the official arbitrator's salaries, while if | Macdonald) had frequently had occahis suggestion were adopted they would sion to state from his place, when on the only have to pay the expenses of one other side of the House, that in an Judge, if one was appointed. They argument, in which the claimant and might also have an officer going over the Crown were involved, the Crown the Government line of railway and generally got the worst of it, in the making enquiries into smaller claims, same way as banks, and railways, and loss of cattle and such like. That per- insurance companies got the worst of son might be an officer of the Court. it before a jury, the natural feeling of The registrar, précis writer, or addi- the jurymen inclining them to act on tional officer, might be sent by the the theory of giving the poor man a Court along this line to consider these chance, the company or the Govern little claims, and, as a general rule, ment being rich and well able to lose give judgment upon them, subject the money. He thought that the conto revision by the Court above. In sequences, under such a system, would the United States they had a special be great loss to the Public Treasury, Court to try all such matters, which and excessive awards against the they called the Court of Claims. That Crown. Court had enjoyed great confidence among the people from the position of the Judge, Judge Loring. He had obtained such high standing in the Court of Claims that he was absolutely made Judge of the Supreme Court of

the United States.

MR. MACKENZIE said he was much obliged to the hon. gentleman for his suggestion, but, if he (Mr. Mackenzie) understood him aright, he proposed to supplant the Dominion arbitrators by Judges of the Court of Exchequer.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: Yes. MR. MACKENZIE said there was this about it; that, in cases connected with the Grand River or the Welland

Canal, such as those referred to, the arbitrators examined the ground' and judged for themselves of facts upon the subject; they could hardly expect Judges to do that, and he rather thought, if they adopted the sugges. tion, that they would have to maintain the arbitrators still, but with appeal to one of the Judges in Court. They must either adopt that plan, or that of Haldimand (Mr. | Thompson); but perhaps it would be as well to allow the Bill to stand for a time.

the member for

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said there was no objection to the Bill, but he was strongly opposed, in the interests of the public, to a tribunal that had not the confidence of the people. The Crown had no special interest except to protect the public. It was very true, as the hon. the Premier had stated before, and as he (Sir John A.

MR. TUPPER said he thought the clause of the Act which the First Minister had quoted, covered the case and gave the Government power to deal with it. He believed that, under the law, before a case could be submitted to the official arbitrators, bonds had to be given for the costs. In many of these cases the parties, being poor people, were practically debarred from availing themselves of this tribunal. If the hon. the First Minister could devise some means of meeting that difficulty, such as appointing a single arbitrator to look into the case and have some outside party to judge between the Intercolonial Railway officials and the people, great cause of complaint would be removed.

MR. MCCALLUM said the hon. the

First Minister had stated the settle-
ments of claims had been satisfactory.
He differed from that opinion. The
settlement of claims was not satis-
factory, owing to the instructions
given the arbitrators. Claims for dam-
ages from parties along the Grand
River were generally caused by
the
the rise of water for canal pur-
poses. When the claims were on
account of the overflow of water over
the lands, the people were satisfied
with the settlement. But there was
another claim, arising from the land
being washed away by the overflow,
structions to deal, and a great deal of
with which the arbitrators had no in-
dissatisfaction was thereby caused.

MR. PLUMB said it was desirable, in the general interest, that some

distinct covenants or continuous agree- | ments. When this precedent had been brought under the consideration of the Committee, it condemned the precedent as an illegal one; one violating the Independence of Parliament Act.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: What Committee?

second section introduced a nominal alteration with respect to those who would hereafter become Ministers of the Crown, in order to avoid the reenactment of the Independence of Parliament Act to apply to new Ministerial offices which should be created. It was substantially the same as the old Act. The 3rd section was also last lines, to avoid the recurrence of the same, with an additión in the three the fact which was perfectly well known to the House and was known as the "double-shuffle." The second

MR. LAFLAMME: The Anglin Committee. Consequently, this last decision was a new precedent; a reasonable and a rational one. The Committee reported that it was advisable to make more explicit provisions with section introduced an important exrespect to the Independence of Parlia-planation as to the nature of the conment Act, to avoid further difficulties. As matters stood, after the last decision there were two precedents; one in one sense, and the other in an abso lutely contrary sense, which would leave open the selection of either one in any future case, according to the then disposition of the House. Upon this account, and particularly on the report of the Committee, which enjoined a re-consideration and a re-enactment of these dispositions, the Gov. ernment deemed it necessary to bring forward this measure. The first section introduced an addition to the causes of disqualification. Under the previous Act, none but those who held employment, temporary or permament, from the Government of Canada were disqualified. By this Act, it was intended to apply the disqualification

to such as held office at the nomination of the Crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of any of the Provinces as well as those who held offices under the general Government of the Dominion, and also those who held superannuation allowances. As to those who held superannuation

allowances from the Federal Government, they were virtually at the mercy of the Crown in this respect, that, if they were competent to fulfil any office, the Crown could call on them to perform these duties, the salaries attached to which were deducted from the amount of their pensions. That was the principal alteration in the first clause, and it was probably the most important as to its extent in the Bill, as it embraced many parties who formerly were in no way affected by the Independence of Parliament Act. The

tract or services performed, or benefits
accruing to the party which would
entitle him to disqualification; and the
been introduced in order to obviate all
words "knowingly and wittingly" had
difficulties as to the interpretation and
application of the Act as it formerly
stood. This clause would apply to
by a public officer from
cases where goods were purchased
a firm,
some one of which was a mem-
ber of the House. It had always
Laflamme) that a man should be sup-
been a matter of surprise to him (Mr.
posed to be guilty of an offence which
would entail such a heavy penalty as
that of losing his seat in Parliament,
when he was not conscious of the fact.

According to the present law, the fact

that he was a member of a firm which

sold any quantity of goods to an officer of the Government would, if the Statute were rigidly interpreted, entail the loss of his seat, and make him liable for all the penalties, whether he

was aware of the transaction or not.

The present clause was intended to remove the difficulties which existed

1

agreement after he was elected, and no | might, under one interpretation of the

man could accept a commission unknowingly and unwittingly.

MR. MASSON: The second clause applies to cases where there is a written contract, and then you say it must be wilfully and knowingly. The fourth clause does not attack that kind of transaction, but cases when a Government officer purchases an article in the store of a firm in which a member of Parliament has an interest. In that case, should there not be the same restriction, and the words "wittingly and knowingly" inserted?

MR. LAFLAMME said that, if the hon. member thought there was any ambiguity, there would be no objection to adding those words. He believed, however, the section as written, read in connection with the anterior one, removed any doubt on that point. The fifth section was the same as one in the previous Act, with the exception of the alteration in the amount of penalty, $200 per day being substituted for $2,000. He believed the House would admit that it was not the amount of penalty which deterred offenders so much as the certainty of punishment; and, as the law previously stood, sympathy was felt for every man who was brought under it, and made himself subject to the penalty of $2,000 per day, which could not be collected in most cases, and, if it could be recovered, would entail total ruin; and that, notwithstanding the fact that, without intending to ignore the law, he might have thought himself out of its purview. This was certainly more likely to lead to the non-application of the law. A.ter consideration, it was thought that $200 per day penalty, added to the forfeiture of the seat, would be, for such a case, sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Inde pendence of Parliament, in perhaps a inore efficient manner than by levying such an enormous penalty as that contained in the previous Act. The sixth clause was interpretive in its character, and was introduced merely to remove difficulties which existed from the ambiguity of the former Act as to transactions which had occurred during the recess of Parliament. There was great ambiguity on that point. A party

law, have avoided any penalty for acts complained of if they had been begun and ended before the meeting of Parliament, because the Statute said: "No and voted, he would incur the penalty. man shall sit and vote"; and, if he sat

MR. MITCHELL asked whether, in the event of a gentleman remaining the representative of a constituency, and not actually coming and sitting in the House while it was in session, that could be construed as "sitting" under the law.

member

of

MR. LAFLAMME said he was not called upon to give a decision upon existing laws. The seventh section was a new one. It explained that disqualification could not be incurred by reason of being a shareholder in an provision existed in the Imperial Act, A similar incorporated company. and, as there was no explanation in the former Dominion Act a party might have been liable to prosecution for being a member of an incorporated company having transactions with the Government. If such provision we e not inserted, a stockholder in the Bank of Montreal, being a Parliament, might be liable to the penalty of the Act because he was one of the stockholders, and, as such, a party to the transactions entered into with the Government. Such, however, was not the interpretation given to the existing law, but such might be the application sought to be made, and in order to remove any doubt on that subject, the section had been introduced into the Bill, and he believed it would be accepted as necessary under the circumstances. The eighth section was also a new one, but it had been taken from the Imperial Act 22 George III. c. 45. The ninth section was also taken from the Imperial Act. The second sub-section

was new.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: That is in the English Act.

MR. LAFLAMME: No.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: It was the Rothschilds' clause.

MR. LAFLAMME: It was a decision given by the House of Commons, but the only Act was 22 George III, c. 45.