matter.

Mr. PLUMB said that as his name had been mentioned in connection with the committee he felt it due to himself and to the member for Kings that he should make some statement in respect to the subject before the House. He had been absent from the city during six or seven days, and during the time of his absence the member for Kings had been engaged with the member for North York in investigating some of the accounts in connection with the transactions which the committee were appointed to examine. The hon. member for Kings understood more fully some of the important points upon which the investigation was likely to turn than himself. When he returned to the city he found that the committee had closed the examination of witnesses, concluded their investigation, and had drawn up a report. That report was submitted to him when the hon. member was confined to his house by serious illness. He (Mr. PLUMB) stated then that the report was not drawn up in a form which he could agree to. He said that at the outset, and he had thought it might possibly be modified, but he saw that it would be necessary to make very material modifications in it, as its whole tone and spirit appeared objectionable. However, he wished to consult the hon. member for Kings in regard to it. The meeting on Friday was held in a different room from that in which the meeting usually assembled, and although he came to the House with the intention of attending it, he failed to find the committee. He did not conceive from what had passed at the previous meeting that there was any immediate and pressing haste in preparing a report. He knew that the committee had been very earnest in their investigations, and had transacted a very large amount of business, and it was unnecessary to hurry the preparation of the report. He was, therefore, very much surprised afterMr. Dymond.

was obviously quite impossible that the hon. member for Kings and himself could properly consider the report unless they met the committee and discussed it in open session. There were some matters connected with the investigation of great importance, and he was bound to say that when he found that a report had been adopted and also gone into the public prints, whereby he and the hon. member for Kings were left in the position of appearing as if they had not attended the committee, he felt that undue haste had been used, even if it was proper under the circumstances to lay such a report before the public, before it was submitted to the body of which the committee was a constituted part. He felt, too, that under the circumstances it was due to the hon. member for Kings to state that his illness was of such a nature that he could not have attended some of the sessions of the committee, and he believed it was so understood by hon. members, and it would have been only due to him that some little delay should have been given so as to allow him an opportunity of attending. So far as the report was concerned it was not such, either in spirit or character as he could approve of.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said the hon. member for North York had come forward in a very confident spirit and assumed the responsibility of the publication of the report. When he (Sir JOHN) offered his remarks he did not charge that hon. member or any member of the subcommittee with doing anything wilfully wrong or desiring to injure any one, or to commit a breach of the rules. He did not know that any one would suffer, or that any one would be subjected to a grevious. injury by the premature publication of the report, but its publication under the circumstances was certainly contrary to the rules of the House and to its practice. His experience had been that those rules which were the production of the wisdom of ages, had always been framed for agood purpose, and although they had been set aside sometimes, yet their wisdom sooner or later became apparent.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the views expressed by the hon. member for Kingston were undoubtedly correct, but the committeed had debarred itself from any complaint in the matter by admitting reporters and allowing the evidence sub

mitted to be published day by day without any objection being raised.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK remarked that the report of the committee was a different thing.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE did not take that view. Both the publication of the proceedings and of the report was irregular. The rule was that evidence taken by a select committee should be privileged, and that documents ought not to be published by any member of the committee; but when the committee deliberately depart from that rule and allow the evidence to be published daily, it was no longer open to them to complain of breach of privilege. For his own part he had not seen the evidence or the report.

Mr. DOMVILLE said he never gave any reporter permission to publish this report. The report, he contended, went beyond the evidence.

Mr. DYMOND rose to a question of order. The hon. member for Kings was proceeding to discuss the report, and of course if he were permitted to do so some one would have to reply to him. It was not competent for the hon. member to discuss the report at this stage.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK said the Premier, in his statement of the rule, had not gone far enough. According to MAY, the publication of the report of a committee before it had been presented to the House was a breach of privilege. He quoted from that authority the statement of a case in which a Dublin newspaper publisher, who had published in his journal the draft report of a committee, and who on being questioned admitted the publication, but refused to state from what source the report was received, was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. He did not propose to go so far as that, but he thought the House should have a ruling from Mr. Speaker as to whether these reports could be published. In this case it was not a mere summary, but the full official text of the report.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said it was impossible to have a ruling, as there was nothing before the Chair.

The Orders of the Day were then called.

CULLING OF TIMBER.

Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION moved the third reading of the Bill to amend the Act respecting the Culling of Timber.

Hon. Mr. Mackenzie

M. CIMON : Avant la 3me lecture de ce Bill, j'aimerais à demander à M. le Ministre du Revenu de l'Intérieur ce qu'il entend faire au sujet de l'inspection du bois à l'Est de l'Ile d'Orléans. A la 2me lecture l'hon. ministre a demandé son Bill en faisant disparaître la 4me sous-section de la Section 46 du Chap. 46 des Statuts Refondus du Canada. C'était précisément cette partie du Statut qui a toujours exempté tous ceux situés à l'est de l'Ile d'Orléans de l'opération de la loi. Je lui avais fait demander par le député de Northumberland si l'intention de rendre obligatoire, de faire inspecter et marquer le bois dans cette partie du pays à l'Est de l'Ile d'Orléane. L'hon. Ministre a répondu que ce n'était que dans le cas où il y aurait des difficultés entre le vendeur et l'acheteur. C'était fort bien. Mais plus tard, en examinant le Bill, je me suis aperçu que le Bill rendait pour plusieurs personnes la chose compulsoire. Quels sont ceux qui sont exemptés? Il n'y a que ceux qui sont de bonne foi producteur ou qui ont de bonne foi manufacturé ce bois, qui peuvent l'exporter par l'océan sans avoir rncours à un officier du Gouvernement. Par exemple, dans le comté que je représente, il y a des commerçants qui font chaque saison quelques milles de madriers, qu'ils vendent à la maison Price. La raison pour laquelle ce bois n'a jamais été inspecté, c'est qu'il était impossible d'avoir, sans exposer les bâtiments à des retards assez longs, dues cullers, surtout à une si grande distance de Québec; les retards étaient trop longs. Le député de Charlevoix est intéressé non pour lui-même, mais pour ses constituants, comme je le suis moi-même pour le comté que je représente, à ne pas obliger ces commerçants à faire inspecter ces bois et j'espère qu'il se joindra à moi dans cette occasion pour obtenir l'objet de ma demande.

L'hon. M. CAUCHON :-L'hon. membre croit-il que des exceptions doivent être faites partout où le même cas se présente ? L'hon. membre a l'air de travailler pour un tel ou un tel, tandis qu'il s'agit ici de travailler pour tout le monde, et s'abstenir de faire de législation exceptionnelle.

M. CIMON :-L'hon. membre est luimême un sujet d'exceptions, et il a soutenu les Gouvernements d'une manière peu exceptionnelle. Ce n'est pas dans l'intérêt de la maison Price, mais dans l'intérêt public, dans l'intérêt des petits commer

çants dont j'ai parlé, qu je demande au | Ministre de l'Intérieur de retrancher de la loi l'obligation de faire mesurer leur bois. Car ce sont eux qui subissent le préjudice; ce sont eux qui seront retardés par les inspecteurs et qui souffriront si leur bois ne peut être mesuré et livré à temps à la maison Price pour être exporté. L'hon. député de Québec Centre n'a pas le droit de suspecter l'intention des jeunes membres.

L'hon. M. CAUCHON : Oui bien jeune !

M. CIMON-Car je pourrais dire que plusieurs jeunes membres en le voyant dans cette Chambre pourraient être justifiables de travailler pour un intérêt particulier.

On ne

L'hon. M. CAUCHON:-L'hon. député est trop sensible, on dirait qu'il se sent coupable. Je ne dis pas qu'il travaille pour ceux qui l'ont élu ou qu'il est intéressé. Mais je dis qu'on ne peut faire une législation différente pour chaque endroit; une législation pour Montréal, une législation pour Ottawa, enfin une législation pour toutes les parties du pays où il se fait du bois, car il y a des petits commerçants de bois dans chaque endroit. peut pas faire de législation exceptionnelle. Du reste, la loi n'est pas obligatoire. Elle l'est seulement quand l'acheteur l'exige. Il serait bon que dans tous les cas l'inspection fût faite, afin d'éviter les résultats qui proviennent de la pratique contraire. Mr. McDOUGALL (South Renfrew) moved that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be re-committed for the purpose of amending the 6th clause by inserting the word "fees" after "salaries and erasing all the clause after " proper. This amendment, he said, was not all that the lumbermen desired, but, at the same time they thought it was not too much to ask the Government to accept it. They believed the Government should not commit themselves to pay fixed salaries, so that between this time and the season for culling lumber, they could consider the matter before deciding whether to pay the cullers fees or salaries. He agreed with the general provisions of the Bill, and he believed that it was important to the lumbermen that it should not be thrown out.

Mr. GEOFFRION had no objection to accepting this amendment.

Mr. CURRIER approved of the clauses Mr. Cimon.

bringing this office under the immediate control of the Inland Revenue Department. He maintained that it should be the privilege of the lumbermen since they had to bear the expense, to have something to say as to the mode of paying the cullers, and the footing on which they should be placed. The very worst mode of paying them was by salary. Hitherto they had been paid by fees, but there was the objectionable rotary system. This should be done away with and the men should be paid by fees.

M1. ROCHESTER said this Cullers' Office was established in order that both buyer and seller might have equal justice done them in the Quebec market. It was not intended that the Government should derive any revenue from the office, but simply that the lumbermen should pay the cost of culling. That being the case he did not see why the Government should insist on paying them by salary instead of by fees. If paid by salary, the men would no doubt, have regular working hours; if paid by fees, they would work early in the morning and late in the evening, resting during the heat of the day, and would thus be able to do their work more efficiently. He wished to know if clause 8 referred to sawn lumber as well as to deals.

Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION said it was the 24th clause of the Consolidated Statute of Canada, and if sawn lumber did not come under that, clause 8 would have no reference to it.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said as deals iwere mentioned it might be construed to nclude battens. He would suggest, therefore, that the words "sawn lumber be added to lumber."

Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION said that was unnecessary. The Government did not intend to interfere with all these details of the law. It was the old law which had never been complained of and was therefore adopted unchanged. The intention of the Government was merely to bring the office under the control of the Inland Revenne Department.

Mr. ROCHESTER was quite satisfied with the Bill after this explanation.

The motion was carried and the House went into committee to make the amendment.

The Bill was reported as amended and the amendment was concurred in.

was read a second time, passed through Committee of the Whole (Mr. PELLETIER,) and reported.

MARINE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved the second reading of the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill to regulate the construction and maintenance of Marine Electric Telegraphs.

Mr. BOWELL said before taking concurrence on this Bill he desired to call the attention of the House to a particular clause which the Senate had amended, and to move an addition to that amendment. We had in passing this Bill affirmed the principle of interference with what the Anglo American Company considered its vested rights; but that was not the point before the House. He thought that in doing away, as this Bill proposed to do away, with the present monopoly we should be cautious not to establish a second monopoly. He understood that this Bill provided that the direct company which claimed the exclusive right to land their cable in Newfoundland, when they surrendered that right to other companies or competitive companies.

Mr. MACKENZIE wished to know if the hon. gentlemen proposed to make an amendment to the Bill, because that could not be done. The amendments must be to the Senate amendments, they could not enter upon further amendments to a Bill that had passed the House.

Mr. BOWELL said that he had anticipated that objection, and had consulted upon that point the Librarian, who was considered the best authority in the Dominion, and he had been informed that it was quite competent for the House to alter, change, amend, reject or adopt any amendment which might have been made to the Bill by the Senate. There had been cases in the Imperial Parliament where a Bill, although adopted by the Lower House, had been changed in the Upper House, and those changes amended again. If they would consult the authorities they would find that it was within the competency of this House to add to any amendment made to a Bill after it had gone from this House to the Senate. He would read from May, (page 523) as follows :—

"If one House agree to a Bill passed by the other, without any amendment, no Hon. Mr. MacKenzie.

further question or discussion can arise upon it; but the Bill is ready to put into the commission for receiving the Royal assent, If a Bill be returned from one House to another with amendments these amendments must either be agreed to by the House which had first passed the Bill, or the other House must waive their amendments, otherwise the Bill will be lost. Sometimes one House agrees to the amendments with amendments, to which the other House agrees. Occasionally this interchange of amendments is carried even further, and one House agrees to amendments with amendments, to which also the first House in its turn agrees.

Mr. BLAKE said if the hon. gentle-. man would read the sentences imme

diately following he would find these words: -" But it is a rule that neither House may at this time leave out or otherwise amend anything which they have already passed themselves; unless such amendment be immediately consequent upon amendments of the other House, which have been agreed to and And if an amendment be proposed to a are necessary for carrying them into effect. Lords' amendment, not consequent on or relevent to such amendment, the question will not be put from the Chair." This Bill having been passed unanimously in a certain shape, any amendments by the hon. gentleman would have to be consequent upon the Senate amendments, or we would be amending our own Bill. It was proposed to obviate the prospective monopoly which was not a consequence of the Senate amendments, and the adoption of such an amendment would be an amendment of our own Bill, and would be an interference with the Bill that was not at this stage admissable. The Senate, in its amendment, had provided that the question of compensation should be against the Dominion of Canada, and should be triable upon petition of right. Another amendment was that the third clause of the Bill as they passed it should not come into effect until three months' notice had been given in the Canada Gazette. Another amendment was to strike out a clause because a monopoly might have been possible. The hon. gentleman thought a monopoly might be created by the junction of all the companies created in the Bill; but no amendments were made in the Senate which could produce a monopoly, as the