who had dealt with them in the past, and who were considerably irritated by the want of punctuality the company had displayed, that they now had power to compel the company to meet their debts in the way provided in this Bill. would see fit to insert those resolutions in the Bill now before them. Amendment negatived. railway. All he asked was this: unless the Judge of the Court who issued execution was satisfied that the traffic of the line would not be interfered with, then the execution would not issue. It might be said that there was sufficient machinery created by the second section to cover this. MR. CHARLTON said he considered To a certain extent there was. It was the resolutions should be embodied in a provided by this section that a re-general law applicable to all railways, ceiver might be provided. They must and he saw no impropriety in embody bear in mind that this road laying them in the Bill now before the entirely in the Province of Ontario. Committee. The Canada Southern The receiver was a man appointed by Railway Company had managed their the Court of Chancery for the purpose business in such a way as to create a of taking the road in his control, and very great deal of dissatisfaction and taking the receipts of it to administer bad feeling along the line of route, and them to the parties to whom debts he thought the people along that line were due. It was the smaller class of of route had a right to ask this Parliacreditors who suffered the greatest ment that their rights should be proirritation. The majority of cases tected. There was no means of giving would arise from these small claims them a really practical remedy except that had not been paid by the railway the equitable proposition contained in company, or either paid in second the resolutions, and he hoped the House mortgage bonds or depreciated currency, or at less than the debts were worth. Supposing this amendment was rot adopted, and these small claims were dealt with under the MR. STEPHENSON said several of second clause of this Bill. In a case the speakers who had preceded him where judgment had been obtained for had spoken very fully on this subject, the small sum of $40 in the Division and had in many instances expressed Court, did they suppose the holder his ideas to a certain extent, and as the of the judgment would go to the Standing Committee on Railways and trouble of taking a journey to Toronto, the sub-Committee had incorporated in and of getting legal aid for the pur- the Bill a number of suggestions that pose of having a receiver appointed. he had presented before them, he could Of course his execution would not now only insist on putting the followattach to anything, as the Bill was at ing provision in the Bill, in order to present; the only possible way of compel this railway company to meet obtaining redress was to have a certain class of claims incurred by receiver appointed, and, in many them, and which they had forced the cases, a man would rather lose his settlement of, by the giving of bonds claim than go to the trouble and to the holders of these claims. These expense of having a receiver appointed. bonds were given at a greatly reduced If a lien was allowed, and there was a rate,for instance, first mortgage bonds at quantity of wood or other material on 85c. on the dollar were given to some the line, the execution might be satis- creditors; to other parties at a further fied without the traffic being at all reduced rate, while again to other credaffected. If this was correct, and heitors second mortgage bonds had been held that it was correct, there would given at 75c. on the dollar, and so interference with the bond- on. Now, the Bill before the Committee proposed that rail-mittee these bonds should be paid into the Union Trust Company at New York, and the present holders of them should receive no interest, four years of which was now due, but, and in lieu of them, the holders should be given other bonds of a be no in the issue provided for in the measure | to which he had alluded. The holders of these bonds were not bond-holders in the ordinary sense of the word; they were not men who had speculated their money in the railway; but they were forced to receive these bonds in payment of claims for cordwood, ties, and other supplies furnished the company in order to complete the road and keep it running, at a period of its history when, if these supplies had not been forthcoming, the line would have come to a standstill. He held that the company were honour bound to wipe off these small obligations-small when compared with the other class of liabilities proposed to be dealt with-and, if they were small, so much the greater reason, to his mind, was it that they should be paid promptly and in full. He might add that many of the parties who had taken these bonds-or rather who had literally been forced to take them-were at present in financial straits themselves-possibly in as great financial embarrassment as this company which now asked relief-and this company, coming forward before this House and seeking to obtain privileges which, probably, would be granted, or partially so at all events, were it running the road through the very bost part of the country, and having facilities given which were not. possessed by any other road in the country, should not be placed in the same position as the Grand Trunk Railway; that is, this House ought to secure in some way, if only for the benefit of the few creditors in whose behalf he spoke, any special funds accruing to the company. As many members of this Committee of the Whole House, who were members of the Railway Committee and of the subCommittee would remember, he had proposed that a clause similar to that in the Grand Trunk Act of 1862, which provided that all moneys received for postal and military services should be held to pay off all floating debts, should be inserted in this Bill, and, at the time his resolution was offered, it was not objected to. If the Grand Trunk Company were compelled to set apart-and they did set apart-in order to carry their floating debt, the money accruing to them from postal services, military and other services, he could not understand why the Canada Southern should not do likewise. This, it was true, had not been included in the first Bill; but, in a later Bill, it was made obligatory; so with the Bill now before the House. The second clause, after a good deal of controversy, had been amended; so that, in the Bill which was now before the House, it was provided that all those debts which were defined as "working expenses," and which had not been settled for by bonds, should be settled in cash from the first money realized from the sale of the proposed new issue of bonds. It was but fair and honest that those who had been compelled to take these bonds in payment of their claims against the company, should be placed in the same position as those parties included in the second section to which he had referred, and which had been so reluctantly inserted by the projectors of the Bill. He therefore moved: That the Bill be recommitted in order to amend the third clause by adding the following words: "Provided that any party who, for company for 'working expenses,' has received the purpose of settling his claims against said bond or bonds of said company, and is still the owner of such bond or bonds, shall be considered and treated in the same manner as if the company had not settled such claim by the issue of such bonds, and the amount of such bond or bonds shall be considered and treated as a debt incurred and held by the said company on the 12th day of March, 1878, as provided by said section.' MR. MACKENZIE: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the principle of his amendment is that people who had taken bonds in settle ment of their claims shall be entitled to have these bonds cashed in full at their par value? MR. STEPHENSON: These parties who now hold in their possession bonds given in payment of supplies rendered to the company, and which are now classed as working expenses," should certainly be placed in the same position as those creditors included in the second clause, who are to be paid in full. His wish and intention was, by his resolution, that this class of creditors should be placed back in the same position as though they had never received the bonds at all, it having been patent that they had received them under false representations, and only because they were told that if they did not accept them that they could get nothing else, and would be compelled to forego their whole debt. MR. MACKENZIE: It would be a dangerous thing for us to give certain bonds a preferential claim over others; it would be an unprecedented and perfectly monstrous class of legislation. MR. TUPPER said it would, certainly, if it were done under ordinary circumstances; but he understood the proposal of his hon. friend from Kent to relate only to parties who could clearly establish the fact that these bonds had been forced on them, and not purchased as a matter of speculation, but forced upon them at a heavy discount. MR. MACKENZIE. It is impossible they could be forced on them. MR. MACKENZIE said, did the hon. member wish to have a Court of investigation established to enquire into the particular circumstances attending the purchase of every bond? or how could he ascertain that a certain class of bonds were to obtain some preferential claim? In order to legislate in that connection, the allegaCommittee that these people had been tion should have been proved before a forced to take certain bonds, but notning of the kind had been done. The bond-holders were all upon a certain footing, and it would be the most extraordinary piece of legislation ever perpetrated, to give a certain class of bond-holders preference over others. He could not conceive of a more mischievous kind of legislation. He could quite understand that many of these. people, despairing of getting paid, agreed to take bonds, but the moment they took the bonds they became simply bond-holders. bonds. MR. STEPHENSON: They were a MR. TUPPER said he knew noth-little too simple before they took the ing, personally, of the facts. He understood by the statement of his hon. friend that certain parties had become creditors of the railway for supplies furnished to assist in running the road. There were no creditors so entitled to claim from the earnings or the means of any road or corporation as those who had furnished the means of keeping the road in operation. He understood his hon. friend to say that he only asked that those parties who had been compelled to take those bonds at a heavy discount or receive nothing in payment of their claims, should be treated as creditors who had not thus accepted bonds in settlement of their claims. Of course there would be some difficulty perhaps in establishing the claims of certain bond-holders over others, but that would have to be so guarded against as to confine the payment under this clause to those parties who could prove that they had furnished supplies to keep the road in operation, and had been obliged to accept these bonds at a certain rate of discount or nothing. This being done, there would be no wrong done to any person in putting those creditors in the most favourable position. MR. MACKENZIE: And were not more entitled to full payment than any other parties who had taken the bonds. There had been a loss all over, and there was no reason why they should endeavour to discriminate, nor had they the material to discriminate. They would require to establish Court for the purpose, to prepare a procedure, and embody it in the Bill. This would be a kind of procedure perfectly unprecedented. The conclusion he had arrived at was that the amendment was practically one which could not be carried out. MR. TUPPER said he could hardly imagine the hon. the Minister of Public Works meant what he said when he stated to the Committee that he considered that bond-holders who had furnished supplies or labour in good faith, believing they would receive payment in money, and then were compelled to accept bonds at a heavy discount for the proceeds of their labour or supplies, had no greater claim on the company than the speculator who had purchased these bonds under the impression that he was doing a good business transaction which would yield him a large return; yet aware, of course, that he ran the risk of meeting a loss. The positions were entirely different. The claims of bond-holders who had purchased the bonds as a matter of speculation were entirely different from the claims of those parties mentioned by his hon. friend, who had become bond-holders against their will and contrary to their intention. He could quite understand the difficulty of meeting the case, but, if these amounts were inconsiderable, why should not the promoters undertake to pay these parties and place them in as favourable a position as parties who had not had these bonds forced upon them at a heavy discount. MR. THOMSON said he did not think that any of the second mortgage bonds, which were paid at heavy depreciation by the company, had been given for running the road. The second mortgage bonds of the company were practically valueless as long as the first mortgage bonds existed, and the effect of this Bill was to make the second mortgage bond a first mortgage bond, with interest guaranteed, which would make the position of the holder would make the position of the holder fifty per cent. better than before. MR. CASEY said no doubt the case was one of great hardship. These people had practically been forced to take these bonds in payment of their claims. Of course the House must remember that they could have refrained from taking the bonds and still have held their claim, and waited for the time Parliament would see fit to provide a means by which they could secure justice, but they chose to take what they could get and give a clear receipt. He was not prepared, off hand, to vote for the amendment of his hon. friend. He did not see that it was legal. Although these parties had been cheated out of their just dues by the company, he did not believe that illegal means should be taken to right their wrongs. MR. STEPHENSON said, after what had been stated by the hon. the First Minister, he felt it necessary to reaffirm the position he had taken before the Railway Committee and adduce the same facts which he had there made use of, and would, therefore, read some extracts from one letter out of the great many he had received on this subject. The letter stated: "You are likely aware that the Dominion Parliament allowed them (the C. S. R. Company) to mortgage all the property that they now own, and which they may acquire in future; and, also, that property held by a chattel mortgage cannot be seized or sold for debt. We seized the wood at different points on the road, and the result was we had to pay our own expenses and release the wood. The company then told me that the law held them out of my reach, and that if I did not take $1,000 in second mortgage bonds, they would not pay me a cent, and that they would not renew their paper. Well, they owed me a large sum and I had to be relieved some way, so I took the bond for part and their paper for the balance, which paper they finally lifted at seventy-five cents on the dollar; and now they have applied to Parliament for new license to rob Canadians. I trust you will do all in your power to stop the Bill and let us hold the bonds we have, as I believe the road is worth will be safe if they can hold what they have." the money, and that the present bond-holders MR. THOMSON: Who signed that letter? MR. STEPHENSON: It is signed by W. C. Fletcher, MR. MASSON: What is the rate of discount? MR. STEPHENSON: $2,000 of 1st mortgage bonds at 85c; and $3,000 of 2nd mortgage bonds at 75c. In view of the facts he had stated, he considered his amendment should pass the Committee and be incorporated in the Bill as an addition to the third section. Amendment negatived. Bill ordered to be reported. Bill reported. CHANTRY ISLAND CONTRACT-SHERIFF SUTTON. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. MR. LANDERKIN: Mr. Speaker, before Public Bills and Orders are called, I desire to make an explanation to the House in regard to some observations I offered the other evening while discussing the motion submitted by the hon. member for Charlevoix. I conveyed the impression in the remarks I then made that Sheriff Sutton was a member of the firm of Batter & Sutton, who tendered for the contract at Chantry Island,and that their tender had been passed over, although it was $15,000 less than that of A. Lindsay. I have discovered that Sheriff Sutton was not a member of that firm, and I take this, the very earliest opportunity that has presented itself, to explain to the House that, when I made that statement, I laboured under a misapprehension. I made the statement in perfectly good faith. I supposed Sheriff Sutton was a member of the firm from what appeared in a record submitted to the country by the hon. the Minister of Public Works. In order further to satisfy the House that I made the statement in good faith, I made enquiries from a gentleman who I supposed would know if the Sutton referred to as being a member of the firm of Batter & Sutton were Sheriff Sutton, and I was informed that he was a member of the firm. take this, the earliest opportunity of stating that I am now informed that he was not a member of that firm. I desire to make this explanation in justice to myself, and, if any injury has been done to Sheriff Sutton, I desire to remedy it, as I would not willingly do an injustice to anybody; indeed, I am most anxious not to state anything but what will be borne out by the facts. The position I then assumed has not, however, been at all changed from the fact that Sheriff Sutton was not a member of the firm of Batter & I Sutton, my contention being that that tender had been passed over, and the contract given to Mr. Lindsay, whose tender was $15,000 higher. RETURNS. REMARKS. MR. STEPHENSON called the at tention of the hon. the Minister of Public Works to the fact that on the 11th of March he moved for a return in regard to expenditure in connection. with the harbour of Rondeau, and that the return brought down contained no new information beyond that of last year's return, and that it furnished no account of the amount of money expended in connection with this survey. MR. MACKENZIE said probably some expenditure had been made by the Marine and Fisheries Department; he would look into the matter. MR. MITCHELL called the attention of the Premier to the motion moved by him last year for all the correspondence and evidence connected with the killing of cattle on the Intercolonial Railway. The return brought down contained nothing but letters between the Department and the claimant, James Nevin. There had, however, been an investigation held and testimony taken, when seven or eight affidavits were furnished by the claimant to confirm the fact stated by him. He hoped the hon. the Premier would bring down those papers in order to show the House the hardship of the case and the injustice of the decision arrived at by the officers of the railroad. EVIDENCE IN COMMON ASSAULTS THIRD READING. Order for third reading read. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD asked if the hon. the Minister of Justice had examined the Bill with respect to the discussion that took place on it in Committee of the Whole. MR. LAFLAMME said the only point in regard to which there could be doubt was as to the examination of the wife of a defendant, but as it was proposed to introduce that rule only in cases of common assault, and as the Judge was to declare as to the value of the evidence, he could decide in every case whether her evidence afforded ground for suspicion or not. Many cases might occur where the evidence of the defendant and wife might be of great importance, and where there could be no suspicion as to their character, it might be of the utmost value in determining the case; he could its present form. see no objection to the Bill passing in SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD enquired whether the hon. member who had charge of the Bill desired it to be understood that the word "information," in the first clause, applied to information in the nature of an indict ment or to an information laid before a magistrate. |