May 12, 1908

CON
LIB
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE.

The hon. member would not say that such a thing could occur again., since the Act has been amended.

Topic:   GEORGE JOHN LOVELL.
Permalink
LIB
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE.

Oh, no ; the hours for registration have been increased.

Topic:   GEORGE JOHN LOVELL.
Permalink
LIB

Theodore Arthur Burrows

Liberal

Mr. BURROWS.

The great fault we have to find with this election law is that there is not enough time given to register and not enough time for the court of revision. X read that declaration for the purpose of showing that in the city of Winnipeg, right in the shadow of the parliament buildings, with the knowledge of the government, people tried for a whole week to get on the list, and hundreds were turned away. At that time there was a good deal of agitation on this question, and Mr. Lovell, acting on behalf of some electors, applied to the court for a mandamus to compel the revising officer to receive the applications of those present when the court closed. The revising officer agreed to appear, and the case was set down for the following day. The case was tried. Able counsel appeared on both sides. Mr. John S. Ewart appeared for the /.appellant, and* Mr. Andrews, I think, for the revising officer. The judge decided that the revising officer had power to take the names of those who were in the booth at the time. In the meantime, however, the revising officer played a trick, by which he returned his papers to the registration board, and as he was not an officer any longer, the judge could not issue the mandamus, and for that reason it was not issued. There is a case in point where a large number of electors in the city of Winnipeg were deprived of their franchise because of the very short time given for revision. That is the greatest complaint *we have against this Franchise Act.

Topic:   GEORGE JOHN LOVELL.
Permalink
LIB

C. J. MICKLE.


At the same time he telegraphed to another hon. member of this House the following : The Act better in 1903. New amendments have largely destroyed best features. Grievous complaints of unfair administration by government in many parts. That is the latest expression of Mr. Mickle's opinion on that question. I have in my hand a clipping which shows what Mr. Mickle said in the House when that Bill was introduced. I think my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) read it last ni°-ht. I do not intend to read it all again. It"was in the main a criticism of the amendment to the Act of the year 1904. He said that the government were going back on their principles altogether in amending the Act. They had first appointed a registration board. By, the amendment of 1904 they went hack on that altogether, and took into their own hands the power to appoint registration clerks, to which he objected. The only thing he said with regard to that Act of 1903 is quoted here, and it is from this my hon. friend took his inspirations : Another .advantage claimed for the present Act of 1903 was that the making of the lists was taken out of the hands of partisan officials and put into the hands of judges. 11ns provision also was wiped out by the proposed legislation. It was reasonable and fairly satisfactory in practice under the present Aot



That is the Act of 1903. But now it was done away with. Hence forth the registration clerks are to be appointed by the government. True, there was still a board of registration hut it was not for the receiving of names but for the appointment of revising officers. If the principle adopted under the present Act had the merits claimed, what reason was tneie toi the changes now sought to be introduced.^ You will see that at the very time when the government of Manitoba introduced the amendments which now form the Election Act of Manitoba, Mr. Mickle, as leader or the opposition in that province, objected and pointed out that they had gone back on the principles of the Act of 1903 and had tal>en the power to appoint partisan registration clerks. _ . Another case which has been cited before, a very glaring case,-a case which shows we had grievances under this Act- was the deliberate disfranchisement of tlilrty-eight electors at Lac du Bonnet. In this case the revising officer, Mr. Heap, m order to enable the people who were living at Lac du Bonnet to be placed on the list and at the request of representatives from that district, adjourned his court and agreed to go to the lake and take the applications of the residents there. 1 lie train goes to Lac du Bonnet once a week, remains about two hours and returns. The clerk sent word that he would be there on a certain train, the residents met him, [DOT]and he took all their applications. They were bona fide electors. Nobody raised the claim that they were not entitled to vote. But as soon as the government found out that he had adjourned his court, they notitied him that his action was illegal; and [DOT]notwithstanding the fact that the registration board certified to the list, when the [DOT]election took place ,tbe sheets containing [DOT]these namies were torn off and these men were disfranchised. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), at the beginning of his address, [DOT]launched out in very vigorous terms against [DOT]my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg (Mr Bole) as did other hon. gentlemen on [DOT]that side, particularly the hon. member for [DOT]Marquette (Mr. Roche). Apparently, my hon. friend from Winnipeg displeased these gentlemen by reading in this House certain affidavits which went to prove that certain fraudulent transactions had taken place in Winnipeg, whereby 492 nfames of men who were not entitled to vote were put on the voters' list. Well, since that time other affidavits have been obtained in Winnipeg, and I propose to read an affidavit which appeared in the ' Free Press,' the original of which can be got if necessary : To wit: I, John Hyzv, of 627 Lorette avenue, in the city of Winnipeg, do solemnly declare I aim at the present time vice-presi-den/t of 'the Polish Conservative Club. I have seen in the * Free Press 3 of this morning cei-tain affidavits from Theodore Rudneski and others as to the way in which naturalization papers were made out just previous to the last election, in March, 1907. I have also seen in the Winnipeg * Telegram 3 of this evening affidavits denying such charges, and, with a full knowledge of the facts and the seriousness of such charges, I do say and solemnly declare: 1. During the month of February, 190/, 1 went to the headquarters of the Conservative Club, in the Maw block, and met Mr. Rud-neski and Mr. Sablewski, and asked them about the naturalization papers for Mr. Des-put and Mr. Jaworski and others, and they told me that they were not ready, but Rudneski said it was easy to make them out. 2. Mr. Rudneski then sat down and filled in one of the papers and several others afterwards. I had to spell the name of Desput for him. He then went into an inner room on the right hand side of the large room where I was. I followed him to the door ot the inner room, but he told me not to come in. There were other persons there whom I did not know. ,, 3. I saw him go 'to the table, then the door was closed. He came out a few minutes later with the papers. Before he took them in I noticed they had no stamp on them, but I could not say whether the signature of the clerk of the court was on them or not. When he came back and gave me the papers they had the stamp or seal'of the court on them down in the left hand corner. 4. He gave me the papers, I thunk only two at that time, and I took 'them away, but I was suspicious that they were not genuine, [DOT]and 'so I took them to my former employer and asked him to look at them and see if they were all right. He looked at the stamp and the signature and said he thought they were. I afterwards gave them to the men for whom they were intended, but not before I bad



shown them to other persons, all of whom seemed to think they were genuine. 5. I am quite positive that the court seal was not on the blank papers before Mr. Rud-neska tilled them in and carried them into the inner room, but it was on the papers when he returned, and I could not understand now the seal could be there, and this was whv I showed them to certain jpeople before i gave them to the men. ,6- I lad. a conversation about the matter with a friend this morning, and was afterwards asked to see a ' Free Press ' reporter and repeat what I had said to my friend. I was then asked if I was willing to make this statements and to swear to it, and I consented to do so, as I know the facts to be true and as I have stated-. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as it made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893. (Sgd.) JOHN HYZT. Solemnly declared before me at the city of Vy inniipeg, in the province of Manitoba, this 7th day of May, A.D. 1908. (Sgd.) J. B. HUGO, A Commissioner in B. R.


CON
LIB
CON
LIB
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

Can yon give us information as to how much that affidavit cost ?

Topic:   C. J. MICKLE.
Permalink
LIB

Theodore Arthur Burrows

Liberal

Mr. BURROWS.

How much did Rogers pay for the cheque ? With regard to that cheque I might say that the hon. meniber for Marquette (Mr. Roche) tried to create a false impression. I have a facsimile of it which shows that it was given for eight days work and for securing certain affidavits.

Topic:   C. J. MICKLE.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

I have in my desk the original cheque and it does not state any such thing. It states that it was given for eight affidavits. I can show it to the lion gentleman.

* PTJRROWS. You can see the facsimile in the Winnipeg ' Telegram.'

Topic:   C. J. MICKLE.
Permalink
CON
LIB

May 12, 1908