Henry Alfred WARD

WARD, Henry Alfred

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Durham (Ontario)
Birth Date
August 20, 1849
Deceased Date
May 11, 1934
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Alfred_Ward
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6fdf3fe2-5341-459d-bcf2-ff92e4977bdc&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

August 24, 1885 - January 15, 1887
CON
  Durham East (Ontario)
February 22, 1887 - February 3, 1891
CON
  Durham East (Ontario)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
CON
  Durham East (Ontario)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Durham (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 33)


July 13, 1908

Mr. WARD.

trial Train again accused Blunden of having sold him the said two cattle and at the trial of Blunden it was made sufficiently clear that Train had falsely accused the said Blunden to the court, that the said Train was there convicted.

5. And whereas the said A. F. Blunden is a young man who has always held the respect and confidence of all who knew him, and your petitioners could not believe him guilty until so found on the evidence as given.

6. That your petitioners know the said R. N. Train and believe that he accused the said Blunden in order to save himself, and we are of the opinion that a great wrong and injury is being done to the said Blunden, and furthermore we 'believe that the said Train was about and in a measure did accuse one James Smith of near the said town of Macleod, farmer, of having sold the said two beef steers, but on account of action -being taken by an advocate on behalf of Smith in reference to business relations between Train and Smith, Train withdrew the accusation and laid an information against Blunden -which led to his arrest and conviction as aforesaid.

7. It is submitted that Blunden should not have been convicted as Train's evidence was all the proof against Blunden and that Train was no doubt actuated by the motive of selfprotection.

Now, therefore, your petitioners humbr pray that the royal mercy be extended to the said A. P. Blunden, and that the sentence upon him be remitted.

I did not mention that Train was convicted before Judge Scott of stealing two other cattle and sentenced to five years imprisonment, whereas Judge Harvey sen-sentenced this man against whom, as I con' tend, there was no proof, to double that term. Although I have failed so far with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to get any reconsideration of the case, I trust that he will be able to take a different view of the matter and to grant the prayer of the petition and of the man who has written to him so often upon this subject.

In regard to the conduct of Blunden in prison, I might mention that the reports of his conduct have been from the first satisfactory and that in the last two reports he is recommended strongly as a proper subject for the consideration of the department. I would ask the minister to consider whether this is not a proper case for intervention. This man, although he has been invited, as the correspondence will show, to apply for executive clemency, states that he wants a new trial in order to establish his innocence and to go out a free man instead of a man with a stigma upon him. Surely it is some evidence of the innocence of this man that he refuses to apply for executive clemency, states that he wants a new trial in order to establish his innocence and to go out a free man instead of a man with a stigma upon him. Surely it is some evidence of the innocence of this man that he refuses to apply for executive clemency. It is some evidence of his innocence that he Mr. WARD.

desires, in view of the new evidence which has come to light, that he shall be given an opportunity of showing that he was not guilty in the first place. In that connection I have an affidavit here from a man named Samuel Nelson, of Granum, dated February 13 last, which states that on or before September 14, he met Richard N, Train, with his boy driving a bunch of cattle between Round lake and Rocky coulee. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) can give you information as to where that is. They were going in the direction of Train's home, Rocky coulee. This was on the day before Train was discovered killing these cattle and the evidence shows clearly, in fact, Train says, that these cattle were driven in by his boy and his girl. It is stated in one of the letters to the minister that this boy and girl of Train's would swear, if they had an opportunity, that these cattle that they drove in were cattle that Blunden never had anything to do with. In the face of all the evidence that has been presented, I would simply ask the minister to reconsider his decision not to grant a new trial and if that cannot be done, why, I suppose the only thing for Blunden to do is to apply for executive clemency. The man, is far gone in consumption and it will be a blot upon the administration of the department if he should die during his term of imprisonment.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

July 13, 1908

Mr. WARD.

I do not want delay. I regret very much at this early hour of the morning, and this late stage of the session, that I should feel obliged to discuss any matter of importance, but as the question I wish to discuss relates to the imprisonment of a man who, in the opinion of a great many of his friends, has been unjustly deprived of his liberty, I think it is of sufficient importance to devote a few moments to the consideration of it. Frederick Blunden, who lived in the neighbourhood of Fort Macleod, was tried there on November 22nd, 1904, and convicted of stealing two steers, and has been imprisoned at Macleod and Edmonton for three years and a half. Ever since his incarceration he has been appealing to the Department of Justice for a new trial. He objected to appeal for executive clemency, because he insisted that he was entirely innocent of the charge upon which he was convicted, and it would not answer his ends to fe pardoned or allowed out on ticket-of-leave. These appeals have come, as the papers have shown, at intervals ever since his incarceration. The oue answer has been sent to him-that nothing could be done. Now, it would be necessary to enter shortly into the evidence given at that trial in order to show why I differ, in some sense, from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and ' his predecessor. I do so with a great deal

of diffidence, because, with my limited experience, it hardly becomes me to differ with gentlemen who have had so much experience in these matters. The trial took place before Mr. Justice Harvey at Fort Macleod. The only evidence that was given against Blunden was that of Richard Train, who was caught by the Northwest Mounted Police killing these two cattle. Train's explanation of the matter at the time the mounted police came down upon him was that he had purchased the cattle two months before from a man he did not know. He repeated that on two occasions to -the two sergeants of police, and he also said that if he had made a mistake he was quite willing to pay for the steers. Train was put in jail at Fort Macleod and lay there twenty-eight days before he made any charge against Blunden. Then, according to the evidence which is under my hand, he stated -that he made this charge to save himself and by the advice of his ' agent '- I suppose he means his solicitor. This evidence of Train was contradicted in one very important particular by one of his own hired men. I might go back for a moment to explain that the story told by Train at the trial was that on Sunday evening, four days before he killed the cattle, Blunden took tea with him in the presence of his two hired men. During the course of the meal Blunden said he had one steer to sell. After eating tea, Train says, they went out together behind the barn, and Blunden pointed out in the bunch of cattle, from 100 to 200-Train said he would not swear there were not 200-these two steers. Train admits that he was not within fifty yards of the cattle, and says that Blunden rode down on his horse and pointed out two cattle in the bunch as cattle which he was willing to sell. Train admitted that it was dusk and almost dark. It seemed absurd to think that a man could distinguish a couple of cattle in a bunch of 200 when he was fifty yards away. The contradictioin to this statement is in the evidence of Lewis Albert Carr. His evidence showed clearly that he was trying to screen Train. His evidence, as given at page 75, showed that he was at Train's on the 11th September, the day this is said to have taken place. Then, at page 70 :

Q. After supper what did he (Blunden) do? -A. He got up and went out.

Q. Did you see him after that?-A. I saw him leave the house; -then I went out and went into the tent and did not see any more of him.

Q. You mean Blunden went out before you did or after?-A. Before I did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nolan:

A. He turned his horse in the direction of his own house and I went into the tent and saw no more of him.

Q. As a matter of fact Blunden got on his horse and -rode home, come now, tell the

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

July 13, 1908

Mr. WARD.

I want to refer to one statements made by the Minister of Justice, that is, with reference to Justice Harvey's report. I did not feel at liberty to mention that report at all, because my hon. friend showed it to me in confidence ; but as he has referred to it and has spoken of Justice Harvey having stated that he believed Blunden to be guilty, I desire to say that what Justice Harvey did state in regard to that was that Blunden's attempt to prove an alibi convinced him of his guilt. Now, he made no attempt whatever to prove an alibi at the trial. He did bring three witnesses to the preliminary examination before the magistrate, but not before Justice Harvey at all. It is quite true that he made the attempt there ; but he states in his evidence that he got liis brother to write to the clergyman who had performed the christening upon which they based the alibi that he was at home on the day the christening was held. And he got his brother to write to this clergyman to find out if that christening did actually take place on the 4th. When he found from the clergyman's letter that it took place on the 11th, the day he

was said to be at Blunden's bouse, he withdrew the alibi at the trial and there was nothing before the justice at all. How the attempt to prove an alibi, under the circumstances, was evidence of his guilt is beyond me to understand.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

July 13, 1908

Mr. WARD.

As it is understood that on any of these items any matter could be discussed, I desire to bring up a matter-

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

July 6, 1908

Mr. WARD.

Will there be any repairs 'to the piers ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-CANAUIAN NATURALIZATION.
Full View Permalink