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

the Legislature to pel the delivery & sent year the Government had at this \of a decision of mmt of Appeal thne to ask for the present vote of bein_g blndlng and conclusive upon the 10"' al{pply. is rota Judges and on any other court, Does my hon. friend apprehend, and also the Court of Appeal. Mr. asked Hon. Mr. Harcourt in reply, | Whitney argued that the condition of " that these three weeks of the pré-- j affairs would be still more confusing sent session of the House are really a after the passage of the act. + part of the session of 1899,. _ These 21 Mr. Foy, Q.C. (South Toronto), con-- days are the introductory of the ses-- tended that while swbmitting the ques-- t ~ sicn of 1899. Well, now, I ask my hon. tion to the Court of Appeal that court friend to go back as far as he likes in was really not a Court of Appeal in the journal of the House and he will the matter, but a court which gave its find in the egrly days of the session a judgment after argument, like any vote of credit or a vote on account is | other court. The difficulties amounted taken of an approximate amount to to this: That although this question meet expenses ~occurring before the may be answered by the Court of Ap-- supply bill is finally passed in the third | peal. they are not a@answered in a liti-- or fourth month of the year, so that | gated cause and have no more weight we are now doing in this session what or force than an opinion delvered by is really for the sgession of 1399'--"'"*" | eminent men, and they hbind no Ontario we have done every year since Confed-- | court, and do not bind the Court of eration and what has been done in the | I Appeal themselves. Home Government, the mother of Par-- | Mr. Hardy contended that a quota-- liaments, from time immemorial -- and | | tlion by one of his 'hon. friends from decade after decade." | the judgment of the Privy Council that Mr. Harcourt continued and dealt ' the question before them was rather with the " wild imaginings" of Col. academic than judicial did not apply in Matheson in relation to the alleged de-- the present case at all. In the case ficit, which provoked a lengthy reply quated they were answering questions from the member for South Lanark in as *o an act that might be brought or which he characterized Hon. Mr. Har-- passed in the future ; they had no par-- court's statements _ as .*" misleading | ticular or specific question, or any par-- dreams." The item finally passed and ticular -- sgection of an act be--| the House went into Committee of for» them to interpret. The | Ways and Means, adopting the PS",'| question was academic. Here, however, | mates as a whole and adjourning until | it was confessedly different. They had the next session of the House. f | an act of Parliament--section 6. They The Constable Bill. | asked the court the meaning of that The House then went into committee section. It was simple, not an ab-- on the constable bill. After some dis-- stract qupstlnn---f)oes section 6 mean] cussion Mr. Hardy proposed in order to '"Yes" or "No"? There was no fFTreat| meet a contention by Mr. Whitney difficulty attaching to it. to increase the number of counsel who shall be heard before the Court of Ap-- Submission by Question. peal from two to three. The Govern-- ment in naming the number to be * After a further criticism of the polu:s' heard desires to expedite the business | rgised by the Opposition, Mr. Hardy | of the court. The following words also | went on to say taat he could not speak were by consent struck out :--"And in | for the Court of Appeal; nor could hlsi the manner provided by section 2 of the hon. friends. 'They were, however, pre-- act to expedite the decision of consti-- pared to judge the Court of Appeal in| tutional and other Provincial ques--| future by its record in the past. He tions." Rev. stat., chap. 84.) -- These| admitted that the court were probably two lines occurred after the pro--| not very fond of such questions, but vision for an early judgment and were Insisted that they, the Supreme Court, held to be unnecessary. Mr. Whitney| and the Privy Council as well, have asserted that they might be conlusing.' given judgment heretofore on questions } submitted. And it was idle and useless As to Finality. | to say that. because some questions The 6 s ie | have had a pecullarity about them to 4 | de 'ne clause went on to state that "the | which Judges have taken -- objection | cr(]((;.s.nn'(?t the Court of Appeal on the' they were going to object to all mat-- | sa« lq'u?stinns shall be final and shali ters submitted in the nature of ques-- nntr )e suwbject t.o'any appeal, and shall tions. The Manitoba school case was at or upon the trial of any of the afore-- | submitted upon questions to the Su-- | said election petitions have the same preme Court and the Privy Council, | effect as a final judgment of the said lzmd there was also something in con-- | f:i'rl:(']"t Ln a lt,tlgate.d cause, and shall be | nection with Manitobha railways sub-- ' (»th1-:'"é?)ont-the said mur't_ and upon all | mitted in the same way to the Supreme | _The (',l:r h and Judges. Court. The McCarthy act as to .the ;lrn the :lpf:?'lttl:)n again ('as.t.dnn'ht up-- liquor clause, the County (,'ulll'l(l' act FCOUurt then?'in)t ":'l the '(1{'<'lfilnn of the of British Columbia were submitted | Ebage '(\'l'ld ;""m} on l,g'mg that the in that way also. and the boundary | i reme c our )e carried to the Su-- case was submitted to the Privy Coun-- ) : Court, . notwithstanding _ the cil in the nature of a special case ha\'~| specific wording of the act. Hon.' Mr. Hardy and Mesors. Whitney 'md.F'u . ing very largely the appearance | of QC.," argued from -- their r'pqpe(."'-?'; questions. One of the most complicated standpoints, and quoted man'y legal en e hak it n oo wae ie opinions as to the jurisdiction of the which 'he had in his desk, was the \ Supreme Court in the case in point fAisheries case, . which involved former ' Mr. Whitney quoted Mr Jn%tir-o' Tas. deceisions of the Supreme Court upon l cbheroau, who . enunciated m'nvhi.qivofq-v questions, and was carried in that way the principle of the denial of the r} h.\t to the Privy Council and answered de--| ' to appeal' under the statute w'fmegt § finitely and specifically. Yet there was the same extent denying the; powe o'fl nothing which said in any of the Mots | | € trnder which they were submitted that| i