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

108 the. motion tor the third main! they 5 tlnetiy refused to. vote at all. as a. last; protest agalmt the bill. Before nrriv- ', ing at this stage the Attorney-General ', had the bill referred back to committee i for the purpose of making several! amendments to meet the objections, raised by the Opposition, which did) not. however, in any way affect iii; :prlneiple " the bill. In moving the; Ittr'at amendment offered, Mr. Carmel-l Hen was very emphatic m his denunci- I Lotion of the clause which requires a. new election to be held in the event ot a. ttttAbel' Ibeing untreated by reason of the disallowance ot the constable! vote. Mr. Foy offered an amendment to strike out section 2, postponing the trial ot petitions in certain circum-\ stances. and Mr. TCnitney and Mr.; 'Martor each presented amendments" F provlding that pending litigation shall ( -':not be interfered with. The Govrrre _ ment had a. majority of six upon each I vote. The Lieutenant-Governor ar-l rived at the chamber at 7 o'clock. and; having given his assent to the Mile which had been passed, the Legislature I l adjourned. Upon motion of the Attorney-Gen- eral the order for the third reading of the constables bill was discharged and the bill referred baek to committee. l Finality ot the Opini m. The Attorney-General Intimated that he desired to make some remarks upon One or two legal points which had been raised by the Opposition and dis- qrussed by the House. The tlrtgt point was an to the fhuUity of the Court of Appeal upon the questions submitted to ft by the bill. He quoted the case of Laberge and others v. Landry, from Cartwrlsrht's con. cases. a case arising In the Province of Quebec. where the petitioner had been declared elected for an electoral district and the election was afterwards declared nah and void by the Judgment of the Superior Court, under the contravened elections act of 1865. for corrupt practice-s. both per- sonal and by agents. An application [or appeal was refused, a. (ah- con- struction of the act being held to be that " was not the intention of the, Legislature that there should be an ap- peal]. and the act having been assented The bills respecting voters' lists In certain cities and correcting clerical errors in the Revised Statutes were passed through committee. The Attorney-C-ral moved the in- oertion of a clause giving the Govern- ment the same powers to expropriate land required for roadways to purolic or national parks as is now enjoyed by municipal Councils. The Manse was added and the bill read a third time. Mr. Carscallen suggested that some provision be made for cases where a virtual diversion ot the course of the stream is made. . The Attorney-General moved the House into committee on the Mil to amend the municipal law empowering municipal Councils to expend money on works situate without the limits of the municSpality, for the purpose of pre- Venting tioods. The bill relating to the Provincial fishtyrles was read a third time and paged. There was another (use perhaps upon another point to which the attention of this hm. friend had been called. The leader of the Opposition rather laid it down as a principle in one ot _ his speeches on this bill that there was no such thing as a scrutiny under the Do.. amnion not: tlrst, that the votes of ipersons voting could not be traced and that persons could not be asked how Lthey voted under the Dominion law; secondly. that there could be no scru- tiny. and, thirdly. from these facts and for all these reasons the act of 1887 passed at Ottawa was not applicable here and was not, therefore, a. preoe- dent in this House and for legislation passed. here. His hon. friend from West Huron had sent him the Page to which he referred during the debate. and he found that upon this question Mr. D'Alton McCarthy. an eminent au- thority upon election questions. said: " The protection given by Bee. 77 of the elootion act only applies to the hettedit of electors and not to persons who voted without the right to vote." (Gov- ernment cheers.) That was Mr. Me- Garth)": argument. and Sir Matthew Crooks Cameron. Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleat Isaid '. " I am not sautMed that the person who has no vote and voted at the election may in? asked how he voted." It does not '3e'sttt to be good reasoning that the pro- tection afforded to the person having the right to vote ought to be extended to the one who voted without the right to do so. (Cheers.) There " a law laid down in reasonably den-r terms. ftrst. that you may inquire how a man With a bad vote voted, and, secondly. you may have a scrutiny. and the per- son who is not declared elected may t to on the iiart of the Crown, it was held that there was not in this case a prerogative right to permit an appeal, and theremre the appli-mtlon must he refused. That was a. much stronger vase than an appeal to the Supreme Court. That case was commented on