ting up such fisheries, with the names of the persons who paid such penalties and the amount paid by each of thein. -Carried. THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC. Mr. ROSS (Middlesex) moved an Address to His Excellency the Governor General for copies of all correspondence between the Government and the Lieutenant Governors of the different Provinces regarding the relative jurisdiction of the Dominion and Provincial Parliaments over the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors; together with all decisions of the Courts in the different Provinces bearing upon this matter. He said it was within the knowledge of every member of the House that the question of a Prohibitory Liquor Law had been for the last two or three years spoken of every where as one of great importance. Statistics had been laid before the House from foreign countries bearbearing on the liquor traffic. In coming down, however, to legislation, the advocates of prohibition had encountered difficulties of a nature to which he proposed to call attention. It was not within their power, until the establishment of the Supreme Court. to settle the question of jurisdiction. Owing to the peculiar nature of our Constitution the powers of the Dominion Parliament and Local Legislatures were so stated that it was impossible to say whether this House could pass a prohibitory liquor law or not. This question had been before the Courts in New Brunswick, where the power of the Provincial Legislature was decided by Mr. Justice Ritchie in the following words: "To the Dominion Parliament of Canada is given the power to legislate exclusively on 'the regulation of trade and commerce' and the power of 'raising money by any mode or system of taxation.' The regulation of trade and commerce must involve full power over the matter to be regulated, and must necessarily exclude the interference of all other bodies that would attempt to intermeddle with the same thing. The power thus given to the Dominion Parliament is general, without limitation or restriction, and therefore must include traffic in articles of merchandize, not only in connection with foreign countries, but also that which is internal between differ ent Provinces of the Dominion as well as that which is carried on within the limits of an individual Province. As a matter of trad and commerce, the right to sell is inseparably connected with the law permitting importa tation. If, then, the Dominion Parliament authorize the importation of any article of merchandize into the Dominion, and places no restriction on its being dealt with in the due course of trade and commerce, or on its consumption, but exacts and receives duties en such importation, it would be in direct conflict with such legislation and with the right to raise money by any mode or system of taxation, if the Local Legislature of the Province into which the article was s0 legally imported, and on which a revenue was sought to be raised, could so legislate as to prohibit its being bought or sold, and to preits commercial value, and with it all trade vent trade or traffic threin, and thus destroy and commerce in the article so prohibited, thus rendering it practically valueless as an article of commerce from which a revenue could be levied " According to the opinion given by Mr. Justice Ritchie, it would appear with the Dominion Parliament rested In a case the jurisdiction wholly. tried in Ontario a different opinion seemed to be expressed by one of the judges. This was a case in which the power of the Local Legislature to pass such a law was decided. Chief Justice Richards made Justice Richards made the following remarks: "We think, looking at the legislation by the Province of Ontario as applicable to the giving the powers of limiting the number of taverns in a municipality or prohibiting the sale by retail of spirituous liquors by shopkeepers in such municipality, that this is a power which may be properly exercised by the Local Legislature as a matter chiefly of policy, of a merely local and private nature, when it does not interfere with the sale of imported or manufactured liquors otherwise thau as by retail.” In their efforts to secure legislation with a view to finally prohibit the liquor traffic, the advocates of prohibition were met with the conflicting opinions of two learned Judges. In view of these facts, and in view also of the fact that by one clause of the Supreme Court Act, the power is admitted by the Government of referring cases of doubtful jurisdiction to that Court, it was thought desirable, in order to prepare the way to further action, to ascertain whether this Dominion Parliament or the Local Legislatures could prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. That clause of the Supreme Court Act was as follows: "It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to refer to the Supreme Court for hearing or consideration, any matter whatsoever, as he may think fit; and the Court shall thereupon hear and consider the same and certify their opinion thereon to the Governor in Council." It would be universally admitted, so far as the importation of intoxicating liquors was concerned, this House alone had jurisdiction, but in the matter of the manufacture and sale the conflicting opinions of the two judges justified them in seeking for the decision of the Supreme Court. It might be said in taking this course, the advocates of prohibition were abandoning the ground they had taken. He contended they had not. They had always insisted that the liquor traffic, like others, was capable of being regulated by law, although it was surrounded by many difficulties. They thought the power of the law on behalf of temperance and sobriety was sufficiently important to justify them carrying on this agitation to accomplish the object they had in view. Every right-thinking man would agree with him, that if this him, that if this question belonged of right to this this Parliament, they should know it as early as possible, but if it was not within their power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor, they should know this also, in order that the time and attention of hon. members might not be occupied with the discussion of subjects beyond their jurisdiction. In moving the resolution, he hoped that hon. members would consider that he proposed taking the proper course, preparing the way step by step for the legislation which they and so many in this country considered to be advisable, and which he thought hon. members would sustain the very moment they felt the country was ready for the inauguration of a prohibitory liquor law. Without further remark he begged to move the resolution. Hon. Mr. BLAKE was not aware that any correspondence on this subject existed, and of course over the decision of the courts they had no concontrol. Steps however would be taken to procure reports of such decisions as could be ascertained to have been pronounced. As far as this was concerned, the Government had no objection to the motion; but with reference to the suggestion thrown out, and which he beg ged pardon for supposing was the principal object of the motion, he had to point out that it was a very serious question indeed to propose to utilize for the purpose which the hon. gentleman mentioned the power by which the law enabled the Governor in Council to refer matters to the Supreme Court for consideration. This was an Appelate Court, formed for the purpose of determining the correctness or inaccuracy of the decisions of the various provincial tribunals and that class of cases which might be brought before these tribunals for adjudication, and which might afterwards come before it in the proper and normal discharge of its functions as a Court of Justice. It was obvious that it would be a serious matter, in the performance of these duties, for it to give a preliminary opinion under this exceptional power, without all the advantages, and without those aids to arriving at a correct conclusion, to be found in the presentation of a case-narrowed, if you will, but also made more clear by the ordinary forms in which cases were presented to the courts, both as to issue and as to argument; also by the process of decision and of judgment in the inferior courts; and lastly made more clear by the argument in the court above. All our notions of the dispositions of our rights before the courts, were based and rightly in his opinion on the theory that even the most learned and most intelligent of judges would but very imperfectly discharge their duty if unaided by the reflections of counsel on either side. No one, or few at least, would be willing, he fancied, in important and delicate matters, to entrust their interests into the hands of a judge for his decision, on the bare statement of the case, without taking care to present an argument; and yet he knew of no means by which, in the exercise of this peculiar power invested in the Governor in Council, they would be able to have an efficient argument before the Judges of the Supreme Court, and present all sides of an important question like this, so as to be sure of a judgment after a full discussion of the matters at issue. There was another strong objection to submit, as a general rule, to such reference to the Supreme Court. A similar Court was established at a period almost coeval with the establishment of the Constitution of the United States; and the principle had there been jealously preserved, that constitutional questions of this description ought to be adjudged of by the Court only on the presentation of a particular cause between parties. Indeed there is no power, and he believed that there should be none, to dispose of a question on the submission of a general case, as now proposed. This point had been considered on more than one occasion. It was presented the other day with reference to a provision in a Bill, when he gave his opinion as to its inconvenience, He observed that the other branch of the Legislature had come to a resolution in that sense on the subject; and he believed that it was this day presented with regard to another important question. He had ventured to observe, although he did not say, that a circumstance might not arise in which it might be useful to avail themselves of this power with respect to such questions as might come before courts of law, that the precedent set them in connection with the United States' Court, and also invariably, or almost invariably observed with reference to the Judicial Committee--and it was a wholesome precedent, only departed from on pressing emergencies-that in all cases in which a matter could come judicially before the Supreme Court, it ought to be represented to come before it judicially, and not in any other way and should be followed faithfully in this country. With regard to this class of cases, there could be no difficulty about their coming before the Court judicially; they could be raised in reference to any Acts of a Local Legislature-as had been done before local Courts. This question had so been raised in New Brunswick and Ontario, as his hon. friend had said; and he had some reason to believe that an appeal would be taken from one of these decisions. At any rate, if this were not proposed, nothing would be easier than to find a case in which an attempt could be made to quash a municipal by-law; or the object could be effected in some other way with the view of testing the validity of the local law involving this constitutional point. He would venture to suggest that his hon. friend, and those who were similarly interested in this subject, should see that use was made of the ordinary methods for bringing this question before the Supreme Court; and he thought the House would agree with him in the opinion that they ought to hesitate before they proposed to bring it in this extraordinary and necessarily perfunctory manner before the consideration of that Court. The motion was agreed to. MR. ROCHESTER'S CLAIM. Mr. MCDOUGALL (Renfrew) moved for the appointment of a Committee to enquire into a claim made by George Rochester and which had been considered by the Dominion arbitrators, before whom a considerable amount of evidence taken. The claim he explained arose was from the loss of timber belonging to Mr. Rochester owing to the breakage of a boom at Arnprior in the year 1871. The booms there were owned and under the charge of an officer appointed by the Government. It was quite true that it would be hard in all cases to make the Government responsible for damages occasioned owing to exceptionally high water, or other extraordinary causes. He would show that on this particular occasion, the person who had charge of the booms had neglected his duty; this was clearly shown in the evidence. The Hon. Jas. Skead was one of the witnesses and he quoted from that gentleman's evidence, as well as from the evidence of several other witnesses, to show that officer in charge had been warned that the boom was likely to give way. One of the Arbitrators had, however, favoured Mr. Rochester, and seemed to feel that a very considerable injustice this done had been gentleman. He asked the House to consider whether or not this had been the case, and whether the neglect was wilful or otherwise; he thought that under the circumstances a Committee should be appointed. It was true that the evidence might imply that an injustice had been wilfully done to this individual, but he made no such charge, let the inference be what it might. the The The fact was-as every right-minded | before the Arbitrators were frien ls of would admit the decision the present member for South Renfrew, person was certainly extraordinary; and if and he had no hesitation in saying it were proved that the decision should not only from what he had read of the have been different, he thought that evidence, but what he saw himself, justice should at any rate be done to it was turned into a political affair, persons who deserved it. He moved that and that was the consequence of the the Committee be composed of Messrs. award being given as it was. Galbraith, White (Renfrew), Wright amount that was claimed was not much, (Pontiac), Archibald and the mover. and from what he could learn the claimants asked simply for what they had lost. Their losses direct and indirect would amount to $14,000, whereas they had only claimed $7,000. He did not see that there would be any necessity for appointing a Committee at this late period of the Session, but he trusted the Government would find that right and justice had not been look into the matter, and they would done to these people. He regarded it as the duty of the Government to see that justice was done them. Mr. ROCHESTER supported the resolution. Some five or six individuals were directly interested in the matter. From what he knew and had seen, he thought that a Committee should be appointed; and if owing to the fact that the Session was on the point of closing, this request was not granted, he trusted that the Govern ment would take this matter into con sideration and ascertain whether justice had been done. The Government had an officer at Arnprior to take charge of the booms and slides and see that they were kept in proper repair; and from the evidence it would be seen that this official had not performed his duty on this occasion. This officer had been repeatedly warned that the boom would break, and also that the east Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said this was a motion to obtain a select Committee for the purpose of reviewing the judicial decision of one of the bodies created by Parliament to adjudicate on certain matters. He explained that this question was submitted to the Dominion arbitrators some years ago, they rendered an adverse verdict, and as he was desirous of having justice done in this matter it was recommitted to the arbitrators, there being a change in the meantime in the Board. The arbitrators again came to the same decision and refused to reverse the verdict, the Chairman dissenting from the award. To ask for the appointment of the Committee under these circumstances was what they could scarcely assent to. If it were to become a practice in this House that a judicial decision should be referred to a Committee of Parliament with a view to its reversal or with a view to sustain it, such decisions in themselves would become a farce. While he had given every opportunity of justice being done, it was quite impossible that they could go any further in the matter. If there had been an injustice done, he regretted it very much, but there must be some mode of obtaining a settlement in such cases, and that mode of settlement having been resorted to, these cases could Five or six of the persons examined not be brought to Parliament, merely wind which had been blowing at the time for some days-had kept the logs of lumber so close to the head of the boom, that the timber could not be got away. He was told not to let down any more and, as far as the evidence went and they knew, this person paid a deaf ear to all these warnings. Further, he left the place and came to Ottawa, where he remained for two days before, and two or three days after the breaking of the boom, to which occurrence he paid little heed. He (Mr. Rochester) fancied that, if the circumstances had been different, the award of the arbitrators would not have been what it was. An election was in progress in the County, and the Chairman of the Board had repeatedly expressed himself strongly in favour of the Conservative candidate, Mr. O'Rielly. He did not hesitate to say that the Chairman had acted in a very partisan manner on that occasion, and political feeling was apparent throughout the entire proceedings. because parties were dissatisfied with the decision. Mr. McDOUGALL (Renfrew) said that as it was so late in the Session they would only be able to make a partial investigation if a Committee were appointed, and, therefore, he would not feel justified in going into the matter now. However, he did not think the parties had had justice dealt out to them, whether intentionally or other wise, by the arbitrators. With regard to the statement of the Premier that under no possible circumstances might they review a decision of the official arbitrators, he hoped that between this and the next meeting of the House the Government should have reason, on proper representation, to change the view they had taken on this subject. The motion was withdrawn. THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST. Mr. ORTON begged to move the adjournment of the House in order to place on record a very important matter in connection with the agricultural interests of the country. Hon. Mr. HOLTON called attention to the fact that the hour for private business had expired. Mr. MASSON said the hour for private business had passed ten minutes, and that a motion for adjournment was always in order. Mr. ORTON, in proceeding, said he desired to call attention to the action taken by the Agricultural Committee. He found by the report of that Comtestimony had been given by gentlemen, both from Ontario and Quebec, and some from Nova Scotia, setting forth the views of the leading men in those Provinces, in regard to the agricultural interests of Canada. The Printing Committee had seen fit to decline publishing that evidence,which he thought was very weighty, coming as it did from the presidents and other officials of agricultural societies, or from leading members of the grange associations of the country. There was also the evidence of the leading millers of the country, and the reeves of Township Councils, together with the views of large meetings of farmers, called for the purpose of answering questions which had been promulgated with a view to eliciting information necessary for the Committee to become possessed of. He would endeavour to give to the House a digest of that mittee that an immense amount of evidence. Mr. YOUNG rose to a point of order. The hon gentleman was not speaking to the motion of adjournment, and he would ask if this was the proper time to discuss that report. Mr. SPEAKER ruled that the hon. gentleman had not up to that point transgressed the rules of order. Mr. ORTON then read the follow Mr. SPEAKER-I have not called ing summary of the evidence to which the hon. gentleman to order. previous reference has been made:— ! |