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

under. the agreement entered> into should be invested. The directors could speculate in stocks and rehl estate to the extent of both capital stock and re-- serve fund. He hoped that the Gov-- ernment at some time in the near fu-- ture--would declare that trust compan-- ies should be brought under the double liability, the same as banks. That was the object he had in moving an amend-- ment. Mr. Carscallen then moved that the bill be referred back to commit-- lee in order to insert a clause providing that in the event of the properties and assets of the Toronto General Trusts Corporation being insufficient to pay its debt and liability to the shareholders #«he.corporation named should be Hable for the deficieggy to an amount equal to the par vux of the shares held by it in addition to any amount not paid up on such shares. Mr. Pattullo did not object to the proposed amalgamation, and conceded that the companies interested were managed by gentlemen of ability and integrity. His objection <to the bill arose from the fact that it invoked the power of the Legislature to change the contracts entered into by mpanies dealing in public investmecli)ts with those for whom they had funds in charge. Such a course was a very dan-- gerous one for the Legislature to adopt, and instead of relieving these compan-- ies and other corporations which sought amalgamation in a similar way from liabilittes which they had voluntarily undertaken the House should legislate in an opposite direction, for instance, along the line of Government inspec-- tion of financial corporations and con-- trol over the security funds. He did not support the amendment because, al-- though the principle of the double lia-- bility was a good one, it ought to be made general when put into force. It would be unfair to bring these two companies under the double liability and allow other institutions to escape. Many Restrictions. Mr. Pardee pointed out that trust companies were already subject to many restrictions. They could not carry on a banking business, and were sub-- ject to inspection by the High Court and the Lieutenant--Governor in Coun-- cil The nature of their investments was also limited, which was not the case in regard to banks, and they could not issue debentures. If the double liability were insisted on it should ap-- ply to trust corporations generally and not to these particular companies.-- It would be unfair to single out these companies because they came kere for special legislation and except other companies which were in an identical position so far as liability and capital was concerned. It was said the two companies here woere being relieved of a large amount of liability. In reality they were giving greater security, be-- cause they were putting up $635,000 and limiting their dividend until that amount should be increased to $750,000,. That was better security than having 21 per egnt. of unpaid stock upon which to levy in case of failure. This fact must ailso be borne in mind, that al-- though these companies held from $15,-- Double Liability. a word of protest ag ation ratified by the bill had been heard from any of the parties having funds in the companies' possession. Amalgamation Gouod. Hon. Mr. Gibson emphasized the fact that the adoption of the amendment would annul the agreement entered in-- to between these two companies, and therefore if it carried the bill might as well be withdrawn. He repeated the ar-- gument advanced by Mr. Pardee that n> protest against amalgamation had been raised by clients of these companies, and pointed out that the legislation sought for had been approved by the Jndges of the High Court. It would never do to impose the double liability On the motion for the third reading of Nr. Holmes' bill to incorporate the Hamilton & Caledonia Railway Com-- pany, Mr. Mutrie moved that it be re-- forred back to--committee with instruc-- _tions to strike out section 18, which provided Yor the operation of the rail-- way on Sunday. The Ontario Legisla-- | ture, he said, had frequently passed legislation prohibiting the carrying of II passengers by electric railways on the ; Sabbath. So far back as 1883 a general street railway act, prohibiting the run:-- \ ning of cars on the Lord's Day, had been passed. Even as late as 1898 pro-- hibitory legislation in this regard had been put through, and in view of the \ stand the House had seen fit to take in !the past they should go slow at the \ present time. If it was deemed essen-- | tial to grant powers to run on Sunday | to _ some -- railways and -- deny it ! 11 others, then t' prohibitory act should be taken off the _statute book. During the present ses-- 'gion they had had instances of such dis-- crimination -- by various committees. These varied decisions was accountable 'some might think to lobbying, and he 'wished to say that the present session 'had been characterized by more lobby-- ing than any previous session he had 'attended. That lobbying, he thought, had had its effect. He w&s not going to say that such had been thé case in the present instance. TA concluding, he re-- iterated his statement that if the senti-- ment of the people of the Provinee had changéed on the question the prohibi-- tory act should be revnealed. " ! Mr. Wardell did not think that Mr. Mutric was well informed regarding the | railway legislation in Hamilton and vi-- cinity. Three other railways had the power sought by the present one, and it would not be fair to discriminate. ° on these two companies and allow others to escape. An amendment should be made to the general law. On gener-- al principles amalgamation was a good thing. It meant doing the same amount cf business at less expense. Mr. Stratton, as President of another corporation similar to those now seek-- ing amalgamation, said he could not sce that shareholders and those who had moneys invested in trusts in the company would suffer in the slightest. On the contrary, he believed the am-- algamation would be in the best inter: ests of all concerned. The amendment was Geclared lost on division and the bill passed the third reading. A Sunday Cars. 181