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

e P e ~eay ie ki iee n nds $R WEDNESDAY, MarchH fholl 2, 1921. . _ . ins t 0+ 8 7 io. +. roof was a common thing in the f § *5, ?Jtrll:nlnal Code in order to secure convictions. . ' Law Not "Un--British." In a broad sense, however, he took exception _to the coxnmgn o & 9 'charge that, under the O.T.A., "a f iman was guilty until proven inno-- cent." is ' "That is not true." asserted the Attorney--Goneral. '"'That sts.itemené has been made again and again, ""e Siemisniigunoengrs prrintiestorings it is not true. This law is no mor ' un--British than the C;imina:hcogled e It is not so ,m-Brlt'ls as e Attorney -- General _ Raney [Pior Todines t o o i egarding the C % Deals With Vexed Report |roreeinent, "Hon. Mr. Raney stated « * 'that he was not unawars that there of Special Committee , | Was a 'highly respectable and influ-- -- \ ential body of the public opposed to j entorcemienthof thlealact;nembezsx of * * tain honorable * IS s P I R 'T Q ~'EBATE thecfit;m." he said, "have told the w -- »@ 'si{?'}' . House that they were opposed to the fe v¢< 585 [O.T.A. That is their right. But, Minister §°§.\ 'S.aw No while the law is the law, there is not l$ in * f an honorable member of this House *é' $n Th § who will stand in his place and say] MOrP \'Qé'\\*? an ,that the law ought not to be en-- $ A C d forced." * .Y oue ' Continuing, the Attorney--General 4,\' mc expressed his conviction that the Right of ap, .1 to County Judges |sentiment of the Province of Ontario under the Ontario Temperance Act ,wa.s in favor of the Ontario Temper-- was conceded by the Ontario Gov-- ]ance Act and its proper enforce-- , ernment in the Legislature -- last '(r)nneenti}l }1;112 ';2-3 ?ure, he llzla-id.tlh?t no [ _ # s & aring would vote for a night. Attornes-uon?r.%l Raney, in ,return to the old license system. presenting the decision, stated, § "(Appla.use.) _ | however, that it was not proposed | What Lies Ahead. to meet the demand for a rehearing | What, «then.1 heat" 6 f * s hi > P » n, lay ahead? he asked. of evidence, which was part .uf the Exthe_r prohibition, such -- as se:/en recommendation in the minority re-- l:ro'vmces in Canada had adopted, or port of the Special Committee on O. Government control, such as Quebec T. &. f glrllg British Columbia were trying to orce. As has been usual in discussion of "In this regard this Province has O. T. A. matters, the debate was decided that question," he declared. carried on with all the vigor at the It has decided that question by a command of the members partici-- vore of the people, a vote of two to 7 ** qne. This law has been put by a pating. Attorney--General -- Raney vyote of the people into the constitu-- was brought to task by the Liberal 2';" of this Province, and this law Leader for defining the present issue C . im he repealed--and it must not impaired--by this Legislature of appeal under the O. T. A. as one without the consent of the people of between supporters and opponents . this Province." of that act. . Cross--floor questions "Legalized Bartenders." and retorts occ.upied considerable of .Mx._ Brackin brought down upos the time in discussion, the contro-- himself the censure of Dr. Forbes versy waxing hottest when the At-- f Godfrey when he stated that half torney--General sought to maintain :?fre(}gcaors 11_" dtmbs Province were C is j ie egalize artenders. The f:'a'; the %;?ecxa'l Comm.lttee on o. Tf' member for West Kent expressed the . had never voted for the right o _ jopinion that the huge majority _ of appeal to County Judges. -gresgriptwns issued were for liquor or 'erage » Right of Election. § e\""""" purposes, ays N ; (| _R. L. Brackin, Lliberal member { '0 }.mrd"ml's' for West Kent, who followed T. H. § (_-'O"Unu_mg h}S address after sup-- _ |Lennox, North York, in the debate }el' Attorney--General Raney said ' * * ies 16 agreed with those who said the did not think that the right of ap-- Vss . A.' was a drastic law. It was peal to County Judges was worth Seceb'bal'xly s0o. _ But no case had very much unless a stenographic re-- C:)_flllltl ll:'*ea;le dout. nor did he think port of the evidence taken at the joseq, _p OZ " O L of hardships im-- a * * posed, or of innocent persons suf-- Police Court trial was available for fering under the system of enforce-- the Judge. He suggested to the !munt as at present, "During my Government that the proper proce-- 1;tenure of office," he said, "no case dure was to allow the right of elec-- jh'as come to the attention of the tion to trial by Police Magistrate or Government where there has been County Judge, with no appeal. an injustice to a defendant that has RHegarding appeal, the Attorney-- not been cured, either by the con-- General went on to show that the viction being quashed or by the ex-- provisions of the O.T.A. in this re-- ; f ercise _of clemency." spect had been lifted almost bodily | _ _R. L. Brackin, West Kent, arose from the old Liquor License Act. The . in his seat and quoted an instance right of appeal of non--licensees, he e of where a man was fined $2,000 said, had been abolished in 1890, and and served three months in prison had remained off the statutes until upon conviction of selling a hundred 1916. cases of liquor which he maintained '"'Therefore," said the Attorney-- had been stolen. Subsequently three!| . General, '"we have a continuous his-- » men confessed to having burglarizedl tory of right of appeal on the basis, his premises and taken the liquor.| practically, of the present law dat-- Later Mr. Brackin said he could ing back for 31 years." qugtq other cases. It was rather significant, he E Well, would an appeal have thought, that in the old days no one helped him?" asked the Attorney-- had bothered himself regarding the General. R rights of "blind--piggers." j Mr. Brackin--I don't know. The Arguments advanced for a change > County Judge might have believed in the law Hon. Mr. Raney divided him.: into two kinds. One was that the I do not say, however," proceed-- O.T.A. removed the right of trial by efl the Attorney--General, "that no jury; the answer to that, he said, c right of appeal should be allowed to was that there never had been any a person ,vconvic.ted of bootlegging trial by jury under the Ontario law. or of blind--pigging, but I do say The second argument was that the that the appeal that is to be allowed onus of proof was placed upon the should be carefully safeguarded so defendant, referring, as examplos as not to increase the already great to instances where large stores of difficulties of enforcing this law. liquor, claimed to be for personal ; The responsibility of enforcing it is use, had suddenly disappeared on the Government, and especially 'Hon. Mr. Raney asked wl;y in on the Attorney--General. There-- such cases. onus should not lie on fore I feel he ought to have some e defendant. Shifting of the onus consideration when the machinery se 4 Zor the enforcement of the law is be-- £ e A