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

80 WHEY". "1 any: more is no' precedent in the Ottawa cue. although the circumstances are the same and the legislation is the same. But there could not be a precedent tot: this rea- 'son: Two things which result differ- _ ently cannot .be said to be so allied i that one is a precedent tor the other, l and the result of the carrying out to ithe legal end or result of these two i pieces of legislation would be entirely 'tditterent. In the first place-trut be- l, fore I come to that let me say here we have a. special session called for the l, purpose ot not throwing away a party 1 opportunity; called for the purpose of i getting the Government out of the dim.. Lculty into which they say themselves ithey found themselves placed. Now {the legislation of '87 was brought in I and enacted in an ordinary session. the House was called in the usual way. I The hill was introduced try Mr. Edgar." I and Mr. Whitney read from The Han- l sard that gentleman's outline of its ob- l Jects, the first being to ensure greater l secrecy of the ballot. He said nothing labout the constable vote. which was ldeait with In an amendment by Sir ' 1 John Macdonald. There was no objec- ition to the second reading. and very ilittie discussion. "And why ?" Mr. 'Whitney asked. "It did not make a. bit of difference about the retroactive provision in the law. It could not have the slightest effect on the situa- tion. because under the Dominion law- anybody who studies it will tree--it would be impossible to give any person the seat because the cons-tables or any other persons might have illegally voted. Now that is the reason why the retroactive principle was of practically no avail, why it amounted to nothing at all. As long as the secret ballot ex- _ isted under the Dominion law, as long 1 as the provisions of that not remain; which prevent any attempt to find out how a man voted. they couid not _ possibly get the seat on a scrutiny on account of these votes if they were bad. Now. then. an entirely different _ state of affairs existed under the On- itario law and exists yet, and it will exuct if this iniquitous bill passes the House. As Mr. Edgar prt-perly said. 'Of what use is a hallo-t unites it is secret t' And that is the position taken by up on this side of the House." Not an Analogous cue. I'nder the provisions of this retro- active law which will govern, continued Mr. Whitney. the per- son who may be adjudged to be legally elected will be prevented from getting his seat in this House. In other words, the people of those constituencies who have elected them will be deprived of the privilege. which they have by law and right, of having the member of their choice represent them in this Hruse. He contended that in the Sir John Macdonald case the petitioner did nct ask tor the seat. knowing that he could not get it. His hon. friend the Attorney-General asserted that what was right at Ottawa is right at To- ronto. which was a. very good rule, but the same conditions must exist In order to justify the assertion, and they did not exist In this instance. He desired to go further, however, and ask why, if it was right at Ottawa to pass a declttas atory act, the Government at' Toronto did not stand up, pass a similar act here and abide bur-the consequences like men , It it was right at Ottawa. why did the Government abandon the prin- ciple here? He had noticed the remarks of the Attorney-General that the Lib- erals of the Dominion. when the Beat of the Premier was in danger. rose to the occasion and put patriotism before party and supported the bill which is now quoted as on precedent. Why, then, did they not make this legislation re- troactive ? The present bill is retroac- tive to a certain extent. but not to the extent to which The Globe declared. They found that the public indignation is too great for them to carry through their original intention as expressed in The Gh+e. and thought they would be able to take away one-halt the'right of the people instead of the whole right, which they intended. The hon. gentle- man then quoted from Cooley's Am- erican Law to show that legislative ac- tion could not be made to retroact upon past occurrences and the reversal of decisions of the courts, for in doing so the Parliament would not only be ex- ercising Judicial power, but it would be ' - .. ____ -\_A....sl.\_..'ltln clxlru-a 4'..." ._- r7. "e --. exercising It in the mort obdeetlurtstltle and offensive form. No person, he contended. was better nualltted to ex- plain and insist upon the principle than buts, hnn fripnd from Huron (Mr. Gar- ,....... a"... my." "r .. __ _ - his hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Gar- row). who is endeasusring to take away from the courts of the land the power " hich is vested in them and place it in the hands of what he calls the high court of Parliament, in which the hon. gentleman sat as a Judge. He had not wished to refer to the peculiar circum- stances under which the hon. gentle- man eat there, but as he. had referred to it himself In order that " position could be clearly understood he would have to do so. His hon. friend propos- ed to sit in the highest court of the Province as a gudge on his own CBBe-- (Opposition eheertr)--and if he was willing to take that responsibility he did not propose to take up the time of the House discussing the matter. The result which hon. gentlemen proposed to attain by the bill was to substitute the will of the Legislature for the will of the electors. Mr. Whitney proceeded. and asked where retroactive legislation had ever been passed without a saving clause preventing its being applied to pending legislation. (Opposition applause.) He said again that if constables had not the right to vote the Government was to blame. In reply to Mr. Hardy's re- quest to give some reason why con- stables should not be allowed to vote, he said he had never said that they should not have a vote, but he insisted that the votes of nobody whom the law - - - -. Ian-) _L_.-I,I on the lat of March disqualified should be counted In order to keep the Lib- eral Government In office, and he pro- phesied that the Liberalism of the fu- ture would look back upon the present bill as a public disgrace. He taunted Mr. Hardy with lack of courage to bring in a bill along the lines suggested by The Globe when the House war first called, and Intimated that Thomas Car.. lyle, if he were alive. would have ad- mired him as a man of courage had he done so. Hon. gentlemen said that the consta- bles had voted for thirty. forty or fiftv Years. and he admitted that the .ettn- stable vote had not been attacked in this Province. except by The Toronto Globe in editorials on February 21. 2'2