CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS-NORTH BRUCE.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Sir John Boyd and the Hon. Mr. Justice Street, two of the judges selected for the trial of elections petitions, pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate relating to the electoral district of the North Riding of the County of Bruce, in the province of Ontario, by which the election for the said electoral district has been declared void.
In conformity with chapter 9, section 46 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, I have issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES CLANCY fBothwell) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 15) to amend the Dominion Elec tions Act.
He said : The object of the Bill is to prevent as far as possible a new sort of Sir LOUIS DAVIES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 16) to amend the Railway Act in respect to drainage across the lands of railway companies. He said : The object of this Bill is to give farmers and others who own land alongside railways the same privileges as the railway corporations. A Bill to this effect was introduced last session : but it seems that it was so changed in the interest of the railways that it was spoiled in the amending. It is no use to introduce a Bill here, it seems to me, unless it helps all classes alike. I do hope that the government, or other parties who have the power to do it, will see to it that the law is so amended that the farmers will have the same chances as the railway corporations.
Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I would like to call attention to the fact that the object of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson, West Elgin) is to amend the Railway Act. There is no such Act as the Dominion Drainage Act. The respective provinces, 1 suppose-certainly the province of Ontario- have their drainage Acts. I simply point

out this formal mistake that the hon. gentleman may not fail in his Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.



CANADIAN PACIFIC LAND GRANT.

Mr.  R. L.@: RICHARDSON (Lisgar) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 17) respecting the land grant of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Explain.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: The Bill is practically the same as the Bill I introduced last session, and which I was unabie to bring before the notice of the House because the order of Public Bills and Orders was only reached, according to my recollection, once during the entire session. The hon. member who was going to second my Bill was not present, and I was not able to get the Bill before the House. However, I introduced a resolution with regard to it, which resolution failed to carry. I am in hopes, however, that as the Bill is introduced at this early stage of the session, it will have the fullest and freest discussion. The explanation of the Bill is this : When the Canadian Pacific Railway agreement was made in 1881, as hon. gentlemen are aware, in addition to vast cash subsidies, we gave that company a land grant of 25,000,000 acres. One clause of the contract provided that the appurtenances of the railway, the rolling stock, the road-bed, &c., should be exempt from taxation for ever, and the land grant be exempt from taxation for twenty years from the grant thereof from the Crown. Some differences of opinion seem to have arisen with regard to the expiration of that twenty-year period. Up to the present time, patents for only a small quantity of this land have been issued to the company ; and when the matter was before parliament last session, the First Minister and the then leader of the opposition took the view that it was a legal question, which could only be settled by reference to the courts, whether the exemption from taxation should expire in twenty years from the date of the contract. Last session I was able to satisfy the'House, I believe, by extracts from the ' Hansard ' report of speeches of public men who discussed the contract when it was going through the House, that the clear intention of parliament was that the twenty-year exemption period should expire twenty years from the date ot the contract. I take the view that we should not refer the matter to the courts at all. If it was the intention of parliament that the exemption period should date from the time of entering into the contract, and if the people so understood it. and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company so understood it. I take it that this parliament should settle that question and avoid any reference to the courts ; belli
cause, if we allow it to go as at present, patents not being issued, the company holds its vast land grant exempt from taxation practically in perpetuity. The object of this Bill, which is very brief, is to declare that the clause in the contract be interpreted to mean that the exemption period expired on the 15th of the present month.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: By whom is this motion seconded ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: By the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That hon. gentleman is not in the Chamber.


Robert Lorne Richardson: But he agreed to second it.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I will support it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The motion is seconded by Mr. Maclean.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the firsr time.

Mr.  R. L.@: RICHARDSON (Lisgar) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 18) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Explain.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The object of this Bill, in brief, is to make it difficult to effect saw-offs of election protests. 1 may say that I have been in consultation, with reference to the object of this Bill, with a number of prominent judges on the bench, and the Bill is the result of suggestions made by them. It provides that an affidavit shall be received from the respondent, and the election agents of both sides before the petition is dismissed, and if, in the opinion of the judge, there has been any collusion, he has it in his power to declare that the deposit of $1,000 is forfeited to the public uses of the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I beg to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Sir John A. Boyd and the Hon. Mr. Justice Street, two of the judges selected for the trial of election petitions, pursuant to the Controverted Elections Act. a certificate relating to the electoral district of the north riding of the county of Bruce, as follows
Election of a member for the House of Commons of Canada for the electoral district of the north riding of the county of Bruce, holden on the Slst day of October and the 7th day of November, A.D. 1900.
Between James Ernest Campbell, petitioner, and Alexander McNeill, respondent.

The undersigned, two of the justices of the High Court of Justice assigned to try the said petition, do hereby certify that on the 25th and 26th days of January, 1901, at the town of Owen Sound, and on the 12th day of February, 1901, at the town of South Hampton, in the county of Bruce, we held a Court for the trial of and there tried the said petition, whereupon we held and determined, after a scrutiny of the ballots and upon evidence given before us, that an equal number of votes had been cast for each candidate, so that neither had been duly elected ; and it further appearing and being proved that a number of votes had been illegally cast and that others were so ambiguous that they could not be counted for either side, whereby such irregularity and errors had occurred as affected the result of the election, we therefore held that the said election was void and ineffectual, and made an order that each party to the said petition should pay his own costs.
In the said petition charges of corrupt practices were made on both sides, but these were not prosecuted before us owing to our determination as to the effect of the scrutiny and irregularity hereinbefore mentioned.
Given at Osgocde Hall, this twenty-second day of February, 1901.



W. P. R. STREET, J.


[Stage Direction]
To the Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, 1 would like to inquire whether a commission was issued to Mr. David Horn and others, for the purpose of making an inquiry respecting the exportation of grain; and if so, whetner the commission has reported, and whether the report will he brought down at an early date.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the inquiry made in Montreal, with respect to grain inspection ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have no knowledge of it except some reference that I saw in the public press, stating that such a report had been made; and, accordingly, I desire to know whether that statement is correct, and whether the report will be brought down.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The report has not been submitted yet.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 6) respecting the Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters, and to change its name to the Independent Order of Foresters.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill (No. 7) relating to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 8) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Bill (No. 12) respecting the London Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Hyman.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. MORRISON asked :: 1.	Was the government aware that the local militia were sent to Steveston, British Columbia, in July last ?
2.	If so, was the government consulted before the militia were on that occasion called out ?
3.	What was the government's position in regard to the calling out of the militia on that occasion ?
4.	At whose expense was the militia called out and maintained at Steveston ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	Not at the time.
2.	No.
3.	The Militia Act provides for the calling out of the militia on requisition of the civil authorities in aid of the civil power, and the senior officer of the acting militia in the locality takes action accordingly.
4.	When the militia is called out in aid of tlie civil power, it is at the expense of the municipality. Circumstances in this case were exceptional, and expenses were defrayed by the Militia Department.


ARRIVALS OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE IN CANADA.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	How many Chinese were allowed to land in the province of British Columbia during each month of the year 1900?
2.	How many, if any, are known to have left the province during said year ?
3.	What was the total amount of poll tax collected during the said year?
4.	How many Japanese landed in the said province each month during the same period?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	The Chinese paying fees landed in the province of British Columbia during the year 1900, were as follows :
January	 154
February	 253
March	 422
April	 752
May	 634
June	 659
July	 462
August	 317
September	 213
October	 73
November	 129
December	 144
Total paying fees	 4,212
Entered as exempt	during	year....	26Chinese entered in	transit	inwards.	1,591Total number entering	province....	5,8292.	The total number registered for leave outwards, during the year, 896. Total number registered for leave in transit outwards. 2,220- 3,116.
Large numbers leave the province going east, of which there is no record.
3.	Total poll-tax collected during the year, $210,600.
4.	Japanese landed in province of British Columbia, during year 1900 :
January	 298
February	 416
March	 933
April	2,556
May	2,666
June	1,547
July	 684
August	 282
September	 28
October	 65
November	 39
December	 14
Total	9,518
Japanese landed in British Columbia as in transit to other Canadian ports	 998
Japanese reported as landed in transit to other than Canadian ports.. 5,481
Total	15,997
It is, however, to be stated that as there
is no law requiring any record of Japanese entering or leaving Canada, the above figures cannot be considered as absolutely reliable ; and it is very evident that large numbers of them have been twice reported as entering Canada, first on the arrival of the vessel at Victoria, and again when landing at Vancouver.



MUNICIPAL BONUSES TO RAILWAYS.

Hr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask the last two paragraphs of question No. 3, as follows :
(a)	What total sums have been voted to railways in Canada in bonuses by municipalities, viz.: counties or group of counties, townships or groups of townships, towns and villages?
(b)	To what roads were such bonuses granted, and what amount to each?
(c)	Have any of these bonuses been repaid by the Dominion parliament, either directly or indirectly?
(d)	Is it the intention of the government to refund to such municipalities the bonuses so voted?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: (c)	One and only one bonus has been repaid by the government, and that was the one repaid in July, 1883, to the corporation
. of Pembroke. The amount being $85,250.
(d)	No such decision has been arrived at.



CENSUS COMMISSIONER FOR CARDWELL.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell) asked :: Has a census commissioner been appointed for the electoral district of Cardwell? If so, upon whose recommendation?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: No appointment has been made.



I.C.R.-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT LEVIS.

[Stage Direction]
Hr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Has the government or the Department of Railways and Canals purchased w,thin the past two years any property at or near Levis, in the province of Quebec?
2.	From whom have such properties been purchased?
3.	What is the size of each property, respectively?
4.	What price has been or is to be paid to each person from whom such property was purchased?
5.	In what way was the price fixed or determined ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes, property has been purchased at or near Levis, within the past two years.
2.	Properties have been purchased from the following owners :
Heirs of D. D. Young.
Heii's of William Rhodes.
Estate of Chapleau or Murphy.
Joseph Turgeon.
Joseph, John and Edouard Goulet.
Edouard Couture.
Corporation of Levis.
Elizabeth Mary Bennett.
3.	4 and 5. Heirs of D. D. Young-10,407 square feet made ground-80 cents per square foot, paid. Price asked by owners and accepted by the department.
Heirs of William Rhodes-11,583 square feet beach ; 45 cents per square foot. Price asked by owners, accepted by department.
Heirs of D. D. Young-50,000 square feet wharf and beach ; 42 cents per square foot. Paid re order in council, May 26, 1900.
Estate of Chapleau or Murphy-8,908 square feet beach and made ground ; $1.75 per square foot. Paid re order in council, October 15, 1900.
Joseph Turgeon-1,640 square feet made ground ; expropriation papers filed April 17, 1900. Not yet settled.
Joseph, John and Edouard Goulet-1,632 square feet made ground ; expropriation papers filed April 11, 1900. Not yet settled.
Edouard Couture-22,356 3'100 square feet made ground; expropriation papers filed April 11, September 20 and October 19, 1900. Not yet settled.
Corporation of L6vis-78,868 square feet old wharf made ground and beach ; expropriation papers filed April 11, 1900. The corporation is to convey these lots to the railway free of charge.
Heirs of William Rhodes-154 71 TOO square feet beach; expropriation papers filed October 19, 1900. Not yet settled.
Elizabeth Mary Bennett-4,280 square feet land near Hadlow ; $500 considered reasonable price by railway engineer. Offer not yet accepted.


Mr. WALLACE.: What was the total amount paid ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There have been no locomotives purchased by the department since the date mentioned, the 1st of January, 1897, though a number of locomotives and cars have been made as the result of tenders being asked for and of contracts entered into, and delivery has taken place. I am having a statement of them prepared which I can furnish, if desired, but there have been none purchased in the ordinary sense.



MONTREAL ELECTORAL LISTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mi-. MONK asked :
1.	Have the electoral lists now completed for the city of Montreal been transmitted to Ottawa, to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?
2.	Has the printing of said lists been completed or begun?
3.	Will said lists be printed in the Government Frinting Bureau?
I.	When will the printing of said lists be completed?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to inform the hon.


Mr. BLAIR.: gentleman (Mi-. Monk) that the lists have not been transmitted to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.



ENFORCEMENT OF ALIEN LABOUR LAW.

[Stage Direction]
Ml-. CLARE asked :
What amount has been expended in enforcing the provisions of the Alien Labour law from June 30, 1900, up to date?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The amount thus paid is $1,066.66.



COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin) asked :: Is it the intention of the government to appoint a committee of all the medical men, of both parties, in this House to act with all the medical men of the Senate to inquire into the prevention and cure of tuberculosis and all prevalent diseases of both man and beast, and all other matters in connection with the health of the people of this Dominion?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is not the intention of the government.



VILLE MARIE BANK.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the government come to any decision in regard to the relief prayed for by the depositors of the Vllle Marie Bank?
2.	What is the decision?
3.	Has that decision been communicated to the petitioners who sought relief'
4.	When was such decision communicated, and by whom?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). No formal answer was given to the parties, but they have been made aware that it is not the intention of the government to assume responsibility for paying the losses of the depositors of the bank.



NEWFOUNDLAND AND THE DOMINION,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Maclean-asked :
Is any correspondence or negotiations taking place between the Imperial and Canadian authorities, or between the Canadian and Newfoundland authorities, looking to the admission of the Island of Newfoundland into the Canadian confederation?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is no correspondence. We have not received any overtures from the government of Newfoundland, and the government of Canada have not found it opportune to approach them.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Has this government made any overture V


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have made none and have received none.



THE 24TH DAY OF MAY.

Mr. BRUCE asked :: Is it the intention of the government to ask the House at its present session to pass legislation making the 24th day of May, the birthday of our late gracious Sovereign Queen Victoria, a statutory holiday?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is not the intention of the government to introduce such legislation.



TARIFF ACT AMENDMENT-GOODS OF GERMAN ORIGIN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Maclean-asked :
Is it the intention of the government to amend the Tariff Act so as to debar from the advantage of the preference clause goods of German origin which may be imported into the Dominion from England?
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). No tariff change is necessary for the purpose stated in the question. No goods are entitled to the benefit of the preferential tariff unless they are bona fide of British manufacture or the produce of British countries named in the Tariff Act.

Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	Has Mr. William Hull, for many years postmaster at a branch post office in Hamilton, been dismissed?
2.	Were charges made against him? If so, by whom?
3.	What were the charges, and was he given an opportunity to answer them?
4.	At whose request was he dismissed, and on what grounds?
5.	Has the location of the office been changed, and at whose request?
6.	Was any inquiry made as to the wishes of those using the office as to his dismissal or retention, or as to the removal of the office, and with what result?
7.	Has his successor been appointed? If so, who is the successor, and on whose recommendation was he appointed?
8.	Has the Postmaster General made any inquiry as to the physical capacity of the new appointee to perform the duties of the office?


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Win. Mulock) :: 1.	The Pearl street sub-post office, in the city of Hamilton, has been removed to what is considered a more convenient and suitable location, and Mr. Wm. Hull has in consequence ceased to be postmaster of that office.
2.	There were no complaints against the late postmaster. The inspector stated in his report that Mr. Hull was a man far advanced in years who had the reputation of being somewhat disagreeable and of a fault-finding disposition.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	The change is not recorded by the department as a case of dismissal, but as involved in tlie change in the situation of the post office asked for in a petition and recommended by the inspector.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	The matter was inquired into by the post office inspector at Toronto, who recommended the removal of the post office to the new site.
7.	Mr. Thomas S. McDonell has been appointed to the postmastership of the office. He was recommended by Mr. J. V. Teetzel, the post office inspector having previously recommended the location of the post office in Mr. McDonell's premises.
8.	Inquiry has not been made on this point, no intimation having been received that tlie new postmaster suffered from any physical incapacity.



AIR BRAKES AND COUPLERS ON I.C.R.

Samuel Hughes: (a)	How many cars on each, the Grand Trunk, Canadian Pacific, Intercolonial and Canada Atlantic Railways, are litted with (1) air brakes, (2) standard couplers?
(b)	How many cars on each of the above railways are not fitted (1) with air brakes, and (2) with standard couplers?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The department has no information with reference to cars fitted with air brakes, etc., on the roads mentioned, except on the Intercolonial Railway, which is as follows : Intercolonial Railway cars fitted with air brakes, 2,643 ; Intercolonial Railway cars not fitted with air brakes, 5,044.



COLD STORAGE-WEST INDIA STEAMERS.

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: 1.	What are the names of the Atlantic steamers on which exhaust fans were placed, and for the placing of which the government paid $100 each?
' 2. Was any effort made last autumn to ascertain if these fans or any of them were continuously in operation during the voyage across the Atlantic?
3.	Will the government endeavour to procure
the installation of exhaust fans in all steamers carrying apples aeross the Atlantic from Canadian ports?	,
4.	What steamers plying between Canadian ports and the West Indies are fitted with cold storage chambers, the owners of which receive subventions from the government?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 4.	The steamer Beta, running between Halifax and Jamaica, and the Orinoco, running between St. John, Halifax, the West Indian Islands, and Demerara, are fitted with cold storage. Questions Nos. 1. 2, and 3 can only be answered by the Minister of Agriculture, who alone has the information.

33G



CENSUS COMMISSIONERS-GREY COUNTY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPIiOULE asked :
1.	Have the census commissioners been appointed for East Grey, North Grey and South Grey?
2.	If appointed, what are their names and upon whose recommendation were they respectively appointed?
James Sutherland: No appointment lias been made.



FISHERY WARDEN, KING'S COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	Has George Myers, fishery warden for King's county, N.B., been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason, and has any one been appointed in his place?
3.	At whose instance was he dismissed, if dismissed, and was any charge made against him or investigation held?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: George Myers was a temporary guardian and not a fishery warden. Because of his active political partisanship at the last general election he was notified his services would not again be required. As his employment was temporary no investigation was necessary. The minister is responsible for the action taken.



IMPORTATION OF FRESH MUTTON.

James Clancy: Is it true, as stated in the tables of the Trade and Navigation Returns of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900, that fresh mutton and lamb to the value of $14,194 was imported from Great Britain for home consumption, and that such mutton and lamb were the products of Great Britain?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The fresh mutton and lamb stated in the Trade and Navigation Returns for the fiscal year ended June 30,' 1000, as imported from Great Britain, were actually imported from Australasia. Owing to a clerical error, the importations were entered as if from Great Britain.



SURVEY AT GRAND BEND.

Mr. SHERRITT asked :: Has a survey been made at Grand Bend, on the east shore of Lake Huron and the electoral district of North Middlesex, with a view of making a harbour there? If so, by whom? If no survey has been made, was a Mr. Stewart, or some other person, sent there in October last to look it over with that object in view? If so. has he made a report thereon ? Does the government intend making any improvements at Grand Bend? If so, when will the work begin?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. 1. Tarte).: A survey was made at Grand Bend, in October last, by Mr. Stewart, who has made a report to the Department of Public Works. The whole subject of the report is under consideration.



CONDITION OF INDIANS AT OXFORD HOUSE MISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRITTON-by Mr. Flint-asked :
Did the government receive any report of Indians in the vicinity of ' Oxford House Mission/ N.W.T., dying from starvation during the winter of 1899-1900? If so, how many of such Indians are reported to have died from starvation? Has the government any information of the condition of such Indians during the present winter? Was there any special provision for such Indians to prevent starvation during the present winter?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Statements having been made in newspapers that a number of Indians in the vicinity of Oxford House had died of starvation, inquiries were made of the Indian agent at Beren's River and also of the commissioner of the Hudson's Bay Company, but no confirmation of the report could be obtained. These Indians reside outside of treaty limits and no recent report has been received regarding their condition. The department has an arrangement whereby supplies are at once furnished to destitute Indians in this district to enable them to subsist during the winter months.



MANITOBA SCHOOL LANDS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRITTON-by Mr. Flint-asked :
1.	Did a commission issue to James Emile Pierre Prendergast authorizing him to hold an investigation with regard to any alleged fraudulent procedure or irregularity at any public auction sale cf school lands in the province of Manitoba?
2.	If so, has the investigation been held?
3.	Has such investigation been concluded?
4.	When will the report of the commissioner be brought down?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The investigation is being held.
3.	No.
4.	As soon as received. I may add that the commissioner has been urged to complete his report, and I am expecting that it will be here in a very short time.



CENSUS COMMISSIONER-SOUTH SIMCOE.

Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Has the appointment of chief census commissioner for South Simeoe been made?
2.	If made, who has been appointed, and upon whose recommendation?


James Sutherland: No.

CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT, factored in the Dominion during the next ten
years.


Mr. WILSON asked :: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this session to amend the Canada Temperance Act in accordance with the resolution accepted during the last session of parliament?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hou. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) that the government lias received no communication whatever from the temperance people upon this question.



GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING.

Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention of the government to increase the salary attending the position of General Officer Commanding in Canada to $10,000, and thus enable Canada to secure the services of a senior British general?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: It is not the intention of the government at present to ask parliament to vote an increase in the salary of the Major-General Commanding.



PRINTING FOR PARIS EXHIBITION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Maclean-asked :
1.	In what printing office was the volume which was distributed at the Paris Exposition last year, entitled ' The Women of Canada,' printed?
2.	What was the total issue of said volume?
3.	What was the average cost per volume?
4.	Who supplied the paper for the work?
5.	Who furnished the cuts and other illustrations?
G. If printed in any establishmen other than the Government Printing Bureau, why was this done?
Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	The Herald Printing Company, Montreal.
2.	7,000 copies.
3.	04 34-35 cents.
4.	The Herald Printing Company.
5.	The Herald Printing Company.
0. The King's Printer states that the work had to he given out owing to pressure in the Government Printing Bureau.



BEET-ROOT SUGAR BOUNTY.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey) moved :: That, having regard to the large importations of sugar into Canada for home consumption, and that It has been demonstrated beyond a doubt that the cultivation of the sugar beet in the Dominion is not only feasible hut is being successfully grown in many parts of the country at present; therefore, in the opinion of this House, in order to stimulate the farmers of Canada to engage in the growth of this valuable product, and also to encourage the establishment of beet-root, sugar factories, a bounty should be offered for all West-root sugar manu-
He said:	I make this motion. Mr. Speaker, believing that if the government of Canada were alive to the best interests of the people at the present time, they would take action in the direction indicated by the resolution. It has always been my opinion that the policy of our government should be to assist in starting and developing any industry in the country when the conditions are favourable for its success, and when there is a good market in the country for the product. There are two ways in which a government can do this. One is by a protective tariff-by putting a duty on the same kind of product coming from foreign countries. The other is by paying a bounty upon the product in our own country. We have examples of both methods stimulating industries in the country until they have become very important.
I take as one example the furniture industry. At one time in the history of Canada most of our furniture factories had gone under owing to the keen competition from the United States. There was not a sufficient duty imposed on furniture coming into the country to prevent its being dumped down here in large quantities. As soon as the national policy was introduced in 1879. and a sufficient customs duty was put upon furniture, men immediately commenced to engage in that industry, and to-day it is one of the important industries of the country. Not only do we manufacture sufficient furniture to supply the needs of our own country, but we are heavy exporters as well. This result is achieved because we have the raw material in our own country in sufficient quantities, and we have the skilled labour necessary to manufacture the product. We have an example of the other method in the iron industry of the country. A few years ago. in order to stimulate the production of iron in Canada the Dominion government offered a bounty on all iron manufactured in the country, and that action was followed by similar action on the part of the Ontario government. So that we have at the present time a bounty of $1 a ton offered by the province of Ontario on all pig iron made in the country from the iron mines of the province ; in addition, we have a bounty of $3 a ton offered by the Dominion government on pig iron made in the country, and from the ore of the country : and we have still further a bounty of $3 a ton offered on all steel manufactured from the pig iron thus made in the country. We have thus at least 87 a ton bounty offered for the manufacture of steel from iron taken from the mines of the country. I need not say anything as to the success of the industry since that bounty was offered, or the stimulus it has given to the industry; because everv one in this House knows as well as I do 'that within the last few years

the greatest activity has been displayed In the iron industry ; to-day blast furnaces are springing up all around us, and iron and steel foundries have been started in different parts of the country ; and Canada will soon be one of the great steel-making countries of the world.
With that example before us, is it not the part of wisdom for the government to go further and give aid to another valuable industry which may be established in the country by means of a bounty ? There is an industry which in my judgment will be equally valuable with the iron industry. It has been much written about and talked about, and experiments have been made to determine whether it can be made a success or otherwise, for the last ten or twelve years ; and the data which have been collected on the subject justify the conclusion that this industry could be and would be started in the near future if the government gave it a little assistance by way of bounty, as it did in the case of iron. I refer to the beet-root sugar industry-an industry for which the soil and climatic and other conditions of Canada are well adapted. The requisite raw material is available here in large quantities. Everything is available for the establishment of that industry if the government would only give it a little assistance ; and it is for the purpose of ventilating the question and educating public opinion till it becomes so powerful that the government will be induced or persuaded to grant that aid, that I am bringing this question before the House to-day.
The first question is, have we a market for the product, if it were manufactured ? My answer is in the affirmative. I take up the Trade and Navigation Returns, and I find that last year we imported no less than 312.020.731 pounds of sugar and molasses for home consumption, representing a value of $8,361,000, which was paid in Canadian money for a product which is consumed in Canada, and which could just as well have been made by the people of Canada. It would require about thirty factories to manufacture that large quantity of sugar.
I think it needs no further argument to convince this House and the country that there is a valuable market for the product as soon as it is produced. We have that market at home ; we need not look abroad to any other country for it : and it has always been my opinion that the government should direct its efforts towards so varying the pursuits of the people of the country that they would be working for each other, one portion producing and supplying what the other portion consumed. When that is done, I believe our energies will be directed in the best possible channels.
The next question is, could the beets be properly grown in this country by the farm- i ers '-because it would be the farmers who Mr. SPROULE.
would have to grow the beets if they were grown successfully. Are the climatic conditions and the soil of Canada suitable for the production of the sugar beet ? Tests have been carried on along this line for the last twelve or fifteen years, and those tests have resulted in proving conclusively to any one who has taken the trouble to look up the data, that the climatic conditions and the soil of Canada are admirably suited to the growing of the sugar beet. The experiments have proven beyond doubt that we can grow it as well as Germany, Austria, France or any other country in the world, which is to-day largely producing the sugar beet and manufacturing sugar from it. I have here a little return giving the results during the last three years of the cultivation of beets grown in different parts of the country. This return covers the years 1889, 1890 and 1891. during which tests were made by the advice of the then government over the country with regard to the growth of the sugar beet. I may say that those tests were not confined to some favoured localities, but were distributed all over Ontario, and the results are as follows
Yield per acre 19'9 tons; percentages of sugar in the beet 16 01; co-efficient of purity S3'27. That test was made by the experimental farm at Guelph, under the supervision of its chemist. But, there were also tests made throughout Ontario in thirty-six different localities, and the result was that the yield per acre amounted to 18-3 tons, with a percentage of sugar 13'50. and coefficient of purity 80. This shows that in the case of tests made all over the country, the tests were made perhaps not as carefully or intelligently as at the experimental farm. Consequently the yield per acre was a little less, the quality not quite so good, and the percentage of sugar not quite so high, but it all shows what can be done by intelligent cultivation of the beet, and it shows also, that our soil and climate are suited to its cultivation.
In 1900, tests were carried on by instruction from the experimental farm in* the various parts of Ontario. These tests were made in different localities, and I have here a copy of the return. There were prizes offered, and the tests were made around the district of Aylmer, Newmarket, in North York and Welland. In each case six returns were made, and six prizes were given. The result was an average yield of 20} tons per acre, a percentage of 15 T sugar, and a co-efficient of purity of 86-5.
I have given these so as to draw a comparison between the results of the experiments here, and the results in those countries where the growth of the sugar beet has been a great success, and the manufacture of sugar very considerable. Take Germany, and for twenty years, the highest average of the sugar beet grown was 11 -70 tons to the acre, whereas last year in

Ontario, the average was 20J. The German ton is 2,2044 pounds, while with us a ton weighs 2,000 pounds. The percentage of sugar in the German beet did not quite average 12 per cent, while in ours it averaged 15 *1, and in 1889, 1890 and 1891, it averaged 16 01.


Mr. CHARLTON.: What was the yield in Germany of tons per acre ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ilv70 was the best average in twenty years by their returns.
I give these figures to show how valuable is our country for that product, and how successfully we might engage in it, and what advantage we have over those countries that are cultivating the beet successfully to-day.
I need not mention the other countries.
I could take Austria, Prance, Spain, Belgium and Switzerland, and in not one is the percentage of sugar as high as it has been shown to be in the beets grown in Canada and the United States. That proves conclusively that the yield of beets here justifies the belief that the business can be successfully carried on. Take the individual yields. In and around Welland :
1.	F. H. Stirzinger, Fenwick-Yield, 14 tons 1,200 lbs.; sugar, 16-1 per cent; purity, 88'5 per cent; cost per acre, $33.40: net profit, $35.95.
2.	David Cole, Southend-Yield, 13 tons 334 lbs.; sugar, 16-7 per cent; purity, 87'3 per cent; cost per acre, $25.90; net profit, $37.14.


Mr. MEIGS.: How many acres did he grow ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This gives the test of one acre.


Daniel Bishop Meigs: Did he cultivate more than one acre ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not shown. The return simply says per acre.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: How does he figure the value of the product ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
John Charlton: Will tlie lion, gentleman tell us whether there is any bounty on beet-root sugar in Illinois ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


John Charlton: How much ?
.Mr. SPROULE. Speaking from memory, 1 cent a pound for granulated sugar of not less than 80 per cent. In the little town of Green Valley, 111., with a population of only 500. the people received from that factory $35,000 for the beets they grew. Tremont, with 700 iuhabitants, received $27,000 ; and Pekin, with 8,000 inhabitants, received $10.000 for beets grown. The beets manufactured last season in Michigan yielded 48,000,000 pounds of sugar.


John Charlton: Is there any bounty in Michigan ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a dispute as to that. A law was passed by the legislature of the state giving a bounty of 1 cent a pound. But the courts held that the law was ultra vires of the state legislature. The question is not yet settled. The farmers of Michigan raised about 250,000 tons of beets, for which they received an average of $4 a ton. That is to say, about $1,000,000 was paid to the farmers of Michigan last season for the beets raised and manufactured there. It may be said that we cannot do the same here. But, last year, we had some experience in this line. At one point in Canada sugar beets were grown, though the farmers had no factory to send them to. But they sold them for use in Marine City, Mich. Through the company's agent, Mr. Snider, the farmers sent 9,000 tons of beets. The American duty was 25 per cent, and the freight was 50 cents a ton. The price to the farmers was reduced in consequence. The farmers were at a further disadvantage because they had to sell their beets without a test of as to what percentage of sugar they contained. They sold them on the Canadian bank of the river at $3.20 a ton. Notwithstanding all disadvantages, they sold last year 9,000 tons of beets to the refinery in Marine City. The business paid them so well that, as I am informed by Mr. Snider, he is entering into contract with the same farmers, and, in nearly every instance, the farmers have agreed to grow twice as many acres of beets as they grew last year. The farmers are satisfied with the conditions, if they cannot get a factory at home. But they have organized a company and intend to start a factory, if the government will only give a little assistance by way of bounty on the sugar produced in the factory. These facts show that, even at $3.20 a ton, the business of growing beets can be carried on successfully. Why, some of these farmers got as high as $70 an acre for their beets, which they sold at $3.20 a ton. If they can grow beets successfully at that price, it proves Mr. SPROULE.
beyond question that we have a country admirably suited for the growth of beets. I have given you what the farmers have ; already realized last year from the beets that were grown here ; and the result of their own experiments over different pai'ts | of the country. I think the facts prove beyond question that we have a country admirably suited for that purpose, not only with regard to the yield per acre, but with respect to the percentage of sugar that the beets contain, and the purity of the sugar produced from them.
Now, what would it mean if all this sugar was made in Canada instead of being imported from other countries ? Let lion, gentlemen consider a moment what it would mean. It would mean, in the first place, that we would have thirty factories built and operating in this country. I say thirty factories, because I think that number would be sufficient to manufacture the product of the sugar beet in quantities sufficient to supply the home market. Each of these thirty factories would use up 500 tons of beets per day, for it is held that a factory ought to consume about 500 tons of beets per day to do a profitable business. Now, it will cost to build each one of those factories about $500,000. and this would mean to begin with an expenditure of $15,000,000 for the construction of those thirty factories. To run one of those factories, including the factory hands, clerks, chemists, experts, &c., about 200 hands are required. Multiply that number by thirty, and you have 6,000 people who would be directly and regularly employed in those factories, besides all the labour of mechanics, artisans and workmen that had been employed in building them. The season for manufacturing the product of beet roots usually lasts about 100 days, and if each one of the thirty factories used up 500 tons a day, that would mean 1,500,000 tons of beets in a year. Now, what would be paid to the farmers who grew those beets ? At an average price of $4 per ton, the farmers would receive $0,000,000 a year, a large sum to be distributed directly to them. I desire to say here that it seems to me that above all classes in the community this industry would benefit the farmers of the country. At least 60 per cent of the money paid out in connection with the industry is paid to the farmer for the beets that he raises. He will realize $6,000,000 a year for the beets that he grows on his farm, and which can be grown as well in Canada as in any other country in the world. These thirty factories would consume about 240.000 tons of coal a year, which would either have to be mined in this country or bought from abroad. That of itself would be an important consideration in the calculation that I am making of the benefit to the country through this industry. These factories would also consume about 150.000 tons of lime a year, of which we have any quantity

in the Dominion of Canada in almost any part of it. A great number of people would be employed in manufacturing lime for the use of these factories. The number of cars employed to handle the material necessary to supply these factories would be about 150,000. To supply these factories, from
150.000	to 200,000 acres of land would require to be put under cultivation in sugar beets, and as I remarked before, the farmer would get fully 60 per cent of all the money paid out in connection with the manufacture of beet-root sugar.
Now, I have mentioned several items, showing the very large amount of money would be paid to the people of Canada in the erection of the factories, in the manufacture of lime, in the growth of the beets, in the manual labour that is to be done around the factories, because each factory will require from 150 to 250 hands. I contend that all this money can be expended profitably in this country, instead of being spent in buying sugar made in Germany or France, or some other country.
The by-product of the beet is also an important consideration. Experiments have been carried on during the last few years at Alameda, in California, showing the value of the pulp after the saccharine matter has been extracted from the beet. This pulp is fed to sheep and cattle, and these* gentlemen who have conducted the experiment say that the by-product is worth quite as much as ordinary hay. There seems to be no consensus of opinion as to the exact value, but it is held to be one of the most valuable products for feeding dairy cattle, and fattening cattle and sheep for market. There are farmers in California to-day fattening thousands of cattle on the by-products of sugar beet factories. In other states they are following suit. A factory that has used up 50,000 tons of beets per year will supply by-products for 1,000 to
2.000	head of cattle in a season. Each factory would turn out frorq 30,000 to 40.000 tons of this by-product every year, and that could be distributed amongst the farmers. It could be sold to the farmers in the wet state for 25 cents a ton. and if sold in the dry state it brings a much higher price.
Now, what is being done to-day in this line in the United States ? They, like ourselves, found a few years ago that they could run this industry profitably in their country. They first began by experimenting, as we did. and they found that the climate and soil were suitable. They carried on their experiments for some years, and then commenced building factories ; and so successful has the industry proved that they have to-day forty factories operating in the United States. Last year I told the House where these factories were situated. They have twelve in the state of Michigan, a state adjoining our own country, having a soil and climate no better suited for
carrying on that industry than the province of Ontario, and some think not quite as good. There are three factories running in New York, eight in California, three in Colorado : and in almost every state of the union there is one or more factories in successful operation. So what they have done we may do as well under similar conditions.
Now, other countries have also been carrying on this industry successfully. Germany produces the largest amount of beet-root sugar of any country in the world. What has been their experience in Germany ? A farmer who previously could only' rent his land for $3 an acre, as soon as the growth of sugar beefs was commenced. could rent his land for $25 an acre, and he is able to do that because of the increased profit that the land yields when devoted to the growth of the sugar beet. Germany is growing a sugar beet that realizes less than 124 per cent of sugar ; her land yields but twelve tons to the acre, and yet she is carrying on this industry successfully and manufacturing sugar that she sends in large quantities both to the United States and to Canada. Germany is not as well suited for that industry as Canada and the United States, yet she is supplying our people with sugar. Austria is doing the same, Russia is exporting large quantities to-day. France is exporting sugar as well, Belgium has been carrying on the industry successfully for years. Sweden is doing the same, Holland is growing large quantities of sugar beets, Denmark, Servia, Roumania, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Greece, Persia. Egypt, Argentina, Chili and the United States are all successfully manufacturing sugar out of the sugar beet. We should benefit by the experience of these countries. We should benefit by their experience in the manufacture of the product, the class of machinery that should be employed. the improvements that are being made, and the intelligence which they are bringing to bear upon their operations in that line. The question is : Are factories likely to be started without a bounty being given to them in Canada ? I do not think they are, and I give the reason why. We are living alongside of a country with a border line of hundreds of miles, where they are given a bounty in almost every state. I believe there are two or three states where they have stopped giving a bounty, because, after having given it for several years, the industry is now well under way.


John Charlton: What states ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think they are not paying a bounty at the present time in California. I have the figures but I do not happen to have them under my hand just now. Speaking from memory, California is one, and in Michigan they cannot give a bounty owing to the decision of the court, but

they hare set apart an amount, of money for the purpose and under that stimulus they have commenced operations in Michigan. i clo not think that such an industry is likely to start up in this country without a bounty, because it requires a large amount of capital to build a beet-root sugar factory that would consume 500 tons annually. It would require about $500,000. A party who has $500,000 to invest is not likely to invest it in Canada, where we have a duty of 98 cents per cwt. on sugar coming into the country, and where we have no bounty, while there is a duty of $1.0S on sugar coming into the United States, and a bounty of one cent per pound paid as well. He could go across the line and get a bounty of one cent a pound on the manufacture of granulated sugar. I have been in correspondence for several years With men who contemplated the establishment of factories here if bounties had been given. Three years ago I brought the question up and did my best to induce the government to give a bounty. For several years an effort was made to secure the granting of such a bounty. Up to 1885 and after 1885 a bounty' was given and three factories were established in Quebec for the manufacture of beet-root sugar. They continued only for a limited time ; the enterprise was not a success, the factor- | ies failed and the bounty was stopped.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND [ CANALS. How long was the bounty to be paid '!


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think at first five years, but I think it was extended for three years, and after that it expired.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And the industry failed ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The industry failed. I | was going to say one word in regard to that. A company that proposed establishing a factory here sent over two of their experts who were familiar with the re- ! quirements of the industry and everything necessary for the successful prosecution of this industry. They pursued their investi- | gations in the province of Quebec to ascertain whether the failure was due to preventable causes, to causes which could be over- ] come, and the report which they made to | their company was that the causes of failure were all preventable causes. The plant that was used in Quebec is now being successfully operated at Lyons, N.Y. The gentleman who runs that plant states that part of the machinery was perfectly useless, that it was not constructed in such a way as to economize labour and expense, and that this unnecessary expense was such a drain on the industry as to consume more than a reasonable profit from the business. They discarded part of the machinery and replaced it with other machinery which was improved and up to date, and the result is that they have been carrying on the business success-Mr. SPROULE.
fully ever since. He says that the country is suited to the production of the sugar beet, and all that is required is that the farmer shall receive a little education as to how to grow the beet more intelligently. With companies having more capital at their command and factories more up to date in regard to the machinery, the industry should be successful. To give an illustration ; my informant says instead of throwing the beets into sluices and having the beets carried along by the current in the sluice and being washed as they go, the companies operating here had men wheeling these beets along for several rods in wheelbarrows and throwing them in. The cost of that operation would be a large item which by the adoption of modern methods would be avoided. He says : We are perfectly satisfied, so much so that we will be prepared, in the event of the bounty being a reasonable one, to go into the province of Quebec, build a factory next year and make our contracts with the farmers for the beets. We feel perfectly satisfied that we will make it a success, because, he says, previous failures were due to preventable causes. Factories will not be started unless something is done. Last year we had a deputation that waited upon the lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and some of his colleagues, and I joined that deputation. I regretted to find that the deputation, which came down from the Georgian Bay, in the district where I live or from Wiarton and which represented the Owen Sound Sugar Company, said that they did not want a bounty. I said that I did not believe these people knew exactly what they did want. They were the people who had bought out the old Owen Sound Company. They said : We believe we are going to get a bounty from the provincial government, and all that we want is permission to bring in our machinery free of duty. The Dominion government were good enough to take them at* their word. I said : I am quite sure that you will not induce any one who has money to invest to invest it in the erection of a factory unless that bounty is given. They went home and entered into communication with a number of men, who were acting in co-operation with me, and this man said that they would not put a dollar into a factory in Canada unless a bounty was given. Although farmers have grown beets there they have found nobody who would offer to put a dollar into the industry and they have no hopes of securing such investment at the present time. A deputation waited on the provincial government lately and succeeded in getting them to give a bounty. The provincial government will set apart $75,000 every year for three years to give assistance to the sugar beet industry in the event of it being started in the province. What they propose to give is one-half a cent a pound for all sugar turned out of

first-class quality to be distributed among all the lactories. They will start by giving one-half a cent a pound the first year, one-quarter of a cent a pound the second year, and one-quarter of a cent a pound the third year, but not to amount to more money than $75,000 a year. This will not induce any one to put his money into the industry, because the time is too short and the bounty is too small. 1 think the Dominion government ought to do what they did in connection with the bounty on iron. The provincial government offered $1 a ton, and the Dominion government, which had previously ottered $3 a ton, supplemented this bounty by ottering $3 additional on all pig iron made into steel. The result is that the iron and steel industry has been started up almost like magic in the country, and it will be one of our most important industries in future. So it would be with the sugar industry if the Dominion government would consent to give a bounty. If so they would consult the interests of the farmers and of the people generally. It is sometimes said that the industry cannot be carried on successfully here. If that is so the government Will not be called upon to pay the bounty. Then, again, others say that it will be carried on to an extent that it would almost bankrupt the treasury. Well, give it for a limited number of years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How many years do you suggest ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suggest five years. Some say ten years, but my information is that if we could have it for five years it would be ample to put the industry on a good footing in Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Are not the European countries still paying a bounty ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, they are paying a bounty on sugar exported from the country. The question is sometimes put: Why do you need a bounty V My information is that the bounty is needed to induce the farmers to grow the beets, and in order to distribute the seed free for some years. It is necessary to send experts among the farmers periodically to teach them how to prepare the ground, and how to cultivate the beets and finally market them. That means an outlay for several years, which must be borne by the factories, and towards which assistance is required from the Dominion treasury or some such source. Another thing is that at first the factories would be obliged to pay a uniform price of say $4 a ton for the beets without regard to the percentage of sugar, and they propose to do that if assistance is given them for a few years. It is claimed by those interested in the industry, that after a few years the farmers themselves become experts, and then the expense of the educational work
ceases. The farmers get to learn how to produce the largest yield of beets with the greatest percentage of sugar obtainable. 1 am assured by several responsible men, chat they are ready' to provide the money at any time to build factories and start operations if the bounty is given. They tell me that the bounty would not be required longer than five years, and they are quite satisfied that it it is given, the industry can be successfully' established in Canada. In view of these facts, 1 ask the government to consider this question carefully with a view of so amending the custom law as to grant this bounty. I have here a form ol contract that has been entered into already in anticipation of the bounty' being given, and it provides that if the bounty should be given, a factory will be built the present year. I have here contracts made by farmers in the province of Ontario for the growth of the sugar beet, and many farmers who grew beets last year and sold them for $3.20 a ton, will grow three times the quantity this year. If the government gives this assistance, 1 am certain that factories will spring up as if by magic throughout the country. The farmers, perhaps, represent the majority of the population of the Dominion, and if you can benefit them you must benefit every class of the community. The establishment of this industry in Canada would retain in the country millions of dollars, which we send every year to foreign countries to enrich them, and it would promote employment for our own people at home. Why should we send away our means to Germany, Australia, France or any other country, when we can utilize it at home in giving the farmers GO per cent of the expenditure on this industry, and enabling them to employ their Inborn; to greater profit. In view of these facts the government ought to favourably consider this question. A syndicate has been formed at the present time who are ready to erect and have in operation during the present year a beet factory with an annual capacity of 75.000 tons of beet, producing 12,000.000 pounds of granulated sugar per year. That factory will be started the moment the bounty is given. Hon. gentlemen will readily see the great advantages that will spring from this industry. The railway companies will be benefited. Half a million dollars will be spent immediately in erecting factories. $300,000 a year would be paid to the farmers for the beets to supply the one factory that I referred to; 8,000 tons of coal and coke, 5,000 tons of lime stone, 05,000 barrels and a large quantity of other material would be required for each season's work: 150 factory hands, besides clerks, managers, chemists and expert instructors would be employed: fifty or sixty cars would be required per day for the transport of the product, and all this could be obtained if the government would only render a little assistance to the industry.

In view of all tliis, will not the government grant the same assistance to this farmers' industry, which they have granted to the iron and steel industry of Canada. Will they not enable the farmer to direct his attention to a product which will realize to him three or four times as much profit as he realizes from his industi'y at present. Let the government give this assistance to an industry for the product of which we have a home market that will consume all we produce for many years. I sincerely trust that in the interest of the farmers of the country, and in the interests of the country at large the government will grant this bounty, and if they do so they will find many factories erected next year, and they will find also that many other factories will be built throughout Canada year after year.


John Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I can quite sympathize with my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in his desire to see a large industry not now existing in Canada established here. I will concede everything he lias said witli reference to the advantages which would accrue to this country from the manufacture of beet-root sugar on the scale lie proposes, and if 1 were satisfied that the granting of a bounty by the government was essential to the establishment of this industry, 1 would cheerfully support the motion of the hon. gentleman. 1 have followed him closely in the argument lie has presented to the House. He has gone into the question very fully, and has laid before the House and the country a vast amount of information that will be of much value in considering this question. In listening to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), I was struck with the evidently not intended result, but the actual result of his arguments which led to the conclusion that this industry, as compared with other industries connected with agriculture was so promising and so profitable that nothing else otters as great an inducement to the agriculturists as the cultivation of beet-root sugar. The hon. gentleman informed us, truthfully no doubt, that the conditions in Canada for the production of beet roots were as favourable as they were in any other country in the world-that they were' much more favourable than in Germany, where the industry has attained such vast magnitude, or in any other European country; and the information he gave us as to the results of the experiments made in many parts of Ontario, certainly prove that this industry only lacked a little energy and courage on tire part of capitalists to prove a highly successful and remunerative one.
The hon. gentleman asked, is it possible to establish factories for the production of beet-root sugar in this country, without a bounty ? He assumed that it was not-that capitalists could not be induced to embark in this business unless a bounty were granted. Now. in the very district where


Thomas Simpson Sproule: the hon. gentleman says that last year beets were raised for $3.20 a ton and exported to the United States, at a large profit to the grower, X have heard it reported that it is proposed to build in the town of Wallace-burg a beet-root sugar factory, if the town will grant a bonus of $30,000 ; and this proposal is made without any reference to a Dominion or provincial bounty. And, no doubt, If the ice is once broken, and the experiment is successfully made by the managers of that proposed factory, with due knowledge of the business and proper methods of production, there will be other factories established and a great expansion of this business.
The hon. gentleman tells us that there are forty beet-root sugar factories in the United States. Eight of these are in the state of California, where no bounty is paid. Twelve are in the state of Michigan, where no bounty is paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A bounty was paid in California at first.


John Charlton: And several of them are in other states where no bounty is paid. A comparison between the conditions in Michigan and the probable course of this industry in Canada, and especially in Ontario, would be the most reasonable basis on which to form an opinion, because the climatic conditions and the character of tlie soil in Michigan and in Ontario are very similar. The hon. gentleman tells us that this business was established in the state of Michigan through the passage of a law granting a bounty. It is true that the legislature of Michigan did pass a law granting a bounty of one cent a pound for the production of beet-root sugar, and that two factories were established ; and it was found that the business was so profitable that the law was repealed, and the bounty which had been voted for the first year was never paid, because the courts held, as my hon. friend truthfully states, that the legislature had gone outside of its jurisdiction in passing the law. The repeal of the bounty in that state placed no check upon the production of sugar ; new factories were built a year after the bounty was repealed ; new factories were built last year ; and there is no business in the United States that is more profitable to-day than the production of beet-root sugar in the state of Michigan, without a bounty or government aid of any other character.
The price paid for beets in that state last year was $4.50 per ton-beets that would test 12 per cent ; and the price was proportionately higher or lower for beets that went above or fell short of the standard test. Now, the product of a ton of beets that will test 12 per cent is 200 pounds of sugar, and a quantity of molasses and drips. The sugar from a ton of standard beets, at present prices, is worth between $9 and $10, and in addition to the

value of the sugar, there is the value of the pulp, which was considered valueless until recently, but which to-day, evaporated so that it can be transported, commands perhaps $20 a ton in the German market. The hon. gentleman tells us that pulp is equal in value to hay. Well, hay in the United States and Canada is worth at least $6 a ton. So that from the raw material, which costs $4.50, you have the value of the sugar, between $9 and $10, and the value of the pulp as well. It is quite evident that the business must be an enormously profitable one. The cost of converting the ton of beets into sugar and pulp is not more than $1.50 or $2. Thus, you have a total cost of $6.50, as against a selling value of $9 or $10 for the sugar and the value of the pulp besides. There is no bounty required for that business. The only danger is that it will be overdone because the profit is so great.
My hon. friend gives the result of a number of tests in Canada. He tells us that the Ontario experimental farm test gave 19 tons of beets to the acre, and that these beets analysed 16 per cent of saccharine matter ; or the 19 tons of beets would produce 275 pounds of sugar to the ton. I do not know what the quotation of sugar is to-day, but at 4i cents a pound, this would be equivalent to $12.50 worth of sugar from a ton of beets that would cost the factory perhaps $4.50, in addition to the value of the pulp, which would be either fed to stock on the ground or evaporated and exported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might correct the hon. gentleman with regard to the yield of sugar per ton of beets. It is from 190 to 232 pounds.


John Charlton: 1 may say that I know that the yield of a ton of beets that analyse 12 per cent of saccharine matter is 200 pounds of sugar, in addition to a certain quantity of molasses and drips. If it analyses more than 12 per cent, the yield is proportionately greater.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How does the hon. gentleman make that $12.50 a ton ?


John Charlton: I was taking a test of 19 tons with 16 per cent of saccharine mat-' ter.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But that is not the average.


John Charlton: That is not the average, but I was treating that particular instance.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Has the hon. gentleman made the deduction that only 81 per cent or 82 per cent is saccharine matter, and you have to take 12 per cent of that ?


John Charlton: I assumed, of course, that the percentage of saccharine matter represented so many pounds of sugar. You can reduce it one-fifth, and you still have 12
over $10 to the ton. The hon. gentleman gave another test of 18'3 tons of beets to the acre, which produced 13-56 per cent of sugar. This is 1 -36 higher than the standard on which the American price of $4.50 per ton is given. The hon. gentleman tells us that in Germany the average is 11-70 tons per acre, and the test 12 per cent. The difference between the yield of 11 tons per acre and a yield of 18 or 19 tons, and between a test of 12 and a test of 15 or 16 per cent, in saccharine matter, shows the enormous advantages in favour of the cultivation of sugar beet in Ontario. And if the business can be pursued successfully and profitably in Germany, where the average is 11 tons per acre and the saccharine test 12 per cent, of course it can be prosecuted with much greater chance of a successful return in Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In Germany they use the long ton of 2,240 pounds, while ours is the short ton.


John Charlton: Still the disparity is very great in favour of the Ontario beet producer ; and it would have been well if the hon. gentleman, in making comparisons, had adopted the same standard of ton in the one case as in the other.
The hon. gentleman has told us that in no country is the yield and the percentage in saccharine matter as high as here, and I believe that as regards European countries his statement is perfectly correct. I doubt also whether in any of the American states the yield, on the whole, is as large and the saccharine test as high as in Ontario.
Then, the hon. gentleman went on to make a comparison between the return a farmer would receive from grains of various kinds and the return he woidd receive from the sugar beet. From $13 to $20 per acre is, he represents, the return from cereals, oats, wheat, &c., while from sugar beets the farmer may expect an average return of $60 per acre, and the hon. gentleman showed that in the state of Illinois the return was from $39 per acre to $118. So that the difference in favour of the cultivation of the beet root is enormous, and the inducement for the manufacturer to take those beets and convert $4.50 worth of raw material into at least $9 worth of sugar, and per haps $1.50 worth of pulp, is certainly sufficient to cause men to embark in the business without the intervention of the government in the shape of a subsidy.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It has not done it.


John Charlton: It has in the various American states.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We are not talking of the American states.


John Charlton: Why, the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) was drawing comparisons between this country and the American states, and I have pointed out two



states in which there are twenty factories running profitably without any government bounty, and where the conditions as to the yield of the beets and the saccharine matter are stated to be less favourable than in Ontario.
My hon. friend tells us that 9,000 tons of sugar beets were raised in the western part of Ontario and exported to Marine City in Michigan, and although these beets paid a duty of 25 per cent and 50 cents freight, yet the business was profitable for the farmers who raised them. Well, if these gentlemen can raise beets for export to Marine City at $3.20 per ton, they can raise them to supply the sugar factories at their own door at the same price. But they are not asked to do it. The business will be profitable without the aid of a bounty, at all if the sugar factories can obtain beets, with a test of 12 per cent saccharine matter, for $4.50 per ton. All it requires is a little enterprise and the investment of money in the enterprise.


James Clancy: In the beets for which $3.20 per ton was paid, there was no consideration of the quantity of sugar contained.


John Charlton: Very probably, but there are scarcely any beets in Ontario that do not yield 12 per cent of saccharine matter, and if those beets can be sold for $3.20 a ton on the Canadian side opposite Marine City, they can be sold upon this side for that price and can be manufactured profitably into sugar. And the manufacturer can pay $1 to $1.50 per ton more than that price.
The hon. gentleman tells us that the farmer gets 00 per cent of the gross returns from the manufacture of the beet into sugar. He assumes that if the farmers receive $4.50 for these beets, the product ot' the beets is 40 per cent higher than the amount he receives. And if the conversion of these beets into sugar cannot be carried on by the manufacturer for 40 per cent of the gross returns from the manipulation of that raw material, that is very singular indeed. I do not say absolutely that 1 am right about this matter, but I know that the business has been carried on, not only successfully but with enormous profits, about 450 miles west of us, where the soil and climatic conditions are similar to those existing in Ontario. I know that this is the case ; and if it can be done there, it can be done equally successfully here. It is only a question of enterprise and the risking of money in an undertaking that will lead to the establishment of a successful business. I believe that we are on the eve of having the sugar beet industry introduced Into Canada, and that the gentlemen who contemplate embarking in this business are holding back, in the hope that they may receive from this government a bounty of 1 cent per pound.


John Charlton: 


James Clancy: Was the hon. gentleman not solicited to take stock in those enterprises ? I think he made that statement to the House last year.


John Charlton: If these gentlemen can secure 1 cent bounty, it will pay them to hold off until that is granted, and they can then embark in the business, and make much greater profits than the legitimate and satisfactory profits they would realize if they embarked in it without the bounty.
While I do not say that I am absolutely correct, and while I agree with the hon. member for East Grey as to the desirability of establishing this business in Canada, the question is one we want to consider very carefully and thoroughly, and I would imagine that the first step to take-if the government decided to take the question into serious consideration-would be to appoint a commission of gentlemen, who could thoroughly sift this business. Let them visit the sections of the United States where the beet sugar industry is prosecuted, and there acquire the information and compile the data that would place us in a position to give an intelligent opinion and ask intelligent action upon this very important question.


Mr. J. H. LEGRIS (Maskinonge.) (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, the beet-root sugar question is one of paramount importance, connected as it is with one of the most interesting and useful inventions of modern times, a product of the glorious nineteenth century, so fruitful in great discoveries. This question, Sir, has often been agitated in this country. Within the last twenty years, several experiments have been made with regard to the establishment of this industry in various localities of the province of Quebec ; but unfortunately, those efforts have proved abortive and resulted in financial failure.
The enormous capital invested in the building of sugar factories and the improvement of the various methods of cultivation; the bounties, either directly or indirectly granted to manufacturers and farmers by various governments, all those expenditures have been of no avail.
Finally, the failure of the Berthier and Farnham factories, the machinery and appliances of which were sold and sent ac-cross the line in 1896, has for the present at least, discouraged promoters and capitalists. Still, in spite of the frequently repeated failures of this industry, it would be an egregious mistake to jump to the conclusion that it cannot be introduced and carried on as successfully here as it has been prosecuted in Europe, and especially in the United States, where its success is almost an accomplished fact.
Experts, who have thoroughly mastered the question, or at least those who have written treatises on the subject, have all reached the same conclusion. They are

all agreed as to the possibility or the pro bability, not to say the certainty, of this industry becoming a paying one in this country.
In 1870, the Quebec government sent Mr. Edward Barnard, to Europe, with instructions to make inquiries concerning beet-root cultivation and the manufacture of beetroot sugar.
Early in 1872, Mr. Barnard was sent a second time to Europe by the Department of Agriculture, in Ottawa, in order to prosecute his previous inquiries, and ascertain whether this industry could be successfully established in Canada. That same year, Mr. Barnard published a short treatise on ' Beetroot Sugar.'
In 1875, Mr. Octave Cuisset, of Quebec, industrial chemist and manufacturer of beet-root sugar, also wrote a popular treatise on beet-root culture and beet-sugar manufacture.
In 1892, an appendix to the report of the Quebec Department of Agriculture was published on the same subject.
We have also a report from Mr. William Saunders, Director of the Dominion Experimental Farms, published in 1892, on the production and manufacture of beet sugar.
In 1897, Mr. Alfred Musy, a civil engineer, a graduate of the Paris Polytechnical School, and a former manufacturer, also wrote a book on the same subject.
We have several other interesting essays treating of the cultivation of the sugar beet, and they all come to the same conclusion, namely, that the beet-sugar industry can, in all probability, if not with absolute certainty, be made a success in this country.
But, on the other hand, we have also a record of experiments which proved utter failures. In 1881, a first-class factory was built at Berthier, which ran for two years.
In 1881-82, another factory for the manufacture of beet sugar was built at Farnham. Ooaticook followed in the wake of Farnham and started a factory which was operated in 1881, 1882 and 1883. All those experiments, so to say, proved utter failures. A fresh attempt was made at Berthier ift 1887, a-fter the sale of that factory at a nominal price, and this experiment proved still more disastrous than the former experiments, but the causes of those failures are now perfectly well understood. Let me quote from what an expert, Mr. Musy, says in this connection : ' Everything was mismanaged in this experiment. At the Berthier factory, in 1887, there was nobody appointed to educate the farmers as to the best methods to be adopted for the raising of a reasonable quantity of beets. The crop did not give two thousand tons, which hardly yielded 2 per cent of sugar, with sugar contents of from 12 to 13 per cent. I need hardly add that everything seemed to have been managed so as, to bring about such a result, and that the disastrous failure of 1887 was, so to say, a foregone conclusion.'
From 1890 to 1893, a fresh attempt was made at Farnham. In 1893, 1894 and 1895 operations were resumed at Berthier, with no better results than previously. The men who undertook to resuscitate it were either incompetent or their enterprise was not backed by suflicient capital. It is, perhaps, no exaggeration to say that those experiments were sometimes made by men who were either anxious to make political capital out of these enterprises or had speculation in view. All those experiments at the several points just mentioned proved abortive and disastrous.
Within the last few years we have heard a great deal about fresh efforts made to resuscitate the beet-root sugar industry in this country. The strongest objection invariably raised in this connection is grounded on the difficulty of ascertaining with some probability whether this industry could be successfully carried on here, owing to the difficulty of obtaining raw material, The greatest trouble met with was that of satisfying the men in power that this industry could prove as highly successful and remunerative here as it lias proved elsewhere. Sir, I was greatly surprised, when I heard, a little while ago, the hon, member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) stating on the floor of this House that this industry needed no encouragement from the government and that it could stand on its own bottom ! This industry is so paying, he said, that it needs no government assistance, and the profit realized therefrom is a sufficient inducement to cause capitalists, to embark in the business without any bounty. I was quite surprised to hear the hon. gentleman making such an erroneous statement, and repeating it throughout his speech, and in fact grounding upon it his whole argument. As to the data quoted by the hon. gentleman, which he borrowed from the speech of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) we must bear in mind that the tests referred to were made on certain plots of land and not on large areas, which is quite another thing. Those percentages are altogether too high. I do not call in question the accurateness of those data, but I know that similar results could never be obtained from a crop grown over larger areas.
It is all very well to talk of generalizing the cultivation of beet-roots, in order to supply sufficient raw material for the manufacture of sugar ; but it must not be lost sight of that the greatest difficulty to overcome in connection with the introduction of this industry is one relating to the education of the farming community and teaching them to improve their methods so as to supply the factory with such a quantity of beet-roots as may profitably be used up.
It is quite clear that farmers are not ready without any previous experience, to supply a factory-no matter where it is located-with a sufficient quantity of beet-

roots to make it a profitable business. Farmers will have to be educated up to that standard, for several years to come.
Another thing which we must not forget is the considerable amount of capital required for building a factory, varying from $400,000 to $500,000 at least. No capitalist would be anxious to embark in such a business, and sink half a million dollars in an enterprise of that kind, with the prospect of considerable deficits looming up before him for many years to come.
It is all very well to say that capitalists are quite able to take care of themselves, and that, in consideration of the large profits they will be able to realize, it is no business of the government to come to their assistance. Those who embark in that business have to make heavy outlays at the outset. It is necessary to send experts among the farmers, during the summer season, to watch the growth of the beet, and to teach the agriculturists the best methods adapted in European countries for producing the largest yield of beets with the greatest percentage of sugar obtainable, so that the crop may yield a profitable return both to the manufacturer and the farmer. But, as I said, if we expect capitalists to make all those outlays without assisting them in some way, we cannot expect to see this industry introduced into this country.
But there is no reason for feeling alarmed or surprised at the difficulties met with here, and which are the main cause of the failures mentioned. History once more repeats itself in our case, as the rise of this industry in Europe was attended with similar experiences and drawbacks. It was introduced in Europe in 1806 with enormous bounties from the various governments. Up to 1820 it was a bounty-fed industry, enjoying enormous protection, and then only it was that it began to show some practical results. It enjoyed those enormous bounties down to the year 1840. But since 1850, it has yielded considerable revenue to the various states where it is prosecuted. In France, to-day there are 3G0 sugar factories and over 400 in Germany.
In the United States, the rise of the beetroot sugar industry was attended with the same difficulties as those just referred to. From Bulletin No. 52, published by the Department of Agriculture in Washington, in 1897, I gather that the first attempt to introduce this industry was made in 1830, when the yield was but a few hundred pounds of sugar. From 1831 to 1837, the output was nil.
From 1838 to 1839, 1,300 pounds.
From 1839 to 1862, nil.
From 1863 to 1871, 300 to 500 tons per year.
In 1872, 500 tons.
In 1873, 700 tons.
From 1874 to 1877, less than 100 tons per year.
In 1878, 200 tons.
In 1879, 1,200 tons.
In 1880, 500 tons.
From 1881 to 1882, less than 500 tons.


Joseph Hormisdas Legris: In 1883, 535 tons.
In 1884, 953	"
In 1885, 600	"
In 1886, 800	"
In 1887, 255	"
In 1888, 1,010 tons.
In 1889, 2,600	"
In 1890, 2,800	"
In 1891, 5,359	"
In 1892, 12,091 tons.
In 1893, 20,453	"
In 1894, 20,443	"
In 1895, 30,000	"
In 1896, 40,000	"
Within the last few years, the yearly output has reached over one hundred thousand tons.
As will be seen, it was as late as 1830 that this industry was started in the United States, and, just as in the case of our own country, it took several years before it yielded any results. It was even on the eve of being altogether abandoned, so unsatisfactory were the results obtained from the first experiments. Therefore we need not wonder if the introduction of the same industry into our country has resulted in so many failures.
That the problem of the manufacture of beet-root sugar is now satisfactory solved is beyond question, from the manufacturer's standpoint. As to whether sugar beets can be successfully grown with a sufficiently high precentage of first-class sugar to permit of their being manufactured with profit is now an indisputable fact. The great trouble with us here is the one I have just referred to, namely, the difficulty of inducing farmers to grow a beet which may prove acceptable as well as profitable to the manufacturer. The roots must also be raised in sufficient quantities to supply the factory for a reasonable period of time.
Now, this educational work is a question of time requiring a practice of several years. Nor can that education be brought up to the right standard, unless factories be started which will induce the farmers to grow the beet and will be willing to buy it from them at paying prices.
I shall not follow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) in his review of all the advantages which would accrue to a particular locality from the establishment of a beet-sugar factory. All I need add is this : that the government should not view with indifference the unquestionable benefits which would result from the introduction of this industry into the country. If we consider the cost of building a factory, which is estimated at from $400,000 to $500,000 at least; if we consider that the introduction of this industry and the raising of the beets means the cultivation of several thousand acres of land, divided among 700 or 1,000 families ; if we bear in mind that it means the employment of several hundred agricultural labourers, in addition to the many employees the sugar factory itself would require, it is easily seen how beneficial this industry would prove to the country.

But I have not yet pointed out all the advantages that would accrue to Canada from the establishment of the beet-sugar industry. For instance, a considerable quantity of pulp would be produced by the factory, and this by-product is known to be a very-useful and desirable feed for animals, and it would thus stimulate dairying. It must be borne in mind that the manufacture of beet-root sugar also means the employment of a large amount of labour in the winter season, as well as in the summer season. There is no doubt that this industry would assist our farmers in fattening their stock and improving their farms and bringing them up to a higher state of cultivation, and so it would develop the wealth of the farming community. What happened elsewhere would also happen here. That sucli were the results obtained in Europe is beyond dispute.
In a special report published by the Department of Agriculture, in Washington, in connection with the beet-sugar industry, the writer points out the improvement of lands as one of the advantages accruing therefrom :
The writer observed during his inspection of sugar-beet farms this summer that the owners of the land received in many instances as high as $5, in some cases $6, and in a few cases $7 per acre cash rent for land devoted to the raising of sugar beets, and this in localities where $3 per acre would have been the highest possible amount which could have b^en obtained as rent for similar land used for other farming purposes. Inquiry was particularly made into the value of land on which sugar beets were being raised around Watsonville and Alvarado, Cal., and it was rarely placed lower than $200 per acre. Rents were rated at from $10 to $15 per acre, yet those farmers claimed to be making a good profit raising beets. The sugar-beet lands of Utah were very much enhanced in value, so that the experience of this country up to the present time seems to be that the location of a beet-sugar factory in a district causes a healthy rise in rents and values of land.
I fail to see wby the same cause should not produce the same effect here as in the United States. It is a matter of experience -and I have never entertained any doubt on this point-that a considerable increase in value of lands has always resulted from the location of a beet-sugar factory in any district.
Now, if such are the advantages resulting to any particular locality from the establishment of a beet-sugar factory, it is easily understood how beneficial would prove to the country the establishment of from thirty to forty sugar factories, which will be required for manufacturing sugar in quantities sufficient to supply the home market.
Now, in order to reach that end, what means are we to adopt ? It is an uncontroverted fact that the sugar-beet can be successfully grown in this country ; still, there is nothing yet in sight.
The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has referred more particularly to
the bounties granted to the iron and steel industry. There are many other industries which could be added to the list.
As we all know, our industries have been developed under the favouring influence of protection and large bounties ; and in my humble opinion, no capitalist could be induced to embark in an industry which requires the outlay of such large capital, without being satisfied that he will be given aid at least for a limited number of years, so as to enable him to face the deficits which will undoubtedly occur at the initial stage of his operations.
What have we not done in the past in favour of the sugar refiners ? What protection did they not enjoy ? For many years they have been highly protected and even to-day they are still receiving indirectly a pretty high protection. But let me add here that such protection goes to benefit the reliner alone. For every ton of sugar manufactured, the refiner hardly shows $5 in the country, while the sugar manufacturer will spend at least $20. In those factories worth from two to three million dollars, the refiner gives employment to about two thousand workingmen. The building of the sugar factories which would entail an expenditure of from fifteen to twenty million dollars, would for a time give employment to mechanics, and once ready for the production of the sugar, they would require over ten thousand labourers, without mentioning the army of farmers and agricultural labourers engaged during the summer season in the cultivation of the beet.
There are many advantages accruing to tins country from the beet-root sugar industry, for which the sugar manufacturer might claim credit, such as the high state of cultivation to which the lands are brought in raising sugar beets, which is intensive farming in every sense of the word ; the progressive increase of crops ; the raising of cattle on a large scale ; the increase in the output of milk, and consequently, the erection of dairies and creameries which naturally follow in the wake of factories.
The sugar refiner cannot show anything to his credit favourably comparing with those results. Now, since all governments, without any exception, have realized that it was in the interest of the community to protect sugar refineries, I do not see the reason why we should deny protection to an industry far more beneficial to the farming community than the sugar refining industry.
Should we succeed in introducing this great industry into the country, I have no hesitation in saying that it would prove most beneficial to the people of Canada in general, and that it would give a great stimulus to the farming industry. It is beyond question that whenever this industry is established in a locality it results in an all-round improvement. The culture of the beet, as I said, would have a most excellent

effect on the development of farm lands by bringing them up to a higher state of cultivation, while it would give stimulation to corollary industries, such as the raising of dairy cattle, thus increasing the general wealth of the country. Even towns have sprung up in the wake of those sugar-beet factories.
It is stated, in a report published by the United States government, that a small town, Oxnard, owes its existence to no other cause than the introduction of the sugar beet industry into that district.
Why, Sir, within the past few years, have we not seen small towns, like Grand'mere, Shawinigan, Sault Sainte Marie, springing up as if by magic, in the wake of new industries ? History will repeat itself here, and the introduction of this industry into the country will be attended with similar results ; new towns will spring up around those factories, and a new impetus will thus be given to progress in those districts and in the country in general. And once the factory is in full operation, business meu, traders, mechanics, workingmen of every description, will be seen flocking thither and settling down in the vicinity of the factory, in order to supply the wants of the people employed in this industry, thus forming the nucleus of a new town. One of the by products, the refuse molasses, might also be converted into first-class alcohol, and manufacturers would no doubt avail themselves of the opportunity for starting this industry. There are many other advantages which would accrue to the country from the introduction of the sugar beet industry ; but, as I do not wish to trespass upon the indulgence of the House, I need not refer to them at any greater length.
With these few remarks which I wished to offer to the House, I hesitate not to say that I can approve the resolution which is now in your hands, Mr. Speaker. When the opinion of this House is known, I hope that the government-and here 1 appeal more particularly to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who is an expert in such matters and who realizes all the good likely to result to the country from the introduction of such an industry-the government, I say, should not hesitate to grant a reasonable aid, so as to induce capitalists aud manufacturers to invest their money in the building of sugar beet factories.
I am quite aware that the greatest care must be experienced in such matters, and that it behooves us to move slowly ; but I do not think there are any unsurmountable obstacles in the way, and I hope the government realizes that the time has come for them to assist this industry ; thus promoting the dearest interests of" the country. The government, I have no doubt, will not hesitate to take the means of bringing about the successful establishment of this industry.
In connection with the sale of the Berthier sugar factory, i may say that those who were present when the machinery was being removed, prior to its being shipped across the line, felt, no doubt, very keenly the loss of that industry, but they thought that perhaps it was no such great loss, after all, seeing that the machinery was obsolete and without the required capacity for an output large enough to make it a paying business. It is out of question that a beet sugar factory must be provided with the most approved machinery and labour-saving appliances, with the capacity of turning out an output large enough to make the business paying. Now, this factory could utilize but 220 tons of beets per day, and as is well known, no such operations can be profitable unless a factory has a capacity of 500 tons a day.
The government are conversant enough with what is being done to-day in this line in the United States, to be able to decide upon the course to be adopted by them. Is it not a pity to see eight or nine million dollars yearly flowing out of the country, fo pay for our home-consumption of sugar, an article which could be manufactured here ?
I think I have said enough to satisfy the government that they should come to the assistance of an industry which would prove so beneficial not only to the farming community, but to the country in general.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: At this early stage of the session, the government is not expected to make announcement of its policy on subjects of this kind. They are subjects which are properly to be considered, and upon which the government may fairly be expected to mature its policy in time for the presentation of the budget. As I anticipate at an early day being able to make my financial statement, I do not think that I should comment on the very interesting and able addresses to which we have listened, further than to say that we realize that the subject is one of deep interest and great importance, and that, at the proper time, the government will be prepared to declare its views on the subject. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not think that we should adjourn the debate, but that the government ought to be able to say whether they do or do not approve of the principle of the resolution. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) brought this matter to the attention of the House, I think, two years ago. I believe the question was brought up again last year, and a full discussion took place. On each of these occasions the government asked for an adjournment of the debate, or sought to shelve the question in some other way. But I think the time has


Joseph Hormisdas Legris: arrived when the government should be ready to say whether they are for or against this motion. It looks as if the old plan were being tried, and that the government, finding it more convenient, are going to have the question stand over. For my part, I am quite willing to express my opinion by voice and vote ; and my opinion is that this parliament should grant a bonus, or subsidy, in whatever form may be considered best, for the promotion of the beet sugar industry in Canada. From the figures given by the hon. member for East Grey we learned that, in the United States, where there is a great production of cane sugar, they are promoting by enormous expenditure the production of beet sugar. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has told us that the state of Michigan has given up the bounties they were paying for the promotion of beet sugar manufacture. I do not know where that hon. gentleman got his information ; but I hold in my hand a copy of an Act ' To provide for the encouragement of the manufacture of beet sugar, and to provide compensation, and to make an appropriation therefor,' passed by the legislature of the state of Michigan. This Act is dated March 26, 1897, and section 8 in it, provides :
it, for, it is not like an ordinary Act, but is a contract with others. I presume that it is the law of the state of Michigan to-day. The hon. member for North Norfolk has been, in times gone by, an ardent admirer of the people of the United States. He tells us to-day that the beet-sugar industry is so enormously profitable that we should be foolish if we gave a subsidy or bounty to these factories. But the people on the other side of the line, whose business acumen the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) so much admires, are giving, so far as the state of Michigan is concerned, one cent a pound bonus for the promotion of this industry, and have undertaken to do so for seven years. They set no limit to the amount they will devote to that bounty. Other states of the Union also are giving large bounties, usually, I believe, one cent a pound, for the manufacture of this sugar. It is true that the hon. member for North Norfolk does not now express that high admiration for the people of the United States that he formerly did. But that is because lie thinks they are too sharp in their business practices, too selfish and too much inclined to look after themselves. It is an idditional proof of the wisdom of the step
' East
proposed by the hon. member for Grey that these sharp and selfish and wideawake people see such advantages in carry-Every person, firm or corporation that shall { on this manuafcture in their country have in operation in this state a factory for the ,	.	bonus Of one cent pelmanufacture of sugar from beets with a capacity	. , encoura};e it '	"	' '	"
of 2,000 pounds- of sugar or upwards per day, ; pouna to encourage while this Act is in force, shall be entitled to re
^_____ _	Another point of
	 great importance and one that has assisted
ceive from the state one cent per pound for beet me in reaching a conclusion is that in any sugar manufactured from beets in said factory country where this manufacture has been for a period of seven years from the taking established as a great industry, it has
reached large proportions only through the assistance of enormous bounties. In Ger-in France, in Belgium and other
effect of this Act.
Seven years from March 26, 1897, would
bring us to March 26, 1904 ; and we have many, not arrived at that by three years. I European countries, they not only Pve a would like to know where the hon. member subsidy tor the manufacture, but they give for North Norfolk got his information, that a bounty for every pound exported. And tlie Act had been repealed. They could not these export bounties are causing the Bnt-well repeal it, because it was a contract ish government great trouble, because Grieat
made with the proprietors of sugar manufactories.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I rather think the governor of Michigan refused to assent to it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: 
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Pingree was not governor at the time the Act was passed. He has been governor since, and tried to cause some trouble about the Act. But there is the Act passed, and no governor could veto
200,000,000 pounds were imported a few years ago, and I remember that, in 1879, when the Conservative party came into power, the importation of sugar into Canada was only about 104,000,000 pounds. We have trebled our consumption in the last twenty-one or twenty-two years. The consumption of other countries also has enormously increased, one of the reasons being

the much lower price at which sugar can he produced. The fact that other countries have become great producers of beet-root sugar through bounties is a strong argument. to my mind, why we should have bounties here. The hon. member for North Norfolk says there are men waiting to see whether we will not give a bounty, but that they are bound to put up sugar refineries here anyhow. Well, all X can say to them is this, we have been going on for twenty years, and during all this time the beetroot sugar industry has been increasing enormously each year, but we have been doing nothing, and we are doing nothing to-day. If we want to promote an industry in this country that will save $6,000,000 of the people's money-yes, $9,000,000, because we can save 312,000,000 pounds at three cents a pound, leaving the cost of manufacture out of the question altogether, we would be saving nine or ten million dollars a year and giving employment in our own country to our farmers, mechanics and carriers and so forth-it appears to me that this is an enterprise that should receive the encouragement and support of the government.
House divided on amendment of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Biair,	McGugan,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Mclsaae,
Bourbonnais,	McLennan,
Britton,	Ivtalouiu,
Calvert,	Matheson,
Christie,	Maxwell,
Copp,	Meigs,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Mignault,
Desmarais,	Monet,
Emmerson,	Morrison,
Fielding,	Oliver,
Flint,	Paterson,
Fraser,	Proulx,
Geoffrion,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gibson,	Roche (Halifax).
Gould,	Ross (Ontario),
Guthrie,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.)
Holmes,	Russell,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Scott,
Johnston (Lambton),	Si f ton,
Lang,	Stephens,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Sutherland (Essex),
Laurier (L'Assomption),	Sutherland (Oxford),
LeBlanc,	Tarte,
Lewis,	Thompson,
Loy,	Tolmie,
Macdonald,	Turgeon,
Mackie,	Wade, and
Maclaren (Huntingdon), McEwen,	Wright.-59.
Alcorn,
Barker,
Bell (Addington). Bell (Pictou), Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Mr. WALLACE
NAYS : Messieurs
Kendry,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
LaRiviSre,
Lavell,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Broder,
Bruce,
Calvin,
Cargill,
Carseallen,
Clancy,
Clare,
Culbert,
Earle,
Fowler,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria), Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbach,
McGowan,
McLeod,
Monk,
Morin,
Northrup,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson (Grey), Robinson (Elgin), Rosamond,
Sherritt,
Simmons,
Sproule,
Taylor,
Tolton,
Vrooman,
Wallace,
WTilmot, and Wilson.-50.
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Messieurs
Opposition.
Talbot,
Horsey,
McColl,
Hyman,
Dobell,
Dyment,
Logan,
Lavergne,
Johnston (Cape Breton),
Bernier,
Mulock,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd),
Smith (Vancouver), Marcil (Bonaventure), Davis,
Charlton,
McCreary,
Carroll,
Cowan.
Galliher,
German,
Kendall,
Brown,
Parmelee,
BIckerdike,
Schell,
Heyd,
Murray,
McCool,
Amendment ag
McIntosh,
Pringle,
Ward,
Gilmour,
Brock,
McCormick, MacLaren (Perth), Ingram,
Robinson (Northumberland, N.B.), Haggart,
Osier,
Tupper (Sir Charles Hibbert),
Maclean,
Casgrain,
Prior,
Tisdale,
Cochrane,
Roddick,
Corby,
Pope,
Clarke,
Kemp,
Ball,
Hale,
Ganong.
Ward,
Seagram,
Roche (Marquette), Smith (Wentworth),
to.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



GEN. HUTTON AND LIEUT.-COL.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria) moved for :
Return of the following data, correspondence, letters and reports, between General Hutton and Lt.-Col. Sam. Hughes ; or concerning the action of the latter in volunteering men for service of the British Empire in connection with the South African struggle.
1.	Address, official, Major General Hutton to the district officers commanding and commanding officers of regiments, at his first inspection. 1898.

2.	Letter, Major General Hutton, to Lt.-Col. S. Hughes asking for critioism of and suggestions re same.
3.	Official reply of Lt.-Col. S. Hughes.
4.	Letters, Lt.-Col. Hughes to General Hutton,
hy request, re-*
(a)	Canadians in wars of 1812, 1837, 186G, 1870 and 1885, and offering to raise a corps for Imperial service.
(b)	Copies of former applications to Imperial and Canadian authorities for Colonial assistance in Imperial wars, and renewed offer of service.
(c)	Plans for colonial brigade in Imperial wars; and renewal of offer to raise a corps.
5.	Requests, General Hutton to Col. Hughes, to state bis qualifications and record as soldier, and to show why a permanent corps officer should not be preferred.
6.	Circular letter, Gen. Hutton to Hon. Col. Gibson and Council of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association.
7.	Reply of Hon. Col. Gibson to Gen. Hutton.
8.	Reply of Council of D. R. A.
9.	The plan originally proposed by Gen. Hutton of annual camps, making 3 and 4 military districts drill in September, while 1, 2, 5 and 6 should drill in June, annually.
10.	Report or communication of Gen. Hutton to the Canadian press just prior to the opening of the session of parliament, 1899, that no member of parliament would be allowed to speak on military questions in the House of Commons, if he were also a militia officer, without permission of General Hutton.
11.	Reports, or data on same subject to the Minister of Militia and Defence.
12..The proposals of Gen. Hutton to amend the law, or regulations and orders, so as to prevent militia officers retaining commission if or while a member of parliament.
13.	Report by request, Col. Hughes to Gen. Hutton re staff ride.
14.	The authority under the law which makes the application of Col. Hughes, 24th July, 1899, to Hon. Dr. Borden, Minister of Militia, an irregularity and breach of military discipline, vide Gen. Hutton to Minister of Militia, 31st July, 1899.
35.	Application Col. Hughes to Gen. Hutton (through D.O.C.) to raise a corps for Imperial service in the Transvaal, July 24th, 1899.
16.	Reports to Gen. Hutton of two militia officers of the city of Toronto and others, stating that few, if any, men or officers could be obtained in Canada for such a service.
17.	(a) Application, Col. Hughes to Hon. Dr. Borden, Minister of Militia, July 24, to raise a corps for service in the Transvaal.
(b)	Reply of the Minister of Militia thereto.
(c)	Report and papers connected with the application before the Privy Council of Canada.
(d)	Gen. Hutton's reprimand to Col. Hughes for applying to the Minister of Militia.
(e)	Gen. Hutton's letter, July 31st, 1899, to Minister of Militia re same.
(f)	The authority upon which Col. Poster, C.S.O., based the statement in his letter of Sept. 19th, 1899, to Col. Hughes, [DOT] after which you withdrew it."
18 (a) Application of Col. Hughes to Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain to raise a corps in Canada for service in Transvaal.
(b)	An acknowledgment by Mr. Chamberlain.
(e) Letters, Military Secretary to His Excellency to Gen. Hutton re same.
(d)	Gen. Hutton (C.S.O.) to Col. Hughes, August 24, 1899, reprimanding him for having written to Mr. Chamberlain re the raising of a corps.
(e)	Col. Hughes to Gen. Hutton (C.S.O.) September 2, 1899, in reply.
(f)	Col. Poster, C.S.O. to Gen. Hutton, to Col. Hughes, September 19th, asking him to withdraw the letter of September 2nd, 1899.
(g) Complete letter-not an extract-from Col. Hughes to Col. Poster, C.S.O. to Gen. Hutton, Sept. 22nd, 1899, in refusal to withdraw the letter of Sept. 2nd.
(h)	Col. Poster, C.S.O to Gen. Hutton, to Col. Montizambert, D.O.E. Mil. Dis. 3 and 4, Oct. 9th, re Hughes' letter of September 2nd re having it withdrawn.
(i)	Letter, Col. Montizambert forwarding same to Col. Hughes and urging withdrawal.
(j)	Letter, Col. Hughes to Col. Montizambert refusing to withdraw the letter, and giving reasons therefor.
(k)	Letter, Col. Montizambert to Col. Foster, C.S.O. to Gen. Hutton, re the same.
19.	(a) Letter, Col. Hughes to the press of Can-anada, re troops from Canada for service in the Transvaal, dated September. 1899, referred to in the letter-Col. Poster, C.S.O. to Gen. Hutton, to Col. Hughes, Sept. 25th, 1899.
(b)	Telegram, Gen. Hutton (C.S.O.) to Col. Hughes, Sept. 25th, 1899, re above letter and section 98, Army Act.
(c)	Letter, Gen. Hutton (C.S.O.) to Col. Hughes re same.
(d)	The evidence upon which Gen, Hutton sent the telegram and the letter of Sept. 25th, 1899.
(e)	The authority under the law empowering Gen. Hutton to send such letter and telegram.
(f)	Despatch dictated by Gen. Hutton and published in London, (Eng.) Times stating that in his letter to the Canadian press, Col. Hughes was usurping the functions of the government of Canada, Sept. 25th, 1899.
(g)	Despatch, Gen. Hutton to the Canadian press re the same, Sept. 25th, 1899.
(h)	Despatch, Gen. Hutton t.o Canadian press, Sept. 28th, 1S99, re Col. Hughes being liable to fine or imprisonment under section 98.
(i)	Col. Hughes' telegram in reply to Gen. Hutton (C.S.O.), Sept. 25th, 1899.
(j)	Letter, Col. Hughes (Sept. 30th) to Gen. Hutton's (C.S.O.) letter of Sept. 25th re sec. 98.- Official.
(k)	Gen. Hinton's letter to Col. Foster, Oct. 11, 1899, re Col. Hughes' letter of Sept. 30, 1899.
(l)	Letter, Col. Poster. C.S.O. to Gen. Hutton, to Col. Montizambert, Oct. 14th, 1899, threatening to suspend Col. Hughes from the command of his battalion for writing the letter of Sept. 30th, 1899.
(m)	The authority under the law, permitting Gen. Hutton to make such threats.
(n)	Letter, Col. Montizambert (Oct. 17th, 1899) to Col. Hughes re above.
20.	(a) Letter, Col. Hughes to Gen. Hutton, Oct. 10th, re the press reports against Col. Hughes, dictated by Gen. Hutton.
(b) Gen. Hutton (C.S.O.) to Col. Hughes, and to Minister of Militia (Oct. 25th and 26th respectively) re above.
21.	(a) Col Hughes to Gen. Hutton, Aug. 18th, 1899, by request re qualifications.
(b)	Reply of Gen. Hutton, Aug. 26th, 1899.
(c)	Letter, Col. Hughes to Gen. Hutton, Aug. 28th, 1899. in reply to above and to the words of Gen. Hutton ' You ' Canadians ' might as well try tc fly to the moon as to take the field alongside British regulars, short of three years' training, and not then unless led by Imperial officers.'
22.	Letter, Col. Hughes withdrawing controversial matter on his receiving notification of his appointment to the Transvaal force.
[Stage Direction]
23.	Letter, Col. Hughes to Gen. Hutton, Oct. 23rd, 1899, in friendly parting.
24.	Letter, Col. Hughes to the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on Gen. Hutton's declining to accept proffered friendliness-demanding that General's recall, Oct. 27 th or 28th, 1899.
25.	Report of the speech delivered by Gen. Hutton to the officers of the Canadian contingent in the Chateau Frontenac, Sunday, 29th Oct., 1899, against Col. Hughes.
26.	Letters of Gen. Hutton to South African British generals, against Col. Hughes.
27.	Copies of the reports furnished to the press of Canada, Great Britain, the United States and South Africa, against Colonel Hughes by General Hutton's agency, during November and December, 1899, and January and February, 1900.
28.	The legal authority for General Hutton to write officially to South African generals without the sanction of the Minister of Militia, against Colonel Hughes.
29.	Letter of Colonei Hughes from Upington in Gordonia. South Africa, about 30th March, 1900, tc Hon. Dr. Borden, Minister of Militia. Canada correcting errors, omissions and misstatements in General Hutton's brief as submitted to parliament last session.
30.	The authority under the law permitting General Hutton and Colonel Foster to use personal, unofficial, confidential and private correspondence in official returns.
31.	The authority under the law permitting the G. O. C., General Hutton, to receive official correspondence from His Excellency the Governor General, through the military secretary.
32.	A copy of the * notification to Lieut.-Col. Hughes that they, private letters, would be so submitted' by General Hutto:', referred to In the letter of Lieut.-Col. Pinault, March 16th, 1900.
33.	The authority under the law forbidding a Canadian who chances to be a militia officer, not, of the permanent corps, from volunteering to Great Britain to serve in South Africa.
34.	The authority under the law authorizing General Hutton, as G. O. C., to reprimand a Canadian militia officer, not on duty, from volunteering to the Minister of Militia of Canada, to raise a corps for the service of Great Britain.
35.	The legal authority for General Hutton, through Colonel Foster, vide letter of Sept. 19th to Colonel Hughes, to use the language :-* but as officer commanding a battalion, it would, I am sure, be quite impossible for any general to overlook the character of your letter (Sept. 2nd), which, from a military point of view, could only be considered as inconsistent with discipline.'
36.	The legal authority of Major General Hutton for stating (Oct 9, 1899), ' No officer has the right to dispute the authority of the Major-General commanding as his superior officer, or to question his action ; still less that of the Governor General, the representative of Her Majesty in Canada.'
37.	Reports or recommendations of General Hutton producing changes in the command of the R.C.R.I. in 1899.
38.	Report of Col. Herkimer showing that General Hutton declined to treat as official or public, a telegram and a letter written in his capacity as Major General to Col. Herkimer, the general claiming he had the right to regard them as not official, but private, and that they were not binding on him.
39.	The ' authority ' referred to in the letter of Col. Hughes to General Hutton (vide D.O.C.,) Sept. 2, 1900, in paragraphs (a) to (g).
40.	The following letters and data :-
Samuel Hughes: An bon. MEMBER, Order.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I said nothing about the hon. gentleman. These Britishers living in the Transvaal might succeed in becoming citizens of the country after fourteen long years. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, before they were granted citizenship, they had to prove they never attended a public meeting where anything had been said against the Transvaal government ; that they had never written anything against the Transvaal government, and they had to have a two-thirds vote of the burghers of the locality where they resided before they could be enrolled as citizens. Therefore, when these little Englanders in Canada, or the old land, side with the enemies of Britain as they sometimes do, and tell us that these men should have become citizens of the Transvaal, they either know not whereof they speak or else they are deliberately suppressing the facts and talking against the dictates of their conscience. As an additional reason why Canadians were determined to stand firm and loyal by the *mother land, I may point out that the Boers had deliberately violated the convention of 1881. Those Canadians who went to the aid of the empire saw that the Boer policy was not a policy of liberty, but a policy to perpetuate the Kruger oligarchy. A Boer said to me in South Africa : The last thing in the world that Kruger and his friends want is an independent republic, either in the Transvaal or the Orange Free State, because a republic would mean that every citizen would have a right to vote, and then the electorate would not be numbered by 15.000, but by 150,000, and the majority of them would be Britishers, who would become Transvaal citizens, and would swamp the Kruger government. That observation of the Boer explains the situation.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, however, that the keynote of the whole cause of Boer antipathy to British rule is to be found in the negro question. We have heard in the press and on the platform, and perhaps in this

House, how the Boers were forced by British tyranny to trek from their happy homes on the sea coast, and across the mountains and the Karoo, to settle in the inhospitable regions of the Transvaal and the Free State. We have heard that time and again, but what are the facts ? In 1833 the Wilber-force Act was passed, abolishing slavery In the British dominions. In 1834 the Boers were paid $170 for every man, woman and child slave they held, and which cost them nothing, because all they had to do was to round up a native tribe and get all the slaves they thought they needed. It may be that all this money did not reach the Boers ; it may be that financial agents pocketed a good deal of it, but the fact stands forth that $170 for each slave was voted to them. Following this, in 1835-6 and 1837, began the great trek of the Boers into the Transvaal and the late Orange Free State. Why did they go there ? They were actuated by four motives. The first was that they might hold slaves ; the second, that they might be freed from taxation unless that taxation was levied by themselves on negroes or on foreigners. The third reason was that they might acquire possession of those rich and fertile valleys which, from the reports of missionaries, were for many years known to exist there ; because missionaries had traversed the Orange Free State and the Transvaal long before the Boers settled in those countries. Another reason was that they might establish a little republic of their own, with a seaport where the present Durban is situated. These were the reasons which actuated them in treking away to that remote region.
I shall not discuss any further the causes of the war or the reasons which actuated Canadians in desiring to assist the empire in these troubles. But I might point out that evidence is forthcoming which cannot be contradicted, of the fact that the Boers for a number of years had a deliberate intention of forcing a war on Great Britain and driving her from South Africa in order to establish a Boer republic in that country. A letter is extant from the late Secretary of the Orange Free - State, in which he wrote :-
The only thing we are afraid of is that Chamberlain, with his admitted hi fulness of temper, will cheat us out of a war and consequently out of an opportunity to annex Natal and Cape Colony, and to form a republican United States of South Africa.
Matters went passably well with these people ; their scheme was being carried out; the Bond had control in South Africa, and everything seemed favourable to their scheme, when, by one of those happy strokes of good fortune, Mr. Chamberlain became colonial minister of Great Britain, and he had the wisdom or good fortune to select as the representative of Great Britain in South Africa Sir Alfred Milner. From that moment the rights of Britishers in South
Africa were placed on a better footing. Sir Alfred Milner took hold of the question in a kindly and temperate spirit, and endeavoured to bring about by fair means a settlement of the issues between the two nations. But. unfortunately, the Boers were determined on war in the hope of driving the British out of South Africa, and the war began. I might quote from an article written anterior to the war by a leading citizen of the Swiss republic to show what his theory of the problem was. He said :
Once more, let it be said, we refuse to draw a parallel between this oligarchy, gorged with the Uitlanders' gold, and our fathers, our ancient magistrates, or the heroic shepherds of Montenegro. But the Transvaal Is in existence, and there are good elements in it, and it may reform. In our opinion, no reform will come without freedom. May the Transvaal not present to the world the spectacle of a small country in which liberty can only be established on the ruins of independence. May it accept the proposals offered. May it fashion out of the Uitlanders citizens interested, even as the Boers, in the welfare of the country, and in its prosperity ; and with the undreamt-of material resources at its disposal, it will be in its power to become one of the most flourishing states of the old and new world.
That was written on October 25, 1899, by Edouard Naville, a very prominent Swiss authority.
Now, Sir, Canadians saw another aspect of the case also. We desired to assist the old land, not only for the reasons 'I have mentioned, but because of certain weaknesses that characterized her. We saw that Great Britain was unprepared for a great war of this kind. As usual, she had been going along in that happy-go-lucky style which has characterized her for the last generation or so. We saw that she was still controlled in trade matters by Cobden-ism ; that fad, if I may so term it, was still dominant throughout the length and breadth of the British islands. We saw that at the time of the transition from sail to steam, factories and foundries had sprung up all over the country ; we saw that the transition from oak to iron in British ships had added immensely to the trade and commerce of Great Britain ; and we saw England ascribing her success, not to these two improvements, but to the fact that Mr. Cobden had once preached in favour of free trade. In military matters- I say it with all due respect-we felt that Great Britain was not prepared for a war of that character; for, powerful as she might be, she was distant from the scene of action 7,000 miles by sea, in addition to 1,500 miles over a narrow gauge railway over which her forces had to travel to meet the enemy in the mountain passes. It is a rule of warfare that one man behind a breastwork four feet high, and provided with a long range rifle, is equal to eight men similarly armed who are advancing against him. We knew the nature of the country, and we knew that the Boers had from 80,000

to 90,000 fighting men whom they could put in the front of battle. According to the rule of Germany, France and other European military powers, how many men would England have to put in the field to meet those men on an equal footing 7 She would have to put in from 500,000 to 600,000 men ; and where could she get that number of regulars to take the field ? Canadians were irregulars-men whose individuality and power of initiative was developed, as is always the case with men in a new country ; and we felt, a great many of us, that Canadians could very properly assist the mother land as irregulars, to do what colonial troops have been largely called upon to do in this war, act in the capacity of scouts.
I regret to find on the part of some British military authorities since the war a disposition to criticise adversely the British soldier. I shall refer to one case of this kind ; though I trust this is a false report of a statement attributed to an officer of the name of Sir John Hay MacDonald, who is said to be a celebrated tactician. There was a saying going in Africa that in order to be a first-class failure it was necessary that a man should have written a book on tactics before he went to South Africa, and after he came out he would have the reputation of not being able to apply his own tactics in the field. However, I do not know whether or not this officer was in South Africa, and if it is true that he made this statement, he slanders the British soldier. This is what he says :
There is a pitiable lack of soldierly initiative in the rank and file of the British army. Instead of feeling himself a live unit, Tommy Atkins is a mere plank glued into a palisade. He is an unintelligent ' look-straight-to-the front ' automaton, in whom any natural mode of motion is a crime. He spends in acquiring a chesty front and a fancy swing the time he ought to employ getting acquainted with his rifle. He is taught that his gun is a mere burden, to be lugged about, shouldered, ordered and presented.
Then he adds :
Our commanding officers also have something to learn. They still shout orders which can be heard a mile off. They do not realize that the new conditions of war demand leading in absolute silence, and signalling not calculated to attract the enemy's attention.
Then, following on this officer, who was slandering the soldiers who had fought so well, I find another, the late general officer commanding in Canada, General Hutton, who has lately returned from Africa-I find him stating :
Better men would be available for the British army if the pay were bigger, and he cited the higher standing of recruits existing in the United States army, which was due to the increased pay.
I am not responsible for this statement, but it has been said that the British officer is all that his training fits him for. A very


Samuel Hughes: ,
eminent English authority has stated that the ordinary British officer is not supposed to devote much attention to war or the subject of war, that his chief function is to parade Piccadilly, practice dancing, and sacrifice the profession of a soldier for that of the society favourite. I am not aware whether that is true or not. The statement is not mine, but has been made by an eminent gentleman in the old land. But what I do say is this, that having seen the British soldier and the British officer in South Africa, and having read a great deal of the history of the British army, I believe that the manhood of the British soldier or officer never came to the front to the same extent as during the present war. They suffered from disadvantages there, which very few people realize, but 1 also stand here to give my opinion that whatever faults may be found with the British army, are due not to the men or the officers, but to the system under which they are trained. The fact is, as I said in this House ten or eleven sessions ago, and have frequently repeated since, this glueing to the plank idea of discipline is not the way to make soldiers. 'I have seen officers pass me on the street in Ottawa and other cities, and decline to speak to me in days gone by, because I dared to point out that the permanent corps were run too much on the martinet principle, and there was not enough of the discipline from within, for unless you can govern men from within, government from without is merely the discipline of the prison or the slave.
Having foreseen all this, a number of Canadians determined to do their best in assisting, as far as possible, to stir up the spirit of colonials in favour of assisting Britons in this war. With this object in view, it was my privilege to be commissioned informally to visit Australia and New Zealand. I may state that I was not commissioned by any government, but went on the invitation of friends in 1897, and part of 1898, in order to encourage as far as possible the spirit that I knew to be existent in those lands in favour of the colonies assisting the Imperial troops in time of war.
I need not say that Australia and New Zealand have both magnificently come to the front in this war, and it was my privilege to meet a great many officers and soldiers in Africa that I met in Australia and New Zealand.
Having briefly led up to the beginning of this matter, I may say that from the time of the appointment of the late general officer commanding in Canada, I took the question up with him. I wish here to state that among the general officers commanding, who have been in Canada the last ten or fifteen years, only one-and that was General Herbert-directly or indirectly gave any encouragement to the idea that Canadians could be of any service in England in the fighting line. Every one of them

pooh-poohed the notion that we could possibly be of any use even in guarding base points. I may say that among those may be classed the late general officer commanding, General Hutton. From the outset to the latter part of July, he persistently repudiated the opinion that Canadians directly or indirectly could be of any service in South Africa, and went so far as to get the opinion from Canadian officers that Canadians would not volunteer, and that if they did, they would not be of much use. However, I shall not follow his example and attack him in his absence. I merely wish to place a concise statement of the case before this House, in order that the legal aspect of the case-and that is the point that I wish specially to bring up-may be clearly presented and discussed if necessary, so that in the future we may not commit any of the mistakes that have been committed in the past.
I find, in glancing through the return brought down to this House, that a number of private and confidential letters have been included. I took the liberty of asking the hon. the Minister of Militia on my return, how this occurred. He pointed to the report of General Hutton in the return, which stated that he had notified me that these were going to be produced, and that I had acquiesced in their production. I never knew directly or indirectly, until a short time before I stepped on board the steamer, that he had prepared his brief. 1 never glanced at the brief until I was sailing down the St. Lawrence, and in hurriedly glancing over it, I saw that one very important letter was omitted. I did not notice until later that a dozen or two important documents were omitted, and I wired back to the Militia Department from Father Point to that effect. I would not withdraw one line of any private letter 1 wrote or apologize for any line I ever wrote privately, provided the late general officer commanding had placed before the public the communications from him which drew forth these letters. We had fought this thing out for many a long day, whether the militia of Canada could or could not take part in Imperial wars, and it finally culminated in liis stating to me that we might as well try to fly to the moon as to take Hie field alongside British regulars, short of three years training, and not even then, unless led bv Imperial officers. On that occasion I took the liberty of resenting the imputation cast upon me. I failed to see why we Canadians should not be as good soldiers as our kinsmen across the waters. We were trained and accustomed to have our individuality developed as was the case of people in all new countries ; and having this taunt thrown at me for the hundredth time, I repudiated it, possibly in language more forcible than polite. And when I found this sent out all over Africa in printed and typewritten documents, distributed among the officers, to handicap and injure
me, I feel I am justified in placing this matter in its proper light before the House.
I wrote to General Hutton :
It must not be forgotten that we in Canada know of Britain's fossil ways in many things. We are not in love with her because of that, or because of the barnacles and other creatures fastened upon her noble body. We love her in spite of very many characteristics that belong to the dark ages, and because of her noble institutions; her love of individual liberty as presented in her people, the detestation of tyranny in great or small, and her love of laws and obedience thereto so long as they are the laws of the people, and are not arbitrarily administered.
I may say that the letter was written, possibly, In a little hurry, but I would not change much of its language even to-day.
We love her also for her glorious record is war and in literature; for the noble men and women who have helped to upbuild her in ennobling humanity. But we have no love for those who imagine that Britain's greatness depends on officialdom, nor for those Britishers- ' remittance men,' chance offspring and others sent out to the colonies, and too often placed in positions of trust which they are incapable of filling. It is our desire to form part of the great empire; and so far as I am concerned, I am ready now to have Canada assume her direct responsibility and consequent control in the Imperial machine. But such movements must be approached gradually; public opinion must be quietly or at least effectively educated.
Let me point out that wherever British regulars have fought with Canadian volunteers, side by side, victory has ever been theirs. Wherever disaster occurred in the war of 1812 there were no Canadians. Imagine the Boers catching Canadians as the British were bagged at Brankliurst Spruit, Laing's Nek, Ingogo or Ma-juba Hill. A few Canadians would have seen the traps laid, and would have endeavoured to catch the enemy instead of being caught.
I admit that it may not bave been very palatable to the general officer commanding to have a statement like that made to him. But he had drawn it upon himself by his repeated utterances. I had been assured that we could not march, and could not stand should we get into battle. I had been assured that from a physical or from a drill and discipline viewpoint, we were unfit. I tried to point out to the general officer commanding that the discipline that had been known in the English army, the French army, or the German army was not discipline fit for anything but slavery and {he jail. I say that advisedly. Sir, it is the turning point with any army. Point out to me the great British military successes of the past, and I will point out the individuality of her sergeants and her private soldiers, the capacity in them to take advantage of situations as they arose. Individuality-it is the lack of this that will cause any army to be smashed by second-rate powers on any and every occasion. I pointed out, on the same occasion, possibly in language a little warm, but still constitutional and true- and language, used, be it remembered, after

I had been taunted with my desire to serve Her Majesty in the field-
But my anxiety for active service is inspired by the knowledge or the belief that the trend of government to-day, as of societies, is towards centralization and control by the few great powers. Realizing that for years influences operated by foreign powers and aiming at the disintegration of the British Empire were potent, not alone in the colonies, but even in the British Islands themselves, I have striven in my humble capacity to preserve and perpetuate the spirit of patriotism to the mother land, not imperialism in the red tape, narrow sense ; but in that of broad, tolerant, responsible government, that which develops the principles of intelligent personal liberty, to its greatest extent. It is that principle, and not red tape officialdom which has won Britain's battles by land and sea; made her famous in language, literature and learning; given impetus to her mechanical and scientific inventions and discoveries; caused her judges and jurists to be respected ; and developed the highest purity in social life.
Tlien comes a little point from which considerable capital has been attempted to be made against me :
I say nothing of religion, for religion and so-called ' religion,' which loses in form the spirit, are essentially different-the latter has ever been the foe, implacable and steadfast, to personal liberty and progress.
I do not retract anything from that statement either.
Therefore, my anxiety is not for active service for employment's sake; but the upbuilding of the empire with its many attendant blessings is the motive principle. From a boy, I longed for some one to lead in the movement. All feared to touch it. Finally, when but nineteen years old, I first advocated the question of an Imperial union, military, commercial and political. My views have never changed, other than to broaden. The lesson that time, but more especially instruction, inspiration, education and the overcoming of prejudices in the minds and hearts of a people are essentials to the accomplishment of every great design, has been learned.
Here is a point that, with others, was sent broadcast among British officers in South Africa.
Why should I from personal motives, have ' anxiety ' to go to South Africa and probably be placed under some Imperial incompetent, such as have brought dishonour and disgrace on Britain's arms in the past; and by falling in the cause only assist ' to fertilize the soil ' of that inhospitable country, merely ' for employment on active service?' I can secure decent burial in Canada, or live respected and honoured by my friends. But I am willing, for the honour and upbuilding of the British Empire and for British humanity, to go and take my chances. With my practical ideas, I feel that I would not be an injury to the cause. At least no ambuscades would he walked into; no atttempts to capture Boer positions as they desired would he made, no fool policy of putting 600 men in a place where 6,000 were necessary, would he adopted, on data or advice furnished by me.
The next paragraph was pointed out in his report to the Minister of Militia or perhaps, Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
I should not say his report, but his letters, to South Africa-as something henious ;
My dear General, that is a lovely sentence, ' Those great qualities of self-effacement,' &c. ; but permit me to inform you that I have for upwards of thirty years been a careful student of history, and have had favoured opportunities of getting 1 behind the scenes ' re the ' Horse Guards ' and ' War Office * methods of influence and appointments. Therefore, your beautiful sentence re self-effacement in great officers is entirely lost on me. I am desirous of learning where any British officer of note has, outside of vacancies caused in actual warfare, been promoted to high command on his merits alone ; Lord Roberts alone excepted. What the ' Horse Guards ' and ' War Office ' do not know about intrigue and influence, and the absence of self-effacement in one's friends if not directly in one's self, cannot be learned from the most noted body for such ip the world.
-and so on. Another point in the letter that was considered a criminal offence almost-was so treated at all events, because I was persecuted as, I believe it has been the luck of no other Canadian officer to be :
I do not profess to be skilful in leading expeditions to the moon

That had reference to the statement that we might as well attempt to fly to the moon as to take the field alongside the regular British soldier short of three years' training and not then unless led by Imperial officers :
History shows that Britain has had many experts at such and not so many skilled or capable of leading men against fighting men. True, battles have been won by British generals' and minor officers' plans, such as Wellington and his colleagues; Roberts, Kitchner and others, but to the British soldier is due victory again and again, despite the stupidity and blundering of British officers. These, as you know, are not alone my own views. You say I would be incapable to serve alongside British regulars ; why? Could not I retreat or surrender quickly enough to the Boers? History shows that the Yankees, whom Canadians could always defeat, though with great odds against us, repeatedly dressed and combed down British troops, led by British officers ; while the old plugs of Boer farmers wallopped the British though the odds were often against them.
I do know that I was cut out for a prophet, but this seems almost prophetic :
In the coming Boer trouble a similar result will be found to arise if ordinary British tactics be employed. We claim to be as good men and as accurate riflemen as are the Boers who have repeatedly * licked ' your British officers. Therefore, I fail to see wherein I am unfit to serve alongside British troops. Of course, the Boers have no ' Horse Guards ' pull.
I am free to admit, on reading it over, that that does seem a little what you might call incisive. But after being turned down as I had been, after having been told, not once but fifty times that we were unfit to take the field alongside these men, and being tauntingly told that we might as well try to fly to the moon as to think of such a

thing, I thought I was justified in hitting straight from the shoulder-and it came. Mark you, this was a private letter to General Hutton. Speaking of the use of private letters, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman very recently, speaking in reference to a letter, not marked private, but an ordinary letter written in friendship, and speaking of the use of that letter, said that a man was unworthy to associate with respectable citizens who would dare make use of a letter so written. What then can be said of a man who would seek to take advantage of such a letter as this, written privately and in all confidence, and in answer to his taunts, and most of the contents of the letter being in reply to invitations from him to give my views on certain questions ? What. Sir, can be said of the use of such a letter ? 1 am very glad the Minister of Militia and Defence is able to clear himself of what to me looks so strange at first sight, that is, allowing the use of any of those letters in the return brought down. But I see it is clearly intimated in the return that these were all sent to me some time previously. Sir, I never received them, never heard of them until they were handed to me by the quartermaster general shortly prior to my stepping on board the steamer at Quebec. More than that, there is a distinguished officer, Col. Herchmer, who held a telegram and a letter written from the general ordering him to join his corps. When Col. Herchmer presented himself, he was emphatically informed by this same officer that these letters were not official, and he declined directly or indirectly to recognize them.
Now, I will come down briefly to the questions at issue. For many long years, as members of this House know, I have advocated colonial assistance in Imperial wars. I have always got along as well as I possibly could with the general officers commanding ; I never had a quarrel with any of them which could be called a. quarrel, until this one. Why did I quarrel with General Hutton ? Was I foolish enough to run up against the general officer commanding without good and sufficient reason ? He was a personal aide de camp to Her Majesty, he was reputed to be immensely wealthy, he stated that he controlled the columns of the London Times. He boasted that he had upset one government in Australia, and that he would upset another in Canada if things did not go his way. It was to my interest to stand in with the general officer commanding. But it was evident from the outset that he was determined no one should hold an opinion different from his own. The militia throughout the country bowed to him in every way. But from the outset he gave us to understand that there was to be no questioning, that he was to be superior and supreme over every one.
My first meeting with him took place in the beginning of 1899. In the fall of 1898 lie issued an address, that address is in the department to-day. If it is not in the department I will be pleased to furnish the Minister of Militia and Defence with a copy. In that address he deliberately slanders the officers and men of the rural battalions throughout this country whom he had never seen. More than that, he goes on and lays down what he terms a system of instruction. Then he issues these circulars, and requested criticisms thereon. I gave a criticism, a fair and temperate one, and it is on file in the department to-day, and I stand by that criticism on the question of instruction. His plan was that drill sergeants from the various permanent corps should go and take charge over the officers in the various camps of instruction throughout the country and give instructions in drilling. The ground I took was that the proper place for a drill sergeant to get in his work was in the training of officers in the military schools and I addressed the Minister of Militia and Defence-he has heard of it often, and I hope he will hear of it again -saying that the proper place for the drill sergeant to get in his work is in training the officers at the schools. We want none of them, I will not have them, and I give fair warning that I shall not have a drill sergeant put over my battalion to drill me. When it comes to that I shall resign, and so will every self-respecting colonel in the Dominion of Canada. When it comes to having a drill sergeant from the schools put over the commanding officer to drill him and his battalion in camp, it is humiliating to the man who wears a uniform, and if he has a spark of manhood he will either go and qualify himself or get out of the force. The proper place for the drill sergeant is in training these officers in schools of instruction, and so I told General Hutton, as I had frequently told him. But I was not forgiven for that, I had committed an offence in answering his own request for criticism, and in differing from him.
Then followed a long discussion. As I said he opposed a corps going. I am sorry the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not in his place. The Minister of Public Works at that time, strange to say, seemed to be on the opposite side from the general. At that time the Minister of Public Works was a staunch advocate of sending a corps to South Africa in case of war. I interviewed him on several occasions before he went to Paris on what he thought might be his last illness-I am glad it was not. At all events he was very loyal ; and pledged himself that he would see to it that his fellow-countrymen, at all events, were represented man for man, according to population with other parts of the Dominion in case a contingent should go to South Africa. At that time the gen-



eral officer commanding opposed it. Later on they changed sides, the general officer commanding took action, and I think-1 have no authority to make the statement, and I am open to correction-but I believe he himself volunteered a corps without consulting either the Minister of Militia and Defence or the Prime Minister, after having opposed it up to the eleventh hour. Then forthwith the quarrel began between the late General Officer Commanding and the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works, I believe, flopped oyer to the other side, and decided that a contingent could not go except parliament were first consulted.' However, I leave that to the two gentlemen concerned to fight it out themselves. It was most interesting to watch the various changes.
Now, I want to draw attention to what was the most important constitutional error, as I think, on the part of the general officer commanding, and I bring this up, not for the purpose of hurting General Hutton at all, but in order that general officers commanding, and the militia men of this country, and members of parliament, may know where they stand. The House will remember that in 1899 I placed a motion on the paper in relation to sending a corps to the Transvaal, or, at all events, in favour of colonial assistance in Imperial wars. 1 was sent for by General Hutton the morning afterwards, and in telling this House what took place between General Hutton and myself, I mention only what transpired in his office with him in his official capacity. I shall not refer to anything that did not transpire in his office. He sent for me, and I thought when I got the message that he was going to give me some pointers, and I went over to his office as delighted as a child would be with a tin whistle. 1 thought at last I had got the ear of the general. When I got there, imagine my surprise to be told by the general officer commanding that I could not speak on these motions in the House of Commons without his permission, and that he would not give me his permission.


Mr. BOTTRASSA.: Military rule.


James Joseph Hughes: It was in vain that I cited the history of the British constitution to show that on one occasion a British officer, in the presence of the enemy, had left his force and had returned to take his seat in the British House of Commons, and had exposed the weakness of the ministry of the day. In vain I brought this to his attention, and showed him the British constitution, what the powers of a British regular officer were in this respect. He was unyielding, and positively forbade me to rise on my feet in this House and speak on military questions without his permission, and his permission he would not give. All I need say on that Mr. HUGBES (Victoria).
matter is that if lion, gentlemen will turn to the speech that I made on that occasion in the House, they will see that the first third of my speech was devoted to quoting from authorities here and in the old country, the very highest authorities, to show that I was perfectly within my rights in speaking on military questions in the House.
I presume that I should have taken different steps at that time, a little more severe, but I was anxious to do things as smoothly as possible, and I think when the whole thing is reviewed, it will be found that I have acted courteously in the matter. I shall not take up the time of the House in referring to a lot of the letters that I have called for. although they were omitted from the last return, but will proceed now with matters that affect the constitution. As incidents in connection with the South African affair gradually got warm, I had repeatedly offered to the Imperial authorities and the general officer commanding here, to raise a corps for active service, and every time I was turned down by the General. Then I wrote officially, as will be found in the return, a letter on July 24, 1899, directly through the official military channel, to the officer commanding, offering my services in the Transvaal. That letter was forwarded to him through the office of the district officer commanding. Therefore, no charge can be brought against me of having ignored the proper military channel. I knew that I was not required by law to do it ; except in regard to matters concerning my own battalion. I was not called upon to make an application to the general officer commanding through the district officer commanding, except as a matter of courtesy, but I was determined that not the slightest stone should be left unturned to smooth the way and that I should go to the utmost point to satisfy the general commanding. I therefore officially applied to him. The letter was sent to him and I got a mere acknowledgment of it. It was filed, and I believe, was never forwarded to the minister. I asked the question on several occasions and there is no return that that letter was laid before the minister. On the same day I applied directly to the hon. Minister of Militia, and here is a point. I signed this letter as commanding officer of the 45tli Battalion. If I want to keep a Chinese laundry, I can put my sign up and sign my full military title in connection with it. I can use my military title, and not bring myself under the military law in the slightest. I trust my military friends in the country who may not know much about the military law, will note this : that a military officer may sign himself Col. Prior or Major Fowler, as often as he pleases, and not bring himself under the military law of the country. I wrote to the hon. Minister of Militia, the following letter :

House of Commons,
Ottawa, July 24, 1899. To the Hon. P. W. Borden, M.D., &c.,
Minister of Militia and Defence.
Sir,-I have the honour to renew my offer made thrice previously in writing, and several times orally, to enroll and lead on active service abroad in the Imperial service a regiment or a brigade of Canadians.
As I had offers from scores of officers and more than 1,500 men on former occasions when my proposal became public, so to-day with the lowering clouds over the Transvaal many offers are renewed. I may merely quote one as an example, Lt.rCol. E. Harrison, of the 49th, as well as many more, is anxious to serve under me in such a contingency.
I am prepared to serve either as leader of a Canadian regiment under pay of Canada, or, which I deem better policy, under pay of the empire.	.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
SAM. HUGHES, Lt.-Col., Commanding 45th Victoria Batt.
This was referred by the hon. Minister of Militia, v.ery properly, to the general officer commanding. It was also referred, and I thank the hon. minister for his very manly conduct throughout all these proceedings, to the Privy Council. I did not know till my return, that it had ever been before the Privy Council. Therefore, so far as the hon. minister could do it, he placed it before the Imperial authorities. What was the conduct of the general officer commanding ? He sent a note to the Minister of Militia noting the offer.
July 31, 1899.
The Hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence.
1.	I note the offer of Lieut.-Colonel S. Hughes to raise and command Canadian troops in active
service.
2.	The letter speaks well for that officer's military spirit, and his application will be considered in the event of a contingency arising which would necessitate Canadian troops being raised for active service.
Here is the point which shows that at that time he had animus :
3.	I would add that there are many officers with greater experience and an equal zeal to that shown by this officer.
4.	I note that Lieut.-Col. S. Hughes has corresponded direct with you in his military capacity as commanding the 45th Battalion, and has, moreover, offered his military services without my sanction or approval. His attention has been directed to this irregularity and breach of military procedure.
EDW. T. H. HUTTON, Major-General.
Commanding Canadian Militia.
But General Hutton's letter to me reprimanding me for writing to the 'Minister is not published. I want to see a copy of that letter. I have it. but I wired from Father Point to have it included, although it is not included. I see a statement which bears on the face of it a misstatement that the letter is included-' see the preceding.' It is not the same as the preceding. I replied to the letter, which is omitted, as follows :
Headquarters,
45th ' Victoria ' Battalion,
August 2, 1899.
From Lt.-Col. Sam. Hughes, C. O. 45th Batt., to Lt.-Col C. E. Montlzambert, R.C.A., D.O.C. Mil. Dis. 3 and 4, Kingston.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a letter, No. 69122, July 31, 1899, from the chief staff officer, directing my attention to the fact that I had addressed to the Minister of Militia an offer of my services on active service, and informing me that I have thereby committed a breach of the Queen's Regulations.
Having believed mj'self possessed of a knowledge of the Queen's Regulations and the superior authority, the Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia, I was, and am still, innocent of any knowledge of having violated any regulation. I made my official military application in the regular way through you, sir, and I have yet to read the regulation which deprives me as citizen soldier of Canada from addressing the Minister of Militia on this or any other subject. Further, I have made a direct offer to the Imperial authorities as well, in order that delays might be avoided.
Will you be good enough to inform me the number of the paragraph which I have violated ?
Permit me further to state that I am duly qualified to command my corps, and therefore deem the concluding paragraph of the letter of the chief staff officer quite uncalled for.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
SAM. HUGHES, Lt.-Col.,
C.O. 45th ' Victoria ' Battalion.
In reference to this matter, as referring to the letter, I may state that on the receipt of the letter in the department, I was waited upon by the chief staff officer and was asked to withdraw the letter. I point-blank declined to do it, though subjected to a great deal of solicitation, but I believe the officer commanding withdrew his letter. I said that I would not withdraw mine, but he could withdraw it if he chose. Yet I find he has withdrawn his letter, which was condemnatory of me, and included mine, which I am not sorry to see printed. That ended the aspect of the case in which I applied to the Minister of Militia. There were three applications : I applied officially, out of pure courtesy, to the general officer commanding. I applied directly to the Minister of Militia, and you have the treatment of that letter. I applied also to the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, at the same time, and almost in the same terms as I applied to the others. The first intimation I had of a letter from Mr. Chamberlain was the following letter, which I received from the chief staff officer.
Headquarters, Aug. 24, 1899. From the Chief Staff Officer to D.O.C. 3 and 4.
1.	The Major General Commanding has received the commands of His Excellency the Governor General, through his military secretary, to inform Lieut.-Col. Hughes, commanding the 45th Battalion, that the right hon. the

Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a letter from him containing an offer to raise a Canadian regiment for Imperial service abroad.
His Excellency directs that Mr. Chamberlain's expression of high appreciation of the loyal and patriotic spirit shown by Lieut-.Col. Hughes and those who have volunteered to serve with him may be conveyed to that officer.
2.	The Major General Commanding has received the commands of His Excellency to point out to Lieut.-Col. Hughes that such an offer of service should have been made through the General Officer Commanding, and the forwarding of such a communication direct by an officer on the active militia is quite irregular.
3.	You will be good enough to call upon Lieut.-Col. Hughes, commanding the 45th Battalion, for his reasons in writing for committing an irregularity which reflects so seriously upon his knowledge of military affairs and the customs of Her Majesty's service.
By order,
H. FOSTER, Colonel,
Chief Staff Officer.
When I received that letter I was amazed. I knew we did not live in a Crown colony. I knew we had responsible government in Canada and when I saw that the general officer commanding was receiving commands from His Excellency, I felt satisfied there must be some mistake. I do not wish to follow up the matter further, but I find that the military secretary has taken upon himself to write two letters to the general officer commanding relating to the matter. Lest this might be taken as a precedent, I wish to enter my protest here and now against any officer of the Militia Department, unauthorized by au order in council or by his minister, receiving a command from His Excellency the Governor General. In England, in 1810, when General Dundas, who was in command of the British forces, undertook to go before the sovereign for consultation, lie was distinctly informed that he dare not lift his hat officially to the sovereign without the consent of the First Lord of the Treasury. Time rolled on and we had responsible government in Canada and I knew there must he some blunder in connection with this letter in which General Hutton directed on command of His Excellency that I should apologize for having done my duty. I knew I was not subject to military law at the time ; I knew that if auy command could come from His Excellency it could only come by and with the advice of his responsible ministers and through the Secretary of State or Minister of Militia. I knew also that General Hutton determined that he would crush me if he could ; I knew I committed no wrong in applying to the Minister and he found out very quickly that he had no justification under the constitution, and so he withdrew his letter and it has never appeared publicly since, although all the rest of the correspondence in connection with it lias. He saw that the command of His Excellency, as set out in that letter, would not make us Canadians how down and tremble.


Samuel Hughes: implying that I have departed from the customs of Her Majesty's service. Permit me to say, I have rightly adhered to the custom prevailing since 1878 (though I have dilfered in applying as citizen), a custom which has on other occasions been recognized in words of loyalty, love and encouragement to the principle of Canadians seeking service in the Imperial army.
In 1878, an officer high in authority in Canada, a then deputy adjutant general, volunteered in his military capacity direct to the Imperial government to raise a Canadian corps. He was courteously thanked and encouraged by the home authorities. On subsequent occasions others made direct application, and I never learned of but one instance before where the procedure was questioned, and that only questioned before action. A Halifax officer made direct application, not as a citizen as I did, but officially as a militia officer of Canada, to enrol a corps for the Imperial service. My information is that, the right hon. the present Secretary of State for the Colonies at first deemed the proper course of the application to have been through the Canadian government and His Excellency, it being an official military application. The decision, as I am informed, was that while a Canadian officer, yet the gentleman had the same rights as any English, Scotch or Irish subject in the empire, that any one in Great Britain could volunteer to the right hon. the Secretary of State for War, or to him for the colonies and not through the Home Secretary, so in case of the Halifax officer, it was not deemed necessary for him to apply through the Canadian government and His Excellency. Such is my information from very high sources, and it has the advantage of seeming sensible.
Further, I have on two former occasions made direct application (after finding previous official offers had been suppressed by the then General Officers Commanding), each time as on this occasion as citizen, viz., not signing myself officially, merely stating my qualifications and Canadian positions ; and in each instance I was thanked most courteously by the. Secretary of State for War. The procedure was not in even the slightest called in question or deemed irregular. Therefore, the custom is all in favour of mjr action.
Furthermore, I fail to find in the laws and customs of the Canadian constitution anything against my acting as I did, and I respectfully ask to have pointed out the authority which any one in connection with the government of Canada has for catechising me as officer of the militia of Canada for my legal, loyal and honourable conduct as citizen of the British Empire.
May I also inquire, for my information and guidance, to have the authority quoted which permits the General Officer Commanding, as officer directly under the Minister of Militia, to receive and transmit as General Officer Commanding, commands from His Excellency? As citizen and as militia officer, I have ever understood the law and custom of the constitution to require commands in the militia to emanate from the Minister of Militia, directed, it may be, by order in council. Further, where is the authority for communications from His Excellency to come through the General Officer Commanding instead of the Secretary of State?
Therefore, while I am determined to obey those in authority in militia affairs, be the command right or wrong, yet I am equally desirous of becoming familiar with the laws and customs bearing on those matters. May I respectfully Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
request that you will be so good as to quote me the authority-
(a)	Which forbids me as citizen of the British Empire, though an officer of the Canadian militia, from offering to the British government to enrol a corps for the Imperial service, especially when I had concurrently made an official military application through my district officer commanding to the same effect.
(b)	Which authorizes my being reprimanded as militia officer for my honourable act as citizen of the British Empire.
(c)	Which permits the General Officer Commanding to receive and transmit any commands from His Excellency without its being an order in council, and then only by order of the Minister of Militia.
(d)	Which, enacts that I as militia officer am deprived of any privilege enjoyed by any other citizen of Canada, not a militiaman.
(e)	Which sanctions the notion that honour-i able and loyal acts of one as citizen of Canada
who chances to be a militia officer can possibly be subject to the militia authorities just as if the person were in the permanent service.
(f)	Which allows an acknowledgment from the light hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to me to be forwarded through the General Officer Commanding without the order of the Minister of Militia; and
(g)	Which recommends such an acknowledgment to be embodied in the same letter as one calling upon me to give reasons for my conduct and in another paragraph making assertions not consistent with the facts.
Inasmuch as the letter was doubtless dictated without a correct knowledge of the facts of the case, or of the law and custom of the Canadian constitution. I shall be glad to return it if desired; otherwise I must respectfully ask permission, in the absence of authority being shown in support of the position therein taken, to use the letter to test the matter further.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
SAM. HUGHES. Lt.-Col.,
C.O. 45th ' Victoria ' Batt.
Later on, the general points out that I had disobeyed the command of His Excellency, and which command, I say with all due deference, His Excellency had no more right to give than that child there.
I have already referred to the action of the British government in relation to the com- [DOT] mander-in-chief ; an officer who holds a much higher position than does the general officer commanding in this country. In reply to that letter I wrote asserting my rights as a citizen. I find a letter from Col. Foster, written to me direct, in which he views the situation and states :
September ID, 1899. Lieut.-Col. S. Hughes, M.P.,
Commanding 45th Battalion,
Lindsay, Ont.
Dear Colonel Hughes,-Your long official letter of 2nd September regarding your application to raise a Canadian regiment for Imperial service abroad, has reached headquarters and awraits the return of the Major General Commanding next week.
I am writing privately to you to ask if you will not take advantage of the delay before your letter must be laid before the General, to with-

draw it, which X would earnestly ask you to do before the General has to take official notice : of it. You will remember that in the case of i a former letter of a similar description you wero good enough to allow me to have a long talk with you about it, after which you withdrew it as likely to cause friction and lead to no good t result, I "was much relieved by your decision in that case, and I cannot help hoping that on reconsideration you will perhaps allow me to ] persuade you to take the same action with regard to the present letter. Of course as a citizen you are at liberty to express your views in any way you like and on any subject, but as officer commanding a battalion, it would, 1 am sure, be quite impossible for any general to overlook the character of your letter, which from a military point of view could only be considered as inconsistent with discipline.
There is no one who has a better appreciation of your value and good points as a commanding officer and as a soldier than the General and myselfj and in writing to you privately I am. believe me, entirely actuated by a wish to prevent trouble arising in connection with a matter as to which you have received the appreciation of Mr. Chamberlain, His Excellency and the General. It would seem an infinite pity if the loyalty and patriotism you have shown in your offer should only result in making your military position here untenable, and I sincerely hope that you will not hastily decide to reject my friendly suggestion. Before answering this letter, I would ask you to carefully and patiently consider it. It is indeed prompted only by very friendly feelings, and I trust you will receive it in the spirit in which it is written.
Believe me, dear Colonel Hughes,
Yours very sincerely,



HUBERT FOSTER.

[Stage Direction]
I draw your attention to that letter, Mr. Speaker, merely to show that it was written to me direct. I replied to that letter refusing to withdraw my letter, and stated that I iiad decided, come what might, to see the matter through. I draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact that only a part of my letter in reply was published. I want the whole of that letter brought down if the House will be good enough to pass an order.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: What page is that ?


James Joseph Hughes: Page 10 ; a letter dated September 22. Now, Mr. Speaker, these were both jxrivate letters, and yet I find them brought down to this House, while other letters cnat were public were suppressed. One explanation of this is that these letters must have been worked in by mistake, as they were brought down after the general had gone, i would like to know how a letter to which the general's name is not signed could possibly he worked in after he had gone unless the brief had been prepared before his departure. Here is the most wonderful letter of the lot, and I will read it :
Headquarters, October 9, 1899. From the Chief Staff Officer to D.O.C., 3 & 4.-(Confidential.)
Sir,-I have the honour to state that the letter of Lt.-Colonel Hughes, commanding the 45th
Battalion, dated the 2nd instant, addressed to yourself, in reply to my minute cf the 24th ultimo, has been laid before the major general commanding, and I am directed to observe as follows :-
1.	The letter in question is, in the opinion of the major general commanding, a highly improper and insubordinate communication for an officer in the position of Lt.-Colonel Hughes to put forward for submission to the major general commanding.
2.	Lt.-Colonel Hughes was called upon to give his reasons for committing the irregularity in diverging from the usual routine of conducting correspondence, as laid down in regulations, in that he offered his services by letter direct to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with a view to raising a regiment for service in South Africa in place of through the general officer commanding the militia and the Governor General in Council. You will notice that I had declined to withdraw that official letter which I laid written in reply to the General's demand for apology for applying to the Colonial Secretary.
Lt.-Colonel Hughes's plea for his conduct would appear to he that he acted in his capacity as a citizen.
I may say that was never my plea. He had no military command of me-that was the position I took :
I am directed to observe that Lt.-Colonel Hughes, who is now in command of the 45th Battalion, Canadian militia, offered his military services in his military capacity, to raise a regiment. It cannot be, therefore, considered that his application -was made as a citizen, hut as an officer of the Canadian militia, serving under the command of the general officer commanding.
It is net within any officer's power to dissas-sociate himself from his duties and responsibilities as an officer holding Her Majesty's commission, and to plead as an excuse for disregard of regulations and orders that he is a citizen and, therefore, not amenable to discipline.
3.	Lt.-Colonel Hughes has received orders which have been conveyed to him through the major general commanding, acting upon instructions of His Excellency the Governor General. No officer has the right to dispute the authority of the major general commanding as his superior officer, or to question his action, still less that of the Governor General, the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in Canada.
4.	I am, in conclusion, to observe that the tone of the letter forwarded by Lt.-Colonel Hughes is of such a character that unless it is withdrawn, with a complete apology, it will be the duty of the major general commanding to submit the correspondence in question to the honourable the Minister of Militia for reference to His Excellency the Governor General.
I have the honour to he. sir,
Your obedient servant, HUBERT FOSTER, Colonel, Chief Staff Officer.
; Now, Sir, inasmuch as this is a matter which concerns the whole framework of our constitution and our military system, I . most emphatically dispute the whole tenor of that letter. When our permanent corps was established, hou. members who were then members of the House will remember that

the law liad to be amended so as to bring that corps under the Militia Act ; otherwise they would have been amenable to the Militia Act for only a small period-sixteen days at the most. If these statements were true, my good friend Col. Prior might have a second lieutenant who would be aggrieved at something in performing drill, and after the drill was over, he would still have to obey Col. Prior on the street ; because if the general officer commanding could order a man around at all times, there is not an officer in the force who could not do the same thing. You can easily see how absurd the whole thing would become. Why, Sir, what is the law ? The law is that if a commanding officer or any officer happens to offend one of his privates or one of his junior officers, the man offended, when not under military law. can slap the colonel's ears or punish him in some other way. and the only redress the colonel has Is m the civil courts. We are citizen soldiers, and once we divest ourselves of our uniform, we are no more under military discipline than any other citizen of the country. In this connection I have taken the liberty of getting an opinion from the highest military authority in the community : I refer to Col. Henry Smith, the late district officer commanding of Toronto ; and I may say that Dicey, the famous author of ' The Law of the Constitution.' clearly points out not only where officers may disobey in the regular army, but where privates may disobey tlieir commanding officers when they give them orders which would be contrary to common sense. When I mention the name of Col. Smith, there is not a military man or a legal man who will for a moment, hesitate to bow to ids opinion. Tie says :
Wlien^ a man accepts a militia commission or enlists into a corps, he takes upon himself two kinds c.f obligation: the. obligation to perform certain services, and the obligation to obey and be governed by a code of laws in addition to that which governs him as a citizen. In order to ascertain what his liability to serve is, he must look to the Militia Act and to nothing else, for no kind of service or duty which is not, laid down in that Act can possibly be imposed on him. To ascertain what his duty of obedience is, and what are the penalties to which he has made himself liable, he must look primarily to the Militia Act, and secondarily to the laws and regulations referred to in that Act. These laws and regulations are: The Army Act, the rules of procedure, the King's regulations, and the militia regulations and orders.
First, as to the services His Majesty may order the officers and men of the several corps of the active militia, or any portion thereof, to drill for a period of not exceeding sixteen days or less than eight days in each year.
The officer commanding any military district or division, or the officer commanding any corps of active militia, may, upon any sudden emergency of invasion or insurrection, or imminent danger of either, cal] out the whole or any part of the militia within his command, until the pleasure of His Majesty is known.
His Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for active service either within or Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion, or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
The active militia or any corps thereof, or any part of a corps, shall also be liable to be called out for active service, with their arms and ammunition, under special or general regulations made by the Governor in Council to act as guards of honour, escorts, or as guards and sentries or to Are salutes in the following cases:-
(a)	The opening or closing of any session of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any province of Canada.
(b)	For the purpose of attending the Governor General of Canada, or any member of the Royal Family while in Canada.
(c)	For the purpose of guarding any armoury or other place where arms, guns, ammunition or other military stores are kept.
The Governor in Council may make regulations for calling out for active service as' guards or sentries at the residence of the Governor General, or of any member of the Royal Family while in Canada, any corps or part of a corps of the active militia.
The active militia, or any corps thereof, shall he liable to be called out for active service, with their arms and ammunition, in aid of the civil power.
Those are the only occasions on which the militia can' or may he called up. To call it out on any other occasion or for any other purpose, would not only be unfair to the officers and men called out, but would be unlawful, and they would be justified in refusing to comply. It should be noted that an individual may not be called out for any duty except with his corps, or that part of his corps to which he belongs. For example, when his corps or that part of his corps to which he belongs, is not up on service, an officer may not he ordered on any duty (court-martial or court of inquiry, for instance.)
When his corps is not up on one of the services mentioned, an officer or man of the active militia is not subject, even to the slightest extent, to the orders of his military superiors. Indeed, they are not then his superiors, for they have not the least authority over him.
It an officer should rob a bauk and the fact is brought under the notice of the Minister of Militia, the Minister of Militia-not the general officer	commanding-may	very
properly remove that officer.
I noticed in a Montreal paper the other day, that an officer had stated lie was aggrieved because a judgment given by the general officer commanding regarding him had been made public. If it were proven that one of the officers, to whom that official communication was addressed, had violated the code of honour and published that communication, that man could be brought to task, not for having violated the militia law, but for having violated the code of honour. He could be brought to task by the Minister of Militia, but not by the general officer commanding, because the latter had no control over him. I am not speaking now of custom, hut of the law. Unfortunately, however, the custom has been to allow people to lie trampled on just as the general officer commanding might think fit. Col. Smith continues :

During that period his military status, and their military status as respects him at least, are in abeyance so to speak. Let us suppose, for example, that the commanding officer of the
G.G.F.Cr meets one of his captains when the corps is not on service, and says to him: ' Jones, I want you to come down to .the drill hall and show me your stores, I wish to inspect them.' Jones replies : ' I beg your pardon, sir, but I am busy at present and cannot well go.' The officer commanding then says : ' I order you to come at once and show me those stores.' Jones again replies : ' I respectfully refuse to go, sir ; it is not my duty to go.' In the event of the commanding officer reporting the circumstances to superior authority and asking for Jones' removal, it would be the duty of the superior to sustain Joues_, and to tell the commanding officer that he had exceeded, or had tried to exceed his rights and his jurisdiction.
Second, as to the obligation to obey, or as to the liability to military law.
The act of accepting a commission or of enlisting into the active militia, does not of itself make a man liable to the military code, and if parliament had never made any provision in the matter, the citizen soldier would not at any time be subject to any other than the civil law of the land. That body has, however, declared :
' That the active militia shall be subject to the King's regulations and orders for the army.'
Before going on it may be as well to say that refusal or neglect to comply with the King's regulations is not punishable as an ' act of disobedience,' even when committed by a regular officer or soldier though it may be punished as an ' act or neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.' The meaning of the words ' subject to ' in this connection is a moot point. Like so many other terms in the Act, they require explanation. In the regulations are many things which cannot possibly apply to our militia, such, for example, as ' duties of the commander-in-chief,' ' enlistment, transfer and discharge of soldiers,' and ' army books and forms'; and yet our generals have made use of them without discrimination.
Our parliament has further declared that ' Every officer and man of the militia shall, from the time of being called out for active service, and also during the period of annual -drill or training under the provisions of this Act, and also during any drill or parade of his corps at which he is present in the ranks or as a spectator, and also when going to or from the place of drill or parade of his corps, and also at any other time while in the uniform of Lis corps, be subject to the Army Act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom, and all other laws then applicable to Her Majesty's troops in Canada, and not inconsistent with this Act ; except that no man shall be subject to any corporal punishment but death or imprisonment for any contravention of such laws ; and ^except also that Her Majesty may direct that any provisions of the said laws or regulations shall not apply to the militia force.'
Here too the words * subject to ' are doubtful and unsatisfactory. Parliament could never have intended the words to be used in their full and unrestricted sense, for if it did, the militia would be under the jurisdiction of certain officials mentioned in the Act, namely, the Secretary of State for War. the commander-inchief of the forces, the adjutant-general of the forces, and the general officer commanding His Majesty's forces in British North America; and
it would mean, too, that the last named officer has power to convene courts-martial for the trial of militiamen. All of which would be absurd. At all times not mentioned in that 82nd section, not only is the militiaman not subject to his otherwise military superiors, not only is he not commandable, but he cannot then commit an offence against military law. Thus, if an officer goes into the general's office, and, in an altercation, slaps the general's face, the latter has no military remedy; he must content himself with thrashing the offender, or with citing him before a civil court. Indeed, the general himself is not subject to military law, nor can he be unless the whole of the militia is called out for active service. ' Corps enlisted for continuous service ' are, under the terms of the statute, * held to be called out for active service.'
That was the amendment which was made to the law when our permanent corps were formed. They are held to be called out for active service.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: What about city corps ?


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend from Victoria asks what about city corps. The city corps are subject to military duty, and while going to or performing their drills every drill evening they are subject to military law, but at other periods they are not.
But that is not the case with the general and other staff officers. There is never any * period of annual drill or training ' for the general, he never can be present at any ' drill or parade of his corps,' and he never can be in ' the uniform of his corps,' for he has not a corps. Strange as it may appear, there is nothing for which the general officer commanding, the adjutant-general, or the quartermaster general may be court-martialed, except they are actually on active service. The adjutant-general may go in and kick the general out; it is not a military offence.
More than that ; the general has not the slightest official connection with officers unless their corps have been ordered to perform their annual drill or have been called out for service. In the meantime the officer, is, in a military sense, dormant, and may not he officially c-.m-munieated with, until awakened-until ' switched on,' to use a telephone expression-by the general order affecting his corps. And in the same way, and for the same reason, the officer cannot act in a military capacity, he cannot, legally perform a military act, he cannot give a military command which any one is hound to obey.
Colonel Foster, in a letter, dated October 9, 1899, and addressed to the district officer commanding, Nos. 3 and 4, stated : ' I am directed to observe that Lt.-Colonel Hughes. wh->
is now in command of the 45th Battalion Canadian militia, offered his military services in a military capacity to raise a regiment.' That showed ignorance on the part of Col. Foster, or on the part of the general who instructed him, as regards our military constitution. Lt.-Colonel Hughes was not in command, he had nothing to command-but even if he had been in command, he could not offer his services in ' his military capacity.' for his military capacity would be limited to commanding the 45th. As a matter of law, and as a matter of fact, he was then an ordinary citizen and nothing

more, no matter how much he might put ' commanding 45th ' atter his name.
That goes even further than I thought, on looking into the law. I knew that unless we were out in annual camp, we were not amenable to the law. To-morrow morning the Minister of Militia may retire any officer of the force he chooses. My second lieutenant could kick me around the streets of Lindsay, or any officer in Ottawa could do the same to his colonel, and he could not be punished for a military offence. The facts could be brought to the notice of the Minister of Militia, and the minister could say that such a junior officer was not a lit and proper person to be retained in the force, and could retire him ; but that young fellow, if he were dismissed under any so-called construction of military law, could appeal the case and beat the other every time. I think that ended the letter which I addressed to the Eight Hon. Mr. Chamberlain. And, so far as that is concerned, I have not a word to retract. On the contrary, even if I had been subject to military law, that letter might be read and con- | strued in the light of the closest criticism, and it would be found quite within my province. But when I was not subject to military law the letter of the general to me was an outrage. Time wore on. I need not enter into the details ; but the matter at length reached a crisis. X found out that there was a hesitancy on the part of the government in taking action to send a force. They had not been officially asked to do so. But General Hutton, who at first opposed a contingent going from here, suddenly veered round and offered a contingent without consulting his minister. Things were in a mixed condition ; and, in order to bring the matter to a focus. I wrote the following letter to the press of the country. I may say that this letter was omitted from the return brought down last year, although it is referred to. and ought, properly to have been before the department. I quote from the Montreal Star
To the Editor of the Star :
(a)	His qualifications.
(b)	Age.
(c)	Physical condition.
(d)	The number and quality of the men each, can enrol, and
(e)	The number of days required for mobilization after notice.,	,
Before leaving for Europe last spring, Hon. Mr. Tarte gave me the assurance

I am glad the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is present. He will be able to bear me out that this is true.
-that should war break out he would assist in raising for my command, on active service, a proportionate number of his fellow-countrymen, who would, he felt assured, be second to none. Subsequent incidents have convinced me that each and every province will do its duty in the hour of need.
It is needless here to dwell on the causes of the trouble. One fact overshadows all. The principle advanced in defence of the American war of independence, and almost universally endorsed since, that ' Taxation must bear with it the right of full representation and citizenship,' has been systematically and brutally represented and denied by the Transvaal authorities. There is no freeman or lover of personal liberty but must justify Great Britain in insisting in full redress of every Uitlander grievance.
Two commanding officers of infantry battalions, as well as many majors and captains, one an Imperial guardsman, have already requested me to take in hand the raising of a Canadian corps, and all have expressed the wish to serve under my command-therefore have I taken action.
The newspapers of Canada, always potent in advancing a good cause, are respectfully requested to give tliis publicity, in order that the best results may be accomplished.
All letters should be addressed to Lindsay, Ont., at rhe earliest convenience, in order that details may be attended to and official sanction be received as soon as possible, after hostilities begin.



SAM. HUGHES.

[Stage Direction]
Lindsay, September 18, 1899.
I draw attention to tliis point-I referred in the letter to tlie fact that official sanction would be sought to the enrolment of a corps as soon as war should begin. I was surprised to received the following tele-
Sir,-Inasmuch as war with the Transvaal now seems certain, and as repeated offers and requests from Canadians of prominence in civil as well as in military circles, have been made that I should raise and offer a Canadian corps for service in the Transvaal, with the object of advancing the cause of mankind by assisting to upbuild the British Empire and render justice to one's fellow-countrymen, even at great sacrifices, and in order that as little delay as possible should result, on the outbreak of hostilities, in enrolling such a corps, may I respectfully request the publication of the following:-
I ask hon. members to note carefully what I wrote. Then they will be able to judge the treatment I received with regard to it.
Will those who are desirous of enrolling men and serving with me on active service to assist the Imperial forces in South Africa each be good enough to write me, stating fully:
gram
Headquarters, Sept. 25, 1899. Prom the Chief Staff Officer to D.O.C. M. D.
No. 3 & 4.
1.	The following telegram was forwarded this day direct to Lt.-Colonel S. Hughes, commanding the 45th Battalion, Lindsay :-
1 General officer commanding directs me to inform you that your action in inviting re-, cruits to enrol for service under you is unauthorized, and is in opposition to section 98, Army Act. Further efforts on your part, however well intentioned, are not approved.'
2.	Upon the return of the major-general commanding from Nova Scotia on Saturday last, the action of Lt.-Colonel S. Hughes in inviting the enrolment of recruits for special service in a corps under his command in South Africa, through the medium of the press, was brought to his notice. The telegram above quoted was thereupon forwarded to that officer.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: 3.	You will be good enough to direct Lt.-Colonel Hughes' attention to the Army Act, section 98, which is, under section 82 of the Militia Act, equally applicable to Canadian troops. The section in question is as follows : -
' If a person without due authority :-
(1)	Publishes or causes to be published notices or advertisements for the purpose of procuring recruits for Her Majesty's regular forces, or in relation to recruits for such forces; or
(2)	Opens or keeps any house, place of rendezvous, or office as connected with the recruiting of such forces; or
(3)	Receives any person under any such advertisement, as aforesaid; or
(4)	Directly or indirectly interferes with the recruiting services of such forces;
He shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
4.	The action of Lt.-Colonel Hughes, no matter how well intentioned on his part in the interests of the empire, is entirely unauthorized. It is a matter of extreme surprise to the major-general commanding that an officer of Lt.-Colones Hughes' length of service and general knowledge of questions involving constitutional government, should have taken upon himself to assume the functions that alone rests with Her Majesty the Queen. You will, in the latter connection, direct Lt.-Colonel Hughes' attention to Army Act, section 94, as follows :
' For the purpose of the attestation of soldiers in pursuance of this part of this Act :
' In a colony, any person duly authorized in that behalf by the Governor of the colony.'
5.	You will, accordingly, direct Lt.-Colonel
S.	Hughes, commanding the 45th Battalion, to desist from further action in this matter, for which no authority has been given.
By order,
H.	FOSTER, Colonel,
Chief Staff Officer.
There was the message that greeted me from the general officer commanding, and for nothing more than if I had asked a man on the street, ' In case of war will you go to the Transvaal ?' I replied to the letter as follows
Sir,-I have the honour, -in reply to your memo, of September 26 instant, inclosing memo. No. 84,496 (copy) from Chief Staff Officer, to state that I am at a loss to understand the communication directing my attention to section 98 of the Army Act, inasmuch as neither in spirit nor in letter have I violated it.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
SAM. HUGHES, Lt.-Col.,
C.O. 45th * Victoria ' Battn.
I need not take the time of the House in quoting authorities on this subject. I had written a letter to the press actuated by the kindliest spirit and most patriotic motives, and here, from the general officer commanding:, an officer of the British service, an officer who was supposed to consider the interests of the whole empire, I received this communication. I had not asked the enrolment of a solitary man, but merely the names of those who, in case I should receive the necessary authority, would be willing to go. I did not ask a man for the British regular army, and neither directly nor indirectly had I left myself open to the reproof of the general officer commanding. If I had violated a law, which I had not done, I was open to the censure of a magistrate, but in no sense had I laid myself open to military censure. I will quote the same high authority on that subject :-
In the Hughes-Hutton correspondence, it appears that a telegram was sent from the C.S.O. to Col. Hughes, in these words :
' G.O.C. directs me to inform you that your action in inviting recruits to enrol for service under you is unauthorized, and is in opposition to section 98, Army Act. Further efforts on your part, however well intentioned, are not approved.'
And, further, the D.O.C. Nos. 3 and 4, was instructed ' to direct Col. Hughes' attention to the Army Act, section 98, which is, under section 82 of the Militia Act, equally applicable to Canadian troops.' What is meant, or intended to be meant by the words ' equally applicable to Canadian troops,' is an enigma. It could be intended to mean only that it is an offence against section 98 to recruit Canadian troops without authority. If so, such construction could be put on the two sections, 98 and 82, by a ' legal idiot ' only, and the same must be said if the meaning was that the members of the Canadian force are subject to section 98, for section 98 is in no sense directed against the military, or persons subject to military law, but against ' a person.'
Section 98 forbids the procuring of recruits for ' Her Majesty's regular forces.' ' Her Majesty's regular forces,' according to the definition laid down in the Army Act, means those who are liable to render continuously for a term militia service to Her Majesty in any part of the world,' as distinguished from those who engage to serve in some locality. The corps that Colonel Hughes had in view was certainly not one of that class. It was to be an irregular corps, and so far as his letter showed, it was to have no connection with the Imperial forces, but to assist the Imperial forces in South Africa. It was not to be for service in any part of the world, it was not a force in any way contemplated by section 98. So. if he had published a ' notice or advertisement for the purpose of procuring recruits ' for such a corps, he would not offend against the statute. But, he did not publish a notice for the purpose of ' procuring recruits,' he did not ask for recruits, he did not invite a single man to enrol. He merely wrote to the press a letter in which these words occur : * Will those who are desirous of enrolling men and serving with me on active service to assist the Imperial forces in South Africa, each be good enough to write me stating fully (a) his qualificat on; (b) age; (c) physical condition; (d) the number and quality of the men each can enrol ; and (e) the number of days required for mobilization after notice.'
Now, that was all Col. H. did. He did not ask a man to enlist, he did not propose to enlist any one, he did not call for recruits, he asked only for the names of th'se who would be willing to act as enrollers in a great emergency, which was then imminent, and who would be willing to serve with him in the event of his being authorized to raise a force : and there is not a word about the troops being Imperial, much less ' regular forces.' Even in Britain a

call for men to fill the militia or the volunteer force is not against that statute.
Still, the D.O.C. was instructed: ' You will, accordingly, direct Lt.-Col. H., commanding 45th Batt., to desist from further action in this matter, for which no authority has been given, and it was pointed out that the proper person to authorize the attestation of ' soldiers in pursuance of this part of the Act ' (regular soldiers) is the governor of the colony.
A more marked exhibition of intense ignorance, more astounding presumption on the part of quasi superior military authority, was never exhibited.
In the first place, the action of Colonel H., even if done in the U. K., was not an offence against the law; in the second place, the better opinion is that no statute of the U. K. like the A. A., extends to the inhabitants of this country, except so far as our own statute has extended it to the militia at certain times; in the third place, an offence against section 98 is not a military one, the section is directed against not officers or soldiers, but ' a person.' If Col. H. could be said in any way to have offended, he would be cited as ' Samuel Hughes,' not as ' Colonel Samuel Hughes,' and he would be cited before a civil tribunal and not a military one, and his puishment, if it could be imposed at all in this country under section 98, would be a fine or summary conviction by a magistrate or magistrates.
In view of these facts, then, and in view of the further fact that Col. Hughes, at the time, was no more under the authority of the Canadian military superiors than he was under the Commander-in-chief in England ; it was nothing less than a piece of downright impertinence for General Hutton to take upon himself the office of calling Col. Hughes to account. Suppose that Col. Hughes had advertised a lottery, contrary to the statutes in that behalf, would General Hutton call on the colonel to desist? Certainly not. Yet it would be quite as legitimate, quite as decorous, and as little impertinent, in the lottery case as in the recruiting case. The officer in military command of the militia is not the ' conscience keeper ' of militia officers, especially those who are under him but twelve days in the year. If they choose to run counter to the laws of the land, that is their business not his; their responsibility is not to him or through him; h-w much worse is his interference when they have not committed any offence whatever.
Of course, under sec. 34, ' Every person subject to military law who .... wilfully contravenes arv enactments or the regulations of the service in any matter relating to the enlistment of attestation of soldiers of the regular forces, shall on conviction by court martial be liable to suffer imprisonment, but Col. H. was not subject to military law, and he did not, even in seeming to contravene the law ; he could not possibly be tried by a military tribunal.'
Now, Sir, there is the communication on that mater, which I have given at length. I regret to take up so much time of the House in reading these communications, but this is a matter of considerable concern to many members of the House. It is a matter of considerable importance to the country. I venture to think that a great many militia officers, some of them high up, will read this with interest, not only on this side, but on the other side of the water.


Samuel Hughes: Now, I have read you my reply to that letter. I said this :
I have the honour in reply to your memo, of September 26 instant, inclosing memo. No. 84,496 [copy] from chief staff officer, to state that I am at a loss to understand the communication directing my attention to section 98 of the Army Act, inasmuch as neither in spirit nor in letter have I violated it.
Yet, here is the response he gives to that. If any' one will tell me how 1 could have replied to that letter in a more kindly spirit, in a more submissive spirit, I would like to have him do it. I see nothing insubordinate whatever in my letter, yet here is the answer to it. These things do not appear iu the return brought down last year iu such a way' as that they could be understood at all. Here is the letter from General Hutton to me :
Revelstoke, B.C., Oct. 11, 1899. Chief Staff Officer :
1.	I have read the letter of Lieut.-Col. S. Hughes, commanding 45th Battalion, in reply to your minute of the 25th ultimo, with extreme surprise.
2.	You will forthwith cause this officer to be informed I am extremely dissatisfied at the highly improper and insubordinate tone of his official communication.
3.	You will further cause Lieut.-Col. S. Hughes to be informed through the D. O. C. Nos. 3 and 4 district, that in the event of my orders conveyed through you being disobeyed, he will at once be suspended from the command of his battalion.
EDW. T. H. HUTTON, Major General, Commanding Canadian Militia.
There was a letter in response to my letter, in which I stated that * I was at a loss to understand the communication, because neither in letter or in spirit had I violated the law.' 1 had not violated the law. even though I had been an officer in the British regular army ; but when I was merely an officer of the Canadian militia, even if I had been on active service, I would not have violated the law : and when I was not on active service, triply had I not violated the law.
Now, about this time, another very interesting incident occurred. In the London Times of September 25, 18!)i*, appears this cablegram :
Ottawa, Sept. 24.
Although there has been no official announcement of the government's intention in the event of an outbreak of hostilities in South Africa, it is understood in ministerial circles that arrangements have been completed promptly to place the service of a Canadian regiment at the disposal of the home government when the hour for action comes.
It was a little anterior to this, I may say, that the general officer commanding was seized with a fit to command a corps himself.
All the details have been carefully worked out. The Canadian contingent will be a composite one, consisting of 1,200 men, regulars and militia, representing the three arms of the service, and

drawn from every province of the Dominion. The Canadian forces have just completed their annual training, and as a result of the changes introduced by General Hutton, the militia was never in better shape. While appreciating the patriotic effort of Colonel Hughes to raise a regiment for service in the Transvaal, the Dominion government, of course, could hardly permit a single officer to assume the functions which pertain to the Dominion parliament. Colonel Hughes, therefore, is likely to drop his project.
Mr. Speaker, when 1 tell you that I traced that cablegram up, and traced it to General Hutton as the author, that I ascertained that General Hutton had dictated that cablegram, that little bit of taffy for himself and condemnation of myself, in much stronger terms than it appears here, but the representative of the press sit Ottawa would not send it in the terms in which it was first dictated, then you will understand a little the character of the officer who was commanding our forces. At the same time a similar intimation to that appeared in all the Canadian papers. I will not quote it here, but I will say tliat it pointed out that Colonel Hughes had usurped the fmr i . * of the government ; it is stated in that communication that the government felt That I had usurped their functions. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he felt I had usurped the functions of the government In anything that I did at that time. 1 do not think he ever expressed himself so.
At the same time, as soon as my communication appeared in the press of Canada. I received an offer of $1,000,000 of insurance on 1,000 men. I regret exceedingly that I am not at liberty to make public the name of the gentleman who so kindly placed that insurance at the disposal of the officers and men of the Canadian forces going to South Africa. I may say, however, that I believe the offer came from the same source as the insurance which Sir Charles Topper managed, and which has done so much to alleviate the sufferings of the families of the volunteers who went to the front in this war. I regret that I am not at liberty to make use of the gentleman's name, but that offer of insurance did the yeomanry, the volunteers of this country, much service, in encouraging them to go to the front. These inspired attacks on myself in the papers came from the general officer commanding. The statement in the Canadian papers 1 also traced home to General Hutton, as having been dictated to the press reporters. On September 28, three days after the other had appeared in the Canadian papers and the English papers, the following appeared :
Ottawa. September 28.-Major-General Hutton has notified Col. Sam. Hughes that he is not authorized to call for volunteers for service in the Transvaal. Still the gallant colonel evidently has not paid any attention t.o the gentle hint. He has gone on calling for volunteers. Attention is now drawn to the fact that section 98 of the British Army Act makes it an offence
punishable by a fine up to $100 for anybody, without due authority, attempting to procure recruits for the army
Tills 1 traced home to General Hutton, it having been directly furnished to the press of this country. I then took the liberty of writing a communication to him drawing his attention to the fact that I had not violated Sec. 98, and asking him to he good enough to place me right before the country. He did not do so; on tile contrary he followed it up by a series of threats and letters which were very much aside from his duties as general officer commanding. Previous to this, though I had been spoken 1o by officers who were friends of General Hutton to say that if X withdrew the controversial matter it would all he settled. Accordingly, at the request of Colonel Foster who, throughout, making all due allowance for his being under the direction and control of Major-General Hutton, has acted the part, to my mind, of a perfect gentleman. T wrote :
October, 17, 1899.
Dear Col. Foster,-I beg to withdraw the letters written by me to General Hutton re application for service and other matters Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
That was forwarded by Colonel Foster with a very kind note to Major-General Hutton. Major-General Hutton replied, and I want you to note this, Mr. Speaker :
0. s. o.
The foregoing has been received by me this evening. I do not consider that the irregular form which Lt.-Col. S. Hughes, Commanding 46th Battalion, has adopted in treating so grave a breach of military discipline as in any respect whatever adequate to the extreme gravity of the circumstances.
This officer's treatment of the official correspondence, as exemplified by his half private and half official communication to you by name, is sufficient indication in itself of his ignorance of the miiilary fitness of things and of his ignorance of the elements of military discipline.

[Stage Direction]
Commanding Canadian Militia. Ottawa, October 2G, 1S99.
I want lion, gentlemen to note that, and I trust that the hon. Minister of Militia will give this matter his attention. I would thus briefly refer him to the correspondence to see who has been the sinner. This is the first irregular letter I had written, the first one that was not addressed officially except those marked ' private.' On July 31, Colonel Foster wrote a letter to the district officer commanding Militia District No. 3 and 4, in which he says :
Headquarters, July 31, 1900.
From the Chief Staff Officer to D.O.C. 3 & 4.
Herewith for your information is a copy of a letter addressed direct, by direction of the Major-
[Stage Direction]
General Commanding, to Lieut.-Colonel Hughes, Commanding 45th Battalion.
By order,
H. FOSTER, Colonel,
Chief Staff Officer.
(For copy of letter referred to above, see preceding.)
So tlint, as early as July, General Hutton began himself the half official form of correspondence, because Colonel Foster wrote that letter by direct order of the general officer commanding. Following on we find, on September 19, Colonel Foster, again, by order of General Hutton, writing to me addressing me directly and complimenting me its dear colonel, etc. That letter was written by order of General Hutton, and is a half private half official communication. Then we 11ml tlie telegram referred to in the letter of September 25, sent to me direct by Colonel Foster, by order of General Hutton. We find also his unofficial correspondence with the London Times of the 25th September, and we find also his correspondence With tlie Canadian papers. So that, he began it and carried it through. I only wrote one letter, and yet I am held up to the ridicule of tlie people of this country, because I only wrote one letter and he a dozen of the ' half-private, half-official ' class. Now, I have about done with the letters, with this one exception, and 1 shall read it as being from the general to the minister. I have clearly traced up the whole business. I shall not refer to anything that transpired before the applications for service began. Let me review the incidents as I have stated them. I wrote three letters, one out of mere courtesy through tlie district officer commanding to tlie general who paid no attention to it and never laid it before the minister. Then, I wrote direct to the minister, and 1 may say that I was treated most courteously by the minister. I never knew how my communication was treated until I read the report in ' Hansard.' He seems to have done everything that a soldier, a gentleman and a minister should have done. I speak of him just as I find him. The only thing that 1 thought lie had acted unfairly in was in allowing the private correspondence to be published, until I saw that General Hutton had distinctly stated that he had communicated this to me, a statement which was untrue.
I had never heard of such a thing until l saw a copy of the correspondence on the steamer, and I can very well excuse tlie minister on that point. I wrote that letter to the minister, and I was reprimanded by the general for writing it, but. he withdrew his letter. The third application was a letter to Mr. Chamberlain, which has also been referred to. For that, I was reprimanded by the order of His Excellency. 1 gave my reply, and they saw that they were wrong. As far as the publishing of this letter in the papers drawing attention to the war is concerned, I may say that I was Mr. HUGHES (Victnvia).
reprimanded by telegram for having laid myself open to section 98, when a child could have told the general officer commanding that I had not left myself open. Major-General Hutton knows nothing as to why section 98 was drawn up. It was drawn up to prevent soldiers being enlisted in barrooms and over drinking tables, and from being entrapped into taking the shilling, when they did not know they were being enlisted. There is not a man who knows anything of the reason why section 98 was adopted, who could consider my letter as bringing me under the operation of that section. Yet, I was rapped over the knuckles by General Hutton in the London Times and the Canadian papers. Then I was met with the statement that I was liable to a fine and imprisonment ; all these things belittleing me before the country. You will see that I put up with a great deal before I wrote back in rather warm language. Here comes the crowning letter of the lot :
October 26, 1899. The Honourable the Minister
Militia and Defence.
Sir,-
1.	Knowing that there is an anxiety on your part and believing that there exists a similar feeling on the part of some of the members of the cabinet, that Lieut.-Colonel Sam. Hughes, M.P., commanding the 45th Battalion, should be employed on active service with the Canadian forces now proceeding to South Africa, I deem it my duty to place on record in an official form my reasons for having declined to recommend this officer's employment with such force in any capacity whatever.
2.	I regret the necessity for my action in this matter, as I am well aware of the leading and praiseworthy part which Lieut.-Colonel S. Hughes has taken in bringing the patriotic necessity for military service in the cause of the empire before the Canadian public. I should, however, fail in my duty if I recommended the employment of an officer, however well-intentioned, whom I now know and whose correspondence shows to be, not only devoid of any proper spirit of subordination, but to be also deficient in military judgment. I need hardly remind you that the selection of officers for the command of troops about to engage in a serious campaign is one involving the greatest responsibility. It is a matter in which the lives of our soldiers, the credit of Canada, and the honour of the empire are directly concerned.
3.	I therefore submit for your perusal and information the following facts and papers :-
(a.) Minute from Chief Staff Officer to D.O.C., M.D. No. 3 and 4, dated August 24, 1899, re despatch from Secretary of State for the Colonies, and reply of Lieut.-Colonel Hughes thereto. Marked ' A.'
(b.) Minute and telegram from Chief Staff Officer to D.O.C., M.D. No. 3 and 4, dated September 25, 1899, re advertising for recruits in Canada, and reply from Lieut.-Colonel Hughes. Marked ' B.'
4.	I have further, with great reluctance, deemed it necessary to submit for your perusal and information the following additional unofficial correspondence sent by Lieut.-Colonel S. Hughes to myself personally. I am impelled to this course from the necessity of proving to

you that this officer's want of judgment is conspicuous, and that his reflections upon Imperial officers generally, even those of the highest rank now employed in South Africa, make Lieut.-Colonel Hughes' employment absolutely prohibitive
With reference to his communication of the 10th instant, I deem the matter so serious that, in the interests of discipline, I recommend that Lieut.-Colonel Sam. Hughes be removed from the command cf his regiment, and be placed on the retired list.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Major-General,
Commanding Canadian Militia.
I am glad that he had learned by that time a little constitutional law, and that he cannot place me on the retired list. He admits here for the first time that he has a superior in this country because ' he recommends' to the minister to do certain things. General Hutton talks about insubordination. Why, i have read in the ' Hansard' about his being turned out of this country for insubordination himself, and I need not refer to his record elsewhere. I am going on 35 years a Canadian volunteer ; I have been under a great many men in my time, and 1 have never been charged directly or indirectly with insubordination. My record as a volunteer and a soldier in Canada or elsewhere I leave to those whom I served under. Not one will say that I ever refused to carry out an order. Although I have received orders given by my seniors in active service for which they had no authority, I nevertheless obeyed them. I carried out every order that General Hut ton himself gave me, although I am free to say that many of them were contrary to the drill book and to common sense. General Hutton says further, that I am deficient in military judgment, and he talks as if he knew something about it. He says :
* It is a matter in which the lives of our soldiers, the credit of Canada and the honour of the empire are directly concerned.'
Since that letter was penned, General Hutton and X have had an opportunity of facing the music, and I leave it to the official records of the British Empire to show which of us has best looked after the lives of our soldiers, the credit of Canada and the honour of the empire.
Now, Sir, in all this correspondence I have not one word to retract from any letter I wrote. Possibly, had I known that the private letters were going to be published I might have softened the tone. Possibly, if I had waited 24 hours, I would not have written quite as sharply to him as T did in face of his taunts. Neither directly nor indirectly do I retract one word as untrue. Some of the private letters 1 can infinitely strengthen, should any gentleman challenge me on the floor of this House. Hon. gentlemen know to what I refer, and I am in a position to give evidence as to it
much stronger than anything I have stated in my private letters. I do not wish to do so, l>ut I am ready if I am challenged. The statement in that letter of General Hutton's about my reflections upon imperial officers was written with the direct object of being published and circulated in South Africa and that was done. I have nothing to retract in that respect. 1 slandered no general in South Africa ; 1 said nothing about any British general which has not been intensified by British officers themselves. I call the attention of the minister to the fact that one letter dated ' On the train, Oct. 28.' is either intentionally or unintentionally incorrect. as the date should be Oct. 23, and I trust the minister will have that corrected when the return is brought down.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. As to refusing to permit me to be second in command of the Canadian corps-I say it is all for the best in the end-I had been assured by the Minister of Militia that I would be second in command ; I knew that I had been selected by -Col. Otter for the position, and I did not know until I reached Ottawa on the morning of the 2Gth or 27th of October that I was not second in command. X was determined to go to Africa if I had to swim there. I was determined to go to Africa either by way of England or direct from Canada as I was enabled to do by the kindness of the Minister of Militia. Imagine my being handed the following note through Col. Otter :
October, 1899.
1.	The following minute has been forwarded to the O. C. the 2nd (Special Service) Battalion, proceeding to South Africa by ss. Sardinian on Monday, October 30, 1899
' Permission has been granted for Lieut.-Colonel S. Hughes, 45th Battalion, to have passage to South Africa by ss. Sardinian, conveying the Canadian troops.'
' It is to be clearly understood that this officer does not proceed in any military capacity whatever. He will accordingly not wear uniform on board ship.'	.
2.	Leave of absence is granted you from this date with leave to travel abroad.
By order,
H. FOSTER, Colonel, Chief Staff Officer.
October 29, 1899.
This letter addressed to Col. Otter says leave of absence is granted ' you' ; that is to Col. Otter. In this connection I draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact that I have never been granted leave of absence, and so far as the official records show, I have seen no official notice that I ever returned to Canada. I characterize that letter as one of the most impudent pieces of meddling that any officer ever perpetrated. He had no more authority over me than that child has. Nevertheless, 1 found that followed by another similar letter to the commanding officer in South Africa. I demand to know why the general officer commanding in Canada dared to
[Stage Direction]
write to a general outside of this country. He might as well write to the general commanding the United States troops in the Philippines as to write to General Buller in South Africa. What was it his business 'or their business. How dare he write that Lt.-Col. Sam Hughes, of the 45th Battalion, was without military status. He had nothing to do with me outside of tlie three mile limit, and yet he wrote :
I am not prepared to recommend his employment in any capacity in South Africa whatever.
More than that, Sir, he got Col. Otter to do a little bit of meddling oil shipboard. Col. Otter, acting on his instructions, thought he had control over me. He did not seem to know that there was one officer only bossing that ship, and that was the captain of the ship. If the captain had wished, he could have put Col. Otter himself in irons, as well as every other man on the ship. He was the one man who was supreme there, and to him alone did I owe allegiance. Col. Otter and I are the best of friends, as we always have been, and as I trust we always shall be ; but in pursuance of this contemptible order, he undertook, of course very politely, to issue instructions to me. I at once informed him that he had nothing whatever to do with me. I was very sorry to find an officer like Col. Otter committing the mistake of following such an order as that of General Hutton.
There is another matter in this correspondence to which I wish to refer ; that is, a cablegram which I received at Cape Town offering me a command in Strath-cona's Horse. I wish to say here that I would have been very much pleased to have had the command of a Canadian regiment. I do not hesitate to say that it was m.v ambition to have such a command, and I wish to say, in all modesty, that I think I have proven that I was and am capable of commanding a Canadian regiment. I would have given a very great deal to have been permitted to command Strathcona's Horse. But when I received an offer of a captaincy in that regiment, signed 'chief staff officer' -I do not know who he may be-I looked on the whole thing as a piece of impudence. The cablegram read as follows :
Col. Sam. Hughes, Canadian Regiment, Cape
Town.
General proposes recommend you captain in Strathcona's Horse. Reply if you accept.
Chief Staff Officer.
I need not say that I deemed this one of the greatest insults ever offered me, and I did not reply to it. I find that followed up by a letter from General Hutton to the Minister of Militia, in which he makes this statement :
Lieut-Col. S. Hughes, 45th Battalion, having written a full and complete apology, and expressed regret for his insubordinate and improper conduct, I request that the final paragraph of my letter of October 26, 1899, may be considered as cancelled.
Samuel Hughes: I may say that bears on its face a deliberate falsehood. From the time I left Canada I never, either directly or indirectly, communicated with General Hutton ; I had nothing to do with him.
That, in brief, is the correspondence. I have brought this matter up, not in order to vindicate myself, and not because I have any objection to the general officer commanding the Canadian forces being a British general. On the contrary, I desire that our general officer commanding should be a British general. I know that a great many of my friends, both on the other side of the House and on this side, in view of the conduct of some of the general officers in recent years, have expressed the wish that a Canadian officer should be appointed to that position. I wish to say, standing here, that it is my desire that the general officer commanding should be an Imperial officer, and I believe that if we paid that officer .$10,000 a year, which is the pay of a major-general in England, and is about what little New South Wales pays to her general officer Commanding,we would get an officer to come out here to take command of our troops who would be a credit to the position and to the empire. A man would not he sent here to be got rid of because be was cranky in the office in England, or to make use of the position as a stepping-stone to some other position. One reason why I have brought this matter up is to let these men know that we have responsible government in this country, and that no military officer can step outside of the law in dealing with the officers under him. I wisli the papers to be brought down in order that the officers throughout the country may know what their powers are. Would you believe it ?- fully one-half the officers of this country think that because I or any officer may command a battalion, the men under the colonel, even when off duty, are subject to his whim in military matters. The idea is childish and absurd, but, nevertheless, it exists, and I would very much like that these men should be disabused of it. I have brought this matter before the House in the hope that any harm which may have resulted from the unconstitutional conduct of that general officer commanding in the whole matter may be wiped out. 1 have brought it up in the hope that the good which has resulted from the colonies participating in the war in South Africa may continue to grow, and that in the very near future we may find the Imperial parliament divesting itself of parish politics and entering the arena of Imperial politics proper, and that we may soon see Canada represented in an informal council, ultimately to become a formal council, for the promotion of the best interests of the British Empire and the upbuilding of the human race. I must thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the patient hearing of this rather long and uninteresting

legal discussion ; but I felt that the circumstances required that this matter should be clearly placed before the House, in order that there might be a better understanding in the future of the respective duties owing to the various authorities, from the Governor General down, in military matters.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: Mr Speaker, I am sure that neither my hon. friend nor the House expect me to enter into any lengthy discussion of the very many subjects to which our attention has been called this evening. I think, however, that the House, and probably the country, did expect, after what took place last year, after the well-known and well-discussed differences of opinion which occurred between my hon. friend and the general officer commanding, that my hon. friend on his return would make, as he has made, some statement to this House in reference to his conduct ; and I am sure that we have all been very well pleased with the manner in which he has discharged that duty.
I have no doubt that the country will be interested in the statement which the hon. gentleman has made to the House this evening. I do not propose to enter into any discussion. The hon. gentleman has acquitted me as minister, and also, I understand, the government, of any intention to injure him, or of having injured him in any way. The quarrel is one between the hon. gentleman and General Hutton, and the hon. gentleman has stated his side of the case. He did, at the opening, make a reference, which he corrected later on, to the character of the papers brought down in reply to a motion for a return, during last session, and described them as incomplete and garbled. I am quite sure, from the subsequent remarks of my hon. friend, that he did not intend that as a reflection on the officers i f my department, and therefore, I have nothing to say on that point. He also took some exceptions to the publishing of private letters, but later on in his speech he disavowed any charge of impropriety against myself and the officers of my department. As a matter of fact, as the hon. gentleman has said, General Hutton did place before me the letters which were brought before the House last session, and stated that he had notified my hon. friend that he had done so, and that those letters must be considered official letters in the future. And I may say in passing, that without those letters his whole discussion would have lost a great deal of its point and interest, and would be very much like the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out.
I do not know that I should say anything with reference to the long legal opinion which my hon. friend read to the House, regarding the relations which officers of superior rank in the militia bear to officers of inferior rank, or privates. I am not a law-14
yer, nor have I studied as much as I ought the military law, but I am bound to say that if the construction which my hon. friend puts upon the military law of Canada be correct, then it is very necessary that law should be changed, because it would be impossible to enforce military discipline, and our militia system would be absolutely a farce. To say that if the officer commanding a district issued an order to have the rifles and equipment of a rural battalion inspected, and the captain, who had control of the armoury, refused to allow the inspection to be made, the officer commanding was powerless to enforce the inspection, is, it seems to me, at variance with common sense, and with everything I have been taught concerning the militia in the past. However, I do not propose to discuss the matter at all, and will do my utmost to bring down every paper to which my hon. friend refers. I am not quite sure whether I can lay my hands on them all, but if he will suggest where I may find any which may be missing, I shall do my utmost to procure and lay them on the table at the earliest possible date.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. the minister says that if the law is as I have stated it to be, it should be changed. Well, I can assure him that when he brings in any change, he will find stern and serious opposition from one seat in this House at all events, if I happen to be a member. I never stated that the district officer commanding had not the right to notify the captain of a rural battalion that he was going to inspect the armoury, but I stated that he had no authority to oblige the captain to submit his armoury to inspection. I was not speaking of the district officer commanding at all, but of the officer commanding a battalion, who has no right, under the law, to inspect the arms of the company. But should the district officer commanding notify a captain that he is going to inspect the arms, and the captain refused then, as the law clearly imposes the duty on the district commanding officer of inspecting the arms, all the latter has to do is to report to the minister and the minister has power to retire that officer from the force. Therefore, there is no necessity for the hon. minister to amend the law. But should he bring in an amendment to provide that, I, as colonel of my battalion, shall have the authority to order any of my fellows, when not subject to military law, to do this or that, I assure the hon. gentleman that I will fight him to a finish. Once my men have done their drill, they are free men, and not subject to military law until they don the uniform again. The hon. the minister brought up the case of a district officer commanding, but I referred to the case of a commanding officer in Ottawa or elsewhere ordering one of his captains to let him into his armoury for the purpose of inspecting the arms. The com-



manding officer has no military authority to go there.
The hon. gentleman says he will bring down every paper. I assure him that he will not.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: All I can find.


James Joseph Hughes: He will not find all. It is currently rumoured that a great many of the papers have been removed from his department. A good deal of this is private correspondence-and I would scorn to bring down private correspondence myself-but inasmuch as the late general officer commanding has placed himself in the unenviable position of producing private correspondence, when it suits his purpose and convenience, I would give him the opportunity of producing such further private correspondence as would speak strongly in my favour, but I have no doubt it will not be forthcoming.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11 o'clock.

Tuesday, February 26, 1901.