June 24, 1904

L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

We have heard their speeches in this House, we have heard speeches px-oduced in this House made by these bon. gentlemen and their friends before the last general election in the province of Quebec. We have had documents here, sworn to, and published in the ' Hansard.' My young friend is very innocent, or he would not ask such a question. More than that, we have seen that spirit manifested here by these gentlemen again and again. I do not know who that Liberal friend is that Informs Mr. Glenn of these things he mentions in his letter ; but at all events, our friends opposite are gradually going in that direction. They demand the making of our own treaties, they demand that there shall be no appeal to the Privy Council, they demand that we shall have a Canadian General Officer Commanding, they demand that every tie that binds ns to the motherland, except the old flag, shall be cut asunder, except that one link the Governor General ; and then it will be a mighty short time until they come out and demand a republic. Whether that is the aim of the Minister of Agriculture, who, on his recent trip to Japan has been lecturing to the Geisha girls, whether he has the desire to supplant the Prime Minister and become a sort of president of a new republic, I do not know. At all events, there is no use in shutting our eyes to the fact that the tendency of these gentlemen is in that direction.

Now, I may say that some years ago, when I had an opportunity of standing up for the rights of the people of Canada against the tyranny of the General Officer

Commanding, not because be was a Britisher but because he was taking an unconstitutional course, I had the privilege then ol' proceeding along certain 'lines which had been laid down for upwards of a hundred years in the parliament of Great Britain. I resented the illegal action of that officer. Our good friends opposite do not seem to be able to see the difference between an illegal action -and a legal one.

I say here that if it can be shown that Lord Dundonald practiced any of the illegal actions that General Hutton practiced,

I shall be the first to admit that the government did right in dismissing him. But neither directly nor indirectly have they shown the first solitary instance where Lord Dundouald's course has not been thoroughly constitutional, thoroughly in line with the spirit of responsible government. When the movement was on foot to have a Canadian General Officer Commanding succeed General Hutton, I took the opportunity on February 25, 1901, to say this in the House of Commons :

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 he appointed to that position.

I wish to say, standing here that it is my desire that the General Officer Commanding should he 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.

Lord Dundonald came to this country a credit in every sense to the empire. And here it may not be out of place for me to give -a few of the reasons of that spirit of antagonism to Lord Dundonald. Who can fail to understand the spirit manifested both by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Minister of Militia last night ? Who can fail, I say, to observe that the antagonism to Lord Dundonald was due to the fact that he was a member of the British aristocracy, and because he was a member of the British army. It ill becomes gentlemen who, a few years ago, boasted themselves as democrats to tlie hilt, and wlio on every occasion since have been sacrificing their previously pi'ofessed principles for titles and for offices-I say it ill becomes them to stand-up in this House and sneer at any one because he is a member of the British aristocracy. I maintain that the General Officer Commanding the Canadian

troops should he am imperial officer, not because Canadians aire not capable of filling the post, because I believe Canadians are capable, not only of being General Officers Commanding in Canada, provided they have the necessary training, but they are capable of being Commanders-in-Chief of the imperial armies, provided they have the necessary training. I want him to be an imperial officer, not because he might he an Englishman, because, although some Englishmen may be bumptious, we have seen Canadians who are bumptious also. That is not a fault belonging exclusively to Englishmen. There are some Frenchmen, there are many in England, some in Scotland andl a few in Ireland who are inclined to stick to their own opinions. You will find that all over the world. I want an imperial officer, not because he may, be am imperial aristocrat

although let me say this, that other things being equal, a man from the ranks of the aristocracy, if he is thoroughly trained, should be just as good a man at all events to command our militiary forces as any one else. So it should be no drawback to a man that he is an aristocrat. I say that in Lord Dundonald the Canadian government have had a true aristocrat. a gentleman who has done credit to Canada and has been a credit to the empire. I want an imperial General Officer Commanding, not because he Is a better man, but because be is better trained ; I want an imperial General Officer Commanding because, if he turns out to be objectionable, we can get rid of him, because there is a greater field for selection in the imperial service than in the Canadian service ; because changes are beneficial ; because there is less jealousy arising in Canada when there is an imperial officer than when there is a colonial officer, because there Is a greater selection in the imperial service than in the Canadian service, because changes are beneficial, because there Is less jealousy arising in Canada when there is an imperial officer than | when there is a colonial, because there is less intrigue, influence and unscrupulousness exerted in the appointment of officers-we have an instance in the organization of this regiment alone of intrigue, influence and unscrupulousness having been brought to bear in order to keep certain officers out of that regiment-because an imperial trained officer has greater chances of becoming proficient than a Canadian trained officer has, because if we limit ourselves to a Canadian General Officer it would tend to prevent the introduction of that system which we hope soon to see in force, an exchange of officers between the two services, because to limit the selection to a Canadian would tend to exclude Canadians from positions In the great imperial army of the British empire, because the retaining of an imperial officer is a link between the old empire and the

colony, because in the future of the empire the day is not far distant when there will be one great imperial militia and one great Imperial army for the whole empire. Let it be understood that Canada's fighting force must of necessity be the militia. We want no great standing army in this country. The militia is democratic and of the people. A standing army is aristocratic and tends to breed autocrats and oligarchs whom we find exemplified in the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The militia, while maintaining law and order, defending the country and giving the youth of the land ne-cesary discipline, preserves a proper balance between the people and the executive, between an ultra democracy and an aristocracy. The militia upbuilds the independent man and makes all men more self-reliant. The militia trains the mass of the people of the nation as against a few trained by the regular army system. The militia suppresses the spirit of militarism while the standing army develops .it. I do not know that it is necessary to go on further, I was going to point out but I shall take another occasion to do it that there is an agitation going on through the country to get rid of the connection between Great Britain and the colonies in so far as it is possible by removing the treaty making power from Great Britain. However, I shall take another occasion to deal with this question. I desire to be through before six o'clock because I understand the right hon. Prime Minister does not want to go on after six.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Certainly we will go on after six.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Gentlemen, in urging the abolition of a British officer commanding have been pointing out in glowing terms the desirability of having a Canadian. Are Canadians and is Canada more independent of improper influences than Britain or Britishers have been ? Are all appointments in Canada made solely on the basis of merit and fitness ? Would Canada be less under the control of such men, women and methods as are complained of than Britain has been ? Is the influence of the ladies less potent in Canada than in Britain ? Are the smiles and the glances of Canadian women less bewitching, less magical with Canadian statesmen and soldiers than are those of Britain's court society beauties upon imperial officers and statesmen ? Are the hearts of Canada's gallant soldiers and cultured ministers more invulnerable to such ? Have policies, regulations and appointments in Canada, as well as in Britain, ever been influenced by a touch of 'The maddening lips of wine, or the wanton ones of beauty ? ' Do Canadian statesmen ever permit nepotism-I notice that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) is absent-to influence their judgment and actions, or are not appointments in Canada Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

sometimes limited only by the sons and other family connections of ministers ? Or are all things in civil and military affairs in Canada moulded upon right, jiuty, honour and efficiency ? If 'Canada can say that she is all these then and then only will it be time to say that a Canadian General Officer Commanding will be freer from these influences than if we bring one from the old country. We are told that it would be a great advantage if we had the treaty making power, if we had the right to arrest people for offences committed beyond our borders and if we had no appeal from our courts to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. Within a hundred years there is not a nation in Europe that has not changed its situation or changed its boundary except Great Britain-not a nation. Take the map of Europe of one hundred years ago and you will scarcely find a country to-day that has the same geographical formation. You will find a score of countries that have existed, that have had the right to make their own treaties, carry out their own extradition treaties to fly their own flag and these countries have all vanished from the map or they have been moulded into some other constitutional or geographical formation. Great Britain is the only country that has flown the old flag for a thousand years, and I am satisfied that the people of Canada are in favour of maintaining that association with the old land for all time to come. I am satisfied that we are not going to sacrifice the substance for the shadow. We are not going, for the sake of having a Canadian General Officer Commanding in order to afford patronage and pull for one locality or another, to enact a law that will deprive us of the services of a well trained man from the British empire. We are not going to dispense with an appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, we are not going to demand or. get the right to make independent treaties. Let Canada be consulted by all means, but treaties have to be negotiated under the old flag and we are not going to sever almost the only link that binds us to the mother country. We are going to stand true to the old alliance and the union is going to be rather closer in the future than it has been in the past.

In conclusion I would say to theright hon. Prime Minister that I maintain that it is his bounden duty inview of the offences that have proven

to have been committed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture to remove that officer from the government. I am satisfied the country will stop short of nothing else than that, and Sir, if the right hon. gentleman does not see his way clear to do that I maintain that if the facts are placed properly before the representative of the sovereign in this country there is no other course open to him than to dismiss the government. The right hon. gentleman may smile but I want to tell him

that the Governor General has just as much constitutional right to dismiss him as he has to take the head off the General Officer Commanding. The Governor may dismiss the ministry upon any of the following grounds : He may constitutionally dismiss the ministry, first:

If they exhibit internal dissensions amongst themselves,

Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, if these hon. gentlemen have not had internal dissentions. Have we not the remark of one of them to the effect that they ' fight like blazes amongst themselves ? ' Have we not had the example of one minister, the late Minister of Public Works, leaving the government a short time ago followed by the Minister of Railways and Canals and now we find through the power of the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries the present hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) practically turned out of his job and sent adrift. Then we hear rumours of friction between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Agriculture so that we find internal dissensions of every kind among the ministers.

The Governor may dismiss his ministers.

If they differ from the sovereign or from the country at large upon a question of public policy.

I do not know about the governor but they differ from the country on the question of public policy in regard to the meddling by the Minister of Agriculture in the formation of regiments so that under this head these gentlemen are as liable to be dismissed by the governor as Lord Dundonald was to be dismissed by them. They stand on the rocli of responsible government and so do I in demanding that action may be taken in re-ifttion to the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture.

The governor may dismiss them,

If their measures are ruinous to the country at home or abroad.

Without pointing to any of the iniquitous measures which they have recently passed, such ns the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, I maintain that the principles embodied in the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture and the actions resulting from them are ruinous to the Dominion of Canada both at home and abroad. Furthermore the governor may dismiss them

If there should exist a general feeling of distrust and disapprobation of them throughout the country.

I maintain that in each and every one of these matters, the feeling of distrust in the country has been exemplified. No words that I can utter could add to Lord Dundon-nld's standing in the country. No words that I can utter are required to give him a warmer place in the hearts of the people of Canada than he already holds, and I am sorry from the bottom of my heart that

this incident has occurred. Let me point out to the Minister of Militia and to the government that the Conservative party in this House and the country have kept poli tics out of the militia. We have had many occasions when we could have made a little party capital, as the First Minister knows, but I leave it to the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) and the-hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), the old heads of the party to say if for many and many a year we have not prevented in our caucus anything that might savour of an attack on the military policy of this country. We felt that there was an uneducated spirit abroad, a fear of militarism which is the antithesis of a militia system. There are people who believe that anything favouring a scarlet coat and rifle is tending towards a standing army. It is essential that the public should be informed that the real position is exactly contrary to that, and that with a proper militia system you need no standing army, that a militia system and a standing army are absolute antitheses. I leave it to the hon. gentlemen if the policy of the Conservative party for at least fifteen sessions has not been to repress that spirit v>f criticising anything in the military system on either side. So long as there was any possibility of harmonizing the differences we wanted to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Minister of Militia in upbuilding the militia force of the country, and the hon. gentlemen opposite cannot point out one case vvhere we have violated that policy. If this conduct of the Minister of Agriculture is condoned by the government all I have to say. is that the Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister will have themselves to blame if the old truce that has so long and happily existed between the two parties is broken, and if henceforth we treat the militia of Canada as if it was an institution to be controlled by politics rather than by the best interests of the country. The Minister of Militia made an appeal to the militia last night. I see our diminutive friend from Hants (Mr. Paissell) is very impatient to get oil some of his little work. I presume it will be his final speech in the House, in consequence of the telegrams of which we have heard urging that he be appointed a judge instead of someone else. I see he is very impatient to get at me, and I waut to let him at me. The Minister of Militia made an impassioned appeal in his remarks to the militia of Canada. I wish to tell him that he has occupied a warm place in the hearts of the militia of Canada, because they have had faith in his honour and fair play. That is why he has been warmly regarded by them, and not for any personal influence. Men are respected and honoured not for the mere human flesh and blood that is in them. The Minister of Militia. Lord Dundonald and your humble servant in a hundred years will have passed away and be forgotten, but

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

Benjamin Russell

Liberal

Mr. BENJAMIN RUSSELL (Hants).

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the pathetic face of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) during the reading of those eloquent verses by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). He evidently feared that his laurels were about to be lost or be put Into the shade. The magnificent poem which he read to ns the other day is altogether eclipsed by the beautiful verses which we have just heard. I may say that I cannot feel very anxious to make a speech on this occasion, more especially perhaps because I feel a little bit like MacMorris in Henry V. :

It is no time to discourse, so Chrish save me; the day is hot, and the weather and the wars and the King and the Dukes (and the Dun-donalds and the great Colonel Hugheses), it is no time to discourse.

Even if it had been otherwise in regard to ail these conditions, I should have to make an apology for occupying much time because this matter has .-been thoroughly placed before the House, particularly in the luminous and convincing speeches of the Minister of 1 Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). My hon. friend has expressed his disappointment with the speech delivered by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). We never are disappointed with the speeches which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) delivers in this House : we always know what to expect and always get what we look for, a medley of blatherskite and rhodomontade. Pomposity and enlargement of the head were expressions which my hon. friend used in reference to the ministers. Pomposity ? Heaven save the mark ! Where will you find pomposity such as we have just witnessed ? Enlargement of the head ? Could the Almighty himself make the hon. gentleman's head still bigger than it is ? Bumptious Canadians were talked about. There are certainly bumptious Canadians the hon. gentleman says. When the hon. gentleman says there are some bumptious Canadians we are inclined, because he tells us, to accept his word.

He defends the bumptiousness, the egotism that was charged against the Earl of Dundonald by saying that he was only using a grammatical expression. It was simply a matter of grammar. Well. Sir, that was the way that Cardinal Wolsey defended himself, the way the man of unbounded stomach, ever ranking himself with princes, defended his famous ego et rex meus. The hon. gentleman himself is like Wolsey, a man of unbounded stoinach. no such diminutive individual ns he insists ou reminding me is the humble member for Hants. His egotism recalls to mind the description by Wendell Phillips of the egotism of Andrew Johnston-it was like the mathematician's definition of infinity, with its centre everywhere and its circumference nowhere. If anything else would correctly describe the bumptiousness and the egotism and the vanity of the hon. gentleman. I would like to have it pointed out to me in all the literature of our country, He has read lectures to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia. Well, he once read lectures to General Hutton. What is the use of my hon. friends paying much attention to his lectures, when they do not know but that the next morning he will take back all he has said, and will come crawling on that unbounded stomach of his, as he crawled once before when General Hutton brought him to book. He has named William of Orange, John Hampden and George Washington. True, they were patriots ; and they did certainly take issue with the powers of their days ; but they never went down on their stomachs and crawled, as the hon. gentleman crawled in his apoligy to General Hutton, which I am going to read for his entertainment :

Dear General Hutton,-I desire to make full and ample apology to you for certain letters written by me to you during recent months, letters written under excitement-

Well, the hon. gentleman is speaking under excitement to-day, and he will probably take back all be has said in three or four days from this, and will come to the Minister of Militia and beg for further favours, as he begged from General Hutton-

-'letters written under excitement caused by-

Caused by some patriotic ebullition, by some kindling of indignant patriotism ?

' Caused by the belief that I, ' the great Colonel Sam. Hughes, no diminutive little fellow like the member for Hants, but a man of unbounded stomach-

-was to be debarred from participating in the deeds of a Canadian contingent in the imperial service, should one be sent to the Transvaal, a project which I as the proposer for many years felt deeply at heart. I especially regret one reflecting upon in a sense the system, but the remarks which I deemed provocation-as I construed them-were a reflection upon Cana-ians ; two or three incidents occurring practically on one day which I from the view point of one more familiar with constitutional law

It is well that the hon. gentleman assures us of his familiarity with constitutional law. I think he ought to repeat that under oath, if he wants us to believe it. Good old Chief Justice Young heard an affidavit read in his court one day in which a proposition of law was stated. Looking down on the practitioner, he asked : ' Hoes he swear to

that ? ' ' Yes, my lord, he swears to it. '

' I am glad he swears to it,' said the judge,

[DOT] because it is a matter on which the court has been divided in opinion for some time. ' The hon. gentleman should have sworn to this if he wanted us to believe that he is familiar with constitutional law. But I am doing the hon. gentleman an injustice. When I understand it better, I perceive that he only says that he was more familiar with constitutional law than he was with military practice.

-which I from the viewpoint of one more familiar with constitutional 'law rather than of British military practice, believed to hear upon my honour and rights as a citizen, caused me to express sentiments that are foreign to my belief in the form in which they seem.

' Believed to bear upon my honour and rights as a citizen. ' Why the hon. gentleman is a regular Bombastes Furioso-

Who dares this pair of boots displace Must meet Bombastes face to face.

I most respectfully wish to retract all letters written in what to your military instinct may seem insubordination, but which were no; so meant by me.

What humility ! I do not think a man could humble himself much more than that before the Creator of the universe.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

William Mulock (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

Is it signed ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

Benjamin Russell

Liberal

Mr. RUSSELL.

' Signed Sam. Hughes '- the redoutable, only one genuine heavenborn, heaven-descended child of the gods, Sam Hughes.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Would the hon. gentleman allow me to say a word

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

Benjamin Russell

Liberal

Mr. RUSSELL.

I cannot help it, but if the hon. gentleman breaks in upon me, I shall forget what I was going to say.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I wish to say that I have a great pleasure in acknowledging the authenticity of that letter, which was written when I was assured by the highest authority in the Dominion of Canada that if I retracted, I would be allowed the opportunity of serving my country in South Africa.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

Benjamin Russell

Liberal

Mr. RUSSELL.

That is exactly what I said. It was written, not because the hon. gentleman felt any sincere compunction or penitence ; but he intended to continue to hold in his heart all that he had said, and he simply wrote this insincere apology in order to have the chance of going to South Africa to join the other nabobs and swells who were already there.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I would say furthermore that there is only one thing retracted that is, a reflection on the British officer.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Take your medicine.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink
LIB

Benjamin Russell

Liberal

Mr. RUSSELL.

' No chastisement for the present seemeth joyous but grievous ; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto them that are exercised thereby. ' My hon. friend has gone elaborately into a defence of the Earl of Dundonald in respect of these matters. I do not find the defence of the Earl of Dundonald so pronouncedly in the resolution moved by the hon. leader of the opposition as in the speech which the hon. member for North Victoria has placed on ' Hansard.' I do not see it very much in the resolution; if there is anything at nil you have to find it by reading between the lines. But I want to ask this House if the hon. gentleman appealed to any English precedent that justified Lord Dundonald. The only one that he referred to was immediately smashed, shattered and pulverized by the hon. Minister of Militia. It is not in any British constitutionally-governed country that he finds any precedent in justification of Lord Dundonald. Not at all. He has to go to the United States. He has to go to the American republic, to that country where they -tell us anarchy prevails, and which is not ruled according to British precedents and constitutional usage. I have no doubt that my hon. friend will find precedents for whatever he may want at some time or other and in some place or other in the United States, hut I should prefer that he would, as a Britisher, as a strong imperialist like myself, as a good English constitutionalist, go to that grand old country from which we derive our con-

stitutional system of government and our constitutional law and precedents, rather than to the republic of the United States. I do not propose to deal at any greater length with the hon. gentleman-at all events not just now. I may have occasion to quote some passages from a state paper of his later on, which bears on the subject immediately before the House, but for the present I will leave my hon. friend and let him vanish into space, as Cardinal Newman dismissed Mr. Kingsley in one of the chapters of his ' Apologia.'

At six o'clock House took recess.

After Eecess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   HUGHES,
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS.


House went into Committee on Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton Street Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver. On section 5,


CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART.

Is the Chairman of the Railway Committee here 7 If [DOT] not. in his absence the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Oliver) perhaps, will explain the effect of this clause.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   EDMONTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I cannot explain the full effect of this clause. The provision as it stands is the result of an agreement between the sub-committee of the Railway Committee and the legal advisers of the parties concerned in the Bill. I understand the general intent of the Bill to be to make this company subject to the provisions of the Railway Act, but certain exceptions are necessary of sections that apply only to sterna railways. It was pointed out that this company was not subject to the Railway Act or any other General Act, and it was thought advisable to bring it under the provisions of the Railway Act so far as that Act could apply to enterprises of this kind.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   EDMONTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART.

I notice that, only one section of the Companies Act is made to apply. Why does not the whole Act apply?

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   EDMONTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I am not thoroughly posted on that point, not being a lawyer. There was a very closely argued dispute between the legal members of the sub-committee and the promoters of the Bill. The Bill covers, not only provisions for a street railway but for certain other powers in regard to the holding of land, the working of coal mines and the carrying on of water transportation. The Companies' Clauses Act, as I understand it, would ap'ply to that portion of the powers asked for by the Act which are not connected with the railway, but not to that part connected with the railway. There-

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   EDMONTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Benjamin Russell

Liberal

Mr. RUSSELL.

fore, the two general Acts, the Companies Clauses Act and the Railway Act are both brought in so far as they apply to the two kinds of powers granted to the company.

Bill reported^ read the third time and passed.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUN-DONALD.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   EDMONTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

June 24, 1904