The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

or elsewhere, 'They were found taking the ground that there was a material dilference between the abstract right of reto and the constitu-- tional right. 'They were found taking the ground ' that uniless that Chamber was allowed to pass fnally on matters of local concern it was of no | further use. (Cheers.) 'They took the gronnd that they were discussing nothing less than their char-- ter io legislute, and it was their duty to stand up for that charter in its integrity and inits entirety. (Loud clheers.) On the other hand, gentlemen op-- posite, true to their ignoble past, showed by their ar:guments their willingness to encrouch upon the rizhts of the people. 'They cared not how much they strained the power of veto or how much of the rizsht to lewislate on matters of domestic con-- cern they surcrendered. 'They expressed their willinzness to shake the very arch of Confedera-- tion if they could oaly serve party interests. He was astonished to see the usually fair loader of the Opposition display a partisan spirit, and charge the Government with introducing those matiters for party purposes,. (Mear, hear.) He asked them to notice who brought these questions forward. The (Government wore actingy on the defensive, defendin= Ontavio's charier given by the Act of Confedoration, and they would have been failse to their trast i{f on the floor of that House they hall mnot reiterated their intention of again passing such a Bill, and maintaining inviolate the right of that House to legislate in such maiters. (Cheers.) If gentlomen opposite felt troubled with the dis-- cussion it was one for which they had to thank their Ottawa friends for, for had our rights !vccn concseded the necessity it would not have arisen, (Hoear, hear.) The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Morris) it seomed to him had been fighting shadows in his able speech. No one questioned the abstract right of veto, but they contended that by constituiional usace there were certain principles and precedents laid down, and that the abstract rizht was one thing, and the constitutional pro-- priety of using that right anothor thing. (Cheers.) 'The hon. member's contentions therefore were dirccted agrinst arguments which had not been advanced on that side of the House,. When the representatives of the four Provinces many years aco were discussing the compaci of Confederation they saw many difficulties in the way. 'They saw di:Terent _people, diiferent tongues, diiferent creods, and diverzing interests in this wide land. Thcrefore, in order to avoid friction as far as pos-- sivle the thoughiful men who discusseq the future docided that the Provinces must surrender to the Dominion the right to logisiate on one class of subjects, and the right to the Provinces to legislate on anyther and distinct class of subjects. It was adinitted that in matters of local concern essentially domestic the right of tha Provinces should be supreme and unquestioned. (Cheers.) The matters reserved to the Central Government were matters allectingy the whole Dominion,. What test had they to apply as to the use, adinit-- ting the technical power of veto. They had pre-- cedents and a report on the subject, issued by Sir John Macdonald when Minister of Justice in 1833. It w&s;said that the Governor--General in Council haulche power to exercise the veto. What was the first question he asked : It was, * Does the Act in question transcend the bounds of P'rovincial authority on matters of domestic legislation ?" By that iest this Act should not have been disal-- Towed, and the act of veto was an interfer@nce w'*" the sacred rizhts of that Chamber, (Cheers.) K.. ondly, does tho Act in question assert a principle 0 ~refor a claim which cortld be prejudiciai to the it', rests of the people of the other Provinces i I¥im, sentiemen knew that no principle was as-- soerted in the'Streatos Act which could by the widest streich of imagination be supposed to aileet the rights of the other Provinces. The Act asserted that one of the most important interests in t/o Province was the lumber industry, and that it stas advisable to protect, foster, and encourage thad industry. _ Tt was not a question of McLaren or of Caldwoll, but it was \\'L:u. was best for the general lumbering interests of Ontario. 'The third question the GovernorGeneral would ask was, * Does the Act in question alfect the rights of the minority in regard to education " and of course that issue was not involved in the present case, '"he memorandum issued . by Sir John Macdonal® in 1898 was one they wished to abide by as a test «to apply to the proper use of the veto power, Under,it the tirst question was, Is this wholly illexal or wholly unconstitutional?: In the second place, " is it wholly unconstitutional or partly uncounstitutional ?" In the third place, * Does this Act come nunder the class of cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction with the + Wederal, or does it clash with Dominion legisla tion " and fourthly. "Does it allect the interests of the Domin'on ?* The two tests he had submit ted woere practically the same, and submitted to these the Act should not have been disallowed, and it was an unwarranted interference with the right which the people of this Province imagined they had. (Cheers.) The question was not raised one moment too soon. 'They woere referred also to a correspondence which had taken place be tween Mr. Blake, when Minister of Justice, and the Home authorities, and it was well tnat Mr. Blake had taken the stand he had in reference to the question. 'The Mome authorities laid it down that the Governor--Gencral, as an Imperial oflicor, could revise our legislation, and secondly, that as Governor alone he could revise our legislation. glorious past, standing up for the rights of the peovle with an enthusiasm begotten of the occa-- sion. (Chcers.) 'They found them insisting that the rights of this Province shall not be en-- croach>a upon by anyone, either at Ottawa or elsewhere. 'They were found taking the ground that there was a material dilference of czefer a claim whic if', rests of the peop! I¥»m., centiomen knew serted in the'Streato * Does this Act come nadet which there is concurrent Wederal, or does it clash w tion * and fourthly, " Does of the Domin'on 7 The tw ted woere practically the sa these the Act should not 1 and it was an un warranted Mr. Blake pointedl out that the people of this country could not brook such doctrines, and the Home authorities abandoned their contentions. 'That Mouse, if true to its own interests and to the trusts imposed nupon it must. he declared, resist every encroachment on its right to legislate. He decisred, secandty, that they could not suffer die tation from the Federal authorities --(hear, hear)-- and it was dictation, he contended, when those authorities presumed to disallow measures so clearly within the competence of that House. The various functions -- of _ Government, collecting revenue, providing for the insane, the deaf anda the blind, in administering justice, and establish-- ing a system of education, were all important, but altogsther they woere seconduary to the quostion as to whether they had or not cer. tain dolined rights as to legislation. (Cheers.] Wor the last ten years he had heard it boasted that they had local self--government, and he would ask 42 high compliment to the Lrcatinent 0f MNB SUNEET of disallowance in the speech of the Commissionetr of Public Works. The member for London {(Mr. Meredithy ecmmplained that it was unfair to tie down ~ivr John A. Macdonald's hands in reference to his memorandum on the question of disallow-- ance. Sir John's political history in the past went to prove that it was a very diflicult matter to tie him down. There were two occasions, ho wever, on which he was known to be tied down, onee when he was tied down in relerence to certain infamous tele-- grams which he sent, and when he was found to be tied down. hand and foot, to the chair of the President of the C. 1. Railway. |'The member for London (Mr. Meredith) had said that the Reform party had no policy and no principles, and that they were stealing the policy of their opponents. He would never sit still in his place in that House without making a protest against such a charge, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was not in the mouth of the Conservatives to make that statement. Mr. MEREDITH--Hear, hear. Mr. HAKLCOURT said that Sir John Macdonald 7 . E l NP L x TaA® if thut noffon was nothing but an idle con&it. He was glad that it wa$ left to the Conservative party to adwance tWae--CQoctrine that they were nog possessed of this local seUl--government of which they had for so long been proud. (Hear, hea--.) 1t being six o'clock, the speaker left the chair. After recess. 4 5 Mr. HARCOURT, resuming his r.nnzn:r"ks. p'a;d .. ANEP, IVP EU EUPUITL T PROORISOED® NOC Mr. HALCOURT said that Sir John Macdonald could not be accused of giving up his principles, because henever had any. But he would corréct himself for the benefit of Sir Johhn and his supporters opposite. _ Sir John had one prin-- ciple to --vhich _ he'| had been consistent all his hife, and all his _ followers hbad been consistent to it. That principle was ** get oflice ; get it honestly if you can, if not get it any way." (Cheers.) SirJohn had another p_rin_qipfo been consistent to it, That principie was _ g#eL oflice ; get it honestly if you can, if not get it any way." (Cheers.) SirJohn had another principle corollery to that, viz., " having got oftice hold on to ii: if you cannot hold on to it honestly hold on to it any way." (Gaughter and choers.) The hon. member ror London in his speech of the previous day had said thut he was prepared to go to the day had said that he was prepared to go 10 inCc country on these two great issues. The hon. mem-- ber's course had been a fatuous one, and he (Mr, Harcourt) would not be surprised if he would aittempt anything,. By his course he was fast rush-- ing on toan untimely political end. He would tell the hon. genticinen opposite that when thatend arrived the political epitaph of their lead«r would be " un» true to Ontario. too loyal to Sir John." (Cheers.) A'ter the elections of 1879 the people of both shwules of politics in this Province were surprised that the hon. member for London came hack to the House with so small a following. H> was also surprised that the hon, gentleman came back with such a small majority, but after listening to his arguments for the list two weeks, and no-- ticing the unpatriotic s and he had taken on these two quoestions he had got over his surprise, and he was only surprised that his following was not smailer, 'The hon. gentleman need not wait for the clections. He would guarantee that he could easitly -- find _ some _ Reformer . who would diseuss with him at the polls these two great questions without?delay, and if he would come to the counties of" Welland or Monck he would be duly advertised and would get as| wairm a recepntion as ho could desire. (Hear, hear.)_ The member for Glengarry talked of the profoundness of these questions, and said that they were such that the laymen in the lHouse couid not properiy understand them,. 'The legitimate result of such an ircument would be that they shouid not vote on questions that they did not understand. But they were understood thoroughly, both in the House and in the country, and nothing beiter could happen the leform party than that the whole issue oi the coming elections should be nar-- rowod down to these two principal points. (Cheers.) When ho listened to the noble definition by the leader of the Government of what--true lovalty was, and when he heard his contrast 0f what true loyalty was with the assumed loyalty of hon. gentlemen onposite, then he concluded that while the Refermers had such a leader the Reform standard would never be trailed in the dust in this Province. (Cheors.) He would say further that so long as the Conservative party submitted to a leadership which adopts the policy of the meimber for London in reference to those two particulars so long were they doomed to sit in the cold shades of Opposition. _ Hon. gentliemen spoke of the rights of property, and complained that in the case of the 'Stréeanis Act they had been invaded, -- but what about the -- rights of property | in | the _ whole Province ? --What about our right to 109,000 square miles of terri tory ¢ He had always siven his hon. friend credit in his (Mr. Harcourt's) constituency of being fair in debate, but he asked if he had been quite tair and courteous that afternoon in the way that | he accused the Attorney--General of bowing to Sir \ Alexander Campbell. lie asked ii the hon. leader of the House had bowed to any one in this matter. He asked the hon. leader of the Opposition if he could conscien®ously state one occasion on which he had shown himself to be a coward, or had acted submuissively to anyone. The Province would owe the leader of tthe House a dob{ of gratitude for the stand he had taken on } this one question, if for nothing else. (Avplause.) Who were the cowards?! 'The men who would ' submrit to dictation from Ottawa. 'Those men only | eould be branded with cowardice who would allow ' a leader to say to them, * You must in the | Chamber at Toronto dosuch and such, and take such and such a stand as to these twogreat questions." (Applause.) If the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition had been truly loyal, anda true statesman, he would have gathered his followers around him, and said--* Our duty first and last is to the Province of Oatario ; our fealty to Sir John at Oitawa is another matter," and the moment that he told theim to ignore the rights of this Province, he told thein to stultify themselves, avd undo the work they have done. le was | teliing them to do something that they could not \ do, that their trust to their constituents forbade | them doing. (Anplause.) As to the amendment | which the hon. member for London had moved, he ; would simply say that ho wished to dodge the | issue that was before the HMouse and the country,. (Cheers.) 'The hon, member for London while ex-- | cited had told the House that his leader at Ottawa ] was a cunning old fox, 'The hon. member for | London was trained after the policy of that same 'old fox. In reading between the lines of the | amendment offered by the Opposition he could see ?T, resuming his remarks, paid a to the treatiment of the subject {|