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

sn t bill : also at "a clause tmt' OW'YWB 1 92 ':mb:lh:ges'belon'mz to # connecting Day. He knew that many people be-- P ® \two municipalities should be assessed longing to the denomination of which as a whole or an integral part of the the hon. gentieman . (Mr. Latchford) whole. was an honored member voted in iarge 1 a numbers when the election fell on New The Bill Debated. Year's Day. Mr. Marter (North Toronto) contend-- Mr. Wardell (North Wentworth) said ed that the measure advised by the that Catholics and many Presbyterians commission should be carried. He did had strong objections to the proposal. 1 F;:Defore 'the Mr. Marter replied that on making ' ?I(:)tugl?vkent:'?;ru:a;o':::z n' § inquiries he had not found any Catho-- Mr. Pardee (West Lambton) thought l'.'«ez:shoD\;;re adverse to voting on New that the House would do well to awais * the complete report of the Assessment Religious Objections. Commission before taking so radical a step as that proposed by the Opposi-- Hon. Mr. Stratton said that on pre-- tion. vious occasions largely signed peti-- Mr. Pattullo (North Oxford) cheld tions had been received from vari-- that the Government bill corrected the | cus denominational bodies protesting scrap--iron assessment, and it was difi-- | against the proposal, The granting of cult to understand why Mr. Foy in-- | the privilege to Toronto would be the sisted on bringing in a measure for the insertion of the thin end of the wedge, same purpose. For his own part, he and it would have to be extended to preferred the measure introduced by the whole Province. _ He did not thin'k the Government to that of the hon. | a majority of the citizens of Toronto member for South Toronto. He <con-- were in favor of the measure. cluded by expressing the opinion that Mr. Foy (South Toronto) was not the charges regarding the influence of aware that there was any demand now corporations would not, after the re-- for such an act from the City of Tor-- marks of the Premier on the subject, be onto.. It was true that ten years ago heard again. f the citizens by vote expressed a desire Mr. Foy said shat the speeches lpade ror New Year's Day voting. . That was had generally wandered fir from" the icn years ago, and before the hours of real subject, but had only tended to polling were lengthened. | Since then strengthen his contentions. there had been no agitation. Mr. Graham (Brockville) believed The Premier, on the request of Mr. that the act now brought in by the Whitney, expressed his opinion. He Premier was the most direct, the short-- raid that he had intended to vote for est and the best way to overcome the the amendment, but on the representa-- difficulties of the scrap--iron -- assess-- tion of Hon. Mr. Latchford, Mr. War-- ment. Before any other part of the Cell and others as to the views taken question was touched an opportunity y a religious denomination he had should be given to allow the whole decided that such legislation would be people to become thoroughly acquaint-- in vidious. ed with the changes proposed. Mr. Whitney was directly opposed to (On a party division the amendment playing fast and loose with the muni-- to the amendment was carried by 40 to cipal act. Néw Yéear's Day was --an 30. The bill was reported by com-- old and long established holiday, and j mittee, read a third time and passed. he saw no reason why they should . # break in upon it. . For this and other | Veterans' Land Grant. reasons he opposed the motion. | When the motion was made for the Mr. Marter said he had introduced| 8 third reading of the bill granting land the amendment at the request of the| 12 veterans, Hon. Mr. Davis quoted City of T('l'9n10. but after the expres--| from a similar bill in British Columbia, sion of opinion in the House desired to| | where the beneficlaries were confined to withdraw it, and accordingly did so. { SFouth African veterans, and on far r M narrower conditions than in Onttzl\rio. Conmee Act and Toronto. ' The Speaker decided that the am-- Mr.~ . & ondimnents were in 'order." "On a party ooX f heaithe pinfeng dit io. c€ivision the amendments were lost by cConfree act shall not apply to Tdromo | 30 to 40, and the bill --passed. s \s Incorpor f| 30 to 40, and the ic referred to the incorporation of * a C the Consumers' Gas Company and the' New Year's Day Voting result of the suit by Mr. Johnston a}' On the motion for the third reading low years ago, when it was decided the of the municipal amendment act, 'Mr. company could refuse to sell gas to any Marter moved an amendment provid-- person. The city could not buy out the| ing for the holding of municipal elec-- conmpany, which enjoyed a monopoly, tions on New Year's Day in cities of vrieas it was freed from the Conmee cver 100.000. _ Toronto, he said, had act. declared in favor of this by a majority Air. Conmee (West Algoma), the auth-- of 10,000. | or of the act referred \to, satd there! Col. Matheson (South Lanark) object--| was not a line in the act to prevent the| ed to giving Toronto such a special city buying out the company. What: privilege, which would soon be wanted harm could come to the city from mak--| by every other town in the country. i1g a proposal as to price, as pro--| Hon. Mr. Latchford said there was a vided in the act? The city was, he de--| considerable minority in the City of clured, in a better ~position than itl Toronto who would strongly object to conid have been under the old law. He teing called out to vote on New Year's agrecd with Mr. Whitney that the| Day. * municipal law should be consistent and Mr. Crawford (West Toronto) said he not be a rowe of sand. If the pro-- did not know that any religious body in visions of the bill were struck out as ~% resards Toronto there was no justifi--