[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND moved that the-fee and charges paid on Bill (No. 102) respecting the lease of certain railways in Manitoba be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation, In accordance with the-recommendation contained in the eleventh.

report of the Select Standing- Committee on Railways and Telegraph Lines.
Mr. SPROULE.: How did that come to he reported from the committee ? I understood they presented two Bills to the House, and afterwards a third one.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I understand the committee has consolidated all these Bills into one, and they make a report accordingly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We frequently have to reprint a Bill where it is an almost entirely new Bill compared to what it was.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: The cost will be deducted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not necessarily follow that we should refund the cost of printing the Bills on that account.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is quite customary, in fact, it is usual, when important amendments are asked for to a Bill, to have them reprinted. In this case the solicitor seems to have had the whole Bill redrafted and submitted to the committee, and it was adopted in that shape, instead of adding to it the proposed amendments or changes. My hon. friend will remember that practically a new Bill was submitted. It is the practice to reprint a Bill so that every member may have a copy of the suggested amendments, and, all cost of printing with regard to all these Bills will be deducted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the provincial government required two Bills, and two Bills were introduced and went before the Standing Orders Committee and received their second reading, and then went to the Railway Committee, and afterwards they were embodied into one. Now, why you should turn around and say, after that was done, not at the suggestion of the committee, but at the suggestion of the people themselves, that we should refund them the money, is not very clear to me. There is another thing. I did not hear of such a question being brought before the committee, otherwise I should have felt like saying something on it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My hon. friend may not have heard it, as there was considerable confusion. But, I put the question loudly, and there was no dissent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU-by Mr. Fraser-asked :
L Is Mr. J. A. Couture, veterinary surgeon of the city of Quebec, in the employment of the government?
2.	If so, what are his duties and what is his salary?
3.	If he holds more than one position, what are the several dates of his appointment thereto, and under what department of the government is he serving?
4.	On what recommendations was he appointed?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. S. A. Fisher) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Superintendent of the cattle quarantine at Point L6vis, at a salary of $1,000 per annum.
3.	Appointed superintendent of the cattle quarantine station on 21st May, 1S79, and veterinary officer of the Department of Agriculture. Has no other position under the government.
4.	No record to be found.
DR. LALONDE, M.P.P. FOR VAUDREUIL. Mr. MONK asked :
1.	Has Dr. Lalonde, M.P.P. for Vaudreuil county, been engaged, within the last two years, by the government to act in expropriation cases upon the Soulanges canal?
2.	In what capacity was he so engaged?
3.	What was the total amount paid to him as remuneration or expenses?
4.	Have his services been dispensed with, and for what reason?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The gentleman named by the hon. member has not been in the employ of the department within the past two years. I think that answer will cover the other branches of the question.
MAIL CARRIAGE, ASHCROFT TO CARIBOO. Hon. E. G. PRIOR asked :
1.	Has the Postmaster General received any tender from any party or parties to carry the mails from Ashcroft to Cariboo, and other places en route, at a lower rate than that now paid the present contractors?
2.	If so, from whom, when, and at what figure?
3.	Is the Postmaster General inclined to accept their tender?
4.	If not, why not?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: I find that an informal offer has been sent to the department about which inquiries are being made, but I am not in a position to give any further information until I have an opportunity of looking into it.


TRAIN HANDS ON PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	How many men have been employed as train hands on the Prince Edward Island Railway since the 1st day of July, 1896?
2.	What are their names, and what were their post office and county addresses prior to receiving appointment?
3.	What are the positions held by them whether as conductors, baggagemen, brakesmen' firemen or engineers?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I asked the hon. gentleman to move for a return ; the answer, I presume, will be very voluminous. Anyway, I have not the information ready.


Mr. HACKETT.: Would it be possible to get a return this year ?


PIER AT HIGGINS' SHORE.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Did the government, during the present year, receive a petition from the inhabitants of Vic-oria West and surrounding settlements in Prince county, P.E.I., asking for the construction of a pier at Higgins' Shore in said county?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to grant the prayer of said petition and have an amount placed in the supplementary estimates this session for the construction of said work?


The MINISTER. OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The chief engineer reports that there is not sufficient information in the department on which to base an estimate of cost. During recess this information will be obtained.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Some weeks ago the right hon. gentleman Informed us that certain papers relating to the claim of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann would be brought down. I would like to have the papers brought down as early as the hon. gentleman's convenience will permit, because it is desirable there should not be any further delay with regard to any government measures, unless it is unavoidable. I may also say in this connection, that if there are any resolutions in regard to railway subsidies to be presented to the House, I think it is desirable they should be brought down as soon as possible, so that a fair opportunity of discussion may be had by the House. In past years-and I am not referring to any particular administratiou in saying this-it has been more or less a practice to bring down such resolutions at a somewhat late date in the session. I think it would be well to turn over a new leaf in that respect, and have them brought down at such a date as will enable them to receive the fair consideration that such measures should receive at the hands of this House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I can inform my hon. friend that the papers relating to the claim of Mackenzie & Mann will be brought down at an early date. Some information is still wanted, and we shall have it very shortly. With regard to the railway resolutions, the hon. gentleman's Question is not unnatural, and I can inform him that all the business of the House yet to be brought down will be brought down this week and early next week.	*



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr.   L@: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a return that has been laid on the Table of the House last week. It was the partial report of Mr. Justice Prendergast in respect to the sale of school lands in Manitoba. I find that this return Is quite incomplete; at least, it does not cover the whole report that is expected to be received from the presiding judge at that inquiry. I see in one of the last sheets of this report that the judge mentions that he lias still to supplement his partial report with a fuller report, giving general considerations of certain features of the sale as a whole. He stated on April 15, that he hoped to be able to transmit this report the day following. This general report is not included in the return that I hold in my hand. I may say also that the evidence that was taken before the judge should have been included in this return.
I hope that the government will see their way clear to bring down the last report and the" evidence that was taken.



LEASES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Mr. TAYLOR.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), whom I am glad to see in his seat, to a matter that I propose to bring- up to-morrow. I would like the hon. Minister of Public Works to lay upon the Table of the House before tomorrow the lease that was entered into between the government and the owner of the Seybold building, which the government have rented for three years, and also the lease of the building that is being erected on Metcalfe street. To-morrow, on going into supply, I intend to have something to say in reference to the Seybold property and will conclude witn a motion.



TRAIN HANDS ON PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.

Edward Hackett: Mr. Speaker, before entering upon the Orders of the Day, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) if he cannot allow this question, No. 6, to stand on the Order paper and give me an answer to-morrow. There cannot be a great many men employed, and it should not be a very difficult question to answer. I would like to have this question stand on the Order paper and give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of answering it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: If the hon. gentleman will put a notice on the paper, we will afford him every facility to have the motion passed, and in the meantime I


Edward Hackett: will be getting tlie information from the island. It will be quite innpossioie for me to stand here and read list after list of names, when the information can be conveniently furnished by a return.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be another opportunity for getting a motion, and it would not be proper-
Some bon. MEMBERS. Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.



LOWER ST. LAWRENCE NAVIGATION.

Mr. MONK.: 1 had a question on the Order paper, but I am afraid it will be too late. This is a matter of some urgency.
I see that the shipping interests of Montreal. who constituted an inquiry some months ago, the result of which was discussed in this House, have resumed the inquiry. 1 believe the taking of evidence is to begin to-morrow, and I would like to ask l the government if they intend taking part in that inquiry and will be represented there. -


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Orders of the Day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are the government not able to give that information ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: It is the desire of the government to take part iu the inquiry. I was in hopes that Col. Anderson, the chief engineer of my department, would be able to attend to-morrow, but unfortunately, he lias to go to Lake Erie, in connection of the large lighthouse at the Middle Ground, and will not be able to go to Montreal until he returns, so that we will not be able to take part in the inquiry so far as our department is concerned.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 04) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900. -Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick. *
On section 1,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Chairman, the first clause was adopted at the last sitting of the committee, but I am going to ask to reconsider that clause in order to meet, as far as I can, the difficulties suggested by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) which affect the North-west Territories. I propose to move that sections 19 and 20 of the Dominion Elections Act shall be made applicable to the North-west Territories. These are the sections which provide penalties for those who fail to perform their duties in connection witli elections. I beg to move to insert before sec-1321
tion 41, in line 10, the words ' sections 19 and 20.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 3,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I move to reconsider clause 3, so as to strike it out altogether, because that is the clause which provides for the abolition of the stamp, and I mean to retain the stamp.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I now come to the consideration of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). If we adopt that amendment it seems to me that It ought to he brought into section 78. I would ask my hon. friend to consider an amendment which we might discuss when the Bill reaches its third reading, limiting the amendment exclusively to protests prepared by the scrutineers in the polling booth, and applicable to what occurs there, so as to avoid the difficulty that has been suggested of outsiders coming and preparing them by the hundred and putting them in from the outside.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The third reading will not take place to-day ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, that will be considered on the third reading. I promised to produce a sample of the ballot, and here it is. The paper Will be such as was used last election supplied by the King's Printer, and this is the form of the ballot which has been adopted.
Bill reported with certain amendments.
On the question : When shall these amendments he read the second time ?


Edward Hackett: May I ask the Solicitor General if he has embodied the amendment moved by me in this Bill ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I did not. I could not see how it would be possible for me to do anything to improve the law so as to make it applicable to the case my hon. friend had in view. I think the law is sufficient now to enable us to meet the difficulty in respect to a stolen ballot box.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understood that the Solicitor General was going to introduce an amendment changing the form of the oath.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The amendment was submitted at the last meeting of the committee, and it will come up in the Franchise Act.


Mr. MACLEAN.: In which Bill does the Solicitor General make provision for the acceptance of a marked cheque as a deposit ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is in this Bill.

Amendments read the second time and agreed to.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We will defer the third reading until the next sitting of the House.



THE FRANCHISE ACT, 1898.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 03) to amend the Franchise Act, 1898.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: With respect to clause C of section I, which does away with the use of voters' lists within sixty days previous to the election, I mean to allow the law to stand as it is, so that clause C will he struck out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. FOWLER.: Has the Solicitor General any provision in this Bill with reference to lists which may have been quashed after they have been sent to the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery ? On or about the 24th of December in each year, in New Brunswick, the list is filed with the proper officer, and is forwarded by him to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Suppose that list is quashed in the meantime, is there any provision whereby a new list shall be ordered to be forwarded from the custodian to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Under the law as it now stands, the custodian forwards the list to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery after it has become law within the limits of the province. It is impossible that a list subsequently quashed should go to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, because it only goes to him after the delay for the appeal has expired, or after the appeal has been disposed of.


George William Fowler: The circumstances are somewhat different in the county of King's, N.B. The lists were completed in that county and filed by the secretary-treasurer with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. It was completed on the 24th December last. After that date, and at the February term of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, that list was brought before the court in connection with the parish of Rothesay and quashed. The right hon. the premier, in answer to a question I put on the Order paper, stated that the government had no notice of the quashing of that list. As a matter of fact in this list that was quashed there were over 400 voters' names added. According to the answer of the premier, that list is now on file with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The seat I have the honour to hold in this House is protested. There is a petition filed against me, and suppose that petition were successful, and I were unseated, and that a new election would take place during this summer,


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: and before the filing of the new list, this bogus list is the list which would be used in the election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No.


George William Fowler: Why not? The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sends down the list to the returning officer, but if there is no official notification of the quashing of that list, and if the officer in charge of the list in King's has done his duty, there is nothing in the law to require him to send the amended list.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


George William Fowler: I do not see anything in the law to that effect, and I propose you should amend it to cover that point. Here are the facts. This list was quashed in February. A new list has been made up, but it is not the list which is on file here. You adopt the provincial list, but send it out as a Dominion list; and the list is the one which was on file on the 24th of December last.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I.: would call the hon. gentleman's attention to section 10 of the Franchise Act, which provides :
Within ten days after the final revision of every list of voters for the purposes of provincial elections, it shall be the duty of the custodian thereof to transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, by registered mail, a copy of such list, certified under the hand of such custodian.
If he has sent a list which was subsequently set aside by the courts, and a new list has been declared by the courts to be applicable to the particular district, the new list is the list in force, and that is the list Which he must send to the Clerk of the Grown in Chancery. The previous list, which was set aside, is absolutely waste paper.


George William Fowler: But at the time the old list was set aside, the time for filing the list had expired for the present year.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Not at all. There is no time limit, except that it must be filed within ten days after the final revision takes place.
Mr. FOWLER, Still, the list which was filed on the 24th of December is the list which exists at present.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is no list iat ail.


George William Fowler: There is no other list than that.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the new list prepared under the general law or under a special enactment of the provincial legislature ?


George William Fowler: It is prepared under a special enactment. The voters' list was
4201	MAY 1, 1901	4202
stuffed by the wrongful act of the reviser. It was a most .scoundrelly piece of business, and no honest or decent Liberal would attempt for a moment to defend it. By collusion with the reviser, after the list went from the revising board and before it reach ed the secretary-treasurer, it was taken to an office in St. John and altered. Some 400 names of parties who had no right to vote in the county of King's were added to it. The sworn certificate, which was on a separate piece of paper, had been taken off, the new list was made up, the certificate attached to it again, and then it was sent forward to the secretary-treasurer. That list came before the Supreme Court, and the court at once, on a presentation of the facts by affidavit, set it aside.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Therefore that list ceased to exist.


George William Fowler: By a special Act of the local legislature it was ordered that the revisers of the parish prepare a new list, but the list as prepared is not on file in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is the list in force.


George William Fowler: It would be the list in force for a provincial election, but it is not the list for a Dominion election, unless the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery lias official notification of it. I inquired about that, and I was told by the premier that the only list here is the one filed on tlie 24th of December.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: As I understand the case, the electoral list is properly revised by the board of revisers. It falls into tlie bands of some evil persons who tamper with it. Application is made to the court, and the court orders that list to he set aside. Therefore that list has ceased to exist so far as the province is concerned. Then application is made to the legislature, and the legislature passes a Bill which has application to the list for that particular polling division. Therefore, so far as the province is concerned, the list authorized by the legislature is the one in force. In that event, the returning officer, when he receives the writ, pays no attention to the copy of the list which was sent to him by the Clerk of tlie Crown in Chancery, but under section 22 of the Elections Act he applies to the legal custodian of the last list in force, being the list made under the provision of the Act of the legislature, and that is the list he must use for the purposes of an election.


George William Fowler: The returning officer is an official of the 'Federal authorities ; therefore he looks to the Federal authorities for his list. He is not supposed to go around to find out what changes have been made
in the list, or if any changes have been made in it. He is supposed to take the list which he receives from the authority under which he is acting. Therefore he takes the list which he receives from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. I think this difficulty could be very easily provided for, and
1	would submit an amendment something like this :
That in case, for any reason whatever, the voters' list for any electoral district or polling division of any electoral district shall, after being filed with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, be quashed or amended and a new list substituted therefor, then it shall be the duty of the local officer in charge of the voters' list for that electoral division to forward within ten days from the date of filing said new or amended list with said officer a true copy of said new or amended list, which said last-mentioned list shall be the legal list of voters under subsection
2	of section 10 of this Act. (61 Vic., chapter 4.)
It seems to me 'that would cover the ground.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is absolutely unnecessary. The returning officer gets the list from the legal custodian of it, whoever that may be.


George William Fowler: Is not tlie Clerk of the Crown in Chancery the legal custodian of the list ? It is true, you adopt the provincial list, but that is only to simplify making up the list. Then it is a provincial list no longer ; it .is >a federal list, and is in the custody of a federal officer, amd the returning officer, being am officer of the federal authorities, looks to the federal custodian for the list, and receives it from the Clerk of the Crown 'in Chancery. The amendment I propose provides against any such difficulty occurring, and the amended list is on file with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.	.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It must be on file ten days after it comes into force. That is the law now.


George William Fowler: We must take the facts as they are. As a matter of fact, that list is not here.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Has it been in force more than ten days ?


George William Fowler: Yes.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Then the person whose duty it was to file it with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery ought to be proceeded against under tbe law.


George William Fowler: A new list was made up weeks ago, and yet tbe Clerk of tlie Crown in Chancery has not got it. That is the reason why I move this amendment.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If my hon. friend would put in the amendment, I will

consider it, and if I see that it adds anything to the effect of the law, X will see that it is adopted. I would like my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, to consider with my hon. friend from King's the matter together, and any reasonable suggestion to meet the difficulty, if it is not already met, X will be glad to accept. The grievance mentioned by my hon. friend ought to be removed if it exists.


Robert Laird Borden: The only question must be whether or not the revision under the special Act referred to by my hon. friend from King's would be a final revision in the meaning of section 10. If it is, I agree with the Solicitor General, but at the same time I can see some force in the observations of my hon. friend.
Motion to strike out section 1 agreed to.
On section 2,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have an amendment here, which has to do with this section, providing for the form of oath which a voter will be required to take whose name is omitted on account of provincial disqualification. It is an amendment of the form I in the Dominion Election Act.


David Henderson: I understand it is the Franchise Act that is now under consideration, but the amendment which has been drafted by the Solicitor General, and a copy of which he has kindly sent me, is an amendment to the Election Act.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is a cross reference from the Franchise Act to the Election Act with respect to the oath. I want to see if this amendment is satisfactory and meets the difficulty suggested by my hon. friend. When the Election Act comes nip again. I will move to have it recommitted for the purpose of taking up this amendment.


David Henderson: With all due deference to the ability of the hon. gentleman to draft the requisite clause, it seems to me that the amendment which I proposed in the Bill I introduced in the early part of the session, would better meet the case, and I would like very much if the Solicitor General would compare the amendment he now proposes with the draft Bill which I introduced. The chief difference is in this respect, that, whilst I set out in the form of oath the various reasons which a man must assign to entitle him to vote when his name is not on the list, these reasons are not set out in this amendment in the form in which they are set out in the Franchise Act.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think they are.


David Henderson: They are divided up very much in detail, and I think will be Mr. FITZPATRICK.
much more difficult for the ordinary voter to understand. Perhaps if I would read the amendment which I introduced, the hon. gentleman would seize my meaning better. The amendment I propose reads thus :
Subsection 5 of section 64 of the Dominion Election Act of 1900 is repealed and the following substituted :-If his name has been omitted from the lists of voters on account of some disqualifying provision in the provincial law, specified in section 6 of the Franchise Act of 1898, he shall be entitled to vote upon his taking the oath in the form T.
Here is where we differ.
Provided, however, that it shall be sufficient if any one or more of the four paragraphs A, B, C and D in the .said form are included in such oath, the remaining paragraphs being eliminated therefrom.
My intention was that when a voter came in whose name was not on the list, and who desired to take this oath, he would be asked which of the four reasons he would assign for his name being left off the list. He has to select one or more of the four, mentioned in the Franchise Act. But instead of writing in the reason in the oath before administering it, the deputy returning officer would simply strike out those which the voter did not want to swear to, and leave in the others. That would be much simpler and more quickly done than selecting one or more of the reasons and writing them in the form of oath. The object is to leave no blank space in the affidavit, and thus give opportunity to fill the space in by some insufficient reason, as has been done.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The best way to dispose of the matter would be for my hon. friend to call on Mr. Fraser of the Justice Department and talk it over with him, and then together draft an amendment which would meet the case. I am not wedded to the form I have suggested at all.


Mr. INGRAM.: Is the section now before the chairman the same as in this Bill ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Subsection (e) of section 6 of the Franchise Act should be struck out altogether, because it confuses the meaning of the section. It says :
Any person belonging to or engaged in any profession, calling, occupation, and so on.
In the Franchise Act the section was only intended to cover persons holding positions under the provincial government, who are disqualified, under any provincial law, from voting in the provincial elections. The object of this legislation was to enable them to vote in Dominion elections.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There are cases which would not be met by subsection (b), and which are covered by subsection (c).

Take the case of clergymen and teachers,
who might be disfranchised simply because they belong to those particular professions.


Andrew B. Ingram: In what province ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not know in what province now, but I know that there have been such cases, and cases of that sort might come up.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not know of any province in which such people are disfranchised. They are not in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The amendment here suggested is in the proviso.
meat will be at pains to ascertain whether or not the enactments of this section should be called into force.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) if he has considered the form that such an amendment should take ? I appreciate the necessity of having somebody responsible for the election, and especially for the proper distribution of the lists, but, I do not see exactly how it can be done. I admit I may not have considered the subject sufficiently.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to most matters of this kind, which come under the consideration of the Governor General in Council, there is a particular department and minister responsible.


Robert Laird Borden: So I 'see. I was going to suggest that this section seems to be somewhat indefinite, so far as the carrying out of its provisions are concerned. The carrying out of the section by the government does not seem to have been attended with great success. I would like my hon. friend the Solicitor General to consider whether the section might not he amended in such a way as to place on some member of the administration the responsibility of seeing that the provision is complied with. My friend will remember the case of the Nipissing election. I am not going to argue that case again, but I refer to it for the purpose of illustration. In that case the lists were not in readiness. It was obvious that they would not be ready for the last general election without care and attention on the part of the government, but it does not seem to have been the duty of any particular department of the government. so far as we can gather, to see that this particular section was complied with. Except for this, the section is probably all right in its terms. We are leaving all these matters to officials appointed by the provincial authorities. If we leave it in that shape without any effective supervision by some department of the government here, in cases such as are covered under this section, we are sure to get into such confusion as that which attended the Nipissing election. It is not desirable that that should be the case. It may occasion some work, it may make it necessary that some department of the government shall make some considerable inquiry, and be at some pains to see to the carrying out of the provisions of this section ; but, if we are to leave this to officials appointed under provincial legislation. and leave to the provincial legislation the fixing of the franchise for this House, we must have some provision made for the carrying out of the law. I would like the Solicitor General to consider whether some provision might not be added to make it sure that, in the future, when a general election is brought on, the govern-


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Secretary of State.


Robert Laird Borden: Is he responsible in cases of this kind-is that clear ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would not say that, but he has taken action.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but I do not see any section of the law making him responsible. So far as he took action, that was commendable, but he did not take action soon enough. In most of the matters there is a minister responsible, and he can be criticised in thifc. House, or in the other branch of parliament, in case anything is allowed to go wrong. Is it uot advisable that responsibility should be placed on some minister in this (ase ? If it is good policy it could be done by the addition of a few words to this section. For my own part, I think it is in line with our constitution that some minister should be named us responsible in matters of this kind.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend must admit that the suggestion is a novel one, and, while it is extremely interesting, I am sure he does not expect me to say at once what will be the policy of the government as to enlarging the scope of any particular department in this way. Still, I think it is a matter that might oe considered.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, the hon. gentleman does not intend to proceed with the Bill now ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Not with the third reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This section speaks of using lists if such lists have been prepared not more than one year before the date of the writ ; but. when you turn to the other part of the clause, you see it provided ' that if any such case voter's lists have been prepared under this section not more than

one year before tbe day fixed for tbe nomination,' and so on. Why have it a year before the writ in one case, and a year before the nomination in the other case ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The only change here is in the proviso. The reason it is put in this form is, that the proviso will only apply to the lists prepared under the Dominion government, and these lists are made in view of an election immediately pending, and they come into force on the day of the writ. I am willing to make the proviso apply to the date of nomination, thus making the two parts of the section agree. I move that the words ' the day fixed for the nomination of candidates ' in the ninth line of page 2 of the Bill, be struck out, and the words ' the day of the writ of such election ' be substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I propose to alter the amendment made by the Solicitor General in this way :
The duty of the deputy returning officer during polling hours to accept and give a receipt for and file among the documents of his polling division, any written protest concerning anything done or being done in the poll, and handed in to him by the candidate or any one legally representing him in the poll.
I will lay tills before the Solicitor General, so that lie may look at it before the third reading.
Bill reported.



THE SAFETY OF SHIPS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND r ISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved that certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 92) to further amend the Act respecting the safety of ships, be concurred in. He said :	I saw the gentlemen in the Senate who are connected with the shipping interests and who proposed that the law should he in the direction of affording greater protection to shippers. The law lias stood for many years, and there is a strong objection against deckloads on ships going to Great Britain or to the northern part of Europe, and from time to time amendments were made taking out of that prohibition certain parts of the world such as Newfoundland, the United States of America, St. Pierre or Miquelon, the West Indies and South America. It was brought to my attention that some of our ships will be going to | Australia and carrying deck-loads, and some of our ships will be going to tlie Cape of Good Hope and carrying deck-loads, and others will he competing with the United States in the wood trade in the Mediterranean sea. It was suggested by a large number of senators, and in the suggestion
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I concur, that it would be better to confine the limitation entirely to the 'British Isles and to the northern ports of Europe, so that there will be no prohibition upon deck-loads to any other part of the world except the British Isles and to the northern parts of Europe, and in that case our ships will be able to compete on an equal footing and without discrimination with the ships sailing from Boston, Portland and elsewhere. It does seem to me, when you come to think it over, unfair to prohibit a ship from carrying six feet of deck-load to the Cape of Good Hope or to a point in the Mediterranean sea, neither of which voyages are dangerous, while you permit them to go to any part of South America, or to the West Indies, or to Newfoundland. The amendment, therefore, they suggested would be simply to confine the prohibition to ships .sailing to a port in the British Isles or to a port in Europe north of Cape Finisterre, not being a port in the Mediterranean. The meaning of that would be that the limitation upon the deck-load carried would he confined entirely to ships sailing to the British Isles and to ports in Europe north of Cape Finisterre, but not including any part of the Mediterranean sea.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: The result would be this, that a ship going to Jamaica


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Would not be under the operation of that Act.


William Ross: Whereas one going to Cuba


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Would not be under tbe operation. If tlie amendment is accepted, there would be no prohibition upon deckloads carried by our ships to any part of the world except they are going to the British Isles or to a northern port in Europe.


Mr. KAULBACIT.: May I suggest to the minister that the words ' British Isles ' might be misunderstood. Of course we understand them to mean Great Britain and Ireland, but they might be interpreted by some persons to mean the West India islands. Would it not be well to put in parenthesis (meaning Great Britain and Ireland) ? The Isle of Man would be included.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES, lit is a nice point that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) raises. There is no doubt that colloquially the phrase which is used is plain enough, but whether technically it would be considered in the way in which it is intended is a question worthy of consideration. I presume that the term ' British Isles' would mean Great Britain and Ireland in the colloquial sense,

and I presume the Senate have used it iu this sense. It did not strike me until the hon. member for Lunenburg raised the point. I should like to consider it. I think it would be advisable to amend it as the hon. gentleman raises a doubt, and I would suggest that it be amended so as to read : * In the United Kingdom or In the continent of Europe.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would that include Guernsey and Jersey ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland would be the proper designation.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I would move, in deference to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach), to strike out the words ' British Isles,' and insert in lieu ' the United Kingdom.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that include the Channel Islands ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I presume it would.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Would that include Jersey,	Guernsey, Alderney and Sark	?The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. These are the Channel Islands. If it does not include these, I do not suppose that any of our ships ever go with a deck-load there, but it is better to make it beyond peradventure. The United Kingdom is the phrase always used in our legislation, and we never single out the Channel Islands by special designation. I beg to move :
That the first amendment made by the Senate be amended by striking out the words ' British Isles ' and inserting ' the United Kingdom,' and that the other part of the amendment be agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The next amendment of the Senate is one which relates more to the form than to the substance, and I do not think they have improved the form of the Bill as It was. The law has now been in its present form for many years. It is thoroughly well understood by shippers, shipmasters, customs officers, and those who are called upon to construe the statute, and the Senate, without attempting to make any change in the substance, recast the form of the Bill, and I think, after going over it a great many times and understanding the intention, they have not expressed it as clearly as the same Intention was expressed in the old statute. After considering it very carefully with my officers and those accustomed to construe the statute, I have come to the conclusion to advise the House uot to accept the amendment, because I think the old statute, under the circumstances, is perfectly plain. The Senate have uot attempted to make any alterations, but they have recast the form of the Bill, and I do not think they have made it any plainer than before, but, -in point of fact, I think it Is a little more obscure. I move that the amendment he disagreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman, for the information of the House, read the section ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The section, as they amend ed it, is as follows :
No master of any sailing ship,	
on a voyage from any port or place in Canada to any port or place in the British Isles, or in the continent of Europe north of Cape Finis-terre in Spain, not being a port or place within the Mediterranean Sea, and during the voyage while within Canadian jurisdiction, shall place or cause or permit to be placed or to remain upon

And then the Senate amendment comes in : -any space where the deck of such ship is not closed in any cargo of any description to a height exceeding three feet above the deck; or upon any uncovered space upon the upper deck, or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the registered tonnage of such ship,-
(a)	Any square, round, waney or other timber;
(b)	Any more than five spare spars, or store spars made, dressed and finally prepared for use, or not so dressed and prepared ;
(c)	Any cargo of any description to a height exceeding three feet above the deck, in any space where the deck of such ship is not closed in ;
(d)	Any deals, battens or other light wood goods of any description to a height exceeding three feet above the deck, in any space where the deck of such ship is closed in ;
That is the amendment made by the Senate, and I understand that the object of their amendment was to carry out 'the idea contained in the present Bill, hut it does not carry it out In language as plain -as that contained in th'e present Bill. The present Bill reads that no master :
-shall place, or cause or permit to be placed or to remain upon, any uncovered space upon the upper deck or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the registered tonnage of such ship,-
(a)	Any square, round, waney or other timber;
(b)	Any more than five spare spars, or store spars made, dressed and Anally prepared for use, or not so dressed, and prepared;
It is absolutely prohibitive by the present Act ' in any covered space or any uncovered space.' Then,, subsection (c) reads :
(c)	Any cargo of any description to a height exceeding three feet above the deck, in any space where the deck of such ship is not closed in ;
(d)	Any deals, battens or other light wood goods of any description to a height ex-

ceeding three feet above the deck, in any space where the deck of such ship is closed in ;
In respect to closed in spaces the prohibition is confined to deals, battens or other light goods, and not higher than three feet, and in places where the deck is not closed in to cargo of any description, wood or otherwise exceeding three feet above the deck. I have consulted very carefully with the officers of the department who have been construing the law, and I am strongly inclined to leave the section as it has been for many years, and as it is well understood.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of the Senate amendment ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Their object is the same as in the Bill which passed this House, but they put it in different words.


Robert Laird Borden: It would almost seem to me that the arrangement of the Senate is a little more logical than the arrangement of the words in the Bill as we passed it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I thought so at first, but I went over it carefully a number of times, and I am convinced that it is plainer and simpler as it stands. When one wants to know what is prohibited and what is not, ho finds that in subsections (a) and (b), the articles that are prohibited in any part of the ship; he finds in subsection (c) the prohibited articles in uninclosed spaces, and he finds in subsection (d) the prohibited articles in inclosed spaces.


Robert Laird Borden: The difliculty I have about the Bill in the form in which we originally passed it. is this. You have the main section which says that during certain voyages you shall not place certain goods in a certain portion of the ship. Then follow the subsections which are supposed to be governed by these words, but when you come to the subsections you will find that the description of that portion of the ship to which the subsections are to apply is qualified in certain of the subsections themselves. It seems to me that it is for the purpose of remedying that difficulty that the Senate have made this amendment. They have taken subclause (c) and dealt with that in the main section itself, and then they have endeavoured to so frame the main section that it shall be applicable in its entirety to the three subsections which follow it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It struck me in identically the same way, but the hon. gentleman will see that they cannot carry that out because they leave in subsection (d).


Robert Laird Borden: I notice that.


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They only succeeded in half doing it, and they leave it worse than before.


Robert Laird Borden: If they had pursued their amendment to subsection (d), I think it would improve the Bill.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would accept it willingly then, but I do not see how that can be done.
Mr. IvATJLBACH. Do they limit the number of spars carried on the deck to five.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That has always been the case.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It would depend on the size of the ship as to what spars would be carried. I suppose a royal yard or a topsail yard would be called spars, and in some cases they would be required to carry more than five spars.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: This law does not seem to cover the case of ships which have different elevations of deck. Where there is a well deck it would be safe to carry a deck-load of nine feet; whereas on other parts of the same ship it would not be safe to carry a deck-load of over three or four feet. It would seem from this Act that uncovered spaces are to be reduced to three feet, and covered in spaces will be three feet also, whereas the uncovered spaces would allow in some ships a deck-load of nine feet to correspond to a deck-load of three feet on other ships. This would depend on the construction of the ship." It would be unsafe in some ships to carry a three feet deck-load, while on others you could carry a nine foot deck-load with perfect safety.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) says is perfectly true, but we are not legislating with a free hand here. We have the British mercantile law before us, and we are obliged to follow the lines of the British legislation. We cannot declare that three and a half feet or four feet should be carried, because if a vessel sailed from Canada with a larger deck-load than the British law allows she would be stopped on entering a British port. So far as Great Britain and Ireland is concerned, I am obliged to have the law in accordance with the British statute. In the rest of the world where I am not so fettered it is regulated according to the size of the ship. Amendment negatived.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: With regard to the third amendment where they leave out the word ' wood,' I am prepared to accept that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The next amendment is an important one. The shipping interests in the Senate were united in the opinion that the prohibition which has prevailed for some years with respect to the West Indies trade should he removed. I am not prepared to oppose the wishes of the shipping interests in that regard. Dear knows they have enough to put up with at present with competition and everything of that kind. There is no British legislation which stands in the way here, and we propose in this case to eliminate the distinction.
Mr.	BORDEN (Halifax). Is there no
legislation in the West Indies which interferes with us ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. The	next	amendment	is on
page 2, line 39. There the penal clause of the Act as it now stands is to be amended so as to make that penal clause conform to the changed conditions. It will not apply now to the West Indies. There is no other change. The prohibition which formerly applied to the Mediterranean, South Africa and Australia, does not apply, and the penal clause is made to conform to the other changes made. In this amendment the phraseology is changed in the same way as in the first section. I move to strike out the words ' British Isles ' and insert in their place the words ' United Kingdom.'
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Railways-Chargeable to Capital-Intercolonial Railway-Rolling stock, $2,000,000.
['We on this side of the House desire to extend to the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his followers our thanks. We hardly thought that we were justified in asking for an adjournment of the House, but, as the right hon. gentleman has been considerate enough to offer it, we can only say that we are very much obliged for the courtesy.']
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Included in this vote, in addition to the matters we were discussing yesterday, are 350 box and platform cars, which are under contract with the Crossen Car Company; 17 refrigerator cars, which are under contract with Rhodes, Curry & Company ; 1.099 box cars and 20 conductor's vans, which are not yet under contract. The air-brakes, bolsters, and so forth for these different cars are included in this vote. In round figures, this will account for $1,780,000 of the $2,000,000. The balance is made up of some first-class cars, dining cars and sleepers, with the car for the use of the Royal party on the Intercolonial Railway.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: This includes the contract with the Kingston Locomotive Company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $1,400,000 will cover the freight ears and $380,000 the locomotives. The balance is for the passenger cars and the cars connected with the passenger trains.


Robert Laird Borden: How many refrigerator cars does the hon. gentleman propose to have ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Seventeen.


Robert Laird Borden: Will they be available for the purposes of an industry which .is rapidly increasing between the maritime and western provinces-the sale of fresh fish ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, they, were really bought chiefly for that business.
Mr. BORiDEN (Halifax). No doubt the hon. gentleman's attention has been directed to a report of the committee of the local legislature on this industry. In that report they say that the character of the refrigerator cars on the * Intercolonial Railway is severely criticised by certain shippers and that the traffic manager of the Intercolonial Railway said this would be remedied shortly, as the department bad under contract a large number which were being built on the most improved pattern.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These are the cars under contract and we expect an early delivery.


Robert Laird Borden: In connection with this important question, the committee also recommended that every effort should he made to shorten the time of through freight trains running between Mill-grave and Montreal and secure close connection with points west of Montreal. Is that engaging the attention of -the department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has been dealt witli within the past month or six weeks. We have put on an express freight train from Mul-grave to Montreal with connections to Halifax and St. John, and I think we have reduced the time to the narrowest possible limit under existing conditions.


John Graham Haggart: I see that this contract with Rhodes, 0007 & Company was entered into on November 5th, ^1900, for the supply of 1,000 box cars at $718.75 each. Were open tenders advertised for 7 The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I do not know whether tenders were advertised, but circulars were sent, to the Rathbun, the -C-rossens and the other great builders. The' -lowest tender was the price at which the cars were contracted for. There were several tenders. We gave the Rathbuns and the Crossens a portion, and Rhodes, Curry & Company a

portion, but upon tbe basis of the lowest price offered.


John Graham Haggart: Have you a copy of the circulars and the tenders ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not got them here.


John Graham Haggart: It is suspicious that the date of the contract was very close to the date of the contract made with the Clergue Company and these parties at Kingston-a couple of days before the election. It Ss an enormous quantity of cars, 1,000 at one time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not got enough yet,


John Graham Haggart: I see that the Intercolonial Railway furnished a good portion of the articles that went into the construction of the cars-bolsters and some other things. Would the minister give us the articles that the Intercolonial Railway furnished, and the value.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The' price at which the cars were tendered for by the Crossen Company is $810. Rhodes, Curry & Company tendered at $825. In addition to the tenders for the oars, the department reserved to itself the right to indicate tbe particular class of bolsters and other appliances that should be used. These are special classes of appliances that are being used by the different railways, and, I presume, are covered by patents. They are regarded as improvements and are only obtainable from the one quarter. There is no difference in the price at which they are to be had, and what the Intercolonial Railway has to do is to say we require such and such a bolster, and whatever it costs in the market is added to the price at which the cars were tendered.
I have not a copy of the circular. The Simplex body bolster is that which is in use. The Fox trucks are the trucks used, so that you would have to add the price of the bolsters and the Fox trucks.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps I will give the minister the extra material furnished by the government. He is paying $718.75 per car at least under the contract. The hon. gentleman says tenders were in the neighbourhood of $800.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Crossen Company's tender was $810 for the car.


John Graham Haggart: And Rhodes, Curry & Co. ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Theirs was $825.


John Graham Haggart: And Mr. Rathbun, of Deseronto ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He did not have any tender in.


Mr. BLAIR.: We gave him a portion of the order on the same terms as the others.


John Graham Haggart: And what would be added to this $718.75 in material furnished by the government to bring it up to $810 ? I suppose the government furnished them the Simplex body bolsters. What was the jjrice of these ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was $21.


John Graham Haggart: Then, there is the Simplex truck bolster, which is added also ; what is the price of that ? It would be better if the minister would just furnish us with the amount of the material and cost price of it that the government furnished the contractors besides this $718.75.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can furnish that later.


John Graham Haggart: And there is another item on which we can discuss this matter ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: My information is, that the government furnished five articles -Simplex body bolsters, truck bolsters, draw-bars from Detroit, which the hon. minister told us last night cost $25 per car, Westingliouse air-brakes, about $40. and draw-bar springs, $2. I would like to know how it is that the Crossen Company are given about $30 or $40 more for a car than Rhodes, Curry & Co. ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think they are.


John Graham Haggart: I find by the papers that $747.50 is paid for box cars in one case, and $718.75 in the other. I will send the papers over to the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The department was instructed to divide the order among these car manufacturers in Canada, but, to allow no increased price to one over another. Possibly something may have been allowed to the Orossens, because they would have to deliver at Montreal, whereas Rhodes, Curry & Co. would deliver on the Intercolonial Railway line at their works.


William Findlay Maclean: The difference is shown in the eudorsation on the contracts. I would like the hon. minister to tell us why he pays more to one concern than lie does to the other ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a matter of detail, the explanation of which I have not at hand at the moment.


William Ross: Perhaps the government supplies more material in one case than in the other.

421S


William Findlay Maclean: That may be the reason, but whatever it is, the minister can tell us.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will ascertain and let the hon. gentleman know.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister stated that he had invited tenders by circular letter, and not by public advertisement in the papers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is my impression.


John Graham Haggart: We would like to get the circular letters, and the answers to them. Then, as to the amount which is asked by the hon. gentleman for rolling-stock for next year, which is an enormous sum, we would like to have the promise that we had last year, that all these supplies will be called for by open letter and not bycircular. The promise given us last year was, that this should be by open tender.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) be good enough to tell me what particular advantage there is in spending $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 in advertising when there are only a limited number of people engaged in this business ? I do not know of any firm but these three that manufacture these cars in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: I will tell the hon. minister why he should spend a little money in advertising these tenders.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: From the newspaper point of view, I suppose.


William Findlay Maclean: No, not from the newspaper point of view. If you put the advertisement in one public newspaper, I shall be satisfied. There may be factories that are doing very little in their own line which are not car factories, but which might be easily diverted to that business, and which would go into the building of cars if they knew that the work was to be done. But, they never heard of it. There should be at least one public advertisement for such enormous contracts, instead of awarding them- as is admitted by the hon. minister-merely on a circular calling for tenders. I do -not think it is in the public interest to merely send out circulars when such immense supplies are needed. Even if it is to cost $3,000 or $4,000, it would- be better to spend that money. But, that is not necessary. One advertisement in each province ought to be sufficient. Or why not put it in the Canada Gazette ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Nobody ever sees that.


William Findlay Maclean: Certainly, nobody ever sees the minister's circulars except his own intimate friends, and I want the public to
be able to see the advertisement. I think we shall have to put a resolution on record ' that this House is of opinion that large contracts of this character should not be let without tenders being called for by public advertisements.' I am surprised to hear a minister of a Liberal government, after all we heard in the past in regard to the way contracts were let by the Conservatives, stand up here and justify this way of letting these immense contracts. I now enter my protest against any further contracts being let by mere circular instead of by public advertisement. In saying that, I do not wish to see a -waste of money in advertising ; I would be satisfied if one prominent newspaper is taken in whicli to advertise tenders.
To provide a feeding and watering place for
stock, $5,500.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We want to make arrangements at some suitable point on the Intercolonial Railway where cattle cars can be stopped and the cattle can be fed and watered. We have no such facility now, and it is almost inhuman to go longer without such accommodation. We have not decided upon the point exactly, that will be a point in regard to which the traffic and engineering departments will have to confer.


John Graham Haggart: This is the last item, I suppose, on Railways and Canals in the main estimates, chargeable to capital. I desire to discuss the whole question later; I suppose the minister intends to make a statement in reference to the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When we come to the general vote, I have no objection to a discussion of the whole question.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister tell what day ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. member knows as well as I do. But I hope that early next week we ought to be able to get to the general items. We can take up the item in the supplementary estimates later for maintenance and operation, and have a debate upon that.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount required for locomotives, freight and passenger cars ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have a sum in the su-pple-mentaries for that purpose.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must have an estimate of the total amount required, either this year, or next year, or the year after. What is the total amount he requires to put the railway on such a basis as he intends ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have made up these amounts just as rapidly as I could to meet the demands. 1 may have occasion to ask for more, possibly this amount may not suffice. I do not want to limit myself by making a statement which would be quoted against me in the future. 1 am not aware that any large sum will be required for freight cars in the future, but there may be. The votes that are now asked for ill the main and supplementaries I think cover all that is apparently required for this year. I do not know that I will be making any similar demand for next year, but I would not like to say now that I will not. I am speaking of freight cars now.


John Graham Haggart: The appropriation for 1900-1901, $3,505,S02, I suppose that has all been expended ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has all been either expended or contracted for.
Prince Edward Island Railway-To increase length of sidings, ?5,000.


Edward Hackett: Would the hon. gentleman state where these sidings are ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not a memo, of the precise places, but that will be determined on later according to tlve more pressing needs of the service. We will not be able to provide for all the sidings this year.


Edward Hackett: There are some sidings already on the railway. 1 know on the western part of Prince Edward Island between Summerslde and Tignish there is a great want of more siding accommodation. There is considerable freight handled there, and people are asking for an extension of the sidings. Now, 1 asked the .minister a day or two ago, when the government intended to place a second train between Summerslde and Tignish for the accommodation of people residing west of Summer-side. That is the best paying part of the Prince Edward Island Railway; the minister knows that, and his deputy will tell him so. On the opening of navigation when the mails are carried by the steamships from Point du Chene to Summerslde, there should be a second train to carry these mails west, and there should be a mail clerk on the steamboat to assort the mails so that the mails west of Summerside might be ready to go by train. At present we are deprived west of Summerside of having our mails on the same evening. If we had a second train the mails would be taken west of Summerside and distributed the next morning, while under the present arrangement they do not arrive for twenty-four hours after they leave Summerside. I would say that in the dawn of this 20th century it is too bad for people living only sixty miles or so west of Summerside to be


John Graham Haggart: deprived of tlieir mails for twenty-four hours. This is a day of rapid transit and great despatch, and people there are labouring under great difficulties when they dud their mails, instead of being despatched in that way, are sent to Charlottetown where they lay over night and then come by train the next morning, and the people do not receive tlieir mails until tlie following evening. I know this is a matter more especially concerning tlie Post Office 'Department, but I presume if the Post office Department asked the hon. gentleman for a second train he would grant it. But I would ask him in the interests of commerce and of the business west of Sum-merside, not only in the interest of the people there, but iu the interest of the railway itself, to put on a second train, commencing immediately when the boats cross the Strait of Northumberland from Point du Cheue to Summerside. We have there a large fislilng industry, aud large fishing interests. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries will understand thoroughly well the condition of affairs west of Summerside. Mr. Tidmarsh, who is a strong Liberal, represents a packing company, and has large interests there, and be wants this communication. There is R. T. Holman, in Summerside, who is another strong Liberal, and who desires this communication. Mr. My rick, of .Tignish, wants it. The board of trade, composed of active, wide-awake businessmen of Charlottetown and Summerside, I think, have petitioned tlie bon. minister to have a second train placed upon the road this season, commencing with the opening of navigation. It is now the first day of May. The hon. minister told me the other day that a second train would be placed on tlie road on the 20tli of May. There are now only twenty days to elapse before .this will be done. It is most important to the people of tlie western part of Prince Edward Island that they should have this second train and I would ask the hon. minister if he could see his way clear to at once put it on. He said that there is no business to warrant it. I have shown that there is business to warrant it in that section of the country, and I would ask him if he will now order a second train to be placed on the road between Summerside and Tignish.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will take the opportunity to confer with tlie staff and see what can be done to comply with the hon. gentleman's request. I wiil do that at once. I would not undertake to say to the hon. gentleman that we will do that now, because I do not act in matters of that kind unless I get opinions from those in the service who are competent to advise me. While I would be most desirous to afford every possible accommodation that the public need requires, I would not take it upon myself, with-

out ascertaining what the opinions of those engaged in the service are. to announce a decision now. The hon. gentleman realizes,
I apprehend, the reasonableness of what I say.


Edward Hackett: Did the hon. gentleman receive a petition from the Boards of Trade asking for this second train ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot recollect whether the petitions came to me, although I would not speak definitely on that point. Possibly they may have come. How long since was it ?'


Edward Hackett: About ten days ago.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have had nothing on that subject within ten days.


Edward Hackett: I see by the press that the Board of Trade of Charlottetown inem-oralized the government, asking to have this second train put on between Summerside and Tignish. These gentlemen are engaged in commerce. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will know that Mr. Sayard is one of the most prominent business men of Charlottetown who is interested in having this train. Mr. Tidmarsh is another, Mr. Longworth is another, so that all these leading men of Charlottetown are interested, especially because of the large fishing industry west of Summerside which requires this accommodation. Now, the hon. gentleman purposes to place this train on the 20th May. The track is there, the hon. gentleman has men to work the engines and run the trains, and there is no difficulty in placing the second train on immediately. He has all the appurtenances to do the work that are required. The enterprising people of West Prince, who are developing the industries of that part of the country, who are working day and night to make a living for themselves and their families, require this accommodation on the first day of May that they are going to receive on the 20th of May. This is the crucial period. Now is the time when the men are going out to work in the lobster factories and in the fisheries along the coast, and now is the time when they" should have the accommodation that they are asking for. I trust the hon. gentleman will see that this accommodation is afforded without first waiting to consult the superintendent of the Prince Edward Island Railway, because he has his chief engineer here, i trust that he will promise now. for the purpose of expediting the public business, because I do not want to take up any time in connection with this matter, that he will put this train on the road immediately. If the hon. gentleman will put a second train on this part of the railway he will give the commercial interests of Summerside and Charlottetown the accommodation that they require.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS'AND CANALS. I will give it as favourable consideration as possible. The hon. gentleman must know that in all railway operations there are certain seasons in which it is found most expedient and most in the interests of the railway service, as well as of the public, to change our trains. These periods have been found, after many years' experience, to be the best suited to the purpose, and, having been recognized by our experience and practice heretofore, I would not undertake to say off-hand that it would be expedient to change that usage. I do say, however, that I will give it as favour- . able consideration as possible, and I think the hon. gentleman must be satisfied with that.


Edward Hackett: Well, of course, I must be satisfied with whatever the hon. minister says. As I said before, we are now on the threshold of the twentieth century. The people of the western part of Prince Edward Island were the first to move in connection with the building of the railway, and they are the most neglected of any people on Prince Edward Island. They are neglected in this way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You were speaking of the Charlottetown business people a moment ago.


Edward Hackett: Yes, Sir, these business men in Charlottetown and the eastern part of the province have interests west of Summerside. On the success of their business depends largely the interests of the people of West Prince. If these people who have enterprise are going to develop the resources of that part of the country they should have some assistance from the government. Take the men from Charlottetown. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if he will listen to me for a moment, will know them. Take Mr. Wallace Longworth, who has factories at West Point. He does an extensive business. He is twelve miles from the railway. He must have his mails, and he waits each evening for these mails to arrive. They go to Charlottetown first, a distance of fifty miles, are there assorted and sent back next morning, and he will receive them on the following evening. At this time of advancement this is not in keeping with what we should have in Canada. We had great difficulty last winter in connection with this part of the railway. I brought the matter up in this honourable House some time ago. pointing out that for twelve days, at Tignish. in the western part of the country, we had no train. I was told that it was on account of the severe snowstorms that prevailed. AVhat did I see in the newspapers ? I saw that which convinced me that this was not a sufficient excuse for the stopping of these trains, because there were plenty of men I in that section of the country who would

have keen glad of a day's work shovelling snow, and of an opportunity of earning a dollar from this government. In order that it might be shown that we are living in a cold country, the superintendent of this railway was there with an artist and his kodac taking snapshots of the snow banks along the railway.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Does the hon. gentleman deny that there were the largest snow banks there ever known in the western end of the island. What is the use of denying the facts ?
* Mr. HACKETT. There were large snow banks, but there were large snow banks there in previous years also. For twenty years that railway has been operated and never before were the people of the western part of the province deprived of their mails and freight for twelve days.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Were there not hundreds of men employed there shovelling snow all the time. The hon. gentleman does not, I am sure, want to misrepresent the facts to the House, and I appeal to his sense of fair-play. Does he not believe that the superintendent used every possible exertion to get the road clear of snow, and that hundreds of men were employed ?


Edward Hackett: My information is that the superintendent said there was no money at his disposal to employ men. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I do know that while the superintendent was short of funds at that time, that previous to the election he had plenty of money to weed out the thistles and weeds growing along that line. They had hundreds of men employed along the line from Tignisli to Souris. These weeds and thistles along the line never gave any trouble before, but just before the election men were employed pulling them out so as to influence them in favour of the government candidates. When I was canvassing in October last, I came to a railway station, and I saw some thirty or forty mein sitting around having their lunch.
I went to a friend of mine and asked what the men were doing, and he told me they were weeding out the thistles and that I should see if some of my men were there and And out how they were going to vote.
I went among these men and I knew every one of them. I found that they were chiefly Liberals. There were the weak-kneed Liberals who were asked for some work previous to the election, and who if they did not receive that work might have voted against the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You would have them do such a calamitous thing as that ?


Edward Hackett: We have more calamitous things than that, and you will find some


Edward Hackett: calamities occur very shortly. I found that some of these men were Conservatives, and I asked them: How are you going to vote ? They told me that neighbour So and So came to them and said that they could get work on the railway. I said : Did they ask you for your vote, and they replied : Yes, we were told that if we would vote for the government candidate we would get work on the government railway. Two of these men were Conservatives to my knowledge, and they possibly voted against me. They were poor men who were looking for a day's work and they accepted the offer of the agents of the government. The money that should have been expended io clearing the snow from the track was expended for the purpose of securing support for the government candidates not only in West Prince but in East Prince as well. If the minister wants to do justice to the people of West Prince and in order that we) may expedite business, I hope he may see his way clear to order two trains a day.


George William Fowler: I wish to ask the minister a question with reference to a matter that has passed. What is the name of the owner of the land near St. John which is proposed to be taken for railway purposes ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not the faintest idea.


George William Fowler: I had an inquiry as to who was the owner. You do not know ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not.
To straighten -line near Blue Shank, $10,000. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. I see you expended $3,000 last year and you ask $10,000 this year. How much will it shorten the line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Taking away the three very sharp curves it will shorten the line about 1,000 feet. There are six curves altogether in that distance. Any one who knows just what six curves in a thousand feet mean will be ready to assent to the proposition that the line should be straightened at that point.


John Graham Haggart: How long is the new line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a thousand feet we are straightening.


John Graham Haggart: We gain a thousand feet, but what is the total length ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Less than 10,000 feet.


Edward Hackett: Is this not the place where an accident occurred last year and where the engine driver was killed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think not.


Edward Hackett: I think it is. I was over the lime a day or two afterwards, and I saw the remains of the wreck and it was there where the engine driver was killed. Was the section foreman who had been employed by the late! government previous to 1896, the section foreman who had charge of the track when this accident occurred ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like the hon. gentleman to ask me something easy.


Edward Hackett: The minister always likes to have something easy. My information is that there had been a change of section foreman, that the new man in charge of the section was incapable and that the accident occurred and the man killed in consequence of the track being run down and neglected. That may not be an easy question for the minister to answer, but I can tell him that since 1874 that curve was on the Prince Edward Island Railway and no accident occurred previous to that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is always a first time you know.


Edward Hackett: There is always a first time, and it makes an excuse for a man who does not wish to do what is right and keep at work the experienced men who understand the track. In West Prince there was not a good man on that section of the line but was ruthlessly dismissed by this government-what for ? Not in the interest of the railway nor in the public interest, but for the purpose of giving employment to their own heelers and camp followers, who followed them around and worked for them during the elections. They care nothing for the life and limbs and property of the public. I say it should be publicly condemned that this railway should be placed under the control of party heelers and camp followers, and the lives and limbs of our people endangered. And yet the minister says, Ask me something easy.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think I may fairly say that I know something of the appointments which have been made on the Prince Edward Island Railway since 1896, and I say unhesitatingly that there never has been a section foreman changed for political reasons since 1896 ; I do not know what took place before that. The section foremen have all been retained ; and if any have been dismissed, it must have been for purely railway reasons, and not for political reasons. The hon. gentleman knows that some of the railway trackmasters have been there since 1874, as well as all the leading officials. The great complaint in Prince Edward Island is, that Tories have been allowed to remain in almost all the offices.


Edward Hackett: I know what I am talking about.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Give me the name of one section foreman who has been dismissed for political reasons.


Edward Hackett: I will give the names of two who were dismissed for no other reason than that they were Conservatives : Peter L. Cliesson, between Tignish and Al-berton, and Robert McLean, between Al-berton and Bloomfield. Put their names down. I could go along the whole line between Summerside and Tignish, and give, not only the names of foremen, but experienced workmen, sectionmen and labourers, who were dismissed, and others put in their place. It is a shameful and disgraceful thing ; and yet, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says, Ask me something easy.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has not given me the information I asked for : what is the distance between the two points ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I told the hon. gentleman between 8,000 and 10,000 feet.


John Graham Haggart: And you have shortened it a few feet, and reduced some of the gradients at this particular point V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The grade is maintained, but we are reducing the curvature.
To provide and lay steel rails and fastenings,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This item is an error, which occurred in transferring the figures to the printed estimates. It ought to be $36,000. I shall have to take the other $30,000 in the supplementary estimates. We are proposing to put on the Island railway the 56-pound rails which we are taking up from the Drummond County Railway, and which are very superior rails, and in excellent condition. We are charging these rails at the same price at which we credit the Intercolonial account.


John Graham Haggart: That is, $15 a ton, is it not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, these rails are put in at $26. There will be 2,750 tons of these, which, at $26 a ton, amount to $76,200 ; and we credit the old rails which we take up at $12 a ton ; so that the difference will be $14 a ton.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, the rails on the Prince Edward Island Railway must have cost us about $90 a ton, and they were the finest rails ever laid on a track. I found out to-day for the first time that the steel rails taken from the Drummond County Railway were credited to the stores account of the Intercolonial,



at $26 a ton. I was making my calculations on all tlie rails supplied or renewed on tlie Intercolonial, at $15 a ton, and I would like tlie minister to give the exact quantities of both, and tlie amounts credited in the stores account.
Prince Edward Island Railway-To provide machinery, $5,000.


Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: Wliat machinery Is wanted ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are doing our repairs in the workshops at Charlottetown, and we require to put in some additional machinery, in the shape of planers, mortisers, bolt cutters, boring machines, rail cutters, and a compressed air plant, &c.


John Graham Haggart: When I was looking at the shops there I thought there was machinery enough. All your serious repairs should be made at Moncton. It is a waste of money to have extensive repair shops for a little railway like that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The bon. gentleman is not correct in that statement. I selected two or three competent people a year or so ago to visit the shops at Charlottetown and make their report. They reported to me favourably on the shops-that they were doing very good work and had excellent mechanics. They turned out and put on the road some very superior cars. We are able to get our work done there just as cheaply as at Moncton, if not more cheaply. With some little additional machinery, these works will be in the first-class condition. We employ many of the island people, and I see no reason why we should not, if they are capable of giving proper service.


Edward Hackett: I wish to express my approval of this item. You will get as good value in Charlottetown as at any other place in Canada. We have skilled artisans there who turn out as good cars as can be found any where.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Have there not been very superior cars turned out there this past year ?


Edward Hackett: Yes, I was surprised that such cars could be turned out.


George William Fowler: On March 1, I placed the following motion on the notice paper :
Copies of all orders in council, correspondence, evidence, finding of coroners, jury reports, papers and documents of every kind whatsoever in relation to the deaths of Bridget and Margaret Graham, wife and daughter of Bartholomew Graham, of Norton, King's county, N.B., who were killed at the Intercolonial Railway crossing at Norton station on the 3rd day of June, A.D. 1900.
This motion was unfortunately not reached, and I would like to ask the hon. minister Mr. HAGGART.
if he will bring down the information required V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.
Murray Bay harbour branch and Hillsboro' bridge, P.E.I., $450,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimated cost of the substructure is $375,000. The cost altogether will be $450,000. Eleven and a half miles of road are under construction, and thirty-two miles have yet to he constructed. The eleven and a half miles have cost close to $43,000, and we estimate that the total cost will be $170,000. Adding that to the estimated cost of the $450,000, will give $660,000. The $450,000 Is what will suffice for the coming year.


Edward Hackett: What proportion Is paid by the Island government, and does the government of the Dominion provide driveways on either side of the railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There will be an ample driveway. Under the arrangement with the Prince Edward Island government, they pay us an annual allowance of $10,000. We furnish sufficient accommodation for foot aud vehicular traffic.


Edward Hackett: Are tlie approaches maintained by the island government ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All that they undertake to do is to furnish the planking upon the roadway of the bridge. The approaches are not being planked, but will be gravelled or macadamized.


Edward Hackett: It will be quite a long bridge, and have considerable traffic. AYho will pay the cost of lighting ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My recollection is the island government provides for the lighting, and inasmuch as they are collecting tolls for the passenger and vehicular traffic, their toll collector will also look after the bridge and see that proper protection is afforded when trains are crossing.


Edward Hackett: I understood the hon. minister to say that he was taking over the old bridge from the Miramichi river.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are taking over the spans of the Miramichi bridge and putting them across this river on the superstructure. The hon. gentleman speaks of it as an old bridge, hut it is not at all an inferior bridge, but just as well fitted for the purpose and just as good as if it just came out of the shop. The bridge will he entirely satisfactory to everybody.


Edward Hackett: This bridge taken from the Miramichi river Is twenty-five or thirty

years old, and was not sufficient for the service there. It was known to be antiquated and out of date.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not out of date.


Edward Hackett: It was of no further service in New Brunswick.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman must not ignore the fact that the Miramichi bridge is a good bridge. I could hardly set a limit to the life of such a bridge, but I believe that it would be perfectly good long after the hon. gentleman and his grandchildren have passed away, if we only have to use it for the same weight of trains and traffic as we have to-day. But I suppose that the hon. gentleman is arguing on the assumption that the traffic on the Prince Edward Island Railway will not at any period in the future need much heavier trains than we are now operating on the road. There is no question of inferiority in the bridge.


Edward Hackett: This bridge was built for a single track. But in Prince Edward Island, besides the railway track, you need a driveway on either side for carriages. How are you going to make this old bridge -perhaps I may be pardoned for speaking of it as an old bridge


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do not speak of it in a contemptuous way.


Edward Hackett: Well, I will not-but bow are you going to provide room for this driveway ? Are you going to roll out the iron again to make it wider, or are you going to patch it up ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Surely the hon. gentleman does not imagine that there will be any difficulty in making the bridge wider. It will only be necessary to have longer cross beams and support. The span, the truss-all that portion of the structure is equally good, and will remain intact. The hon. gentleman did not catch what I said the other night- that there will be two methods, by either of which accommodation for foot-passengers and vehicles could be provided. One is by throwing out iron supports on either side so as to provide on one side a way for teams going in one direction and on the other side a way for teams going in the other direction ; the other is to widen the span and have the track so laid that you could have a carriage track on either side, or lay the track so as to have the driveway on one side. I do not see any difficulty about it, but I cannot say what method has been determined upon. A year or so ago we had various plans prepared, and the subject was gone over with the gentlemen representing the Prince Edward Island government. They criticised everything very
closely-I will say that for them-they were a little difficult to please ; but we succeeded ultimately, I think, in satisfying all their expectations and demands.


Edward Hackett: I suppose that is all right. I would like to know, in this connection, whether there will be any division or fence between the driveway and the rails ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think not.
Some resolutions reported.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I understand that our friends of the opposition have a sitting of their own to-night, and that if we should sit here we should miss their criticism. Therefore, I move that the House adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: We on this side of the House desire to extend to the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his followers our thanks. We hardly thought that we were justified in asking for an adjournment of the House, but, as the right hon. gentleman has been considerate enough to offer it, we can only say that we are very much obliged for the courtesy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 2, 1901.