If there was, it was not fired after the Riot Act was read. There wais nobody killed anyhow, which is the most important feature of the case. The hon. gentleman knows
that that is not the first strike which has taken place at Valleyfield. There had been a big strike before that. I do not wish to be unfair towards the Montreal cotton mills- very far from it-but I say without hesitation that Mr. Galt, who is the largest shareholder, recognized that something was wrong in the management and dismissed the former manager. Why ? Because Mr. Gait understood that his management was not what the management of a mill in a good Christian community should be.
My hon. friend is veyy much exercised over the fact that the president of the workingmen's association is a Liberal, that the secretary is a Liberal, and that Mr. Bertrand, one of the officers, is connected with the canal. Well, there are a great many government employees at Ottawa who are connected with labour associations. Are we to dismiss them ? Is it a crime for them to be connected with those associations ? It is not. It appears that Mr. Leger, the president, owns a farm. But, there is no crime in a labouring man owning property, and it is not necessary, in order that a man should belong to a labour association, that he should work every day with his hands. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), and my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) do not work by the day, and they are certainly connected with labour organizations. The men my hon. friend has named in Valleyfield. as members of the association, are entitled to belong to it. Mr. Des-ch6ne is a tailor, but a tailor is a workingman. It is not necessary to work with the shovel in order to be a workingman. A typographer is a workingman, Mr. Leger is a workingman, and all those men belong to the Liberal association.
My hon. friend is surprised that the majority of the worthy gentleman who represents Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) was greater in Valleyfield over Mr. Bergeron than was Mr. Bergeron's majority over me, but, I have already told the House that in the election of 1890 the men of Valleyfield were tyrannized in a way that no member of parliament would countenance here. Would you believe me when I tell you that on the polling day. Mr. Simpson, the ex-manager, went so far as to lock up the windows with boards, so as to impress the men with his great power and strength, and every poor workingman was obliged to go to the polls in passing through the same door. Mr. Simpson called all those workmen in the day before polling and intimated to them, in a way that did not admit of argument, that if they did not vote for the Conservative candidate, things would go wrong. Many of these men resisted and were dismissed, and many of those dismissed, even after we had been in office, have not been taken on again. But, of course, I have nothing to say with regard to the present management, because the former manager has been dismissed. Let my hon. friend ask Mr. Galt, who was a political
friend of his, and Mr. Galt will tell him that the ex-manager mismanaged things in such a way that Mr. Galt, had he noticed it before, would not have stood it for twenty-four hours.
My hon. friend has read affidavits, but those affidavits have not disproved any solitary statement that the hon. member for Beauharnois has made, and especially they have not substantiated what my hon. friend said on the 3rd of April. I do not care to split hairs, but the most important accusation which my hon. friend has brought is that against Mr. King. That accusation he has not been able to prove ; and in the absence of evidence, I call upon him again to make an apology to Mr. King.
Subtopic: MACKENZIE KING,