Thomas Mitchell March TWEEDIE

TWEEDIE, Thomas Mitchell March, K.C., B.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Calgary West (Alberta)
Birth Date
March 4, 1871
Deceased Date
October 4, 1944
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tweedie
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=cb18716e-09f4-44ec-b1b3-310df1cd367a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
judge, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Calgary West (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 41)


June 2, 1921

Mr. TWEEDIE:

Costs against whom?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 2, 1921

Mr. TWEEDIE:

I do not say that there may not have been such a case, but the will of the people is not regarded when the legal rights of the parties before the court are in question, and no legislation can be introduced to validate defective proceedings. We find practically the same principle in connection with by-laws passed by municipalities, and also in connection with by-laws passed by corporations. If they wish to exercise any power which is delegated to them, they must assert their rights strictly under the authority or the law delegating that power to them. The House of Commons, in the amendment to this Act, has delegated certain power to the officers of the Crown for the holding of elections and taking the votes of the people, and in my opinion the officers should follow strictly the power delegated to them, and it should not be said, after people have exercised their rights: "Well, it was simply a technicality and we are going to brush it aside with further legislation." It is of the utmost importance to this country, as it is to any other, that, when rights are established by law, they shall be respected by the Parliament which creates them; and when you have a superior judicial body established for the purpose of determining the rights of parties under our laws, neither this Government nor any other should step in and validate something that was irregular in the proceedings. I submit that in the in-

terests of the general principles of law in this country we should do well if we bore with the mistake that has been made and began all over again, so that public officials would know that this is not an institution to remedy any errors they may have made.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 2, 1921

Mr. TWEEDIE:

I just wish to say a few words in regard to this case, and to put myself on record in regard to the position which the Government have taken in connection with if. I wish, however, before I give expression to my views to state that if this matter came to a vote in the Hjouse, I would not feel at liberty to vote on the question, as it is one in which I am personally interested.

I certainly am opposed to the general principle of the legislation which has been introduced by the Government. The case arises over a dispute between the Gold Seal Liquor Company, which is an incorporated company carrying on the business of wholesale liquor dealers in the western provinces, and the Dominion Express Company. Liquor was tendered by the Gold Seal Company to the Dominion Express Company for the purpose of transportation in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but the Dominion Express Company refused to carry the liquor on the ground that it would be in violation of the amendment to the Canada Temperance Act, and that they .would subject themselves to a heavy penalty for so doing.

278i

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 2, 1921

Mr. TWEEDIE:

In case of the decision being against the appellants there is no provision in the third clause whereby the Crown can be charged, by order of the court, with the costs.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 2, 1921

Mr. TWEEDIE:

They have offices in the city of Vancouver, Calgary, and elsewhere, 1 believe.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink