: FRIDAY, MAY 26, . & o « | by section 93, provides that in each | DQCISIOI! Presented 1n 1916 Province the Legislature might ex--| w is clusively make laws in relation to by Former A"orney G;n education, but that 'nothing in any A at such law shall prefjudicially affect eral UphOldS Cla"gi I any right or privilege with respect chool to denominational schools, which Unused Separate | any class of persons have by law Grants Should Not Re-- in the Province at the union.' + # Existed at Confederation. ers vert to Provincial Coff "It would seem clear that the __________-- I share _of the public grant on the LATURE basis specified was a right of the' READ 'N LEGIS separate schools existing at the f R H GRANT passing of the British North America BY HON. & * Act, and under the provisions of sec-- en mm tion 93, above quoted from the act, Legal opinions: of" former Deputy x.t would seem tha.tl the Lteg'islature- .eg 7 [ 34. Bs Cartwrighit b?ohutld not prejudicially affect such Attorney--General J. * a right. and A. N. Middleton, an official of '"We are, therefore, };)f the opinion % + + that the Roman Catholic separate ney--G s Department. the Attorney CGeneral's P % schools are entitled to the whole | read to the Legislature yesterday »y of the allotment made to them un-- | HMHon. K. H. Grant, sustain the con-- der the first part of subsection 2 of tentions of separate school suppori-- 'section 6 of the Department of Edu-- rith regard to their right to cation Act, and that the same should era: MwI P ang : 4 be divided among them so as not to the whole of their allotment in the leave any surplus to lapse into the division of special grant funds. Consolidated Revenue Fund, under The document is interesting, not subsection 5 of the same section. We A A may add that in expressing -- this * only for the weight it lends to the opinion, we Are not to be understood present.. representations _ of the as sa)i'ng that the grant to any Roman Catholics, but because of school may not be withheld _ for hat it was presented to the cause. (Mo le i thal it Was P and "J. R. Cartwright A. N. Middle-- old Conservative Government which ton. Toronto December 15, 1916." allowed the unabsorbed portion of | : After _ brief -- discussion, much the special grant total to lapse back | briefer than had been anticipated, into Consolidated Revenue Funds. Hon. Mr. Grant's bill received sec-- Over a period of years $100,000 or ond reading. Premier Drury an-- more of unabsorWed separate school nounced that in committee he would grants were turned back into the move to amend the wording so as Treasury, -- and the present--day to set out that the Minister could claim of the separate school sup-- apportion _ unabsorbed grants _ ac--| porters is thfat ltliley are entithid u;' f}(l)rding tg cirfcumstarcels, instead of, the whole of this amount. ega e needs o particular schools, action to recover it is understood | which latter wording, . he thought, to be pending. {night, in day to come, lead to polit-- Sseeks to Change Method. caJl. d}i'.yis(if?)?)?(e?f('::\:gx?\.'alive North + The matter was introduced during Hastings, said he thought t'ha.t the second reading of Hon. R. H. Grant's Government, by its measure, was measure to amend the school laws simply spreading the evil, _ rather by permitting the Minister to dis-- than curing it. tribute according to the needs and circumstances of the schools rather | than on a pro rata basis, the un--| absorbed portions of separate school grant moneys. . W. F. Nickle, K.GC., * Kingston, asked if it were the pro-- posal to make the new law retro * active. Receiving a negative reply, he asked if the department had ever , received a legal opinion as to the 'legality of _ turning unabsorbed 7 grants -- back into Consolidated revenues. The legal opinion of J. R. Cart-- K«A wright, and A. N. Middleton. dated 3 December 15, 1916, read by _ the Minister, concludes as follows: '"'The British North America Act, % omm innnntmmnmmmmmzmmmmmmen mmz nmmrrs mame on mnk on L LC 00 _4 CL)