. He says:\nAs warden of Sing Sing I executed forty men, and I am convinced that four of them were innocent. One was a hoy of 20 years of age, and I knew he was innocent of the crime for which . he was condemned, because I know who committed the crime. But the ethics of the underworld are that one must never \'squeal on a paly This hoy lied, evaded, faced his trial, was condemned, and afterwards went to his death, just because he would not \'squeal on a pal.\' Was not that boy worth saving?\nIs there any man in this House who will say that it was not worth while to try to\nsave such a boy? Innocent of the crime, he would not go back on his pal, but kept his course even though it led to the electric chair. I say to the Minister of Justice that if boys of that kind are not worth saving, then life is not worth, living.\nNow I desire to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). Hon. members will recollect that he quoted the Old Testament very freely. But the Old Testament is a record of the Jewish race, and it is difficult to see how it can be made the standard for Christians, especially when the Master enjoins His followers to forsake the old commands and gave them the new ones instead. He did not preach revenge but exhorted His followers to love their enemies. It must be recalled that the ancient prophets also looked to the time when swords would be beaten into ploughshares, and spears into pruning-hooks.\nThe great promised Messiah was to be a Prince of Peace; not one who took life but one who reformed it. There are very few students of the New Testament who attempt the tremendous task of defending capital punishment on its authority, for its teaching is mercy, long suffering, kindness, forgiveness, and these are not compatible with breaking a man\'s neck. The Master, as we are told in the 12th chapter of John,\n* commutes the sentence of stoning to death, which the Jewish law imposed upon the adulterous woman, to the sentence "go and sin no more," bidding her accuser who was without sin to cast the first stone.\nLife sentence is practical. I am not asking for a substitute for capital punishment which has not been tried. The states and nations that have actually substituted life imprisonment for capital punishment bear the testimony that it works well. Governor Washburn, of Wisconsin, said in 1873:\nIt is twenty years since we have abolished capital punishment and no state can show greater freedom from homicidal crimes... . With a population embracing almost every nationality, statistics show that crime instead of increasing with the growth, has actually diminished.\nSenator Jessup, of Iowa, says:\nMurder in the first degree has not increased but has for four years decreased,\nAnd he gives figures to prove the truth of his assertion, and adds the significant expression-"there is more lynch law where the scaffold is retained."', 'Under life sentences juries convict and that speedily. The Chief Justice of Rhode Island says:\nMy observation fully justifies me in saying that conviction is far more certain now in proper cases than when the death penalty was in vogue.\nChief Justice Denman says:\nExtreme severity has operated more as a pre-ventitive to prosecutions than a preventitive to crime.\nJudges often find their juries returning and asking, \'\'Can we find a verdict of manslaughter"? and when the judges say. "No you cannot," they return with a verdict, "Not guilty."\nCapital Punishment Is Not Effective-Capital punishment is no punishment to the .criminal, it is a greater punishment to the innocent members of his family. It is no punishment to break a man\'s neck. Juries hesitate to convict when they know a man is going to be hanged, and as a consequence only one in seventy-three murderers brought to trial in United States is convicted on first degree murder.\nCapital punishment does not deter from crime. It is a fact which can be demonstrated by .statistics that where capital punishment flourishes murder likewise flourishes. Crime was on the increase in England until the two hundred odd capital offenses were reduced to two, and the same promptness in convictions in England without the death penalty would prove more efficacious in preserving law and order.\nMen who witness and who read of capital punishment become vindictive. The chaplain of Newgate prison says that he "never knew a condemned criminal that had not been at an execution." (Westminster Review, \'81: 162). Rev. J. Roberts of Bristol says that out of 180 persons whom he visited after the sentence of death, 164 had attended a public hanging. Those who see the brutality of the death chamber are only made more brutal. Capital punishment often leads to such public sympathy that the hands of justice are thwarted.\nQapital punishment is not moral-The state sets a wrong example to its citizens by punishing its offenders with death. Capital punishment diminishes the sacredness with which we should regard life. It destroys the moral sense of the public. It arouses the worst passions in man. During public executions in England, the gallows were scenes of wild debauch, the public eating, drinking, cheering and railing at the victim. Suicides or deaths of an ex-\nciting nature are likely to be followed by others of like nature\nThere are many who question the right of one man to take another man\'s life except in self-defense when other means of defense fail. Wendel Phillips says:\nThe theory of government, as Is universally held, is that a government is a social compact, a voluntary association of individuals, therefor, as an individual has no right to take hisown life, he cannot confer on the government the right to take it.\nCapital punishment is not justice, for often it endangers the lives of the wrong persons. Many of our criminals are murderers toy circumstances; men of wealth aTe rarely hanged, and often innocent people have been unjustly deprived of their life.\nThe judgments of judges and juries are not always infallible. The great Lafayette said:\t\'\t.\nI shall personally demand the abolishment of punishment by death until X have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.\nThere are a few who defend capital punishment from the authority of the Old Testament, but it must be remembered that the Lord set a mark on Cain, the first murderer,\' and let him go. Moses taught a life for a life.\nI must say a few word^ in reply to my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafor-tune). I do not wish to be rude to him but he is certainly one of the greatest and most successful Crown prosecutors in the province of Quebec if not in the Dominion of Canada. But his trade has diminished considerably as we only had one case of murder in Quebec in 1916 and that was out of his jurisdiction. I would advise him, if we keep on diminishing our murders in Quebec, to make a contract for sp much a year instead of so much a head. I was going to say in reply to the hon. member that in comparatively Tecent years there have been striking instances of the fallibility of the most carefully constituted tribunals. My hon. friend claimed that justice was all right in the province pf Quebec especially and all over Canada. He said that if a poor man was accused of a serious crime the court appointed a solicitor to defend him and that he had fair play in every instance. Now, I shall just give you a few instances in which men have been hanged when they were not guilty of the crimes for which they were hanged. In 1865, for instance, an Italian named Pelizzioni was tried before Baron Martin for the murder of a fellow countryman in an affray at Saffron Hill. AfteT an elatoor-\n\nate trial he was found guilty and sentenced to death. In passing sentence, the judge took occasion to make the following remarks which should be remembered when the acumen begotten of " sound legal training " and long experience is relied on as a safeguard against error:\nIn my judgment, it is utterly impossible for the jury to have come to any other conclusion. The evidence was about the clearest and most direct that, after a long course of experience in the administration of criminal justice, I have ever known. I am as satisfied as I can be of anything that Gregorio did not inflict this wound and that you were the person who did.\nThe trial was over. The Home Secretary would most certainly, after the judge\'s expression of opinion, never have interfered. The date of the execution was fixed. Yet the unhappy prisoner was guiltless of the crime, and it was only through the exertion of a private individual that an innocent man was saved from the gallows. A fellow countryman of his, Mr. Negretti, succeeded in persuading the real culprit- the Gregorio so expressly exculpated by the judge-\'to come forward and acknowledge the crime. He was subsequently tried for manslaughter and convicted, while Pelli-zioni received a free pardon.\nAgain, in 1877, two -men named Jackson and Greenwood were tried at the Liverpool Assizes for a serious offense. They weig found guilty. The judge expressed approval of the verdict and sentenced them to ten years\' penal servitude. Subsequently fresh facts came to light and the men received a free pardon.\nOnce more, in 1879, Hebron was1 tried for the murder of a policeman. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. An agitation for a reprieve immediately followed. The sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. Three years after, the notorious Peace, just \'before his execution for -the murder of Mt. Diason, confessed that he had committed the murder for which Hebron had been sentenced.\nMr. Charles Burleigh Galbraith, writing for Friend\'s Intelligencer for October 6, says:\t" Juries and Judges are still fallible."\nMaud Ballington Booth, writing under date of September, 1908, gives details of two interesting cases:\nA man was sentenced to life imprisonment and served sixteen and a half years. Most of the evidence had -been purely circumstantial and he was convicted mainly on the testimony of one witness. He was saved from the gallows only by the earnest efforts of those who had known of his previous good character.\nHast winter the woman who had been the main witness against him came to what she believed was her death-bed, and, sending for a priest, confessed that she had committed perjury. The matter was brought to the attention of the Governor, and the man at once liberated. He still lives. The State took sixteen years of his liberty, hut did not sh-d his innocent blood. At present I know a man-\n-continues Mrs. Booth,\n-who has served nine years and is still in prison, where he has been visited by the boy whom he was supposed to have murdered.\nThe fact that, in our day, justice may thus miscarry, must give men constant pause before they seek remedial vengeance in the death penalty.\nMr. Buttrom, present Attorney General for the Second Judicial District of Tennessee, in talking to me recently, said:\nI am against capital punishment -because men are too liable to err. Before I was elected Attorney General, a white man was convicted in my county of murder in the first degree. He pleaded accidental killing. He was a poor fellow, an! the court had appointed a lawyer to defend him. I thought at the time the verdict was rendered that the jury had erred. The people were bitter against him and had threatened to lynch -him. -Some of the jury wanted to hang him outright, hut they finally reported mitigating circumstances as a part of their verdict and the judge sentenced the piisoner to life imprisonment. From later developments it became evident that the man was innocent, and for that reason Governor Hooper pardoned him recently.\n-Capital punishment is a relic of the days when -men were forced to tread red-hot ploughshares to prove their innocence. I do not believe in taking a man\'s life far having committed a crime. That is a barbarous custom, a relic of ancient days-. We must toe progressive, and more humane toward our fellow-mortals. It seems -to me (that in a Christian land, with all our boasted Christamity, we should practice such, and abolish this terrible method o-f punishment. Capital -punishment does not prevent crime. We make us-e of it, yet murders are continually committed. Why not try the other method? When a man s life is taken at the end of a roipe, -his usefulness is*done for. He is of no v-alue to the State, o-r to- society. Why not try my plan? For a good many years we have been trying the plan of the Minister of Justice; that is hang them up. Why not try the other plan for a little while? Why not try it for a year as an experiment? Would Canada -suffer if you tried it for a year? Stop -hanging for one year and if you stop hanging you will stop most of the murders. I do not know whether the present Parliament will -abolish capital punishment; I', 'am afraid not. I hope that if this one fails same future Parliament will do it and it will do it for two very good reasons; first, that it is not necessary as a preventive of murder and, second:, because it is an unholy and barbarous crime in itself. Man has no right to take what he has not given -man has no right to say to this man, " Thou shalt die," when God himself has ordained, "Thou shalt not kill." When the Christ of Galilee came to earth it was to preach the kingdom of God upon earth-and it was his wish that man should not slay his fellow-man.\nThe most powerful case cited by Mr. McConnico was the Durand case, in California. I am not sure whether I have mentioned this Durand case on previous occasions to the Minister of Justice. It was a case in which a young man was hanged for the murder of a young woman. They were both members of a Methodist church, both teachers in the same Sunday school, both singers in the same choir. One day the young lady disappeared. Suspicion immediately fell on the young man. He was arrested, tried and sentenced to death. He delivered a little, short speech-I remember the case well-just before he was sent into eternity. He said to the people there: I am not guilty of this crime; I am going to be hanged for a crime that I did not commit; and I say it before God and man. He lifted his eyes to heaven, and asked the Lord to forgive those who had sworn him to death. Sir, less than twelve months after that young man was sentenced to eternity, the minister of that congregation took sick and confessed that he was the man who had killed that girl. Well, the young man had gone into eternity. Now, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of Justice, if life imprisonment will serve society just as well, if life imprisonment will protect society as well as the death penalty, then why not let us make the experiment?\nI must say a few words in reply to my good friend the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). I accused him this afternoon of being one who out-Heroded Herod. But I take that back; I should not have said that. I want to say to him, however, that the state does not kill people merely because they are worthless, and to be rid of them. Insane asylums are built at great expense for the incurable, upon whom relatives cannot bear to look, who personally might be better off dead. The state tenderly cares\n\nfor all such cases. This is done because the example of kindness and humanity to the unfortunate is of an inestimable benefit to society. It is not possible to imagine the effect society would feel if we were to destroy \'all imbeciles and the incurably 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 to 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. May I ask the people of Canada if they believe any boy-any mother\'s son, black or white, however depraved-should be hanged, killed just to get rid of him? Can we afford to do it?\nChief Baron Kelly says that from 1802 to 1840 he traced twenty-two men who were wrongly convicted of murder in England, seven of whom were hanged. Mackintosh says that in the same country, taking a long period of time, one innocent man is hanged in every three years.\nIt may be safely asserted that the thousands who were put to death, at the stake and otherwise, for witchcraft, were not guilty of the crime with which they were charged. Again, there is no way of ascertaining to a certainty the guilt of any one charged with murder. Felonious intent is the essence of crime. The jury must determine, then, in each instance the state of mind of the accused. In many cases this is a difficult task, and in not a few the verdict is a mere guess. A confession of guilt, if voluntary, would seem to be a strong evidence, but by way of illustrating a general rule, it will be remembered that a number of men confessed to the murder of Nathan in New York city, all of whom were innocent. In some cases of acknowledged murder the supposed victim has turned out to be still alive, and in at least one instance interrupted the trial.\nWhatever may be the testimony of a witness, it cannot be certain to a demonstration, in most cases, that he is not committing perjury, or is not mistaken.\nOf course I am aware that many will disagree with me, for I have never been\' able to get everybody to see my way and be right in their view, but I am sure that, as men grow more civilized, capital punish-\n\nment grows less popular, and wholesale murder, in the shape of war, is regarded as the last resort by the civilized nations of the earth, and the time will come when human life will be rightly valued and war shall be no more. If this is not to be the case, Christianity will have proved a failure, to become an effete religion, cast by intelligent humanity upon the religious scrap pile of the ages.\nIs it not time to put aside the unwarranted penalty of capital punishment and adopt the more humane and effective punishment by life imprisonment, put beyond the reach of one-man pardon? The capital punishment experiment has proved a failure, so far as its being a remedy for crime is concerned.\nNo matter how great any man\'s respect for the Old Testament may be, the most that he can say for the ceremonial and criminal law of the Hebrews is that it was adapted to men in a very crude condition, who were making their first advances in the rudiments of moral and religious truths; that it taught them only as much as they were prepared to receive, with a promise of something better to come after. The clergy admit that the ceremonial law of the Jews is no longer binding. They insist that God\'s covenant with Noah, in which occurs the verse, "Whoso sheddeth man\'s blood by man shall his blood be shed," is binding for all time and upon all nations. They do not understand that it is repealed, both in the language and the spirit of the New Testament. If they believe as firmly as they pretend that killing the murderer is-pleasing to God and a duty sacredly enjoined upon man, they should act as executioners: they certainly should not hesitate to pull the string or cut the rope that sends the soul of a murderer to the answering bar of God.\nOne word in conclusion, in reply to my good friend, our warrior bold from Peterborough. He does not attempt to out-Nero Nero himself, but he comes a very fair second. Nero killed both his wife and his mother, while our friend would be quite satisfied with hanging his wife-if he had one. It might be well for the marriageable ladies of Peterborough to sit up and take notice. He says positively that if he had a wife he would have no objection whatever to hanging her.\nSociety has erected the gallows at the end of the lane, instead of the cross, the guide post and direction board at the beginning.\nThere is a wonderful growth of interest in the question of capital punishment. Students of criminology everywhere are discussing this theme. There are four hundred reform societies in the world pleading, as I do now, to spare human life whenever it is possible. A rising tide of humanitarianism is sweeping all the barbarities of the past before it, and as this matter is to be put before the voters of Canada, it is vitally important that we consider it at this time. In the hope that further study of the matter will be stimulated, I am presenting what is merely an outline of this great problem, and giving a few of the reasons why capital punishment should be abolished in Canada.\nThe abolition of capital punishment is the inevitable trend of history. While capital punishment may have been necessary in early history, there being no adequate prisons to hold extreme offenders of the common law, states and commonwealths are now rapidly abolishing it. During the last one hundred years there has been a wonderful decrease in the number of crimes punishable by death, because the death penalty was found to be ineffectual in preventing crime. A century ago England imposed the death penalty for two hundred and some odd transgressions of the civil law, but these have been reduced to two- murder and treason. Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough predicted chaos if men should not be hanged for petty larceny.\nHolland abolished capital punishment in 1870. The statistics show nineteen murders from 1861 to 1870, while from 1870 to 1879 there were only seventeen murders, with an increase of population.\nFinland has had no executions since 1824. A judge of the Court of Appeals writes: "The security of persons or property has not been in the least diminished by the abolition of capital punishment."\nSwitzerland abolished capital punishment in 1874. Later three cantons voted to sustain the death penalty in their jurisdiction. The remaining nineteen still thrive without the death penalty, and murder has not increased. .\nOther countries and states which have abolished the death penalty are Portugal, Holland, Italy, Norway, Rumania, Tuscany, Costa Rica, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala and Venezuela. Denmark has had no hanging since 1890. Belgium none since 1863. Russia has recently abolished it entirely, and in none of these countries has crime increased.\nIf the Master had not given His thought on this Law of Moses, as found in the ser-', 'mon on the mount; if he had not set up a standard immeasurably higher, then we might pretend that this Law of Moses for the punishment of murder was a statement for all generations and all forms of civilization. But His teaching is actually as much or more in advance of Moses\' Law as that was in advance of the ideas and practices of men when it was given. This Law of Moses is all there is in the Bible which can be pleaded as an exception to the commandment. "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus did enforce this law against killing, but he did not, directly or indirectly, recognize any exception to it. " Thou shalt not kill is more a command than God\'s covenant with Noah. It is binding on nations as well as on individuals-on the Government and on the Minister of Justice-for there are no exceptions. What right have we to make any?\t,\nThirdly, some accept every expression as they do Chicago canned and labelled goods. They swallow, and think no more.\nFourthly, it is argued that the brutality of crime justifies capital punishment. Yes, some crimes are brutal beyond conception, beyond the * reach of the ordinary mind. But to balance brutality against brutality and play the part of the savage is unworthy of a great and humane people.\nCease not from striving, till our law Is clear from bloody stain,\nAnd reformation, not revenge.\nIn principle sustain.\norder to prove my assertion, but it was impossible; the censor would not let them through. I did telegraph to Mr. Thomas Mott Osborne, asking him to give me the names of the states in the Union that had abolished capital punishment, and I received the following reply:-\nCapital punishment abolished in following states:\tKansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,\nNorth Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, to which Missouri has just been added. Maine forty years ago restored death penalty for six years hut convictions for murder diminished so seriously it was again abolished. No other state has returned.\nI mention that because the Solicitor General was very courteous in the matter. Neither of us knew whether he was right or wrong-and I am not any surer now, because I was not able to get the cables to the other side.\nThe House divided on the motion of Mr. Bickerdike.\nYEAS. Messrs:\nBickerdike,\nBoyer,\nCarvell,\nGauvreau,\nGraham,\nLanctot,\nLapointe\nLemieux, Loggie, McKenzie, Nicholson, Pacaud, Proulx, Tobin,\n(Montreal, St. James), Verville.-15.', 'I plead once more with the Government to give me a committee. You give a committee on horse racing; you give a committee on gambling; I ask for a committee to look into a question of life and death. What harm would result from our getting all the information available on this question?\nI wish to say a word in deference to the Solicitor General, who treated this matter in a very gentlemanly way. I claimed that he had said that capital punishment had been abolished in some countries and subsequently reinstated. I took exception with the Solicitor General on that point, and it was largely on that ground that the debate was adjourned. I understood him to say that Germany and Austria-Hungary had abolished capital punishment and reinstated it. I have no knowledge of that, but T think that was an error. One thing is certain: Austria-Hungary and Germany are to-day practising it very freely, and I should be sorry if this country were asked to follow the example set (by them. I endeavoured to get cables through to those countries in\n[Mr. Bickerdike.)\nMessrs:\nBlain,\nBoivin,\nBoulay,\nBurrell,\nClark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Davidson,\nDoherty,\nLafortune,\nMeighen,\nMerner,\nMorphy,\nPapineau,\nMotion negatived.\nPatenaude,\nReid,\nRoche,\nSchaffner,\nSevigny,\nShepherd,\nStevens,\nStewart (Lunenburg), Thompson (Yukon), Wallace,\nWebster,\nWhite (Sir Thomas), Wright.-26.\nOn the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.\nThursday, May 3, 1917.']
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What is the gross amount paid by the Government since October, 1911, to H. P. Duchemin, of Sydney, N.B., for services and disbursements under the Public Inquiries? Act, or otherwise?



John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of all letters, petitions, recommendations, tenders and other documents in the possession of the Port Office Department, bearing date-after July 1, 1913, relating to the mail service between Malignant Cove and Knoydai l, in the County of Antigonish, N.S.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, Orders in Council, etc., relative to the dismissal of James Lovett from the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Halifax, N.S.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For a copy of all Orders in Council, letters, telegrams, etc., to or from any employee of the Government in reference to the improvement and equipment of the life saving station at Whitehead, Guysborough County, N.S.


John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of the report of the Commission appointed to investigate the condition of the Military Hospital at Halifax, with a copy of the evidence taken by said Commission at Halifax and all other documents in the possession of the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with such investigation.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: For a copy of the report of the Royal Commission appointed by Order in Council, 20th September, 1916, to inquire into and report upon the conditions in regard to the delivery of cargoes of coal to coasting vessels in the Maritime Provinces.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For a copy of all letters, copies of letters, telegrams, reports and all other documents relative to the purchase of the two vessels, A. J. McKee and T. J. Drummonds, by the Railway Department under the Order in Council dated April, 17, 1917.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIME
James Joseph Hughes: For a copy of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence which led to the latter's resignation or dismissal from the Government.


William Thomas White: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) that as a matter of courtesy to the Prime Minister he might allow this motion to stand until his return. The correspondence asked for is that which has passed between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence. I submit that there might be considerable of the correspondence of a confi-

dential character, and it is only proper that the Prime Minister should himself have an opportunity of pronouncing upon this motion, as he is the only member of the Government who could authorize the bringing down of the correspondence in question.
I submit to the House that it is due to the Prime Minister that my hon. friend should allow his motion to stand until the Prime Minister returns.


James Joseph Hughes: I have no objection to that suggestion, but I might remark that on the 7th of February, the day of the adjournment, the Prime Minister stated that it would be brought down.


William Thomas White: I do not at all question what my hon. friend has said, but, as a matter of fact, this information could not be brought down until the Prime Minister returns. I would not like to see that order passed without giving him an opportunity to speak upon the motion if he should so desire.


James Joseph Hughes: The matter can stand until the Prime Minister comes back.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Motion stands.


PHYSICAL WELFARE OF THE CANADIAN PEOPLE.
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the efficiency of the nation depends largely on the physical condition of the people, and in order that the latter may he conserved in the largest possible measure, there should be organized a separate department of the Government having supervision over all matters relating to the physical welfare of the Dominion.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in commencing
my remarks I desire to offer an explanation which will make clear the intention of the resolution now before the House. It is well known that under the British North America Act the provinces have jurisdiction over:
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums and charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
'The House is also aware that since Confederation the provinces have undertaken many lines of public health work which they continue to carry on with much benefit to their people. The intention of the resolution is in no way to interfere with the rights and functions of the provinces, and

for this reason it would have been better had the last clause of the resolution read:
There should be organized a separate department of the Government having supervision over all matters relating to the physical welfare of the people of the Dominion so far as they come within t!he Federal jurisdiction.
It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that at no period of our history has the prevention of disease and the physical welfare of our people occupied so large a place in the thoughts of every intelligent community as obtains at the present day. This has been accentuated by the present war in Europe. Prior to the .outbreak of war there was much evidence of the progress of sanitary science and of the satisfactory results therefrom. We had seen typhus fever, cholera, and other less acute diseases practically exterminated in civilized nations. We had seen the rate of mortality from typhoid, smallpox, scarlet fever and others vastly decreased. We had seen the rate of mortality in England and Wales reduced from 21.4 per 1,000 to 14.6 per 1,000 in the last fifty years, thus saving the lives of 345,000 people each year.
But the war has furnished some remarkable examples of the value of sanitation and medical science. Instead of thousands .of our brave soldiers dying from typhoid, as occurred in all previous wars, and tens of thousands being afflicted and rendered useless by the same disease, we find that by the efforts of medical science typhoid in the army has been practically exterminated so much so that in the year 1915 in the great British army, including the forces from the overseas dominions, only some 46 cases of typhoid occurred. Let this House imagine, if they can, the increased efficiency of the Army on this account. Dr. W. Osier's opinion is that if inoculation against typhoid in the armies were universal it would increase the efficiency of the forces by one-third. Not only typhoid but cholera and tetanus, the greatest enemies of the British soldier in all previous wars, are beaten for all time to come. Not only this, but the death rate from sickness in the millions fighting under the Union Jack, has been less than the rate of mortality among men of military age remaining at home. When a man joins the aTmy he is taught how to live. His food and general life is regulated to produce vigorous manhood and these described conditions are the result. The war has taught us this lesson, that a nation fights upon its health. The fit man has not only to protect himself and his family but also to protect the unfit man and

his family who are unable to protect themselves. War has shown what can be done when qualified men are given poweT and resources with which to cope with disease. We all deplore the immense loss pi life in war but if we are willing to utilize the lessons taught by the war we can in future save many more lives each year than are now being lost in the European conflict.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we can conquer disease in war, surely we can overcome it in time of peace. We have seen something pi what science has wrought in the war spheres but lest Parliament may conclude that it is only in war time that problems arise affecting the health of our people, let me assure this House that the health problems of times of peace while possibly not so acute are of still greater importance to the future welfare of the nation. Canada is on the threshold of nationhood. We have the experience and the errors of the European nations and the United States to guide us and we should profit therefrom.
There are two great avenues through which our population increases, viz., immigration and natural increase.
How can our Government help the efficiency of the nation through immigration? First, by encouraging physically and mentally fit people to settle in our land, and secondly by refusing admission to our country of thpse who are physically and mentally unfit to become productive citizens. The need of attention to the latter problem is evidenced by the following facts:	The
number of feeble minded in Canada is constantly increasing. There are to-day in Ontario 7,700 feeble minded and probably at least 20,000 in the whole Dominion. This does not include the insane, idiots, epileptics, etc. From a population of 20,000 the number of this class will rapidly increase, for these people multiply rapidly, and 80 per cent of the offspring of such parents will he feeble minded. The only effective way to check the increase from this source is to segregate them, and it is estimated that if this plan were put into operation now by the year 1950 this country would be free from this menace.
The Government may constitutionally be relieved from responsibility for the care of our feeble minded population, but they cannot refuse to accept responsibility dor the admission through our immigration ports of such people. It is beyond dispute that onr system of examination of immigrants is too lax. During the year 1914-15 there were deported from Canada, on account of imbecility, insanity, and mental defect, 154 persons. All of these must have been admitted within three years previous, and under a strict supervision of cases nearly all of these could have been excluded. Six hundred and six were deported during the three years 1913-14-15, and even this figure does not indicate, with any accuracy, the number of such cases admitted to the country.
Since the Public Health Service of the United States has taken over the work of examining immigrants at the New York port of entry the methods have been greatly improved, and in consequence there are 75 per cent more rejections than formerly. Officials who have charge of the medical examination of these immigrants estimate, from their experience, that four out of every one thousand who apply for admission to that country are mentally defective.
If the examinations at the Canadian ports of entry were equally thorough, and they ought to he, many feeble minded who are now admitted and later deported or become a charge and menace in the country, would be rejected. As evidence of this let me quote the results of a test made in 1914 by Dr. Page, our very excellent and efficient superintendent of immigration at the port of Quebec. In July and August of that year he secured the services of Miss Mateer, a specialist from the School of Feeble Minded at Vineland, New Jersey, to assist in examining immigrants for mental defect at the port of Quebec. In those two months 14,700 were examined/ and of these 2 in
1,000	on an average were found to he mental defects. If that proportion held good throughout all our immigrants there were, during 1914-15 and the two preceding years, nearly 2,000 mental defectives who sought admission into Canada, while at least two-thirds of them were admitted. If the proportion found at New York held good at our ports there must have been admitted to Canada in these three years at least 3,000 mental defectives-an appalling number.
We are to-day paying the cost of this lax system. A few statistics will illustrate this. In 1914 there were admitted to the Ontario hospitals for the insane 1,451 patients, and of these 545, or 371 per cent were horn outside of Canada. Undoubtedly a large percentage of these could have been excluded by a rigid inspection by trained experts, and by investigation of their family history in the lands whence they came. Out of 2,438 patients admitted to the. Orillia asylum for feeble minded since it was opened 424 were bom outside of Canada. There were admitted to the hospital for

horse, the cow, the hog has received, Canada would to-day have been able to put in the field an army of 600,000 men as easily as she has raised her present 400,000.
* I have endeavoured to show the House some of the problems-national problems which Canada must sooner or later face with all seriousness. We have the problem of the physically and mentally defective immigrant becoming a menace and a burden to the nation. We have the prevalence of communicable diseases with all their evils, bringing death to thousands, lessening the efficiency of other thousands, and impoverishing tens of thousands of our citizens, most of which diseases aie preventable. And then we have the problem of infant mortality. Surely these problems are worthy the attention of this Parliament.
With all the changes and advances and improvements in departmental administration during the past quarter century, the administration of health matters remains unchanged, and this notwithstanding the fact that probably nothing has so much required improved and modern methods of administration. To quote again the great Disraeli, "The care of the public health is the first duty of a statesman." Disraeli knew nothing of the conditions in Canada but I wish to quote the opinions of men who do know the conditions. At the meeting of the Civic Improvement League of Canada, held on January 20, 1916, the following resolution was passed:
That the league petition the Dominion Government to establish a Federal Department ot Public Health, In order that all matters of health and disease under Federal, provincial and municipal jurisdiction, the compilation of health literature, the direction of research work, and- the preparation of statistical records may be systematized, co-ordinated and unified for the sake of greater economy, progress and efficiency.
At every congress of the Canadian Public Health Association since its organization in 1911 the following resolution was passed:
That in the opinion of this association it is a matter of great importance that the Dominion Government do take steps to create a Department ot Public Health, in order that all Federal branches dealing with health work may be co-ordinated under one administration.
The Canadian Public Health Association embraces in its membership representatives from all the provinces. In it are found most of the men who have given public health close and continuous study for many years-the men who are actively interested in public health-and this resolution is the

result of their opinions. At the inaugural meeting of the Canadian Public Health Association, held in Montreal on the 13th of December, 1911, His Royal Highness, the Duke of Connaught spoke as follows:
Of the many subjects which, are awaiting solution in Canada, none is so important to my mind as that of the health of its inhabitants, both adult and Infant. It is a subject which affects every one of us individually, and we owe it to ourselves and to the rising generation to see that conditions are improved, so far as lies within our power. Public health is a question which arises above all politics and it is the duty of the whole nation to join in promoting the objects of the association which is now gathered here.
The present unbusinesslike, necessarily inefficient and expensive, system, when we estimate it by results achieved, is indefensible, and is, in my opinion, a reproach to the administrative methods of this and previous Governments. A Department of Public Health, as proposed, would coordinate the various Federal activities that we have already and put them together under one intelligent management. This is the businesslike plan; it is the economical method, and of greater importance than either, it is the only plan which can give efficiency.
Practically every continental European country has a National Health Service. The United States in 1912, notwithstanding the previous existence of State Health Boards, established a Federal Public Health Service, and already it has proven its value, and lastly, at the present moment, we have the example of Great Britain where the question is now under consideration. The recent report of the Local Government Board, of which Lord Rhondda is the president, recommends the establishment of a Ministry of Health in the British Government, and there is every reason to believe the recommendation will be adopted. A Ministry of Health is urged as a war measure, first and foremost, the central fact of the situation being that if the nation is to survive it must look to its health and the health of its children. The press of Great Britain generally commends the proposition. The London Daily News in an editorial of April 2 last said:
It is an interesting and in its way a hopeful fact, that both Lord- Rhondda and the very strong Unionist Social Reform Committee,.

which includes such men as Lord Henry Ben-tinck, Mr. Leslie Scott, and Major Waldorf Astor-should have apparently arrived at the same conclusion in studying from different angles the important subject of national health.

On certain points there is a general agreement. No one will deny, for instance, that the present state of things cannot he suffered to continue. The most elementary consideration of economy and efficiency make it essential that the hopeless administrative ohaos which the committee hold up to just ridicule in their report should be brought to an end as speedily as possible. But apart from this, no one now questions that the problems of national health are in every sense matters of life and death for the nation. We cannot afford to suffer conditions to continue under which the President of the Local Government Board can express his considered conviction that a thousand infant lives 'are needlessly lost' every week; and that this is only one side of a very many sided problem.
And on the same day The Times editorially said:
It is scarcely disputed' that during recent years our health services have tended to outgrow their strictly departmental character. They have progressed in efficiency and in importance, but their growing importance has only served to reveal the isolation in which each of them stood. Powerful instruments of good in themselves, they often failed in the larger sense because they lacked1 a common purpose and a common direction. Machinery was multiplied without a corresponding gain in achievement; there was waste of men and material; there was overlapping. To careful students of these circumstances it appeared inevitable that sooner or later the streams must unite, and now events have lifted the question above the level of more intelligent anticipation. A national need has arisen which makes it imperative that union should take place forthwith. Our losses in the field can only be made good by preventing needless losses at home.
For these reasons we welcome the proposals which have been made by the President of the Local Government Board. Lord Rhondda signalized his entry to office by declaring that 1,000 infant lives could be saved every week. He has now indicated in what manner he believes this vital economy can be secured. He proposes the formation of a Ministry of Health, in which various departments supervising medical matters shall be concentrated.
We recognize the fact that our ministers are burdened with work at the present time, but under the crushing load of duties daily imposed upon them they have a thought for the future of our land and of the problems which the future-the near future- must grapple with. The care of health of the nation may not be urged upon them so insistently as some other matters; but I am sure their expressed appreciation of the needs, and their sympathy with any efforts to correct the conditions calling for remedy will lead them to give the matter sympathetic and, I hope, favourable consideration. The minister who gives Canada an efficient Health Department confers upon the future citizens of our country and upon the nation
as a whole a boon that will loom large in the minds of future generations. But it may be asked what can a Federal Department of Public Health do? Let me summarize:	'
1.	It could have supervision of the examination of immigrants as to their mental and physical condition, with a view to excluding large numbers of mental and physical defectives now admitted.
2.	It could have supervision of quarantine at our ports and the prevention of the importation of communicable disease.
3.	It could have the care of marine hospitals.
4.	It could collect vital statistics-we have in Canada no complete statistics of births, marriages and deaths for the whole Dominion.
5.	It could have supervision of foods and drugs, as they' affect the health of the people.
6.	It could collect information of the prevalence and geographic distribution of disease and other pertinent sanitary information.
7.	It could investigate causes of disease.
8.	It could co-operate with and render assistance to provincial health authorities.
9.	It could distribute information and literature regarding the prevalence, distribution, causation and prevention of disease.
10.	It could establish a great national hygienic laboratory. This could be operated in connection with the work of the Research Commission for the appointment of which the Government deserves much credit.
I trust that this matter which I have endeavoured to bring before the House at this time will receive the consideration, not only of the Government, but of all the members.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: Does the hon. member intend to ask that any of the powers now held by the provinces in this matter should remain with the provinces or that they should be brought under the control of the Dominion by an amendment to the British North America Act?


Michael Steele: There should be no interference whatever with the work now being carried on by the provinces; but there are other lines in which, with a federal health service, the health work of the nation could be co-ordinated in such a way that there would be no interferences with the pro-

vinces; there would be no overlapping; there would be much greater economy of service and much greater efficiency. There are, of course, many matters which the provinces have not power to deal
4.	p.m. with, as the British North America Act places the great bulk of health work under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.


Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (L'Islet) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I shall speak a few words to the resolution proposed by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). What is the aim of the resolution?
That, in the opinion of this House, the efficiency ' of the nation depends largely on the physical condition of the people, and in order that the latter may he conserved in the largest possible measure, there should he organized a separate department of the Government having supervision over all matters^ relating to the physical welfare of the Dominion.
In this morning's issue of the Ottawa Citizen, the hon. member for South Perth is reported as seeking to secure the organization of a department of public health, in order to promote the teachings of one particular school. The hon. member has already made it clear to the House that the resolution is no way concerned with the teaching of medical science or the doctrines of any particular school.
The hon. member for South Perth is entitled to the congratulations and thanks of the House. His disquisition is admirable, bearing as it does on a subject which is of interest to the whole Canadian people. It is universally acknowledged that a nation's strength and vigour depends to a great extent on the physical condition of its constituent elements. The great strides made in medical science since the wonderful discoveries of Pasteur, Koch and Lister have saved countless human lives. The results attained in scientific research and modern sanitation account for the preservation of hundreds of thousands of soldiers' lives. The health and strength of the Canadian nation largely depend on the moral, physical and mental qualities of the people and of the foreign element which is bound to come to our shores. Our first care should be to eliminate from among the British and American immigrants, who seek admission, the mentally defective. In Great Britain and the United States it is claimed that
600,000	persons suffer from mental diseases in one form or another. Immigrants should be subjected to a rigid inspection as to their mental condition by experts in disease of 
the brain. At a special clinic in a Toronto hospital, it was found, as stated by the hon. member, that a large number of the weak-minded were foreigners. It behooves us then to require a more rigid examination of immigrants, so that any who later might become a menace to the vigour of the race may be refused admittance.
There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the establishment by the Federal Government of a department of public health. Since Confederation, the Federal Governments have dealt with many matters concerning public health, but the enactments of provincial legislatures in that sphere must be kept in mind. In Canada the importance of sanitation is being recognized more and more. In the province of Quebec, to speak only of my province, there is a Board of Public Health which has to deal with the problems of hygiene and to cope with epidemics. Its sphere of utility is being extended every day. In the same province there are health officers who look after hygienic conditions. Last winter, Laval University at Quebec gave lectures on public sanitation, the graduates at the end of the course being awarded a degree in hygienic science. Some of the graduates secure positions as sanitary inspectors.
I feel that the best means of developing the physical welfare of our people is by the establishment of a federal department of public health. But before working out the details of the scheme, representatives of the Provincial and Federal Governments should hold a conference to decide on a [DOT]course of action that would avoid all possible encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. Once a mutual understanding is reached, the proposed department could easily be set in operation. Public health work is extending its usefulness every day, and I have no doubt that such a department in the Federal Administration would soon prove its necessity. At the present time matters concerning the public health are divided among various departments, with no attempt at co-ordinate action, such as could be secured if they were all united under one responsible head.
I wish to call the especial attention of the Government and of the Minister of Inland Revenue to the Act concerning patent medicines. That subject is one for a public health department to consider. I have closely examined the Act and read important articles dealing with the enactment. As a result of a careful study, I should ask the Government and the House

to repeal or amend the law so as to afford a greater measure of protection to the public. It has (been said by a physician: Public health is indeed endangered, because everything, in so far as it is concerned, is done in the dark. It offers a fertile field for the operation of quackery. No doubt as to that.
I wish to congratulate heartily Dr. L. F. Dube, of Notre-Dame-du-Lac, county of Temiscouata, province of Quebec, on the lecture he delivered in the month of September, 1916, before the Commission of Sanitary Services. Whoever reads this dissertation cannot but urge ' an immediate revision of the law concerning patent medicines. With the leave of the House, I shall read the following extract from his lecture:
''When a department or a federal board of public health is established at Ottawa, it-is to be expected that it will be entrusted with the supervision, inspection and control of ail matters coming under the Act, as well as with the enforcement of the law, and control over the sale and manufacture of patent medicines. The work should be carried on under medical officers or health specialists duly authorized."
Medical associations have insisted on the repeal of the present Act, and I cannot urge too strongly the necessity for new legislation. In every department of the service there are at present to be found branches having to do with matters connected with public health, and which should properly be entrusted to one department. The result would be unity of purpose and action, which are indispensable if it is desired to reap all the fruits of modern scientific achievements.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to say a last word of commendation of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), for having called the attention of the House and of the Government to such an important subject as that of public health.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele) had a resolution of somewhat similar character last year, and, in presenting it, he brought forward a great deal of valuable data on the subject of control of the health of the nation and of the jurisdiction in these matters of the provinces and of the Dominion. The hon. gentlemen ithen made a number of valuable suggestions, which entitled him to the thanks of the House. He has brought the question forward in a somewhat different form this year, though covering very much
the same ground. I do not wish to say much upon the subject, because, though I am partially responsible for the administration of certain legislation regarding public health, I have not the advantage possessed by my hon. friend of being a physician, and so I would rather touch on one or two points raised by the resolution itself than attempt to deal with the address in which he presented it. The question has been raised by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) as to whether there was in this resolution any intention to interfere with the control of health matters by the provinces. As is well known, the question of jurisdiction is a little involved in this, as in some other matters. Take education, for instance. It is clearly laid down by the British North America Act that the Federal Government has absolutely nothing to do with education, which is left entirely to the jurisdiction of the province. In other subjects, such as agriculture, the provinces and the Dominion have concurrent jurisdiction, the only stipulation being that where provincial legislation is repugnant to that passed by the Dominion Parliament the Dominion legislation governs. But when we come to legislation on health, as I understand the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the provinces have a limited jurisdiction, they being confined wholly to control of hospitals and eleemosynary institutions. It is left to be inferred that the Federal power can deal with all other health matters. At the same time, we know that by custom there has grown up in Canada a practice by which the provincial governments carry on the major part of the work in connection with public health, while at the same time the Dominion Government has taken some things in connection with health under its entire jurisdiction. Let me refer, first, to my own department. To that department has been assigned the duty of guarding the health of the people from all contagious diseases of a grave character brought here by immigrants from other lands. We 'have quarantine stations, as is well known, in Quebec, Halifax, British Columbia, and elsewhere. Again, the Dominion Government has always had entire control over everything concerning leprosy, and we are carrying on this work at a station in New Brunswick and at another and smaller one in British Columbia. These matters the provinces have not touched at all. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) has referred to the work of the Immigration Branch of the Department of the Interior,

and he has suggested that in many respects it might be made stronger and more efficient than at present. Of course, the hon. gentleman will admit that a great deal of excellent work has been done, though, of course, it is true that the efficiency of the department might be strengthened. The Immigration Branch of the Department of the Interior looks after minor diseases, such as some of those to which the hon. member referred, and' its officers are supposed to prevent the entry into Canada of those whose mental or physical health makes them undesirable immigrants. The Department of the Interior 'also has entire charge of the health of Indians, and it appoints doctors to carry out its obligations in that respect. The Marine and Fisheries Department exercises more or less control in connection with the health of sailors and, I think, one or two other matters.
But I would point out that no specific authority has been assigned to the provinces with regard to health matters. By long custom a practice has grown up, and it has been embodied in legislation, under which the provinces exercise control over public health and under which they have empowered municipalities to deal with those matters to a considerable extent. So, legislative and administrative work in connection with health is very wide and is largely out of the control of the Dominion Government. In the United States also, the division of jurisdiction has been somewhat vague. My hon. friend (Mr. Steele) is better informed on the subject than I, but as I understand it the question of quarantine in the United States was for many years little dealt with, if at all, by the Federal Government. In Boston, and I think also in New York, quarantine has been carried on by the municipal authorities, and in other cases by state authorities, and it is only within the last two or three years. that the Federal Government has taken the whole control. In the United States they have not a department of Public Health, but they have what is called a Public Health Service which is under the jurisdiction of or is practically a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.
I quite agree with my hon. friend in saying that if the change he proposes were brought about it would not necessarily involve direct interference with the work of the provinces so as to invite any hostile or critical attitude on their part. Necessarily there would be a very thorough in-

vestigation and conference with the provincial authorities in order to co-ordinate the work and avoid duplication as far as possible. The effort would be more in the way of co-operation and co-ordination than in the way of an attempt to take from any other body that which it might think it ought to control. I do not anticipate any great difficulty in arranging these matters when they come to be dealt with. I think my hon. friend is on sound ground when he emphasizes, among other things, the tremendous necessity in this country, as in other countries, of dealing more with prevention rather than neglecting it, and then spending great energy and large sums of money in efforts to cure disease after it has declared itself. We should go to the root of the matter and try to establish such conditions that diseases of the lamentable kind that exist here and elsewhere may not get a footing through lack of energy in improving conditions. I was particularly impressed with what the hon. member said with regard to the feeble-minded and the regrettable state of things in this country, as well as in most countries, in this respect. I am quite sure that united and energetic action in dealing with the situation would result in incalculable good to the people. I am also thoroughly in accoTd with him when he states that the proper direction of the energies of governmental authorities and individuals to this health question is a matter of enormous importance not only from the point of view of the abolition of poverty and crime, which necessarily must follow widespread conditions of disease, but also from the consideration of its direct effect on the economic efficiency of our nation. I aim perfectly convinced that a viast amount of waste and inefficiency which are to be found in our own country, as in other countries, is due to the neglect *by the state of some of the matters that have been referred to toy my hon. friend. If I understood my hon. friend aright, he seemed to take the ground-perhaps I misunderstood him-that we hiad not made any progress, that we were at a standstill, which was a matter of regret. I presume he meant that in so far as federal control of health matters goes we had not advanced our position very much. He would not, I am sure, mean to convey to this House the idea that in Canada there has been no progress made with regard to general health matters, because there has been a lot of earnest attention paid to the subject by municipalities, by provincial authorities, and, to some ex-

tent, by the Dominion aufttooiritie-s. I think it will not be disputed that some real progress has been. made.
The resolution which my hon. friend has brought before the House is of a little more comprehensive character than was the resolution introduced last year, because in its concluding sentence it calls for the supervision toy this department of public health of all matters relating to the physical welfare of the community. I think I understood him in his opening remarks to say that he did not intend it in that way, because I do not imagine for a moment that the resolution was intended to imply an absolute control by the federal department over all health matters. At the same time, taking the resolution as it is worded-, it would be questionable whether this Government could even under any conditions attempt the absolute supervision over all questions of that kind because it might somewhat interfere with the rights of the provinces.
It has been suggested that there is a danger in creating a department of public health because it would tend towards the establishment of a close medical organization, of one particular system , of medical education, and of certain schools of thought in medical matters- which would interfere with the freedom of those who do not perhaps hold the same views. I do not think, as far as I was able to gather, that my hon. friend had anything of that sort in his mind; nor if a department of public health were established do I imagine that any such tyranny-that is the word that has	been used -by the
hypercritics-^would follow. I gather that what my hon. friend aims at is the co-ordinating of the activities in the country in regard to health matters in such a way that there would be greater unity of action and purpose and that the Dominion might give more energy and devote more attention to such matters as medical research and all questions affecting not only natural health but health as it relates to international matters, and also that it would prosecute somewhat more vigorously that very important phase of the question regarding sanitation as applied to health matters. In these objects, the House, I am sure, and certainly the Government, cannot hut sympathize. Last year when my hon. friend brought this resolution to the attention of the House, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), in my absence through illness, spoke on the resolution and pointed out that it had already
had the consideration of the Government, but that there were so many problems and so much pressing work engaging the time and attention of the ministers, that a matter of this sort, which although it might seem simple, required the most careful consideration and which must be the subject of conferences with the provincial authorities before it was put into effect, would have to be left for a later time. Reasons of that kind which were advanced last year, I am sure my non. friend will appreciate, are equally strong now when the war is in a more acute and terrible phase than it was before, and when the pressure on ministers and departments is certainly not less but, if anything, a great deal more. I am not prepared to dispute the soundness of the position which my hon. friend has taken up. I personally sympathise with what he is aiming at. While I do not think it is desirable or possible to go into a matter of this kind satisfactorily at the present time, I am frank enough to say that I have such sympathy with it that I believe the time is not far distant when it will have to be taken up and dealt with and when -it is it will be a step in the right direction. Further than that I do not wish to detain the House except to say that my hon. friend deserves the thanks of the House for bringing this subject to its attention, and after all it is of a great deal more importance than many of the subjects which we consume time in debating.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris):: I
think this House is indebted to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) for presenting to it a question of Such great importance. I doubt very much if any hon. gentleman could present this resolution more ably than has my hon. friend. It is a question that needs a great deal more consideration, and with your permission, Sir, I wish to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  D. C. ROSB@West Middlesex: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that unclaimed balances at present in the Chartered Banks of Canada should be transferred to the Treasurer of the Patriotic Fund to be used for the usual patriotic purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this resolution to the consideration of the House

it is not my intention to go into any long argument in regard to the matter. I think the facts are pretty clear and I would just make a few observations in regard to what I am asking for in this resolution. In the first place I wish to be entirely frank with the House and to say that after considerable research I have been unable tto find 'any precedent for what I am asking in the resolution. In going through the law of the United States I find no enactment on unclaimed balances. I find that in the states of Connecticut, Idaho, Lonisi'ainia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and New York there are enactments on the statute books which provide for unclaimed balances inasmuch as advertisement is required of the names of those who are entitled to the money where money is concerned hut there is no final disposition of the money.
The law in all these states simply provides that the Government shall, in a public way, make these deposits known by advertisements published in the papers in metropolitan centres, or in Government blue-books, or in reports submitted to the Legislature after deposits have been in the banks for a certain length of time and no transaction has taken place in regard to them. I find that under the law of France no final disposition is made of unclaimed balances. In Great Britain, no ultimate disposition is made of these balances, although the matter has been brought up several times. The only precedent I am able to cite in regard to these balances is the law of the Commonwealth of Australia. According to the law of Australia of 1911 there is this statutory provision.
(1)	All moneys to the credit of a depositor's savings bank account (not being a deposit on behalf of a minor) which has 'not been operated upon, either by addition or withdrawal, for a period1 of seven years and upwards, shall be carried to an account to be called the depositors' unclaimed fund, and1 shall cease to bear interest.
(2)	The Governor may, on proof to his satisfaction that any person is entitled to any money which has been carried to the credit of the depositors' unclaimed fund, direct payment thereof to him, and his receipt shall be a good discharge to the bank.
(3)	A list of the amounts carried to the depositors' unclaimed fund and not claimed/ shall he published annually in the Gazette.
(4)	All moneys in respect of which a claim is not established within ten years after having been Included in any published list shall cease to be claimable, and shall become the absolute property of the bank, but the Governor may, with the consent of the treasurer, allow any claim after that period has expired, if he is satisfied that special reasons' exist for the allowance of the claim.
[Mr. Ross 1
This is the only provision I have been able to find which ultimately disposes of unclaimed balances, and according to the law of Australia as I have read it here an unclaimed balance at a certain stage becomes the absolute property of the bank.
For my own part I could not go that far. My resolution do is not go that far. I would not wish in any case to go to that length because I think the bank has no title to this money, particularly in this country where the chartered banks enjoy greater privileges and pay less for them than in any other country. However, I am not making this motion out of anything in the way of ill feeling to the banks, because I have none; I am making it from purely patriotic motives. At this time in the history of this Empire we are not following precedents. I cannot say that we are really making precedents, because the times are too exceptional. But, I think that on both sides of the House we are trying to legislate according to the special circumstances that we find surrounding us, in the best interests of the country and of the Empire; and I think this resolution, if adopted by the Government, will help in that great purpose for which we are all striving at the present time; will aid in the alleviation of the sufferings of our soldiers, and will help ultimately to win the war.
Most hon. gentlemen, I think, are acquainted with the existing law in Canada. It is contained in sections 114 and 115 of the Banking Act of 1913. I shall not read the sections, but, 'briefly, they provide that after, a period of five years has elapsed and no transaction has taken place or no interest has been paid on a balance in the bank, a report is made of that balance to the Government and that balance is published in the official reports of this Government. That balance is not taken by the Government except in one case: If a bank goes into liquidation ot becomes insolvent and there is money in the hands of the liquidator which is unclaimed, either dividends or deposits, that is paid to the Finance Minister and remains the property of the Government until some claim is made for it, and if a claim is established the amount is paid to the person establishing such claim. Apart from that, there is no payment of unclaimed balances in the way of dividends or drafts that have not been cashed, or certified cheques unpaid. By the law of 1913 a further amendment was made which renders it impossible for me to say exactly that the returns which we have furnished to us at the

present time exactly show the amounts of unclaimed balances, because by that amendment it is stated that any sum under five dollars that has been unclaimed for five years will not now be printed in the Government return. So that I cannot say that the figures I give and that I find in the reports of the Government are absolutely correct. I am not going into the old law in regard to unclaimed balances. As far as the Parliament of Canada is concerned, the law as it at present stands is practically the same as when it was first introduced in 1890. But I am going to deal with it just as it stands at the present time.
. There has been one precedent in this House which would jusify this resolution. When the Banking Act was being considered in 1913 by a special committee appointed far thait purpose, the hon. member for South Ontario introduced an amendment providing that all unclaimed balances would be turned over to the Finance Minister. That motion was put in the committee and it was defeated by a vote of fifteen to ten; so that I have this justification in the records of this House, that on that committee of twenty-five members, ten men at that time were in favour of turning the unclaimed balances in the banks over to the Government of this country. That is practically my motion to-day, except that I wish to have the money used fox a specific purpose.	-	*
There are only three factors in the resolution : In the first place, there is the question of the banks. Probably before I deal with that I should consider the amounts of these balances. According to the latest returns available to me, I find in the statement furnished to this House, of unclaimed balances in chartered banks in 1915, that there were in the banks of this country unclaimed balances of deposits amounting to $916,535.74 and of unpaid certified cheques, drafts or bills of exchange, $171,224, making a total of $1,087,759. I find also, on going back to the records of 1903 and taking the same items, that there were in the chartered banks of this country $517,272, so that in those twelve years these unclaimed balances had increased by $580,000. This question may be considered from three sides, and in the first place, from the standpoint of the banks. Are the banks going to be hurt by the Government implementing this resolution? The money is not theirs. According to these returns they have had the use of $500,000, half a million dollars of the people
of Canada, for twelve years, for which they have not paid a cent. They should be very thankful, I think, for that privilege, and -they should be willing at this time to give this money for a patriotic purpose. In the second place, the withdrawal of this money will not, because the amount is so infinitesimal, be detrimental to the banks concerned. I find on looking at this return that in 1915 the unclaimed balances-I am considering only deposits now, because the same argument applies to these as applies to other unclaimed balances-in the various banks were, in round figures, as follows: Bank of Montreal, $111,000; Quebec Bank, $15,000; Bank of Nova Scotia, $37,000; Bank of British North America, $73,000; Bank of Toronto, $4,000; Molsons Bank, $17,000; Banque Nationale, $19,000; Merchants Bank of Canada, $37,000; Banque Provmciale du Canada, $7,000; Union Bank of Canada, $89,000; Canadian Bank of Commerce, $103,000; Montreal City and District Savings Bank, $128,000. I shall not read the whole list, hut it will be observed that the three largest amounts are $111,000, Bank of Montreal; $103,000, Canadian Bank of Commerce, and $128,000, Montreal City and District Savings Bank. My argument is this: having regard to the large capitalization of these banks and the immense amount of their deposits, the payment by them to the secretary of the Patriotic Fund through the Finance Minister of the small amount of money suggested would not prejudice their business in any way. The deposits in the banks to-day amount to the enormous sum of $1,500,000,000, in round figures, having increased during the last three or four years to the extent of nearly half a billion dollars. At the present time, therefore, through the thrift and industry of the people, the Canadian banks are in a stronger position, so far as deposits are concerned, than they ever have been. Moreover. I do not (think they need this money- and this has been shown by recent financial operations. The Minister of Finance, with great foresight and great success, put on the market a patriotic loan only a short time ago. To this loan the banks subscribed an amount in the neighbourhood of $50,-000,000-I have not the exact figures, but they are familiar to the	minister. This shows that the banks were not very	hard up. If they	could
for patriotic reasons give to the Minister of Finance $50,000,000 on account of that war loan, surely they can allow $1,000,000 to go out of their coffers for the purposes men-

tioned in this resolution. I say, then, that the banks cannot complain if they be asked to do this. The money is not their own; they do not need it and the amount is so infinitesimal that it cannot possibly injure their financial operations.
If this resolution is accepted, the bill to be founded upon it will contain many details which could not possibly be set forth in the resolution. But if I had stated it to be my object to confiscate these unclaimed balances, what would that mean to the depositors? The amount of unclaimed deposits in the Bank of Montreal is $111,000, and in that amount 1,900 people are interested. Only three people are interested in deposits exceeding $3,000 and only fifteen other than the three are interested in amounts exceeding $1,000. The average deposit of the 1,900 people is $59, but if you subtract the larger deposits of the eighteen people mentioned, the average amount is only $40. The same conditions obtain in the Bank of Commerce; there are only eighteen depositors of unclaimed balances amounting to more than $1,000. So that even if it were my intention to confiscate this money, the amount taken from each depositor would be very small indeed.
In the third place, what are going to be the needs' of the Patriotic Fund? No one will take exception to the great work that has been done in connection with the Patriotic Fund; no greater work has been done in any country. If I have the figures correctly, there has been collected through the voluntary offerings of the people of Canada about $21,000,000, for the purpose of assisting the widows and dependents of the soldiers who have gone across the seas to fight the battles of Canada and of the world. I do not think that the people of any country have responded more liberally to these appeals than have the Canadian people. The people of Britain salute them for the generosity with which they have responded to every patriotic appeal that has been made. But there has been this criticism^and 1 think it is a fair criticism-that the Patriotic Fund has been raised by voluntary subscription and that at each successive appeal the same men have almost invariably subscribed. It has been suggested that when we send our soldiers across the water to fight our battles, the country should take care of their dependents by general taxation-and there seems to be some weight and some justice in that criticism. But there will come a time in the history of this war when we shall have 
350,000	or 400,000 men on the other side of the water. When the war is won, the patriotic fervor which moved the people to subscribe to the Patriotic Fund will not be as warm as it formerly was, and the people will not give so freely. There will be a certain amount of stagnation in trade; there will be a period of hard times and the need for some increase in the Patriotic Fund will be greater than it ever was. I submit that this $1,000,000 will be the splendid nucleus of a fund to provide for that day, which will surely come, when the people will not he as able or as willing to respond to appeals made on behalf of the Patriotic Fund as they have been in the past. On that account, if on no other, I think this resolution is justified.
There is just one more consideration, and that is the depositor. I am not asking the Government to take this money from the depositor. I am not asking them to do what has been done in Australia; I do not think that would be just and right. Since my entrance into this House I have been a constant champion of the depositor, and am to-day. I think that the depositor in the Canadian banks does not get his rights and does not get ample protection. He does not get his rights in the matter of security; he does not get a sufficiently high Tate of interest. There are many things that could be done for the depositor in the Canadian banks, and which will be done some day, I hope, in the near future. If this resolution is accepted by the Government and this money paid through the Finance Minister to the secretary of the Patriotic Fund, it will be my suggestion to the Minister of Finance that in case valid claims are made in the future upon the Government of Canada and those claims are established by proper evidence, these depositors do not have their money taken from them, but that this rich Dominion is generous and just enough to see that these depositors are paid the money that they have deposited in the banks of this-country. That is all I will say in regard to the resolution, and I hope I shall receive a sympathetic and generous response from the Minister of Finance.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I accept, without reserve, the statement of my hon. friend as to the motives which have actuated him in bringing this resolution to the attention of the House. I think, however, that his patriotic feelings and sympathies

have got the better of his judgment, because what he proposes here is really an unwise course, and one calculated, if adopted, to affect our credit as a nation in which property rights are observed. My hon. friend has not carefully drafted his resolution. Just let us see what he asks this House to do. He asks the House to confiscate the unclaimed balances at present in the chartered banks of Canada and transfer them to the treasurer of the Patriotic Fund. My hon. friend does not state in this resolution whether the rights of the depositors against the banks are extinguished or not; he does not state whether the banks are to continue to be liable to the depositors whose deposits are to be transferred to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, or whether the banks are to be indemnified by the Government. I submit, with confidence, that, on these grounds alone, this resolution could not be adopted by this House.
Let us consider what these unclaimed balances are. The chartered banks of Canada receive deposits in the ordinary course of their business. Some of the balances in connection with these deposits remain unclaimed for a certain time and are then designated " unclaimed balances." At least I assume, that is what my hon. friend has in mind, because his resolution is so worded that it would really apply to all balances on deposit to-day with the chartered banks of Canada and unclaimed at this moment; but I assume that what my hon. friend means is unclaimed balances in the technical sense of the word, and I do not desire to take an objection on the score that my hon. friend refers to all balances, because I am aware that he does not. The legal position to-day is that the chartered banks of Canada owe those depositors the several amounts of money- comparatively small in most cases-to which my hon. friend 'has referred. Those balances are unclaimed, but they are not unclaimable. The bank is responsible to pay those balances when they are asked for by the parties entitled to them. My hon. friend proposes to confiscate the deposits. In one portion of his speech I understood him to say that, as the amounts were small, there was no valid objection to the Government transferring them to the Canadian Patriotic Fund. That would indicate to me that what my hon. friend has in mind is that those depositors would lose their rights against the banks. If they lost their rights against the banks, what you have
done is this: You have made each one of those depositors, who may apply for and claim his 'balance at any time, an involuntary contributor to the Canadian Patriotic Fund. The very essence and geniue of the Canadian Patriotic Fund is that it is constituted by voluntary contributions from the people of Canada. Yet my hon. friend proposes-if I understood him aright, and I am sure I did-to make all those depositors who have unclaimed balances in Canadian chartered banks, lose those unclaimed balances to the Canadian Patriotic Fund. I would submit that that is pure confiscation, absolutely unwarranted, and I am quite certain that the Canadian Patriotic Fund would not desire that those depositors should be made, against their will and without their knowledge, to give to the Canadian Patriotic Fund their unclaimed balances, which they may claim and have the right to claim at any time. My hon. friend would have been more fair if he had said that in his view the banks would remain liable to the depositors and, if necessary be indemnified by the Government but it is entirely unnecessary to take that course. If the Canadian Patriotic Fund at any time is in such need that public assistance is required, application will no doubt be made to the Government. It seems to me that it would be very much better that the Government should itself afford assistance, if assistance were indispensably necessary, and if it were no longer possible to maintain this fund by voluntary 'subscription, rather than that by legislative action of this Parliament we should confiscate moneys which belong to hundreds or thousands of individuals throughout this country and transfer these moneys to the Canadian Patriotic Fund.
It is a fact that those deposits in most cases are not called for and are not likely to be called for; but if any legislation is necessary in connection with this matter, it should not be of the (Jharacfer which my hon. friend has put forward, hut upon a revision of the Bank Act-and the matter was under consideration at the last revision- the question might be brought up as to whether the banks should continue beyond a certain time to hold unclaimed balances, as to whether they should not pay the amount into the Consolidated Revenue Fund to ibe available for the purposes of the Government, on the condition that the Government would indemnify the banks against any claims which might be made by the owners of the balances against the

banks. That has ibeen put forward on more than one occasion when the Bank Act has been under consideration, and that question would seem to me to be a proper subject for the consideration of Parliament. I know that opinions differ as to it, and I am not expressing my own view. The course which my hon. friend asks the House to pursue, namely, to' confiscate the unclaimed balances of those depositors without providing any means whereby they are to be indemnified-because the resolution does not anywhere refer to indemnification- appears to me to be legislation that would be regarded by the public, certainly by the financial world, as entirely unwarranted. It is therefore clear, at least it is quite clear to me, that the House could not pass the resolution in its present form.


Mr. ROSS:: I am quite willing to accept the suggestion the minister made just now. It was my intention to have such a provision inserted.


William Thomas White: I have not made a suggestion. I am pointing out that the resolution in its present form could not be accepted by the House. Let us now consider whether the House should determine to take these balances and transfer them to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, the banks remaining liable without indemnification or with indemnification. I think it would be most unfair to enact legislation under which these balances would be transferred to the Canadian Patriotic Fund or any other fund, the banks remaining liable to the parties to whom they are legally bound to pay these amounts upon demand; that wTould be manifestly unfair and unjust to the banks. What is the alternative? That we should transfer these unpaid balances to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, and that the Government should indemnify the owners of these unpaid, balances, the banks being relieved of their obligations. Now, that to me seems in no wise different from the 'Government assuming a liability towards the Canadian Patriotic Fund. In case of need, I am sure the Government would assist the Canadian Patriotic Fund, but I do not see the necessity for this roundabout course.
My hon. friend has pointed |out that while these unpaid balances amount to a considerable sum in the aggregate, it is only a comparatively small amount so far as each bank is concerned. I agree with my hon. friend in that, but I do submit that the principle of taking these amounts from the banks, who aTe legally bound to 
pay them, or from the depositors who have them lawfully on deposit, is unsound and should not be indorsed by this House.
My hon. friend has referred to the position of the Canadian chartered banks, and he is quite correct in saying that they are in a strong position. I do not put forward my argument on the condition of the banks, but on the ground that it is not proper legislation to confiscate money; I think that is the position that any Minister of Finance would be bound to take. My hon. friend has drawn attention to the fact that he has been unable to find any precedent except in the case of Australia, and that does not surprise me, as the course which he suggests is not one that would generally commend itself to legislators, especially under the British system. I did not catch what my hon. friend said in respect to unpaid balances in Australia, but it is my own view-and I am putting it forward only as my own view-that the only suggestion with regard to unpaid balances which would meet with the consideration of a legislative body is not that those balances should be transferred to any one or more funds, no matter how worthy they may be, but if there is to be a transfer it should be to the consolidated fund of the Government, the Government undertaking to indemnify the banks against any liability, and to make good to depositors these unclaimed balances should demand be made for them. Now, in my opinion, the time when a question of that kind should be considered is upon a revision of the Bank Act. I do not wish to be understood as in any way reflecting upon the propriety of my hon. friend bringing this matter up, because I know that he is actuated by the best of motives, but I do submit that even in so worthy a cause it is not wise to take a step which would seem to reflect upon the stability of bank deposits. I may say to my hon. friend that upon one or two occasions in the past when this matter was being discussed in the other House, I received inquiries from depositors, and lit has been brought to my attention that a good deal of anxiety was manifested, because the general public do not understand these proposals as we understand them in this House. In addition to the arguments which I have advanced, it is, in my' opinion, unwise to unsettle public opinion, especially at a time like this, in regard to so important a matter as deposits in our chartered banks. I am glad this matter has been brought up, because it has given me an

opportunity of presenting my views, and, such as they are, I submit them to the consideration of the House.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: It is not very often that the Minister of Finance is so technical as he has been this afternoon on the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Ross). The minister discussed the resolution as though it were a Bill presented to this House, when he must have known it was only a resolution affirming a principle. Why, it is not once in a hundred times that a resolution like this goes into details. The hon. member for Middlesex distinctly stated that he did not ask the House to confiscate this money, because when you confiscate money or property you are taking away something which belongs to other people, and appropriating it for the benefit of the state or some other institution. The hon. member for Middlesex distinctly stated that if this resolution were adopted by the House and a Bill founded upon it there ought to be a provision that if any uona fide claimants came forward and demanded their deposits from the banks the Government should step forward and make good the amount; in other words, the Government should gamble to that extent.
There is about $1,000,000 of unpaid balances in the different chartered banks of this country. I understand that an unclaimed balance must remain five years on the books of a bank before it is transferred to the " unclaimed balances " column. We know that the 'banks keep a record of interest bearing deposits, and another list of non-interest bearing deposits; the banks, recognizing the fact that some people do not claim their deposits, either through death or going away, and sometimes because the deposit is only a small amount, have made a practice of transferring unpaid balances after a period of five years, and there is now about $1,000,000 of these balances in our banks. My hon. friend from Middlesex now raises the question whetuer this amount should be considered as the property of the banks, or whether in these times of stress it should not be handed over to the Canadian Patriotic Fund. That is what my hon. friend asks for; he is not asking for anybody's property to be confiscated, because he expressly suggested that if any claimant came forward afterwards and established his claim the Government should make good the amount.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance seemed to have great objections to confiscating property. But there have been many instance; in the last two or three
years where my hon. friend did not hesitate to confiscate other people's property. Only two or three months ago the Government confiscated the Ross rifle factory at Quebec without giving the owner five minutes' notice. They wanted the factory, and simply went in and took it. Nobody is finding much fault with them for that; they were only doing what they had a perfect light to do, but it was confiscating the property, nevertheless.
Sir THOMAS WjmITE: Why does the hon. gentleman say that we confiscated the Ross rifle factory? I understand that we expropriated it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will discuss that at a later stage. I happened to be in Quebec as visitor when the event took place, and, perhaps, I know a little more about it than other hon. gentlemen in the House. However, we	shall have an	opportunity of	discussing	that	at a	later	date.	TheMinister	of	Finance	thinks	that	_ thetransfer	of	these	balances	to	thePatriotic	Fund would	be a forced	contribution, whereas, he said, contributions to the Patriotic Fund were entirely voluntary. In many parts of Canada to-day that is not the case. When the Patriotic Fund was organized, it was on a voluntary basis but in many municipalities it was soon found that one class of the public were contributing largely and another class contributing nothing. In New Brunswick, and also, I think, in many other parts of Canada, the method has been adopted of assessing for the Patriotic Fund. And in New Brunswick in this way we have raised half a million dollars. We go beyond the ordinary assessment. An unfortunate policy has crept into our municipal, affairs in New Brunswick, and I presume in many other parts of Canada, of exempting certain properties from taxation. But so far as the Patriotic Fund is concerned these institutions and corporations are assessed. I cannot see any force in the objection raised by the minister because of the phraseology of the resolution. If this Parliament wishes to adopt the policy of taking these unclaimed balances out of the hands of the bank and giving them to the Patriotic Fund, the only question, it seems to me, is whether Parliament is willing to assume the responsibility of making good these balances to the extent that they may be afterwards properly claimed by the proper persons. I should like to see the money handed to the Patriotic Fund rather than left in the hands of the banks. Nearly
ninety per cent of the amounts will inevitably remain unclaimed, and sc the liability which the country would assume would be very light. I have no quarrel with the chartered banks; they are doing a good work and are in splendid financial condition. But I am sure the shareholders of these banks do not need this million dollars to help them to pay dividends, and I do not think it will be any harm to pay the money over to the Patriotic Fund, the country undertaking to refund any sums that may be claimed by bona fide owners. I am strongly in favour of the principle of the resolution and intend to vote for it.


Sir HERBERT AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine) :: I have no hesitation whatever in giving to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) the fullest possible credit for bringing in this resolution, for Middlesex is a county that has been from the beginning of the war one of the most patriotic and generous in its gifts to the Patriotic Fund. At one itiime Middlesex led all the other counties of Ontario in the size of its contributions to the fund. So I know that this resolution arises from the best motives and is presented to the House with the highest purpose. But it has been the glory of the Patriotic Fund from the beginning that it represented the giving pi those who could not fight, and the slogan of the Patriotic Fund throughout Canada has been : "Fight or pay." The man Who shoulders his rifle and goes to the firing line is released from financial payment to the Fund, and rightly so; but the man who remains and goes on with his work as usual, who enjoys the privilege of staying at home, is asked to make sacrifices which, while they may not be commensurate, will represent something similar to those made by the man who is giving his foody and his life for our defence. To many people this is the only outlet they have. The man who is .over age, the man who is tied up toy business, the man whose home ties are such that he cannot leave, naturally welcomes the opportunity for selfsacrifice, and the Patriotic Fund has been welcomed by thousands and tens of thousands of our people because by contributing to it they are able to feel that they too are fighting the Huns. So, almost universally, the contributions have been voluntary. In the first year of the war eighty-five per cent of the contributions were not pnly voluntary but, so far as we were concerned, unsolicited. But it became necessary as the burden increased to distribute it. We found that the rural parts of the country

were not giving as much as the cities. By experiment we found that the people there were as ready and as willing to give as were the urban dwellers, but the difficulty lay, we were told, in making collections. When you have a scattered mral community, to secure a committee and have it solicit and collect contributions is a physical impossibility. Consequently, from the farmers came the request that they might use the machinery they had, the machinery of the county and township councils, through which the mpney might be raised in rural districts It was found that, generally speaking, the farm a man occupies represents his power of earning, and so hie relative power of giving. So we established the rule that where a municipal council unanimously made a grant, to he assessed upon the taxpayers, we would accept that. If there was a division of opinion, some members of the council wishing to give a larger amount and some a smaller amount, we said:	Give us the smaller
amount, but make it unanimous, because we wish to maintain the principle of voluntary giving So, while, to a certain extent the principle of taxation to help the Patriotic Fund has been introduced, it has been mainly as a matter of financing to facilitate the collection of moneys that people were glad to give. I think there are few instances on record in which money has been given to the Patriotic Fund through taxation in which the giving has not been by unanimous vote of the legislative body that had the right to give it. We have found, that, where grants were made by municipal councils with a certain timidity in the early part of the war, when we have gone back they have almost invariably increased the grants, tehowing, that they had taken the matter up with their constituents, and had found that more generous giving would meet wiith approval. So, I think that, from our Patriotic Fund point of view, there would be a certain taint if money were taken, you may say by force, from a class of people already generously doing their share. The hankers have been very generous in support of the Patriotic Fund, At the outset the Bank of Montreal gave 5100,000 payable in two equal annual instalments. Another great bank has been equally generous. From the rapid calculation I have made since this discussion began, I think I am safe in saying that the bankers have given annually $350,000 to the Patriotic Fund, and that if the war lasts three or four years they will

have given voluntarily the full million dollars represented by these unclaimed balances. "'So, speaking for the Patriotic Fund, while we have the highest appreciation of the act of the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) and know it comes from the generous impulse of himself and those whom he represents, a generosity which they have again and again shown by their sympathetic attitude towards the Patriotic Fund, I do not think the motion should be passed if it has in view that the Patriotic Fund is to be the destination of the money. It is an evidence of the generosity of the people of Canada that though the Patriotic Fund is being drawn on for nearly a million dollars a month, and though we are taking care of between 50,000 and 60,000 families, so far each month has shown an amount coming in as large as that going out, and a little larger. The pledges given- for 1917, all of which will be available, I am confident-because the amount of uncolleot-able pledges in the Patriotic Fund has been remarkably small-are large enough to carry the fund through the present year. We hope to maintain, if we can, the feeling that the Patriotic Fund is money coming from the heart, money that expresses a sincere desire to make sacrifices, money given by people who want to do their bit; and we would like to have the Fund as free as possible from any feeling that it is made up of moneys taken by compulsion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman include the half million dollars which is being raised by the province of New Brunswick by direct taxation as being tainted by not being voluntary? I would like an answer to that question because I think it is very important.


Herbert Brown Ames: I may say that we regard the money that New Brunswick is paying as being practically a voluntary contribution because it was voted by the Legislature of New Brunswick unanimously if I remember rightly; because it was taken up by both parties and because, although the Government of New Brunswick has changed and although a different party is in power to-day, they are paying the money just the same as 'they did before and there is not the slightest question of repudiation. I think it would be doing an injustice to the people of New Brunswick as a whole to say that money was being taken from them to aid the Patriotic Fund, that they would not have given voluntarily, if that method had been adopted instead.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are you willing to accept it?


Herbert Brown Ames: Under these circumstances, yes.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker I am greatly in favour of this resolution. I am not alarmed about the view that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) takes that this is in the nature of a confiscation. The banks accept as a right what is given to them by the Parliament of Canada; they have a right to use these funds through the Bank Act. That right was given to them by this Parliament and I maintain that we have a right to say later whether such funds can be taken away from them and used for some other purpose.


William Thomas White: I did not question the right of Parliament.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I believe the money is, or will be, needed for the Patriotic Fund. I have been active on behalf of the Patriotic Fund from the first, and I have found that the people who are giving year after year are the same people. If an increased allotment is made to a district these same people are giving an increased amount each year. We find hundreds and hundreds of shirkers throughout the whole of Canada, not only in my own province, hut everywhere, men of wealth, who are not giving a cent to the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross, or any other organization. We have reached a stage where I believe we will have to resort to some other means, if the war continues, to raise a patriotic fund. I would like to see some means of reaching the people who are shirking. It is all right to get at the wealth of the country by the method of taxation adopted by the Minister of Finance but there are lots of people we are not getting at in that way who are making money out of the war and who are not contributing anything. As to the banks being generous, the banks have lots of money at the present time, any amount of it and they have a perfect right to he generous. They have great powers and great privileges given to them by this Parliament and they should give generously; more so perhaps than any other institution in the country. In my judgment, the banks have no right to these unclaimed balances. They would not suffer if they lost them. The president of the



Patriotic Fund does not seem to think that the fund is in need of the money but there are other patriotic causes that are in need of money, such as the Belgian Relief Fund, and if the Patriotic Fund does not want it why not offer it to the Belgian Relief Fund? These organizations are in need, the banks are not in need and if we decide to take this money away from them we have a perfect right to do so. I sometimes think that in this country we do not realize that we^are participating in a world war and that we can establish precedents and can do things that were never heard of before. I presume it is possible under the War Measures Aot to do a great many things that were never done before. It would be possible to take fifty per cent of the wealth of Canada if we wanted to use it to help the country at this time. There is nothing unusual in demanding at this particular time that this money should bp used by the country for patriotic purposes and to help in carrying on the war. I am in hearty sympathy with the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Middlesex.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it would be possible for this House to accept the resolution as it is worded without doing a very great injustice to many people. The resolution asks the House to agree to turn over any unclaimed balances at present in the chartered banks to the Patriotic Fund. All that hon. gentlemen have said in regard to the worthiness of the Patriotic Fund I heartily endorse but it does seem to me to be a very drastic proposal that we should take any unclaimed balances, no matter how [DOT] long they had remained in the bank unclaimed, and turn these balances over to the Patriotic Fund. That, I believe to be a too drastic measure. But I do entirely agree with some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Buchanan). I do not see why the banks should have this money. It seems to me that we should decide on a certain length of time that these unclaimed balances would remain in the banks and that on the expiry of * that time these unclaimed balances would revert to the Dominion of Canada to be applied to the consolidated fund, the Government of Canada guaranteeing to indemnify the banks against any claims which subsequently might be put up. Why should this money stay in the banks, and why should they have the use of it for ten, twenty or

fifty years? It is not theirs any more than it is ours. It is not theirs as much as it is ours; I mean the people of Canada. I can see no reason why that money should remain there, and I repeat that these balances should be taken charge of by the Dominion Government, the Government guaranteeing the banks that they would indemnify them should any persons, in the years to come, make good their claims to these balances, and that under these circumstances they would hand the money back to the banks. But to leave them in the banks for an indefinite period I think is decidedly unfair, and I see no reason why it should be done.


Mr. S. F. GLASS (East Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am in * accord with the views expressed by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). They are exactly in line with the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). As representing one part of the county of Middlesex, I appreciate the tribute which has been paid by my hon. friend from Montreal (Sir Herbert Ames) to the patriotism of the people of that county. Referring to the matter of making a distinction between funds voluntarily sub-cribed and those produced by taxation for the patriotic fund, I think that our experience amongst our rural municipalities has been very similar to that in the province of New Brunswick as referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell). It is not convenient or easy to collect these amounts by subscription in the rural districts, and therefore the rural districts have resorted to a method of taxation. It is not money taken from the people unwillingly, because the people are glad to have an opportunity by this method of equitably and patriotically contributing to this fund. Referring to the use of moneys left in chartered banks, it seems manifestly unfair that the banks should be allowed the use of this money for an indefinite period simply because the money has not been claimed.
I do not know whether I fully understand the Banking Act, but from the remarks made to-day I take it to mean that when a bank balance becomes an unclaimed balance, that is after it has been on deposit without claim for five years, it ceases to bear interest. If that be so, it is manifestly unjust that the banks should be allowed to continue the use of this money. The proposal made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and the suggestion of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White)

along the same lines would seem to overcome that unfairness of the banks taking interest which properly belonged to depositors; and if the money were transferred in that way to the consolidated fund of Canada and the Government thus guaranteed depositors who in the future would present claims, the Government would have the use of the money. In the larger number of eases, in reference to the great proportion of this fund, no doubt claims will never be made. But at the same time, if they ever should be made, the money turned over to the consolidated fund of Canada would be ample security for all depositors, so that no matter what turned up in the future the depositor who had in good faith left his money in the care and protection of a bank would have security for the amount, whatever it might be, even with accumulated interest.


Mr.   BOSS@: 
Herbert Brown Ames: With what is
pledged.
Mt. ROiSS: And I believe it will be paid. But this demand for patriotic money is not going to end in 1917. No one in this House knows that better than the hon. member for -St. Antoine Division. I have heard it alleged in this House that there will be two ye-ans after the war before the troops will co-me back to Canada. Their dependents will have tp be taken care of during that time as fully and generously as in the past, and I repeat that I do not think the people will be as much up on the bit to contribute to the Patriotic Fund when the war is over as they are at present. That is all the more reason why this resolution, modified as has -been suggested by the Minister of Finance, should be passed. I cannot see any chance of the credit of this country being injured by the payment by the banks to the consolidated revenue fund of the small sum of $1,000,000. I do not think that the financiers of the world are ignorant enpugh of the stability and strength of our banks to be influenced by the passing of this resolution or of legislation founded upon it. Our banks are in too strong a position

at the present time for that. And, moreover, I aim not setting up this resolution as a precedent to be followed in the future. As the Finance Minister stated in this house on -another occasion, this war made a revolution of everything, the world is upside down, and things that might not be done in times of peace .are justifiable in times of war. I think in all fairness that this is one of the things that should be done during these times.
Resolution negatived on division.


TRANSPORTATION AND RAILWAY PROBLEMS.
William Thomas White: I have an important report which I overlooked to lay upon the Table at three o'clock and which, with the consent of the House-and I have consulted my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-I desire now to lay on the Table. It is a report of the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the transportation and railway problems of Canada. I hope I may have the consent of the House to lay this report upon the Table.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not in order to bring in this report at this stage, but with the unanimous consent of the House I think there would be no objection.


Mr. GRAHAM:: All right. May I ask if this report will be printed forthwith?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will be good enough to consent, I shall be pleased to move, with your consent, Mr. Speaker:-
That the report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider the general problem of transportation in Canada, now laid upon the Table, be printed forthwith, and that Rule 74 be suspended for that purpose.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is my duty to point out that this motion can toe passed only with the unanimous consent of the House.
Motion -agreed to.


SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:-
That, having regard to the fact that the failure of the Ross Rifle as an active service weapon was known to the Government in the early stages of the war, and that notwithstanding such knowledge the Government has continued to equip Canadian soldiers with the said rifle, this House is of opinion that the

Government is deserving of censure for its conduct in the premises as well as for its prolonged delay in providing an efficient substitute for the Ross rifle.
Mr. MURPHY:: I desir-e to state, for the information of the House, that I have arranged with the Acting Prime Minister that this motion stand until after the return of the Prime Minister.
Motion stands.


ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN RUSSIA.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. ROBERT BICKER-DIKE :-
That, in the opinion of this House, this Parliament having learned with pleasure the fact that the Russian Government had abolished capital punishment, the following official message be sent to the Prime Minister of Russia, at Petrograd, tendering our hearty congratulations both as to the abolishing of capital punishment and their determination to free Russia from all German influences.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Clerk of the House draws my attention to the fact that in his judgment this resolution is not one which can properly be submitted .to the House. In view of his having brought the matter to my attention, I deem it of sufficient importance to ask that the motion stand so that I may look carefully into the authorities with a view of making sure of my ground. In the meantime, therefore, I would ask that the motion stand.
Motion stands.


PROPOSED ENLISTMENT OF PRISONERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (Montreal,
St. Lawrence) moved:-
That, in the opinion of this House, and with a view to increasing the volunteer service and the prosecution of the war, the Government should permit all prisoners in, the jails, prisons and penitentiaries in the Dominion of Canada to enlist for active overseas service, thus enabling them to wipe out the stain of imprisonment and to fill up the depleted ranks of our boys in the trenches.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that we have a great many prisoners in the penitentiaries, jails and prisons of Canada who should be given an opportunity to wipe out the stain of the disgrace of their being prisoners. It is a well known fact that voluntary recruiting for overseas service is pretty well exhausted, and that it is to-day costing Canada $2,000 for each man who volunteers for overseas service. I find no fault with that; I think the men are worth the money. I do feel, however, that these prisoners, instead of being shut up in iron

cages or kept at breaking limestone day m and day out should be given the opportunity to volunteer for service at the front. Some one has said: what would we do if these men deserted and ran away into the German lines? Well, I do not know that we would suffer very much in losing that kind of men.
I know of no other place in the world that has not instituted some prison reform different from what we have in Canada. The Government deals with this matter in a blundering, unscientific way, the basis of which is the stupid and savage idea of revenge-the idea that crime is to be restrained, if not prevented, by examples of punishment. Those who have made this problem a study very generally agree that punishment not only does not prevent or lessen crime, but tends, rather, to propagate it. This is so well understood to-day that the death penalty is no longer made a public exhibition because of its demoralizing effects. The harsh, cruel and revengeful manner with which our prisoners are treated will never in a slightest degree tend to reform them.
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I regret that I heard only a small
portion of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) in support of his motion. I notice that his proposal is:
That, in the opinion of this House, and with a view to increasing the volunteer service and the prosecution of the war, the Government should permit all prisoners in the jails, prisons and penitentiaries in the Dominion of Canada to enlist for active overseas service, thus enabling them to wipe out the stain of imprisonment and to fill up the depleted1 ranks of our boys in the trenches.
I confess that on a reading of the motion it seems hardly necessary that I should go into any very elaborate explanations of the reasons why I feel that the House should not accept it. So far in this war we have proceeded-we are proceeding, and we have it in contemplation to proceed- to recruit our ranks by a voluntary system. The hon. gentleman himself recognizes this, because the purpose to-f his motion is to increase the voluntary service by a system of voluntary enlistment. In response to the appeals made, the very flower of the youth of Canada have flocked to our banners and filled our regiments. The proposal of the hon. gentleman is that the Government of Canada should proceed indiscriminately to empty the peniten-taries and the prisons of Canada to turn the present inmates of those institutions
into the ranks of cur regiments. Prom the point of view of the soldier who has responded to the call of his country, and in the interest of those of our young men who have so readily and so willingly made the great sacrifice imposed upon them, I cannot recognize that it would be desirable that we should proceed to call upon our young men to receive into their ranks, as their daily associates, all of the occupants of our penitentiaries and prisons without distinction and without discrimination. It must strike everybody at first glance that there are certain classes of criminals who undoubtedly would exercise a corrupting influence among those surrounding them. I do not purpose going into details as to the nature of the offences to which I am now referring, but we all know that there are amongst the occupants of the penitentiaries and prisons, men who are there for offences which indicate the most degraded character, and still the hon. gentleman would include them with all the others and ask us to open the doors of the jails and the penitentiaries in order that those men might be let loose to associate, on a footing of equality, with the young men of the class to which I have already referred. So far as that class of prisoners is concerned, it seems to me that the proposition is manifestly unacceptable, and clearly calls for no answer other than a negative one.
In addition to that, there is the fact that crime in varying degrees calls for punishment, and I for one cannot agree to treat the enlistment in our army and the taking part in the defence of our country and of the great cause for which our boys are fighting, as a method of punishment to be handed out to criminals. For that reason again, I think the motion of the hon. gentleman is most highly objectionable and one that it is impossible to entertain. I do not desire to suggest that amongst all the inmates of the penitentiaries or the prisons there may not be individuals who might possibly be released for the purpose of allowing them to enlist, but what is proposed here is a general jail and penitentiary delivery absolutely without discrimination. That, I for one will not consent to. There have been instances in which the exercise of clemency with a view to enlistment has been recommended, and where that recommendation has been acted upon. There will, no doubt, in the future he similar instances and wherever the circumstances of a ease, in the judgment of those charged

with advising the Crown with regard to the release of prisoners and with regard to the exercise of clemency, justify such a course, we shall be glad in the future, as we have been in the past, to consider as a factor in ordering the release of a prisoner the readiness and the willingness of the individual asking for it, to redeem himself by offering his services to his country. Further than that, I feel convinced that we would not be justified in going. I feel absolutely convinced that the public opinion of the country would not uphold an action such as the hon. gentleman asks for; I feel the public would not uphold it in the interest of our soldiers themselves; or in the interest of the self respect of Canada and of Canadians. As I said, I have not had the advantage of hearing all that the hon. gentleman said in support of his motion, All that I did hear was a very general and very vigorous affirmation that our method of treating criminals was cruel- I have forgotten what the other adjectives applied to it were, but they were adjectives of a-similar kind. Of course, if the hon. gentleman considers confinement in a penitentiary a degree of punishment that amounts to cruelty, I must, on behalf of our system, plead guilty to the imputation of cruelty. If, however, the hon. gentleman means to say that there is in the administration of any of those institutions any undue infliction of cruelty, I venture to suggest	that he	should	oe readywith evidence to establish an accusation	of	that kind	before he
comes to throw it into this House and to cast it out to the public as an imputation upon all of the officers charged with the care, the supervision and the control of our punitive institutions. If the general statement is intended as any charge or accusation against those officers, I am in no position to meet any such vague assertion as that; but I may assure the hon. gentleman that those of us who are charged with the supervision of those institutions, in so far as they are under the control of this Government, are certainly not aware of any such state of affairs, and that we are careful in our endeavours to keep ourselves informed as to what goes on in those institutions.
I do not think, as I said at the outset, that it is necessary for me to proceed, at any length or with any greater elaboration, to offer reasons why this motion should not be accepted. I think I may safely leave it in
[Mr. Doherty.!
the judgment of this House, with the assurance that the House will be prepared to act upon the request which I make to it to reject the motion at the present time.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, whilst I would agree in the main with everything he said, were perhaps more sweeping than they ought to be. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) that it would seem to me that his motion is certainly broader than he should have made it. There is a certain class of criminals who cannot be allowed to enlist and to be brought into the company of men of the character of those who have enlisted already and who are doing such splendid work; but my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) will agree with me, I am sure, that there are, not in the penitentiaries but in the jails, many men, young men especially, who have been guilty more of indiscretions than of real offences, and that to those men the option might well be given of enlisting. Of course, they cannot be compelled and they should not be compelled to enlist, and I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend on that point. As to those who are confined in our penitentiaries, I am not sure but a similar discrimination might be made on behalf of a good many of them. My hon. friend said a moment ago that their crime must be punished, and I agree with him on that point, but there ari' degrees of punishment.
Years ago we introduced the system of ticket-of-leave, which I think has worked admirably. Under this system, men who have been found guilty of serious offences but who are not criminal by nature, who have been driven to crime, perhaps, by their environment or associates, and who have some redeeming qualities, are given their freedom before their sentence expires, and I am sure it must be the same to-day as it was under the previous Government, that many and many of the men so released turn out to be very good citizens. Ticket-of-leave, of course, is granted only upon certain conditions which ordinarily would not be deviated from, but I think the Minister of Justice might well consider the advisability of giving this class of offenders the opportunity of leading a better life by serving in the forces, and certainly they could not do better than to offer their services to their country. If my hon. friend will not accept the present motion, he might at least take the matter into con-

sideration with a view to arriving at some method which would be in the best interests of all concerned.
Mr. Turriff rose to speak.
At six o'clock the House took recess
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member
now purpose to reply, closing the debate?


Robert Bickerdike: I will reply now,
if I am permitted, hoping that the hon. member for Assini'boia (Mr. Turriff), who rose at six o'clock to speak on this motion, may be allowed to speak if he comes into the chamber later.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think that would be quite in order. I delayed the resuming -of the debate fdr some minutes, thinking that the hon. member for Aasiniboia, who had caught my eye before six o'clock, might be in his seat.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the course suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Biokerdike) can be permitted, I do not think there would be any objection so far as we are concerned.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the unanimous consent of the House is given, I do not offer any objection. In that case, the hon member (Mr. Biekerdike) would have the right to reply now, but that would preclude, any other hon. member replying to the hon. member for Assiniboia should he wish to speak. With that understanding, there is no objection to the hon. member (Mr. Biokerdike) proceeding with his reply.


Robert Bickerdike: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) I think, is not quite so conversant with the facts as some of us on this side are. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the hon. gentleman has no sons, grandsons, or nephews, in France. That is not his fault; I am not blaming him. But I speak feelingly on this question, as I have a son, two grandsons and seven nephews at the front-that is, I had seven nephews at the front, but two have been killed and two badly wounded. I do not think that anyone who has those near and dear to him at the front would object if some of the prisoners were in the fight and helping to save the lives of our boys. No such person would raise the question whether those men had been in prison or not. Of course, if is a disgrace to be in prison. But there are many in prison who perhaps should not
be there. And I am quite safe in saying that there are a good many who are not in prison who should be there. A good many young men are in prison for the first time, some of them for comparatively slight offences. I think these men might be given an opportunity to wipe out the stain of their imprisonment, and at the same time fight for the honour of Canada. I do not think the mothers of the boys in the trenches would find much fault if a regiment or two of our prisoners were helping to save the lives of their sons over there. They would not think much about the dignity of Canada if their boys' lives were being saved. I knew that the Minister of Justice would have an excuse-he always has when I have a resolution to propose. I did not know just what the excuse would be in this case, but I know it now-the dignity of the country, and the wish to punish these fellows. I admit that they deserve punishment. But there is such a thing as being too revengeful, and, while I do not wish to be personal with the hon. gentleman, whom I have known since he was a boy, I will say that I have known very few of his countrymen, the Irish, but have good hearts and have no wish to punish everybody, including the poor criminal-to shut him up in an iron cage, to throw him into a stone-walled yard and make him break stones all his life. The hon. gentleman states that there is no justification for what I said with regard to the management of the penitentiaries. What I said was not nearly so strong as the reports of his own Royal Commission. I believe he has modified conditions to a certain extent, but not sufficiently even yet. I hope the hon. gentleman will accept the resolution, with modifications if he likes. For, of course, I do not say that every prisoner should be allowed to leave the penitentiary and enlist; I speak only of the better class of prisoners, the boys who are in gaol for the first time, and, it may be, for comparatively trifling offences. I have in mind the case of a man whom I know, who is in penitentiary for two years. He got drunk and stole a horse and buggy, and was condemned. But that man is no criminal; I would not be ashamed to have him fighting side by side with my own son. I do not know that there is anything more I can say. I do not seem to be able to touch the minister's heart. I have been trying it for four years, but unsuccessfully. I pleaded with him, whether he accept the resolution or not, to do all he can in the way of helping to save our boys at the front.
Motion negatived.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-PROPOSED PLEBISCITE.
Robert Bickerdike: -
That, in the opinion of this House, in consideration of the fact that the Russian Government has just recently abolished capital punishment, and that the population of this Dominion of Canada are at the present time much exercised as to the advisability of discontinuing the extreme penalty of death in Canada, at its next general election, the voters of Canada be afforded an opportunity by means of a plebiscite of declaring for or against such continuance of capital punishment in this Dominion.
He said: It is a well known fact that Russia has recently abolished capital punishment. I think this action was taken about the last week of February. Capital punishment has been abolished by many others of the Allies of Great Britain. I have no doubt-and possibly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will agree with me this time-that there has been a considerable agitation, during the last three or four months at least, on the question whether the people of this country should have an opportunity to declare whether 5r not they are still in favour of capital punishment. I think that in every province except Ontario and Quebec the people have virtually come out in favour of abolishing the death penalty.
I would like to place on record for the benefit of the House of Commons and of the country in general the final disposition of the twenty murderers who were condemned to death in 1916. Let me take off my hat to New Brunswick as she was the only province that did not have a murder committed in the year 1916; I suppose, largely due to the close proximity of the State of Maine. My information is to the effect that a large majority of the inhabitants of that enlightened province are in favour of prison reform and opposed to capital punishment. Prince Edward Island had one murder committed, the criminal being sentenced to death but as the people of Prince Edward Island are in favour of prison reform and opposed to capital punishment strong recommendations were made in this case against the execution of the sentence and it was commuted to life imprisonment which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will remember.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are not so hard hearted as you say.


Mr BICKERDIKE:: Well, I am not
through with you yet. Ontario, nnfortun-

ately, looms up worse than any other province. They had four murders in Ontario, and as Ontario up to the present time happens to be in favour of capital punishment and against prison reform, all four prisoners were sent into eternity, three of them by the scaffold and one of his own accord, he having committed suicide. As there is now an agitation going on in different parts of the country for the purpose of abolishing legalized murder, I have hopes for that province in the future. We only had one murder in the province of Quebec, at St. Johns, and it being a very brutal case and the population not being quite clear yet on the question of capital punishment, the man was hanged. The Yukon had one murder and the murderer got the extreme penalty. I have no information as to how the inhabitants of the Yukon regard the death penalty. British Columbia, although a mining country, had only two murders; one sentence was executed and the other commuted to imprisonment. As far as I can learn the people of British Columbia are now in favour of the life sentence in preference to the death sentence and they are very strongly in favour of prison reform. Saskatchewan had two murders; one of the sentences was commuted and the other executed. My information is that a large portion of the population of Saskatchewan still hold out for capital punishment but there is a strong agitation for abolition and prison reform. Alberta was not quite so fortunate; they had three cases of murder. Two of the sentences were commuted and one of the criminals paid the extreme penalty. The people of Alberta are strongly in favour of prison reform and of abolishing the death penalty as members from that province will ascertain at the next general election because when they go back they ydll be asked whether they are in favour of capital punishment, whether they are baby killers, or whether they intend to vote and work in favour of prison reform.


Mr. BRADBURY:: It all depends on what you call a baby. A person 17 years old is not a baby.


Robert Bickerdike: The hon. member
for Selkirk (Mr. Bradibury) would like to out-Herod Herod himself; he had better just wait. Manitoba also had three murder oases. One of the sentences was commuted and two were executed. Manitoba, I am pleased to say, is seriously contemplating requesting the Government to abolish capital punishment and is also in favour of

prison leform. Nova Scotia was not so fortunate. It had three murder cases and the murderers were all condemned to death by the courts, but as >the people of Nova Scotia are largely in favour of prison reform and the abolition of capital punishment, strong representations, were made for mercy and the three sentences were commuted -to life imprisonment. When the news was received by the population of Nova Scotia that they had succeeded in saving the lives of these three prodigals and that their souls were not sent into eternity, a sigh of relief went up, and I hope and believe that many of the people of that province before retiring that evening went down on their knees and thanked God -that these prodigals were sent to the penitentiary instead of into eternity. Any member of this House would be a bold man who would stand up in his place and declare that the province of Nova Beotia had suffered for that clemency and mercy or [DOT]that society had been prejudiced in any way by sending these three men to the penitentiary instead of sending them into eternity. I hope the Minister of Justice will agree -to this resolution at least.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman ('Mr. Bickerdike) expresses the hope that I may agree with him on this motion, I may say that one of my fondest hopes is tha-t the day will some time arrive when I shall find my.self in agreement with the hpn. gentleman on some proposal that he may make. He says that he has been four years trying to persuade me that the law of *this country providing capital punishment for the gravest offence should be altered and he describes my position as being one of hard heartedness. I do not know but that perhaps I might claim that my action was due to just level headedness. However that may be, I do not purpose to enter upon any argument on the general question of the desirability of the abolition of capital punishment and my hon. friend has not done so in supporting his motion. His proposal is that the question should be submitted to a plebiscite at the next general election. .As a general proposition, it does not seem to me desirable that we should depart from what is after all our system of parliamentary government and say, without some very exceptional reason, that we should submit to the people directly the exercise of the legislative power which constitutionally is properly exercised by their representatives in Parliament. I confess tha* I am
not in a position to know what the gentleman's sources of information are as to the prevailing public opinion in the different provinces as to the desirability of abolishing capital punishment. But, I may say for myself, that I have not had occasion to see any evidence that the public of Canada generally were so keenly alive to the necessity of any change in the existing system of punishment as to make of this question of capital punishment a subject which should be treated as exceptional and withdrawn from the control of Parliament to be committed directly to the decision of the people. I do have in my official capacity certain opportunities of appreciating what are the matters in regard to which the people of Canada feel that there is need for modification in our criminal law. I am in receipt of numerous -communications making representations in regard to one disposition or another in the criminal law and suggesting, and in many instances even pressing for, modifications of the dispositions there referred to. If my memory is correct, and I think it is, I have not had anything approaching widespread representations that there exists a conviction on the part of the people of Canada, or a desire on their part, that the law as it now stands on that subject should be modified. Indeed it would be difficult for me to mention any particular representation made to me upon that subject. Under those circumstances I certainly cannot share the view of the hon. gentleman that there is any such general unrest among the public uppn that question as to make it incumbent upon us or to make it desirable that we should take this extraordinary method of dealing with this particular -subject for legislation, of calling upon the people themselves to deal with it direct. For this reaspn I regret that once more I find myself in the unfortunate position of not being able to agree with the hon. member and to ae-cept his proposition.
Motion negatived.


ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT -WOMEN AND -CHILDREN.
[Stage Direction]
On motion pf Mr. Bickerdike:
That, in the opinion of this House, the best interests of this young nation would be conserved by amending the Criminal Code so as to abolish the death penalty in Canada, in so far at least, as it applies to women and children.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This resolution bears
such a -striking similarity to a subject which h-as already been discussed in this

House this year and disposed of that I have grave doubt as to whether, under our rules, it is competent for the hon. member to propose it. Inasmuch as I am seriously in doubt, I would ask the hon. gentleman to allow this motion to stand until a later date in order that I may have full opportunity to consult the authorities up,on it. But as at present advised I do not see that 1 could permit the hon. gentleman to proceed.


ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT -THE SPAIN CASE.
Robert Bickerdike: That, in the opinion of this House, as there now lies within this Dominion a young lad of sixteen years under the condemnation of death whose father is at the present moment fighting with his regiment in the British Army in France in defence of the Empire, it is the sense of this Parliament 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 age of sixteen years, which we consider would be a blot on the fair name of Canada and an everlasting disgrace to this young nation.
He said: Does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice agree to this resolution?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid not.


Robert Bickerdike: Then I should like to make a few remarks with regard to it. It is really my opinion that the best interest of this young nation would be served by amending the criminal code as here suggested, more especially as this little boy in Manitoba has been sentenced to death, the sentence to be carried out on the 15th of May. I think my friend will agree that he has been approached on that question. I think that there is a petition, I do not know whether it has yet reached the minister, with 15,000 or 20,000 names attached to it. The minister shakes his head. He will admit that he has been approached on this question through numbers of telegrams?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There have been representations made, but there is no such a petition as that.


Robert Bickerdike: While the House is not unanimous in respect to the abolition of the death penalty in its entirety at the present time, I do hope that the members will see their way clear to vote this resolution unanimously, so that we may be able to prove to the world that there are no baby killer members of this House, or at least very few.
[The Speaker.]
In an ever increasing number the different states of the Union in the neighbouring republic have abolished capital punishment. It is, in Canada, strongly argued that an individual indicted for a capital offence is tried by jury and has all the advantages of criminal procedure to make out his case. On the face of it this is true; but in the last analysis the person's life depends upon the good judgment, or the bad judgment, as the case may be, of one man only, the Minister of Justice. If the prisoner is too poor to secure witnesses, or too much of a stranger to have testifying friends, he is found guilty; but if he has the means to pay lawyers, or has friends to do so for him, he can have his case appealed to the Governor General in Council. That means simply to the Minister of Justice for the time being. It is on the recommendation of that same minister that the commutation or the allowing of the law to take its course depends. Scores of men have been hanged because they either had no means to push their cases to this last point, or else they were strangers in the land and had no friends to interest themselves for them. Herein lies a grave danger-a danger that would be obviated were there no capital punishment, but merely perpetual imprisonment. It is needless to dwell further on this phase of the issue.
It is in the interest of justice, in the interest of legal certainty, in the interest of the stranger, the poor man, the friendless one, the workman, the individual whose lines are not cast in the higher strata of our social life; in the interest of humanity and of civilization, that this remaining blot be removed from the face of our otherwise matchless system of law and government. Instead of being a step backwards it becomes a giant stride ahead in the direction of the higher civilization and a broader Christianity. When this terrible war will have ended and peace will again spread her wings over our fair Dominion, we want to be more in accord with the teachings of the Prince of Peace on earth.
' Let those who care to look into the problem deeper	visit	the Cotede	Neiges	Cemetery at	Montreal.
It was afterwards discovered that a mistake had been made and that they should not have been hanged. A similar mistake was made in Toronto when Lount and Matthews were hanged. There is no question about the fact that they were rebels, but they were misled. If all the Tebels in Canada were hanged, we would not have as

large a population as we have to-day. The lives of these young men should have been spared; the Minister of Justice and the member for Rouville will not dare controvert that. The lives of the 18 or 19 men who were hanged in 1838 should have been spared, and if I had been alive I would have done all I could to save them. Were their lives worth saving? I submit that they were, and I stand or fall by that assertion.
I may not win in this fight, but I shall at least be consoled with the thought that the blood of these poor unfortunate women and children would not be on my hands if it were in my power to stop it. It seems a pity to me that presumably good men construe the Scriptures in such a way as to come to the conclusion that the state is justified in taking human life. The horribleness of the thing itself is enough to condemn it, regardless of the doctrine of the law' of mercy and love as taught by the Master. Now I come to the boy to whose case reference has been made. Some one said that he was an Italian, and the member for Selkirk claims that all these murders are committed by English boys. The right hon. leader of the Opposition says that' many of them are committed by Italians. Well, if I were to judge by this young man's name, he is neither Italian nor English. His name is Patrick Spain; most people would think that he vras Irish. However, it makes no difference whether he is black or white, orange or green; let us remember that he is some mother's boy. This young lad when 14 years of age became a bugler in the army. When his comrades in the trenches come back, if they ever do, they will ask the Minister of Justice: what has become of our little bugler comrade? It is no use saying that you are not the bugler's keeper or your brother's keeper. That reply was unsatisfactory 6,000 years ago, and it will not suit when the boys come back from the front.
The question as to whether the world is growing better or worse has nothing to do with the awfulness of hanging a woman or child. The child is some mother's boy. He has sinned, that is true; yet to hang him is only doing the worst thing the State can do to him. The crime cannot be undone by taking the offender's life; nothing that society can do can heal the wounds of the injured one. Where, then, is the common sense in making other wounds, in bringing double disgrace on the parents, brothers
and sisters of the offender? Any man who reads the New Testament knows that it says:	"For whosoever shall keep the
whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty in all." How such a man can feel that he is justified in sitting in judgment and casting the first stone, is beyond my understanding. " There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and destroy; who art thou that judgest another?" Surely we are too enlightened to feel, as did the Pharisee of old: " God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men." Does not the Scripture say: " Let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth." " Love worketh not ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." " If we love one another, God dwelleth in us." " He that loveth not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?"
If I am wrong in my fight to save this boy, then it is wrong to be merciful. If my fight to save the criminal's life is wrong, then the law of love is wrong.
There is another reason, almost fundamental, why society should not execute its fallen members, and that reason is a sociological one. Experience shows that in the great majority of cases men who commit crimes either are born criminals or have lived under such conditions that their environment promoted criminal instincts and even criminal traits. Had organized government done its duty towards such persons they would never have been criminals. Investigation shows that the majority of the inmates of the penitentiaries are illiterate. Many of them have no moral or religious training, and, of course, none of them are criminals from choice. They are " weak vessels," depraved degenerates, and, in many instances, monomaniacs. Yet we cry: " Hang them; hanging is too good for them!"
It is estimated by sociologists who have scientifically studied the question that 90 per cent of crimes committed would have been prevented had care, prudence and charity been exercised by the state and municipal governments. For example, the four gunmen of New York city sentenced to be hanged were victims of environment. They had been agents for gambling houses and houses of ill-lame, and divided their spoils with the officers of the law elected by the people of a great city. In that manner the agents of society educated them in crime, and yet the state says they must forfeit their blood to the state that trained them in vice. They were trained in the

under-world from infancy to commit crimes, till they became callous and did not scruple in taking life.
No state has the right to kill men when it contributes to their downfall. It owes them the duty to educate them and to throw nothing but moral influences around them, and when it fails to do this organized society is at fault. You may ask: What will we do with them? Why, do your duty towards them, by placing them in a prison, reformatory in its character; teach them morality, and, if necessary, give them mental training, and allow them the right to expiate their crimes and prepare for the hereafter. Make men out of them, and give them in most instances, if not in all, the hope that they will 'be rewarded if they will reform and become'worthy of again taking their places among their fellowmen. This young boy, Patrick Spain, went through the battle of Mons and was blown up by a German shell-a very severe case of shell shock. He was sent to a hospital, and as soon as he was able to be removed was moved to England. After spending considerable time in a hospital there, he was sent out to this country by some society, as they thpught his nerves "would have a better chance of being cured out in the prairies than in the city of London. It appears that this poor boy was brought up in the slums, knew nothing of education, moral or religious training. He was just a poor *little waif. He claims that he was sent info the house to clean his master's gun, and in doing so the gun accidentally went off and killed his employer's wife. His employer, having heard the shot, rushed towards the house with a gun in his hand. The boy claims that he did not know what he was doing at the time, that his nerves were so unstrung from the accident and from seeing the husband rush towards him with the gun in, his hand that he turned around and shot the husband. The whole thing was a matter of circumstantial evidence. The boy was only 16; surely we are not going to start hanging children in Canada. It is a long time since we have hanged a child and I hope that we shall not commence again in 1917. I have no doubt that few of the members of this House understand the nature of shell shook and the results which it causes. I do, a little. A grandson of mine was blown up by a shell at the battle of the Somme which took place several months ago, and he has been in an English hospital ever since and has not yet quite recovered. I am not sure but the hon. mem-
ber for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) met him; I think he did. My grandson's nerves are in a very shattered condition, and I question very much if he will ever be the same man again; and if this boy's nerves were in the same condition as my grandson's are in at the present time, he can hardly be accounted responsible for anything he did. It may be that the boy has killed or murdered. If my information is correct, he was tried, not for murdering the woman but for murdering the husband, but he was condemned to death for murdering the woman.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The last portion of my hon. friend's statement is not correct.


Robert Bickerdike: That is the information I have from the boy's lawyers: that he was tried for the murder of the man and confessed to the murder of the man, but he was sentenced to death for the murder of the woman, for which offence he was not tried. That is the justice that is so properly distributed in Canada. I have letters from the boy's lawyers stating that that is a fact. If my hon. friend doubts my statement, I will show him the letters.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not doubt any statement that the hon. gentleman makes of his own knowledge.


Robert Bickerdike: I hope Canada will not only save the boy but save our young nation from the everlasting disgrace of having hanged a child. I ask: Would society be any better protected now by sending this poor little boy into eternity than it would by sending him into a reformatory? Is there in this House to-day any man who will say he wants to hang a little boy of sixteen years of age? I do not think even the member for that constituency will say so. The hon. member was a little short the other evening and felt, like the Minister of Justice, that nothing but vengeance and justice would suit in this country, but on further consideration he did not, I think, feel quite so vengeful. This boy's father is still in the British Army fighting side by side with our young men at the front. The boy's sister is in a lunatic asylum in Ireland. My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) shakes his head; but I am informed by the boy's lawyers, who, I understand, are a reputable firm, that such is the case. The family is an Irish one. The boy's father joined the British army and was sent over to England. The family moved to London and the little boy was brought up in the worst slums in that great

city. What could one expect? He went to the front as a bugler and his father is still in the army fighting for us. The poor little fellow sixteen years of age is now .a stranger in this country, and we say: Hang him. God forbid that this young nation will be so disgraced as to hang that boy. When this boy's comrades return from the front, they will ask the Minister of Justice: Where is our little comrade? I do not think they will be pleased when they find that their little bugler has been hanged. I am not speaking about law; I know very little about law, and what I do know has been very expensive.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: The House seems to be unanimous on that point.


Robert Bickerdike: For the benefit of our warrior bold from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), I would like to read this editorial from the Peterborough Evening Review :
The right or one man to take the life of another in order to preserve his own has always heen recognized in human enactments and set forth in Divine law. The fact must be established that the man so acting in his own behalf had every reason to believe that his life was in danger before he resorted to extreme measures to protect it.
I am reading this for the benefit of my good friend who was very much taken with the question of self-defence:
This principle or legal maxim is one of the stock arguments of those who favor the retention of capital punishment. Society must be protected from the murderer, and to save its own existence must put all such out of the way. Surely society or the state is not threatened by the acts of a single individual, and is able to protect itself by adopting measures less harsh.
A grown man attacked toy a boy armed with a snowball or a bean-shooter may be annoyed, but it can hardly be claimed that his life is actually in danger. No matter what the inclination may be to play the role of Cain, adequate provocation is lacking. The boy can be suppressed and disposed of, made to see the error of his ways, reformed completely, perhaps, by some method short of shedding his blood. If his victim did take his life, the law would hardly uphold his procedure.
The illustration cited above represents, too, the individual homicide and the State. The latter is too big and powerful to set up the plea that it is in any real danger by reason of the acts of one lone offender. It is necessary as well as advisable for the State to protect itself, but surely this can be done without resorting to extreme measures. What right has the State, whose authority is delegated to it by the individual, to take human life, any more than the latter has to avenge himself of his adversaries in the same way?
There is certainly no warrant for such a line of conduct found in the teachings of the Naza-rene, upon Whose precepts all human legislation is supposed to be based.
A boy of sixteen, brought up in the slums of London, neglected, and surrounded with every form of vice, until he no doubt came to regard viciousness as the normal condition of humanity, was transplanted to new surroundings in Manitoba. The shifting of the scene was not sufficient to effect a change in a nature calloused by a youth spent in such environments as he had known. He committed a double murder under circumstances that at once stamped him as a moral and mental degenerate.
The boy is to toe hanged, despite his. years. Society takes the cheapest method of getting him out of the way. The powerful State confesses itself unable to handle a boy of sixteen short of breaking his neck. A grown man who acted as the State does in this case would not only toe laughed at but held to strict accountability.
One of the objections to capital punishment is that it tends to breed in the community a class of individuals only a shade less reprehensible than the murderer himself. The marvel is not so much that the State, coldblooded as it is, should decide to hang this boy, but that it should be able to find a man willing for a trifling monetary consideration to place the noose around the neck of the youth and spring the trap under his feet.
That is an editorial from, I think, the principal newspaper in my hon. friend's riding. If that boy's sister is in a lunatic asylum; if that boy was brought up in the slums of London with such an environment-if that is all true, is there a man in this House who would hang that child? I do not plead his innocence because he confesses frankly that he killed his boss. But surely no man will say that this was a cause of premeditated murder. It was committed on the spur of the moment, and many of the best lawyers think that it should have been a case of manslaughter and not of murder.
Hon. 0. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :	I do not purpose for a moment to
enter into any discussion of the hon. gentleman's motion. I think the House will realize how improper and impossible it would be for a member of this Government, which has imposed upon it the duty of advising His Excellency in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown to grant leniency, to express any opinion on the matter in this Parliament, But realizing the very strong feeling pf the hon. gentleman upon this subject,. and not wishing to prevent his having the opportunity of making such plea as his heart might inspire on behalf of this young man, I did not when he moved this motion take exception on the ground

of its being put of order, nor do I now desire to make absolute affirmation upon that subject. But I do feel very strongly that I should submit to your judgment, Sir, the question of whether this motion is in order. I should like to point out that the exercise of clemency is the prerogative of the Crown, that His Excellency the Governor General exercises that prerogative under the powers conferred upon him by his commission. Under that commission he is required to act in capital cases upon the advice of his council, and in other cases upon the advice of one of his ministers, usually the Minister of Justice. Parliament does not appear to me to have any role t,o play in the matter, and from the practical point of view I think we can all realize what an unfortunate thing it would be if council, called upon to advise the Governor General say in this particular case, should find itself face to face with a vote of Parliament that this young man .ought to be hanged; because if there may 'be a vote that he should not hang, there may equally be a vote that he should. In what position to act impartially, to weigh the circumstances pro and con with the knowledge derived from a careful study of the entire evidence in the case, would the members of the council be,vif in advance they had the expression of the opinion of this Parliament (to which after all they are responsible), that the young man ought to hang? I think it is only necessary to point out that practical inconvenience, to strengthen the position that such a motion as is now made, inviting in advance of any action on the part of the Crown, an expression of opinion by Parliament as to what that action should be, is clearly out of order. I do not propose to go into the citation of authorities, because I did not come here prepared for that purpose, but the question is very fully discussed in Todd's Parliamentary Practice, and I think there is no conclusion that can be reached other than that this motion seeking to seize Parliament of this question at this stage is out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Inasmuch as the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) is an old and highly respected member of this House, and realizing how very deeply he feels upon this subject, I felt some hesitancy in ruling his motion out of order forthwith, and I left it to the judgment of the House for some hon. member to rise to a point of order as to whether his motion could properly be put. Since the point of

order has been raised by the Minister of Justice, I have no hesitation in saying that in my judgment the resolution is out of order, not only on the ground suggested by the hon. Minister of Justice, but also for the reason that it deals with the question of capital punishment, which is the subject of another debate pending before the House, as will be seen by turning to the Orders of the Day, item No. 2 on Public Bills and Orders, "Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Bickerdike for the second reading of Bill No. 3, an Act to amend the Criminal Qode and to abolish capital punishment."


George Perry Graham: Might I be allowed to say a word?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot permit debate, but if the hon. member for South Renfrew wishes to say a word and has the unanimous consent of the House I shall interpose no objection.


George Perry Graham: We all sympathize with the hon. member for St. Lawrence. His heart is in this subject and he misses no opportunity of bringing it before the public, and I agree with his views in the main. But I see the point taken by the Minister of Justice quite readily. It would be impossible to submit, cases of this kind for the approval or disapproval of Parliament. Just imagine the situation in which we might be placed ! It would rather prejudice the object my hon. friend has in view, and might prejudice it very seriously. All we could do at this time would be to change the statute, if Parliament saw fit. Having said that, I think the Minister of Justice could not have raid more or less than he did on the subject. He is the responsible minister who makes the report to Council, and Council acquiesces in the report or disapproves of it, and it is their recommendation that becomes the recommendation of the Governor in Council, and not that of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice being called upon to make a recommendation to Council, and Council being called upon to decide on his recommendation, they could not possibly express any opinion to Parliament at this stage. I might say that as an individual I should be glad to sign a petition and urge the Minister of Justice to be lenient in this case, but as a member of Parliament I would not care to be called upon to vote on this matter, as I think we have no right to do so.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I am in the same position as my hon. friend from South Renfrew

(Mr. Graham), and I wish to say just a word or two.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I trust this debate will not be continued by members rising and craving the indulgence of the House to speak. I would rather the hon. member for Rouville did not insist upon discussing the subject.


Robert Bickerdike: Let me just say one word. I quite agree with you, Sir, but in my opinion the Minister of Justice should have raised his point of order at the beginning of the debate. I think, according to the rules of the House, he had no right to raise his point of order and call for a ruling in the middle of the debate. However, Sir, I always submit respectfully to your ruling!
Motion withdrawn.


CIVIL SERVICE-APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 21.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) moved:-
A return giving a list of all appointments made by the present Administration prior to the date of this order under the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Service Act, 190S, giving the names in full, former Post Office addresses, occupations, ages, present employment, department in which employed, salaries at time of appointment, present yearly salaries and the respective dates of the Orders in Council by which they were appointed.
He said:	There is reason to suspect that
section 21 of the Civil Service Act has been used for purposes that were not intended at the time the Act was passed. The Civil Service Act, which was passed in 1908, was an attempt to supersede the old practice of appointing favourites to positions in the Civil Service; it was an honest attempt, I believe, to introduce a system of appointment by merit after competitive examination. It was found necessary, however, to make provision for exceptional cases in which it might be found inadvisable to demand that the candidate for appointment submit to examination. It was pointed out at the time that occasionally the Government might wish to appoint an eminent engineer or some other officer who would refuse to accept appointment if it were made conditional that he should undergo an examination. Consequently this section was put in the Act, giving the Government power with the consent of ' the Commission to override in a sense, by Order in Council, the Civil Service Commission. When a man of such character as I have referred to is required for the Civil Service, the Government may
appoint him by Order in Council, as I understand it. I asked the question a few days ago how many appointments had been made by the present Administration under this section and the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) informed me that the number was 174.. I submit that there is reason to think that there have not been 174 appointments of genuine experts to the (fivil Service since 1911, and I am much inclined to suspect that many of these appointments were of men who were too old to be appointed under the Act, or were not well enough posted to pass the ordinary examination. Of course, I am not sure as to that, but the number of appointments strikes me as very large, and I think no hon. member will be of opinion that so many genuine appointments have been made under Section 21 within the last five years. However, I will reserve my criticisms until the report comes down. I would make special request of the Secretary of State not to delay the bringing down of the return. I find that there is a disposition this session to delay the production of papers. In my own experience and that of other hon. members, when a single question is asked the answer to which requires only a little work on the part of a clerk, the question is turned into an order for returns, pigeonholed and apparently forgotten, and it may ibe six months before the return is ready. I hope that will not be the case with this motion, as it is very important that we should stand by the intention of the Civil Service Act, and if there is an abuse in regard to section 21 the public and the House should know it.
I submit that it would 'be right for the Secretary of State to make a special case of this motion and to speed the production of the papers as much as possible.'
John Dowsley Reid: I think it was when my Estimates were before the Committee of Supply a few evenings ago, that the hon. member for GuySborough (Mr. Sinclair) mentioned the appointments made under section 21 of the Civil Service Act. So far as I am able to learn there has been no violation of section 21, as suggested by the hon. member. I think he was under the impression that if a department wished to appoint an official and eviade the Civil Service Act, the appointment could be made by Order in Council, and that 174 appointments had thus been made in violation of section 21.


George Perry Graham: Under section 21, not in violation of it.


John Howard Sinclair: I said that I thought
the number large, and was afraid it might indicate an unfair use of the powers of the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: I promised the horn, gentleman, that'' I would bring this before each member of the Government, so that, as the Estimates of each department were taken up, the minister in charge might he ready to give a list of the names of those appointed under this section and to explain those appointments. The Chairman of the Civiil 'Service Commission, Prof. Short!, evidently read Hansard the day after the debate to which I have referred, and he wrote me a letter which I would have'been glad to read to the hon. member, but, unfortunately, I have not it with me. That letter will show the hon. member that he is mistaken as to appointments having been made otherwise than in accordance with the Act, or by abuse of the Act. I wrote to Prof. Shortt immediately on receiving his letter and asked if he could give me a list of the appointments made under section 21. I thought it probable that he could give that list readily, because in the case of appointments under this>
section the certificate of the Civil Service Commission is necessary, and none of these 174 appointments had been made without such certificate. I am satisfied that when I get that statement from Prof. Shortt the hon. gentleman will find that these appointments have been mainly of architects or other specialists, whose appointments were necessarily made under this section. I am sure the Secretary of State will have the return prepared as soon as possible.


Charles Marcil: I hope it is clear that appointments to the House of Commons and Senate are included under the motion, as I know that appointments to the Translating Staff of the House have been made under section 21.


John Dowsley Reid: I will draw that to the attention of whatever minister has charge of the Estimates for Legislation, in order that he may be prepared to give information, on this subject.


John Howard Sinclair: The appointments to the House of Commons are included under the motion, as it calls for "a list of all Appointments" made in the manner referred to.


LOSS OF GOVERNMENT DREDGE CAPE BRETON.
George William Kyte: That, in the opinion of this House, approval should be given to any measure proposed by the Government towards meeting the claims of the wives, families and dependents, of the men who lost their lives in the disaster to the Government Dredge Cape Breton, off Shad Rock, Guysbo-rough County, Nova Scotia, in the month of January last.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution has reference to a very distressing disaster that occurred on the coast of Guysborough in January last. The Cape Breton was being towed from Lunenburg to Sydney. It was at a season of the year when, owing to the condition of the weather, the towing of such a helpless ship as this was extremely difficult. The result of this disaster was the loss of the lives of the members of the crew. Several of them belonged to the county I represent in this House; others were natives of other parts of the province of Nova Scotia. Those belonging to my county left wives and helpless families. Without desiring to introduce a harsh note into this discussion, I may say that the conditions under which the disaster took place imply that the Government is subject to more responsibility in regard to it than perhaps it otherwise would be. The moving of this dredge from Lunenburg to Sydney at that time was a proceeding that, with all deference to those who were responsible for it, should not have been undertaken. It has not been disclosed to my knowledge what urgent necessity there was for towing the dredge at that season of the year. It has been suggested that it was necessary to transport the Cape Breton on to Sydney for the purpose of having some repairs made to its machinery. I cannot understand why it was necessary to take the Cape Breton to Sydney at that season of the year. The repairs necessary to be made to the machinery, I am informed, could as well have been made in the town of Lunenburg, where there is a foundry and machine shop quite capable of supplying such machinery and repairs as were necessary. But, it the work could not have been done in Lunenburg it could have been done in the city of Halifax or in the town of Dartmouth. Another .circumstance that contributed, I think, to the disaster, or, at all events, which reduced the possibility of the escape of those who were on the dredge, was that the life-saving station at Whitehead was at that time out of commission. For some years a very efficient lifesaving station had been maintained at that point, which is a place very much exposed to the storms of the Atlantic, par-

ticularly during the winter season. For some reason of which I am not cognizant, the department of this Government having control over life-saving stations disbanded the life-saving crew, the boats were unfit to render service, and as a consequence of this, when the accident occurred to the Cape Breton, there was no life-saving apparatus available to assist in the rescue of these poor, unfortunate men. On account of these two circumstances, I suggest that the responsibility of the Government to make adequate allowance for the dependents of those who were lost in that disaster is greater than it would be under ordinary circumstances. In any con-ition the lose of the wage-earner is a very serious blow and entails very great privations in most cases upon those who are dependent upon him. At a time like this when the cost of living is so high and when it is very difficult" for those who are capable and competent to eg,rn their daily bread for themselves and their families to earn a sufficient amount for that purpose, what shall we say of the poor, unfortunate widow and helpless children who are faced with the necessity of earning for themselves a sufficient income to provide for the necessaries of life? What ever would have been the intention of the Government under ordinary conditions, I think the particular circumstances surrounding this disaster call for special treatment on the part of the Government. Some questions were asked in this House by my hon. friend representing the county of Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) as to what were the intentions of the Government in respect to this matter. The hon. acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Reid) was good enough to reply that the matter was receiving the attention of the Government. I move this resolution for the purpose of impressing on the hon. acting Minister of Public Works and the other members of the Government that this case is one not requiring ordinary treatment and I would express the hope that when this question comes before them for their consideration they will deal ' with it in the broadest and most generous way that they possibly can. I shall not press consideration of it further upon the Government than to urge upon them that they will place a just measure of compensation and assistance, in the way of a gratuity, in the hands of those who are dependent upon themselves for their livelihood on account of the accident to which I have referred.


John Dowsley Reid: In the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) I may say a few words in reference to this motion. When an accident of this kind occurs and loss of life results, it is a very serious matter. We all deplore an accident of this kind. I remember reading about the accident and I was Very sorry to hear of the loss of life. Why the dredge was being moved at that particular time I am not able to say. The officials of the department of Public Works, as far as I can tell, are all competent and careful men and men of good judgment They may have erred in this case in ordering the dredge to Sydney although I do not believe that they did. The storm arose, the dredge was caught outside and the accident occurred. This matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works some time ago by members from Nova Scotia, and I understand that he has the matter of the treatment of the families of those who lost their lives on that occasion under consideration. I am sure that when the supplementary Estimates are taken up these cases will be dealt with. The hon. member of course knows that when accidents have occurred in the past in any of the departments such as Public Works and Railways and Canals m which accidents are likely to happen, the department in every case has dealt with them in the supplementary Estimates for that particular year. The hon. Minister of Public Works will before the end of the session have his supplementary Estimates prepared. I shall again bring this ease to his attention. ,1 would ask the hon. member not to press his motion further, and to allow the matter to be dealt with as I have indicated.
, J- H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough): I think it would be proper for the minister to give the House the results of the investi- ' gations made in connection with this disaster. As the member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) says, it was a very distressing case m which a number of men lost their lives, and the friends .and relatives of the men who lost their lives .are of the opinion that there was great carelessness somewhere. My information is that the hawser to which this dredge was attached parted. The dredgb was being towed by a tug. It had no propelling machinery or steering gear of its own. A gale was blowing on to the shore and a wild and rocky shore it is, and as there was no boat and no way of doing anything to rescue the
revised edition
t

men, once the hawser parted and the dredge was at the mercy of the sea the men had no chance at all. It is also to be remembered that the lifeboat was not available. There is a life station at Whitehead. The lifeboat crew at Whitehead had done splendid work for many years. They had on various occasions rescued men from perishing, and under the management of the department at the present time this lifeboat appears to have been out of commission. That, along with the fact that the dredge was moved so carelessly from one place to the other, that the hawser could not have been as strong as it ought to have been and that there was no spare hawser, in fact, that, insufficient precautions were taken to ensure the safety of those on board the dredge, would seem to call for special consideration of this case by the Government. I do not think that this is a case for a small amount such as we generally see given as a consolation allowance in cases of this kind. I think this is a case where the Government ought to carefully investigate all the circumstances, and if they find there has been carelessness on the part of the officials connected with the lifeboat or in the removal of the dredge from one place to the other, they should pay special damages to the dependents of the men who lost their lives in the service of the Government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Mr SINCLAIR:: The minister did not say whether we would be favoured with the papers.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be very glad to lay upon the table of the House anything in connection with this investigation.
Motion withdrawn.


ALLEGED MISUSE OF MAILS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
+r,Mr'**TURRIFF: 0n Monday last I drew the attention of the House to a system of collecting money that was being carried on in Canada for the purpose of buying morphine to allay the sufferings of wounded in the hospitals of the Allies, and I expressed the opinion that either the Government was very much to blame for not supplying the necessary funds, or the collecting agency, which was in the city of New York, was a fake. Since then I have received considerable information on the subject, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that, so far as I can judge, the Government has not been to blame; neither was this a fake in any sense of the word. The facts of the matter, shortly, are as follows: Several months ago, when there was a great shortage of anseethetics in Serbia, three young nurses in New York, thought^ it would be a good thing to collect money in the United States to be devoted to the purchase of anaesthetics. They went to Miss Whitman, superintendent of nurses m a prominent hospital in New York, and asked her to act as treasurer. She refused to do so, but in spite of her refusal these young ladies started a chain of letters and Miss Whitman was soon deluged with correspondence and with money. She immediately drew the attention of the board of directors of the hospital to the fact, who notified the post offices ,and police authorities of New York. The police authorities made a thorough investigation and found that everything was being done in an absolutely straightforward and honest manner. But the hospital authorities were very much annoyed. about it. They notified some of the papers in New York, among them the New York Times, and every possible effort was made to stop this chain of letters and to stop the money from coming in. In spite of their efforts, however, over $25,000 has come in to Miss Whitman. In order that everything should be 65 i
done in order, the hospital authorities had a committee of prominent New York men appointed to look after the expenditure of this money. I understand that some small amounts of it have been expended for soldiers comforts here in Canada and that they are going to use the money for the benefit of the soldiers. When I got this information I felt that I had done an injustice to Miss Whitman in stating that in my judgment the whole thing was a fake- because I could not believe that the Government had been remiss in that part of its duty. Miss Whitman is a Canadian.
George Perry Graham: An unwilling philanthropist.


Mr. TURRIFF:: She comes from the
vicinity of Montreal, and is well connected in that city. Everything that was done in this connection was done with the view of aiding the Allies and in assisting the suffering soldiers. I make this explanation, as I do not wish that anything that I said should be a reflection on Miss Whitman, who has not been to blame in any respect. Everything has been straightforward and satisfactory, but the movement was a mistaken one, and once started was very difficult to check. As a matter of fact it has not yet stopped; no doubt a great deal more money will come in before it can be stopped, in spite of all the publicity that there has been in connection with the matter.


William Thomas White: I shall be glad to draw the statement of my hon. friend to the attention of the Minister of Militia who,
I believe, has been looking into this matter since my hon. friend brought it to the attention of the House the other day. One advantage at least will result from what my hon friend has done, because, by reason of what he has said as to the success of the chain, I think I will start one myself for the Government.


SCARCITY OF SALT FOR CURING PURPOSES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Howard Sinclair: I should like to direct the attention of the acting Prime Minister to a matter which is of special importance on the coast of the Maritime provinces, that is, the scarcity of salt for the curing of fish. My hon. friend is aware that tonnage is now very scarce and as salt is a bulky material, compared with its value, it is difficult to procure tonnage to

deliver it on the coast where it is needed to prepare for the season s fishing. There is great scarcity of salt, and great danger that it will not he available to the fishermen. I have had letters and telegrams from different points on the coast stating that there is little or no sa.lt at Halifax, which was the place whence it was generally furnished, and that there is a prospect that it will be very scarce and that that scarcity will interfere with the industry during the present season. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that the fishermen, like the farmers, are being urged to increase production, and it is of the utmost importance that they should do so. The fishing on the coast of Europe has practically ceased. Prior to the war, at least 3 000 steam trawlers were carrying on fishing in the North Sea and in the adjoining waters, supplying most of Europe with fresh and salt fish. The war has changed all that, nearly all those trawlers being en<*a<md as mine-sweepers or as boats for the purpose of hunting the submarine, and little or no fishing is being carried on at the present time in Europe. It is therefore of the utmost importance that everything should be done to aid the Canadian fishermen, as they are at present supplying food to our soldiers at the front, large quantities of fresh fish having gone forward from Canada to France within the last number of months for that purpose. I do not know what steps the Prime Minister should take in the matter, but I have no doubt there are a good many transport ships coming across from the other side at the present time practically empty. Of course the ships are all loaded going east, but many of them come back in ballast, and there ought to be an opportunity of getting some of this salt taken over, possibly in some of the ships that are commandeered by the.Government. It is at all events worth while for my hon. friend to look into the matter, in order to see if anything can be done to relieve the situation, which, I believe, is very urgent, and likely to become more urgent if some steps are not taken.


William Thomas White: I shall be very glad to draw the matter referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) to the attention of the Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries and to the notice of the officers of the department concerned, and see if anything can be done to relieve the situation my hon. friend speaks of.

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT. limitation of racing meets.
On the Order:
House In Committee on Bill No. 2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Wilcox.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the Bill
passed its second reading there was an understanding that it should be referred to a special committee, and I expected to be able to move this evening that certain members be appointed to act on that committee This afternoon the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) asked me to -allow the matter to stand until he was prepared to submit the names of members of the Opposition. I would, therefore, ask that the matter stand.


PROPOSED ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
[Stage Direction]
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, resumed from April 19.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Blain):: I may say that the hon. member is closing the debate.


Robert Bickerdike: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I will naturally be very brief, but as some very distinguished statesmen have taken exception to my Bill, I will take the opportunity of replying briefly to them. They all undertook to oppose my suggested amendment to the Criminal Code for the purpose of abolishing the death penalty and substituting life imprisonment for the different crimes contained in our statute books, for which the extreme penalty of death is prescribed. In doing so I would call the attention of the leader of the Opposition to some of his remarks as reported in Hansard, to which remarks I desire to take exception. Before doing so, however, I would like to say a few words in reply to the Solicitor General. I want to make it very plain that my view is that capital piinishment should not be abolished if hanging protects society. I take that ground at once. The first object that this Parliament should have is to protect society, and if it is necessary to hang our poor prodigals for the purpose of protecting society, then let us hang them. On


Mv4 Y 2, 1917
[Stage Direction]
the other hand, if we can protect society equally well, or better, by life imprisonment, then let us have life imprisonment, but by all means let our first consideration be the protection of society. The Solicitor General took very strong grounds on that question the other evening.
Capital punishment is discriminatory. Because of its severity it is almost never inflicted upon a person of wealth or influence, and in general we hang only such as belong to the abjectly miserable portion of humanity. The long and short of the matter is that the death penalty is too severe to be inflicted upon the rich or the strong. It is one of the cruel inventions of caste-it is a class penalty, just as some of the laws governing it have been class laws. A penalty so severe as not to foe enforceable has a basic objection; it produces unrest to have a constant miscarriage of justice. A wealthy malefactor, an influential murderer, a powerful assassin cannot go free, in a community where paupers and friendless foreigners are hanged, without the people acquiring a contempt for the laws.
There is, regrettably, a disposition on the part of some of our most worthy citizens (yes, Christians) to bring passages of Scripture to the support of capital punishment. We have heard unto the point of weariness the quotation of the Old Testament of " an eye for an eye and- a tooth for a tooth. We do not hear so frequently, however, of Christ's own allusion to the Old Testament in the following words " Ye have heal'd it said in olden times, ' An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for them that despitefully use you." If any one, however adept in placing construction on the English language, is able, in the light of these words, to attribute even tacit support of the death penalty to the Saviour of mankind he will exceed all Pounds of mental agility within my comprehension. Again, we hear from those who would quote the Word in justification of legalized murder, the citing of that part of the sixth verse of the ninth chapter of Genesis, which reads as follows, Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
Some of our best people try to be governed exclusively by what the Old Testament says. I revere and respect their opinions, but I must confess that I always prefer to have same endorsed by the New Testament. Now, it is within the memory of many that a large number of Christians in the Southern States quoted the Old
Testament in support of slavery. I also remember in my younger days Brigham Young quoting freely from the Old Testament in support of polygamy, but as neither slavery nor polygamy could be endorsed by the New Testament, they had to go, and for just the same reason will capital punishment have to go. I think that the environment in which we are living has a great influence on the community. Take, for example, was it not strange that Nero, " the monster of cruelty," should say during the first few years of his reign, when death warrants were presented him to sign, that he regretted that he had ever learned to write, so averse was he to shedding human blood. Later, when he became brutalized, he could sign them without pain, and put his own mother to death without remorse.
Now, Sir, the purest Being, the greatest Teacher, the holiest Judge who ever presided over the destinies of man, never wrote a sentence preserved in history excepting one when meditating upon capital punishment. He wrote with hie finger in the sand and then immediately said, as if an interpretation of what he wrote: "Let him who is without sin oast the first stone." The old law read:	"Let her be atoned to
death." As all men are sinners, this harsh and cruel law of death, written in the Old Testament, was reconstructed and repealed by the Saviour of man, and savage justice was tempered with the saving influence of the Master's mercy.
The next in order to attack the Bill was the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I am pleased to see the Government and the right hon. leader of the Opposition getting so close together. The Government has given the right hon. leader of the Opposition free wheat, and the leader of the Opposition, not to be outdone in politeness, has given the Government free hanging.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I wonder who gets the best of it?


Robert Bickerdike: I have no doubt that in time, especially when the Hon. Sir Robert Rogers returns, who I have no doubt will be a knight by then, they will make a very happy family. I am pleased to see these indications of a rapprochement, a symptom of what might lead up to a coalition Government until after the warsomething that all of us in this country who have boys in the trenches are hoping for- and if it should be that sacrificing my interests would act as a stepping stone to this much desired object I submit respectfully that I am willing to foe sacrificed.

When we were democratic to the hilt we would not have invoked custom for the purpose of continuing any great national crime such as legalized -murder by the State, sending the soul of our poor prodigals into eternity, when society can be just as well protected by sending them to the penitentiary. The right hon. leader of the Opposition made a reference to President Fallieres, who was really the greatest President the French Republic ever enjoyed, and probably purified France more than any other public man in the republic, not even excepting President MacMahon.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He was Irish.


Robert Bickerdike: You cannot always tell by the name. The leader of the Opposition claims that Patrick Spain was an Italian. President Fallieres e*ys:
Among the unpleasant duties of the President of Prance is that of signing all death warrants issued in the Republic.
That is well'. He says, however, that there hould be a slight change in the arrangement, as follows:
Tire Judge who sentences the man to die should also act as his executioner.
If the Minister of Justice and the leader of the Opposition bad to do the hanging, I think they would send the men to the penitentiaries instead.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have too many jobs
already.


Robert Bickerdike: President Fallieres claims that if this were the case it would do away with all legalized homicide. He further says:
I will not ask any man to do that which I myself am unwilling to do. I will do no murder, even for the State.
President Fallieres therefore commuted all death penalties to life imprisonment. Where there was a reasonable doubt about a man's guilt he pardoned him. He also says:
France must learn to take care of her criminals without killing them. It is a poor use to make of a man to take his life. It is an acknowledgment of our inefficiency. Then, a life sentence should hold out to a man the promise that a number of years of good behaviour and useful work will make him free. Penology must be made a science to the end that when we imprison a man we do it for his own good, with the intention of turning out a better man than we took in. Just as long as the State sets an example of killing its enemies, they must expect that individuals will occasionally kill theirs.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition says:

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.
With that statement I quite agree. The right hon. leader of the Opposition goes on:
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 w-ho came from the South of Italy, where It is the ____imnnD ii.iV.it nf every man to carry a stiletto.
With -this latter statement I can hardly agree. The only execution in the province of Quebec during 1916 was that of Paul dit-Lepine Renaud, and judging by the name, he could have hardly been an Italian.
The name of the young lad 10 p.m. lying under sentence of death in Winnipeg is Patrick Spain; that does not sound like an Italian either. So I think the contention of the right hon. leader of the Opposition that all the murders in Canada are committed by men who come from the south of Italy is wrong. I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman is aware that Italy abolished capital punishment years ago. Further on he said:
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 a law among 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?
Now, Sir, I think I- have proved to the right hon. gentleman that it is not the foreign element in Canada who are committing all the murders. With regard to the claim that capital punishment is right because it has been on the statute book ever since this country has been a country, and because it is still the law among the most civilized nations of the earth. I remember welil the time when the right hon. gentleman refused to follow custom, and claimed that this young nation was now grown up and should make the laws that were considered most necessary for our Dominion. Custom never did make right. With regard to his claim that this is still the law among the most civilized nations of the earth, I must also join issue with him. He claims that it is the most civilized nations of the world that retain capital punishment. On the contrary, the nations that have abolished capital punishment are not the

heathen or uncivilized nations, but just the reverse. According to the right hon. leader of the Opposition China is one of the most civilized nations of the world. China, Turkey, Japan, 'Germany and Austria-Hungary all have capital punishment. The other three nations that retain capital punishment are England, France and Spain. I am prepared to say that these are civilized nations, but they are the only civilized nations that retain capital punishment. Now, I desire to place opposite to these the names of the anti-hanging countries-I suppose, the right hon. gentleman would call them "the uncivilized nations." They are: Russia-surely, not an uncivilized country- Italy, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Haiti, Switzerland and the United States (in part). I cannot understand the statement made by the right hon. gentleman. He quotes the "civilized nations" as the excuse for retaining capital punishment, and the greatest nation that retains it is China. If he holds China to be one of the civilized Christian nations of the world, of course he is quite entitled to his opinion.
I hold that the death penalty is the most atrocious form of bookkeeping in existence. The only way we can balance a debit is by a credit; you can only balance a negative by a positive; the only way to balance evil is by good. It is a most ridiculous thing to have a death entered on one side of the ledger, and then expect to balance it by turning'to the other side and writing down another death. That is the style of bookkeeping of the Minister of Justice, so far as this branch of his business is concerned. I would like to see capital punishment abolished for the sake of the innocent men who have been executed, and there have been a numbed of them. I wish to quote from a letter written by the man who, I suppose, is the greatest authority on prison reform on this side of the water, if not in the -world-Thomas Mott Osborne, of Sing Sing fame. He says:
As warden of Sing Sing I executed forty men, and I am convinced that four of them were innocent. One was a hoy of 20 years of age, and I knew he was innocent of the crime for which . he was condemned, because I know who committed the crime. But the ethics of the underworld are that one must never 'squeal on a paly This hoy lied, evaded, faced his trial, was condemned, and afterwards went to his death, just because he would not 'squeal on a pal.' Was not that boy worth saving?
Is there any man in this House who will say that it was not worth while to try to
save such a boy? Innocent of the crime, he would not go back on his pal, but kept his course even though it led to the electric chair. I say to the Minister of Justice that if boys of that kind are not worth saving, then life is not worth, living.
Now I desire to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). Hon. members will recollect that he quoted the Old Testament very freely. But the Old Testament is a record of the Jewish race, and it is difficult to see how it can be made the standard for Christians, especially when the Master enjoins His followers to forsake the old commands and gave them the new ones instead. He did not preach revenge but exhorted His followers to love their enemies. It must be recalled that the ancient prophets also looked to the time when swords would be beaten into ploughshares, and spears into pruning-hooks.
The great promised Messiah was to be a Prince of Peace; not one who took life but one who reformed it. There are very few students of the New Testament who attempt the tremendous task of defending capital punishment on its authority, for its teaching is mercy, long suffering, kindness, forgiveness, and these are not compatible with breaking a man's neck. The Master, as we are told in the 12th chapter of John,
* commutes the sentence of stoning to death, which the Jewish law imposed upon the adulterous woman, to the sentence "go and sin no more," bidding her accuser who was without sin to cast the first stone.
Life sentence is practical. I am not asking for a substitute for capital punishment which has not been tried. The states and nations that have actually substituted life imprisonment for capital punishment bear the testimony that it works well. Governor Washburn, of Wisconsin, said in 1873:
It is twenty years since we have abolished capital punishment and no state can show greater freedom from homicidal crimes... . With a population embracing almost every nationality, statistics show that crime instead of increasing with the growth, has actually diminished.
Senator Jessup, of Iowa, says:
Murder in the first degree has not increased but has for four years decreased,
And he gives figures to prove the truth of his assertion, and adds the significant expression-"there is more lynch law where the scaffold is retained."

Under life sentences juries convict and that speedily. The Chief Justice of Rhode Island says:
My observation fully justifies me in saying that conviction is far more certain now in proper cases than when the death penalty was in vogue.
Chief Justice Denman says:
Extreme severity has operated more as a pre-ventitive to prosecutions than a preventitive to crime.
Judges often find their juries returning and asking, ''Can we find a verdict of manslaughter"? and when the judges say. "No you cannot," they return with a verdict, "Not guilty."
Capital Punishment Is Not Effective-Capital punishment is no punishment to the .criminal, it is a greater punishment to the innocent members of his family. It is no punishment to break a man's neck. Juries hesitate to convict when they know a man is going to be hanged, and as a consequence only one in seventy-three murderers brought to trial in United States is convicted on first degree murder.
Capital punishment does not deter from crime. It is a fact which can be demonstrated by .statistics that where capital punishment flourishes murder likewise flourishes. Crime was on the increase in England until the two hundred odd capital offenses were reduced to two, and the same promptness in convictions in England without the death penalty would prove more efficacious in preserving law and order.
Men who witness and who read of capital punishment become vindictive. The chaplain of Newgate prison says that he "never knew a condemned criminal that had not been at an execution." (Westminster Review, '81: 162). Rev. J. Roberts of Bristol says that out of 180 persons whom he visited after the sentence of death, 164 had attended a public hanging. Those who see the brutality of the death chamber are only made more brutal. Capital punishment often leads to such public sympathy that the hands of justice are thwarted.
Qapital punishment is not moral-The state sets a wrong example to its citizens by punishing its offenders with death. Capital punishment diminishes the sacredness with which we should regard life. It destroys the moral sense of the public. It arouses the worst passions in man. During public executions in England, the gallows were scenes of wild debauch, the public eating, drinking, cheering and railing at the victim. Suicides or deaths of an ex-
citing nature are likely to be followed by others of like nature
There are many who question the right of one man to take another man's life except in self-defense when other means of defense fail. Wendel Phillips says:
The theory of government, as Is universally held, is that a government is a social compact, a voluntary association of individuals, therefor, as an individual has no right to take hisown life, he cannot confer on the government the right to take it.
Capital punishment is not justice, for often it endangers the lives of the wrong persons. Many of our criminals are murderers toy circumstances; men of wealth aTe rarely hanged, and often innocent people have been unjustly deprived of their life.
The judgments of judges and juries are not always infallible. The great Lafayette said:	'	.
I shall personally demand the abolishment of punishment by death until X have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.
There are a few who defend capital punishment from the authority of the Old Testament, but it must be remembered that the Lord set a mark on Cain, the first murderer,' and let him go. Moses taught a life for a life.
I must say a few word^ in reply to my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafor-tune). I do not wish to be rude to him but he is certainly one of the greatest and most successful Crown prosecutors in the province of Quebec if not in the Dominion of Canada. But his trade has diminished considerably as we only had one case of murder in Quebec in 1916 and that was out of his jurisdiction. I would advise him, if we keep on diminishing our murders in Quebec, to make a contract for sp much a year instead of so much a head. I was going to say in reply to the hon. member that in comparatively Tecent years there have been striking instances of the fallibility of the most carefully constituted tribunals. My hon. friend claimed that justice was all right in the province pf Quebec especially and all over Canada. He said that if a poor man was accused of a serious crime the court appointed a solicitor to defend him and that he had fair play in every instance. Now, I shall just give you a few instances in which men have been hanged when they were not guilty of the crimes for which they were hanged. In 1865, for instance, an Italian named Pelizzioni was tried before Baron Martin for the murder of a fellow countryman in an affray at Saffron Hill. AfteT an elatoor-

ate trial he was found guilty and sentenced to death. In passing sentence, the judge took occasion to make the following remarks which should be remembered when the acumen begotten of " sound legal training " and long experience is relied on as a safeguard against error:
In my judgment, it is utterly impossible for the jury to have come to any other conclusion. The evidence was about the clearest and most direct that, after a long course of experience in the administration of criminal justice, I have ever known. I am as satisfied as I can be of anything that Gregorio did not inflict this wound and that you were the person who did.
The trial was over. The Home Secretary would most certainly, after the judge's expression of opinion, never have interfered. The date of the execution was fixed. Yet the unhappy prisoner was guiltless of the crime, and it was only through the exertion of a private individual that an innocent man was saved from the gallows. A fellow countryman of his, Mr. Negretti, succeeded in persuading the real culprit- the Gregorio so expressly exculpated by the judge-'to come forward and acknowledge the crime. He was subsequently tried for manslaughter and convicted, while Pelli-zioni received a free pardon.
Again, in 1877, two -men named Jackson and Greenwood were tried at the Liverpool Assizes for a serious offense. They weig found guilty. The judge expressed approval of the verdict and sentenced them to ten years' penal servitude. Subsequently fresh facts came to light and the men received a free pardon.
Once more, in 1879, Hebron was1 tried for the murder of a policeman. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. An agitation for a reprieve immediately followed. The sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. Three years after, the notorious Peace, just 'before his execution for -the murder of Mt. Diason, confessed that he had committed the murder for which Hebron had been sentenced.
Mr. Charles Burleigh Galbraith, writing for Friend's Intelligencer for October 6, says:	" Juries and Judges are still fallible."
Maud Ballington Booth, writing under date of September, 1908, gives details of two interesting cases:
A man was sentenced to life imprisonment and served sixteen and a half years. Most of the evidence had -been purely circumstantial and he was convicted mainly on the testimony of one witness. He was saved from the gallows only by the earnest efforts of those who had known of his previous good character.
Hast winter the woman who had been the main witness against him came to what she believed was her death-bed, and, sending for a priest, confessed that she had committed perjury. The matter was brought to the attention of the Governor, and the man at once liberated. He still lives. The State took sixteen years of his liberty, hut did not sh-d his innocent blood. At present I know a man-
-continues Mrs. Booth,
-who has served nine years and is still in prison, where he has been visited by the boy whom he was supposed to have murdered.
The fact that, in our day, justice may thus miscarry, must give men constant pause before they seek remedial vengeance in the death penalty.
Mr. Buttrom, present Attorney General for the Second Judicial District of Tennessee, in talking to me recently, said:
I am against capital punishment -because men are too liable to err. Before I was elected Attorney General, a white man was convicted in my county of murder in the first degree. He pleaded accidental killing. He was a poor fellow, an! the court had appointed a lawyer to defend him. I thought at the time the verdict was rendered that the jury had erred. The people were bitter against him and had threatened to lynch -him. -Some of the jury wanted to hang him outright, hut they finally reported mitigating circumstances as a part of their verdict and the judge sentenced the piisoner to life imprisonment. From later developments it became evident that the man was innocent, and for that reason Governor Hooper pardoned him recently.
-Capital punishment is a relic of the days when -men were forced to tread red-hot ploughshares to prove their innocence. I do not believe in taking a man's life far having committed a crime. That is a barbarous custom, a relic of ancient days-. We must toe progressive, and more humane toward our fellow-mortals. It seems -to me (that in a Christian land, with all our boasted Christamity, we should practice such, and abolish this terrible method o-f punishment. Capital -punishment does not prevent crime. We make us-e of it, yet murders are continually committed. Why not try the other method? When a man s life is taken at the end of a roipe, -his usefulness is*done for. He is of no v-alue to the State, o-r to- society. Why not try my plan? For a good many years we have been trying the plan of the Minister of Justice; that is hang them up. Why not try the other plan for a little while? Why not try it for a year as an experiment? Would Canada -suffer if you tried it for a year? Stop -hanging for one year and if you stop hanging you will stop most of the murders. I do not know whether the present Parliament will -abolish capital punishment; I

am afraid not. I hope that if this one fails same future Parliament will do it and it will do it for two very good reasons; first, that it is not necessary as a preventive of murder and, second:, because it is an unholy and barbarous crime in itself. Man has no right to take what he has not given -man has no right to say to this man, " Thou shalt die," when God himself has ordained, "Thou shalt not kill." When the Christ of Galilee came to earth it was to preach the kingdom of God upon earth-and it was his wish that man should not slay his fellow-man.
The most powerful case cited by Mr. McConnico was the Durand case, in California. I am not sure whether I have mentioned this Durand case on previous occasions to the Minister of Justice. It was a case in which a young man was hanged for the murder of a young woman. They were both members of a Methodist church, both teachers in the same Sunday school, both singers in the same choir. One day the young lady disappeared. Suspicion immediately fell on the young man. He was arrested, tried and sentenced to death. He delivered a little, short speech-I remember the case well-just before he was sent into eternity. He said to the people there: I am not guilty of this crime; I am going to be hanged for a crime that I did not commit; and I say it before God and man. He lifted his eyes to heaven, and asked the Lord to forgive those who had sworn him to death. Sir, less than twelve months after that young man was sentenced to eternity, the minister of that congregation took sick and confessed that he was the man who had killed that girl. Well, the young man had gone into eternity. Now, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of Justice, if life imprisonment will serve society just as well, if life imprisonment will protect society as well as the death penalty, then why not let us make the experiment?
I must say a few words in reply to my good friend the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). I accused him this afternoon of being one who out-Heroded Herod. But I take that back; I should not have said that. I want to say to him, however, that the state does not kill people merely because they are worthless, and to be rid of them. Insane asylums are built at great expense for the incurable, upon whom relatives cannot bear to look, who personally might 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. It is not possible to imagine the effect society would feel if we were to destroy 'all imbeciles and the incurably 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 to 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. May I ask the people of Canada if they believe any boy-any mother's son, black or white, however depraved-should be hanged, killed just to get rid of him? Can we afford to do it?
Chief Baron Kelly says that from 1802 to 1840 he traced twenty-two men who were wrongly convicted of murder in England, seven of whom were hanged. Mackintosh says that in the same country, taking a long period of time, one innocent man is hanged in every three years.
It may be safely asserted that the thousands who were put to death, at the stake and otherwise, for witchcraft, were not guilty of the crime with which they were charged. Again, there is no way of ascertaining to a certainty the guilt of any one charged with murder. Felonious intent is the essence of crime. The jury must determine, then, in each instance the state of mind of the accused. In many cases this is a difficult task, and in not a few the verdict is a mere guess. A confession of guilt, if voluntary, would seem to be a strong evidence, but by way of illustrating a general rule, it will be remembered that a number of men confessed to the murder of Nathan in New York city, all of whom were innocent. In some cases of acknowledged murder the supposed victim has turned out to be still alive, and in at least one instance interrupted the trial.
Whatever may be the testimony of a witness, it cannot be certain to a demonstration, in most cases, that he is not committing perjury, or is not mistaken.
Of course I am aware that many will disagree with me, for I have never been' able to get everybody to see my way and be right in their view, but I am sure that, as men grow more civilized, capital punish-

ment grows less popular, and wholesale murder, in the shape of war, is regarded as the last resort by the civilized nations of the earth, and the time will come when human life will be rightly valued and war shall be no more. If this is not to be the case, Christianity will have proved a failure, to become an effete religion, cast by intelligent humanity upon the religious scrap pile of the ages.
Is it not time to put aside the unwarranted penalty of capital punishment and adopt the more humane and effective punishment by life imprisonment, put beyond the reach of one-man pardon? The capital punishment experiment has proved a failure, so far as its being a remedy for crime is concerned.
No matter how great any man's respect for the Old Testament may be, the most that he can say for the ceremonial and criminal law of the Hebrews is that it was adapted to men in a very crude condition, who were making their first advances in the rudiments of moral and religious truths; that it taught them only as much as they were prepared to receive, with a promise of something better to come after. The clergy admit that the ceremonial law of the Jews is no longer binding. They insist that God's covenant with Noah, in which occurs the verse, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed," is binding for all time and upon all nations. They do not understand that it is repealed, both in the language and the spirit of the New Testament. If they believe as firmly as they pretend that killing the murderer is-pleasing to God and a duty sacredly enjoined upon man, they should act as executioners: they certainly should not hesitate to pull the string or cut the rope that sends the soul of a murderer to the answering bar of God.
One word in conclusion, in reply to my good friend, our warrior bold from Peterborough. He does not attempt to out-Nero Nero himself, but he comes a very fair second. Nero killed both his wife and his mother, while our friend would be quite satisfied with hanging his wife-if he had one. It might be well for the marriageable ladies of Peterborough to sit up and take notice. He says positively that if he had a wife he would have no objection whatever to hanging her.
Society has erected the gallows at the end of the lane, instead of the cross, the guide post and direction board at the beginning.
There is a wonderful growth of interest in the question of capital punishment. Students of criminology everywhere are discussing this theme. There are four hundred reform societies in the world pleading, as I do now, to spare human life whenever it is possible. A rising tide of humanitarianism is sweeping all the barbarities of the past before it, and as this matter is to be put before the voters of Canada, it is vitally important that we consider it at this time. In the hope that further study of the matter will be stimulated, I am presenting what is merely an outline of this great problem, and giving a few of the reasons why capital punishment should be abolished in Canada.
The abolition of capital punishment is the inevitable trend of history. While capital punishment may have been necessary in early history, there being no adequate prisons to hold extreme offenders of the common law, states and commonwealths are now rapidly abolishing it. During the last one hundred years there has been a wonderful decrease in the number of crimes punishable by death, because the death penalty was found to be ineffectual in preventing crime. A century ago England imposed the death penalty for two hundred and some odd transgressions of the civil law, but these have been reduced to two- murder and treason. Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough predicted chaos if men should not be hanged for petty larceny.
Holland abolished capital punishment in 1870. The statistics show nineteen murders from 1861 to 1870, while from 1870 to 1879 there were only seventeen murders, with an increase of population.
Finland has had no executions since 1824. A judge of the Court of Appeals writes: "The security of persons or property has not been in the least diminished by the abolition of capital punishment."
Switzerland abolished capital punishment in 1874. Later three cantons voted to sustain the death penalty in their jurisdiction. The remaining nineteen still thrive without the death penalty, and murder has not increased. .
Other countries and states which have abolished the death penalty are Portugal, Holland, Italy, Norway, Rumania, Tuscany, Costa Rica, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala and Venezuela. Denmark has had no hanging since 1890. Belgium none since 1863. Russia has recently abolished it entirely, and in none of these countries has crime increased.
If the Master had not given His thought on this Law of Moses, as found in the ser-

mon on the mount; if he had not set up a standard immeasurably higher, then we might pretend that this Law of Moses for the punishment of murder was a statement for all generations and all forms of civilization. But His teaching is actually as much or more in advance of Moses' Law as that was in advance of the ideas and practices of men when it was given. This Law of Moses is all there is in the Bible which can be pleaded as an exception to the commandment. "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus did enforce this law against killing, but he did not, directly or indirectly, recognize any exception to it. " Thou shalt not kill is more a command than God's covenant with Noah. It is binding on nations as well as on individuals-on the Government and on the Minister of Justice-for there are no exceptions. What right have we to make any?	,
Thirdly, some accept every expression as they do Chicago canned and labelled goods. They swallow, and think no more.
Fourthly, it is argued that the brutality of crime justifies capital punishment. Yes, some crimes are brutal beyond conception, beyond the * reach of the ordinary mind. But to balance brutality against brutality and play the part of the savage is unworthy of a great and humane people.
Cease not from striving, till our law Is clear from bloody stain,
And reformation, not revenge.
In principle sustain.
order to prove my assertion, but it was impossible; the censor would not let them through. I did telegraph to Mr. Thomas Mott Osborne, asking him to give me the names of the states in the Union that had abolished capital punishment, and I received the following reply:-
Capital punishment abolished in following states:	Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, to which Missouri has just been added. Maine forty years ago restored death penalty for six years hut convictions for murder diminished so seriously it was again abolished. No other state has returned.
I mention that because the Solicitor General was very courteous in the matter. Neither of us knew whether he was right or wrong-and I am not any surer now, because I was not able to get the cables to the other side.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. Bickerdike.
YEAS. Messrs:
Bickerdike,
Boyer,
Carvell,
Gauvreau,
Graham,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
Lemieux, Loggie, McKenzie, Nicholson, Pacaud, Proulx, Tobin,
(Montreal, St. James), Verville.-15.

I plead once more with the Government to give me a committee. You give a committee on horse racing; you give a committee on gambling; I ask for a committee to look into a question of life and death. What harm would result from our getting all the information available on this question?
I wish to say a word in deference to the Solicitor General, who treated this matter in a very gentlemanly way. I claimed that he had said that capital punishment had been abolished in some countries and subsequently reinstated. I took exception with the Solicitor General on that point, and it was largely on that ground that the debate was adjourned. I understood him to say that Germany and Austria-Hungary had abolished capital punishment and reinstated it. I have no knowledge of that, but T think that was an error. One thing is certain: Austria-Hungary and Germany are to-day practising it very freely, and I should be sorry if this country were asked to follow the example set (by them. I endeavoured to get cables through to those countries in
[Mr. Bickerdike.)
Messrs:
Blain,
Boivin,
Boulay,
Burrell,
Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Davidson,
Doherty,
Lafortune,
Meighen,
Merner,
Morphy,
Papineau,
Motion negatived.
Patenaude,
Reid,
Roche,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Shepherd,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Thompson (Yukon), Wallace,
Webster,
White (Sir Thomas), Wright.-26.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Thursday, May 3, 1917.