After hearing the minister now I feel like saying that reprehensible as was his conduct in relation to both the barge Tremblay and Moses Aziz, I would rather be guilty of it than of certain statements the minister has made in this House. Does the minister stand before his fellow' lawyers in this House, before a layman or before anyone and say that after conviction he has the right to interfere? Imagine him doing so! The law of the land is there; the man was convicted under a Dominion statute,^ and not under any provincial law. Are hon. members of this House to accept the assumption of the minister that after the merits of a case are tried before a judge there is still jurisdiction in the minister to prevent execution of the sentence? Is British law in that condition? Will the minister repeat that he believes in his heart that he had the slightest . right, after the judge gave his judgment in the case, to step in between that sentence and the prisoner?