I IV THE 
 
 $xtnu ^onvt ot ^«w»!tr«. 
 
 " The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874." 
 
 gijjjj^al from the ^upcrioi; (3leurt foi; the^ |Jronurc of (i^nrbcc, 
 
 SITTING AT MURRAY BAY. 
 
 BKTWEEN 
 
 O. BRASSARD./^/., 
 
 TF-:TiT10XKRS IN COUET BKLOW— (Ai'i-ki.i.ants.) 
 
 .*ND 
 
 Hon. H. L. LANGEVIN, 
 
 RESPONDENT IN COURT HKLOW— (IJksi'oni.knt.) 
 
 FPELLAI^TS' FACT 
 
 %if ^»¥f !• 
 
 LANGlELIER & LANGELIER, 
 
 For ApiioUants. 
 
 QUEBEC: 
 
 POINTED BY AUGUSTIN COTi" A CO. 
 
 IK 
 
/^vZ^^Tf^^' 
 
 ^^t^±^^.^C^^\^\_^ 
 
 4^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^i^^^-^.^-e-^^r^- 1-N? 
 
 /<. 
 
 r 
 
 A-<— ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 <^ c 
 
 '^^ 
 
 (^.o^ 
 
 / Pu^t^^-^^ 
 
 -^ ^^' 
 
 / / 
 
 ^^/^^.^^ 12:^/^^^ 
 
 £^ 
 
 ^fL-^^ 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 (^ /±y/ ^ ^o-^-^ f—^ 
 
 c^A -A 
 
 <_^ 
 
 ^^ri^.<^^<'^^-'-Q^' -^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 ty\^\^^^ 
 
 >.i^^ 
 
 A. 
 
 ^^^<^^ 
 
 ^-z/c^-A- ^^t. 
 
 X^^/ /i^^i^^ ^ 
 
 L 
 
^is' 
 
 7 
 
 |n the Supreme (f'ourt of d'anadiu 
 
 "Dominion Controverted Elections AcL 1874." 
 
 (). liHASSAIll) HaL, 
 
 ri'.'i rii»».vi:iis -, aim'ki.i ams); 
 
 AND 
 
 IIox. n. L. LAXGEVIX, 
 
 IJKsi'OXDKNT— ItKsi'uM.Kvr. 
 
 APPELLANTS' FACTUM. 
 
 This appeal is brought before the Supreme Court under the ioUowing circuinstauce?s. In 
 .Tauuarj- 1870, an election for the House of Commons took place in the county of Charle- 
 voix, <o fill the vacancy caused by the unseating on petition of P. A. Trerablay, Esq., the 
 member elected in 1874. There were two candidates in the field, Mr. Tremblay, whose v 
 election liad been annulled, and the Respondent. After an extremely hot contest, the De- 
 fendant was declared elected. The petitioners contested his election on the grounds of bribery^ 
 treating, undue influence, and of the employment as agent and canvasser of a xchpduled briber. 
 Other grounds are also alleged in the petition, but, as they were not brought Uj^» during the 
 trial; we will not notice them at present. After a trial which lasted more than two months, 
 which was twice interrupted by the illness of the judge, and during which about 20O wit- lo 
 nesses were heard, Mr. Justice Kouthier dismissed the petition with costs. Hence the present 
 appeal. 
 
 Judging of the ca.sc by the celebrity it has acquired, one \\ uppose that it presents 
 
 serious legal difficulties, but such is not the case. It has become fe. lely known on account 
 of the extraordinary pretentions set up by the Respondent, and wh.,.i are so unheard of that 
 all those who understand the free institutions which govern us could not believe that they 
 have been raised, were they not written in the record. Its fame is also due to the conduct 
 of the principal agent of the Respondent during the trial. Not content that the election had 
 been forced by terror, he endeavoured to defend it in the same manner. The Court will find 
 in the record three judgments for contempt against the agent of the Respondent, on account 20 
 of editorials he published, by which he tried to intimidate the Petitioners, their witnesses, 
 their counsel, and even the judge. 
 
 V ■! V« 
 
/^A^^<^ 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 X ^V^-^Oi^-^^i^^^ 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 / 
 
 > 
 
 ^^A-^^-zC- /^ ^-;^^^-^-^^^^^^^^-<- ^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 A -^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -(^^ 
 
 :^^«^^^ 
 
 X^^-e- AT 
 
 '^-i^ 
 
 
\ 
 
 2 
 
 To mako the case clearer, we will examine separately lirst.the principal cases of corrupt 
 practices by the Respondent and by his agents, and afterwards the facts of a general cha- 
 racter which affect the election, whoever may have been their authors. 
 
 I. CouRUPT Practices uy the Respondent and uy his Agents. 
 
 Before entering into the details of these facts, let us see what is meant by an Election 
 Agent. An agent is any person who has authority from the candidate to promote his election. 
 (0. & H., vol. 2, p. 190. vol. ]. p. 10, 70, 119, 120,) That authority may be expressed, but it 
 may also be implied. Implied authority results from any act or word of the candidate 
 which implies that he wants another person to work in order tq secure votes to him, or that 
 he knows that person to be so working and does not disallow h«r conduct, (O. & H., vol. 1, i© 
 p. 55, 17, 183;^vol. 2, p. 73, 74, 102, 103, 136, 137; Rogers, on elections, p. 500, 509, 511, 515, 
 edition of 180^; Leigh & LeMarchant, p. 35, 42, 43, 44 ; Bushby. p. 117 to 121 ; Cox & 
 Grady, p. 317. 
 
 1" Prutiiiiie b// Mr. Onesime Gnnthier to the electors of Si. Uibaiu. 
 
 The agency of Mr. Grauthier is clearly established by the Respondent himself in his 
 testimony, and is of such an extensive character that Mr. Langevin is responsible for all Mr. 
 Gauthier's acts. Mr. Gauthier was one of the Respondent's Chief Agents. lie invited him 
 first to come forward ; Mr. Langevin replied that ho would consent only if he could rely 
 iipon the support of the clergy. At the request of the Respondent ^tr. Gauthier went to 
 the county, consulted the Cures, and reported to Mr. Langevin, who, on his a';surancc'S of 20 
 their support, accepted the candidature tendered by the same Mr. Gauthier. The latter 
 gentleman returned to Baie St. Paul and to St. Urbain to accomplish his mission. 
 
 It is well known that the iron mines of St. Urbain weie worked for several years by an 
 English Company, of which Mr. Gauthier was an agent. The greater portion of the inha- 
 bitants of Sr. Urbain. and many of those of the neighbouring parishes of Baie St. Paul and 
 St. Hilarion, had been employed at those mines. At the time of the election the works were 
 stopped, the company having become bankrupt, and the cA'ditors were trying to sell their 
 claims against it to liev. Mr. Fafard, Cure of St. Urbain, who was buying them at a consi- 
 derable discount. 
 
 At the beginning of the election Mr. Gauthier came to announce the candidature of the 
 Respondent, which he had already prepared, as before mentioned. Under the pretext that 
 he had come to render an account of his conduct in parliament, he told the electors that the 
 mines would soon again be worked ; that the North Shore Railway would be continued 
 below Quebec and would pass through Baie St. Paul and St. Urbain to Lake St. John : that 
 he had obtained ffom the local government that the Engineers would visit the place. This 
 fact was proved even by the Respondent's witnesses. It is easy to understand how much 
 importance the inhabitants of St. Urbain attached to the re-opening of those mines, which 
 aflbrded employment to so many persons. But what was more serious still was Mr. Gau- 
 thier's announcement that he had obtained $600 for the construction of two bridges in the 
 parish of St. Urbain, which the inhabitants were then obliged to build and keep in repair. 
 " I cannot say more to you at present," said Mr. Gauthier, but after the election we will 
 speak again " on this subject." Mr. Gauthier evidently wished the electors of St. Urbain to 
 
 30 
 
 40 
 
I ■ 
 
 
 
 ^u^' 
 
 -^tt^^^zz^ 
 
 
 <^^^C\^^L^ 
 
 Izz^f^ /^^^ 
 
 ^^^'^v_- -^Cy 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 ^ ^ 4^i^<^ 
 
 ^^^f^CZ) 
 
 l/tyLy*^ ty*-^' 
 
 .^^^^^ 
 
 
 it^ ^ ^^c-^^-^"^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 cate- 
 
 ''^?:^ 
 
 k 
 
 iXAw--^^'//'.^^- > 
 
8 
 
 understand, and hi> was pt'ifectly understood in the following sens*' ; • II' you. who hear uw, 
 " behave Will, and vote for the eundidate I propose to you, you will have tho.sf *r.00 from 
 " the local government, but if you oppose me, you miiy l)e sure that alter the .-lection, the 
 " local government, knowing your hostility, will give you nothing. I have those i^GOO in my 
 " pocket, you will get them lati'r. You see what you have to do.'" This was the sense of 
 Mr. Gauthier's speech, and no one ^;ould be mistaken in the signification of his remirks. All 
 the witnesses for the defense, without exception, acknowledged this portion of Mr. Gau- 
 thier's speech. Mr. (Jauthier knew at the time, that no special sum of money had been 
 A-oted for St. Urbain, and that thos." ^mo could only be taken from the gross amount voted 
 for colonisation purposes. Shortly after the election, the ^COO were expended; and it is lo 
 evident that St. Urbain would havi' had nothing, if they had voted against the well known 
 wishe.s of the local government. 
 
 This case is similar to that of St. Catherine of Montmagny. decided at Quebec on May 
 liOih, 1876. in which Mr. Lajidry was disqualified on account uf a sum of moiun' thathehad 
 promised for the opening of a road. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that, although Mr. Gauthier. who <;oiild so vi-ry easily liave 
 been }>rought by K'espoudent as a witni's.s to explain hi.s words if they were not intended to 
 mean what Ihey seem so clearly to convey, was not heard for the defence. The inference 
 to be drawn from that fact is that Mr. Gauthier could not explain away the si>eech jo 
 complained ol. 
 
 2" Promises by Mr. Denis Gauthier to Thomas Trembtai/. 
 
 Mr Denis Gauthi<'r's agency has been proved out of Mr. Langevin's own month. 
 
 From the latter's testimony it appears that Gauthier travelled and luld meetings with 
 him, and. to his knowledge, worked actively in his favor at the election. 
 
 Let us now consider the facts. 
 
 Mr. Price had decided that Mr. Tremblay would be beaten; he says .so in his evidence. 
 He had constituted himself the executor of the designs of Providence, and he explains this 
 with most extraordiiuuy modesty. Thomas Tremblay owes the sum of $900 to Mr. Price : - 
 he acknowledges that this affair embarrasses him, and at Denis Gauthier's house, declares 
 that he is not indcpcndant and will not vote. Gauthier tells him that he ' -mid vote, and 30 
 adds " If Mr. CoUard (from whom Thomas Tremblay purposes borrowing money) will not 
 lend it to you, others will. " It is .scarcely possible to make a more direct offer at an election 
 dme ; but he goes further still, and says to Tremblay that he will take effects from him in 
 payment of the $900, that Mr. Price told him he might do so, but that he, Thomas Tremblay, 
 knows well, that he, Gauthier, is at liberty to take them or not. 
 
 Gauthier in his evidence, although ho tries to contradict this fact, admits that Tremblay 
 may very likely have understood his words in this sense. The Court will remark the pains 
 which Gauthier has taken to confuse this affair, and how^ a portion of the truth escaped 
 from him only when taken, as it were, by surprise. 
 
 It must also be observed in the appreciation of this fact, and of all the proofs we will 40 
 have to examine, that the evidence of a party in the case or of an incriminated agent has not 
 
wr 
 
 a^i 
 
 
 
 A-'>j <^ 
 
 ^' 
 
 € 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -(L.<^<- iT tx^-t*^' 
 
 A^i ^-""^^ 
 
 ^ -V. .?;« - 
 
 
 
 
 A^^^-^- ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 '/ . 
 
 o- 
 
 i^ 
 
 /. 
 
 
the weight of that of a diaiuterosteJ pi'ison. This in so self-evident that it recjuires uo othef 
 authority but common sense. 
 
 The factum produced in the first instance by the Kesi>ondent, contains an important 
 error of fact, which will most likely be repeated before this Court : it says it was long before 
 the election that Mr. Price promised to take Tremblay's eflects. On the contrary, we find 
 that it was only three or four days l)i>fore the polling day that Tremblay became indebted 
 to Price for the amount of $900, consequently the promise cannot have been made long 
 before. "We see that the transfer, the promise to tale the effects as payment, the threat by 
 Gauthier not to take them, and the offer, to induce him to vote, of lending or of procuring 
 the money for him. if Mr. Collard would not lend it to him, all took place two or three days lo 
 before the polling day. 
 
 3" Promise bij Mr. J. S. Perreniilt to Seraphin Lajoie. 
 
 Mr. Perreault's agency has been proved by Mr. Langevin and by Mr. Perreault himself. 
 The act of bribery of which Mr. Perreault is guilty, is of the most serious nature. Seraphin 
 Lajoie was sued by his mother, which caused him great anxiety, as he feared to be ruined. 
 To avoid it he consents to sign a requisition in favor of Mr. Kane, and afterwards to support 
 Mr. Langevin. " If you keep your word," said Mr. Perreault to him, " you will hear no 
 more of this suit which your mother bas against you." The evidence of Lajoie, and that of 
 his wife, agree perfectly as to their substance. Lajoie made a first visit alone to Mr. Per- 
 reault, then a second visit accompanied by his wife, and his wife made alone another visit 
 after the election. It was during this last visit that Mr. Perreault said to Mrs. Lajoie : It is 20 
 your fault if your littahnnd is stilt at late, because you prevented him from voting for Mr. Lange- 
 vin." This last fiict was not contradicted, and no attempt has been made to contradict it. 
 
 This act of corruption is worse than the giving of a sixm of money ; for after the money 
 has been received, the elector may vote as he pleases, without any fear ; but in the present 
 instance, the case being still ptnding, it was a constant threat standing over Lajoie. 
 
 Lajoie was heard a second time, two months after his first evidence, and his evidence 
 on both occasions agree perfectly. 
 
 The defence tried to prove that Lajoie pretended to be for Mr. Langevin : this, if proved, 
 is in favor of the Petitioners ; it shows that Lajoie, who had always supported Mr. Tremblay, 
 had made an agreement, and that it was only the lear to be ruined, as he says himself, which 30 
 compelled him to make the sacrifice of his convictions. 
 
 Seraphin Villeneuve, brovght to contradict Lajoie on a point of no importance, was half 
 drunk when he went with Lajoie to Mr. Perreault's, and a few minutes after he was so 
 intoxicated that Lajoie, fearing some accident, accompanied him some distance from the 
 village. 
 
 The evidence of Mr. Perreault, who is himself incrimin;\ted, cannot destroy that of 
 Lajoie and his wife. 
 
 The Respondent tried to prove that Lajoie and his wife were not credible under oath ; 
 but what sort of witnesses were brought to prove this ? I do not think that any court ever 40 
 w itnessed such a scene. To discredit Mrs. Lajoie, the Respondent brought, not from Malbaie, 
 
A^^^L^ 
 
 -^<<-^ ^^ 
 
 ^/l 
 
 ^:<,-^«A_ 
 
 ^;^^^^_-^- 
 
 '^ ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 >6/ 
 
 /tA-^^^ 
 
 ^^->^ ^-^ 
 
 //> 
 
 
 VC^ 
 
 (lXyfy\^^y 
 
 
 C^X-v^-^-^u 
 
 f^ c^^ 
 
 z^/^ 
 
 t^L^^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
Imt from a neighbouring parish, Iwo witnt^sses, and snch witnehses! One was a perjurei, 
 named Joseph Gnay, and the other, a (/nasi perjurer, named Alexandrt- Murraj-., lommonly 
 known by the name of Brunorhe. 
 
 Gruay wa."- found guilty of perjury at Malbaie, two years iigo, by twi-lvi- of his country- 
 men : it Avai^ through some infoimality that the jiidgment was reversed in appeal, but at any 
 time this case may again be taken up, and in the meantime, the moral weight of the verdict 
 remains the same. 
 
 A true bill for perjury has been found against Bnitioclir. and his trial is still pending 
 before the Court of Queen's Bench, at Quebec. It was, tlierefove, impossible to find in the 
 parish of Mall)aie, where Mrs. Lajoie resides, a single witness to discredit her. There was !• 
 found, it is true, in another parish, a man named Ouellet, asoitol fool, who kept the court in 
 merrim( nt for twenty miniates, who ( ontradicted himself in the most ridiculous manner, and ^ — 
 who ended by saying that he receivi d his infoimation fiom Mrs. Lajo-'e's mother-in-law. 
 whom, he said, was a I'ool and a lunatic, and who was at law with her son. 
 
 If I wished to learn the truth about the character of a pc ison, 1 w< uld not address my- 
 self to his eiircniies i.t r to those who are at law with him, luul it )^ to .^uch people that the 
 Iie.-p( udeiit has applied to disciodit Lajoie and his wife. He also brought up tor this purpose 
 wiinesscs I'uin 8t. "Uibain, one of the parishes at the greatest distance frcm the residence of 
 Lajo'o. Only one witnt ss irom Malbaie was brought up against l.ajoie, and such a witness? 
 A man named Amable Giraid, who tried to dei'raud the church A\auUns of ^lalbaie. On le 
 the pait oi the j etitior.t rs. peitons of irreproachable character, ctuie and affirmed positively 
 that Lajoie is credible under oath, and if he has a fault, it is that he is known as a cleve? 
 horse dealer. 
 
 The Court will remark, that Mr. Perreault, counsel in this trial, (a fact which ajipears 
 in his evidence himself examined Lajoie. "Without perceiving it, Mr. Peireault, in one of 
 his questions, established the fact that there was an agreement, or an understanding . 
 between him and Lajoie as to the dropping of the suit in connection whh the election. Here 
 is the question . " Is il not true that 1 said lo you i^addressiig Lajoie) irith regard to llw suit : 
 ice will see lo this laler ? " By this question Mr. Perreault tht n affiimed what he subse- 
 quently- denied. - 39 
 
 Jules Trudelles evidence corroborates that of Lajoie, in as m\ich as it establishes the 
 anxiety o^ Lajoie concerning this suit, and the connection of its discontinuance with the 
 election. 
 
 dn reading the evidence of Peraphin Villcnenre, the court will observe that Mr. 
 Perreault treated him just before he appeared in court, and he was evidently under the influ- 
 ence of liquor when he was examined. 
 
 ■4" Promise h/j the Honorable David Price lo Andre Carre. 
 
 Mr. Price's agency is clearly proved. The Eespondent himself admitted that Mr. 
 Price to his knowledge had been working to promote his election. Having decided on 
 defeating Mr. Tremblay, as he modestly says, he took the means to attain his object. "We 40 
 would not complain of this if he had taktn only the means allowed by law, but unfor- 
 
^fil^.C ^^UEPC^=^ 
 
 
 
 l^ 
 
 t^- 
 
 (^yC 
 
 -t^ 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 t</^L^i 
 
*•# 
 
 tunately sucli was not his mode of aciion. During the election he .stopped at Andre Carre s 
 house to see a man named Louis Treml)lay who had lost his sight. Mr. Price informed 
 Carre that he intend'^d setting nets at Tadousac next summer, and that if he [Carri] would 
 act with him, he would give him these n<rts in charge. Carre thanked Mr. Price and said 
 that under these conditions he could not accept the offer, and that he would not abandon 
 his partj'. Mr. Price, who has been brought forward to contradict this evidence, sa}'s nothiu"- 
 against the veracity of this witness, who is well known to bi» a man of the highest respecta- 
 bility. If Mr. Price did not intend that Carre should understand his words in this .sense, he 
 should have explained himself more clearly when Carre refused his offer, and Lave made 
 him understand that he had no intention to bribe him or influence his vote. But we find lo 
 nothing of the kind in his evidence. Mr. Price says that he scarcely spoke about the 
 election. His language is far from being clear, and he is an interested witness. On the 
 contrary Carre has expressed himself with a great deal of precision, and he has no interest 
 whatever to speak one way more than in the other. 
 
 The Respondent in the court below said : But why did you not bring before the Court 
 Louis Tremblay, who was present at this conversation ? Because we did not require him, 
 Carre being an irreprochable and disinterested witness. But this should have been done by 
 the Respondent to corroborate the evidence of Mr. Price, who was as much interested as the 
 Defendent to have Louis Tremblay brouhgt up as a witness. 
 
 o" Threat bf/ Joseph Kane to Gregjii'e Jean. 20 
 
 No agency can be better proved than that of Mr. Kane. The Respondent, in his testi- 
 mony acknowledged that Mr. Kane had resigned in his favor, and had to his knowledge 
 canvassed for him. If this is not sufficient, I must confess I do not understara anything 
 about election age:icy. 
 
 Now as to the fact reproached Mr. Kane. That gentleman was, during the election, 
 and long beibre it, agent for Mrs. Nairne, the Seigueuresse of Murray Bay. Gregoire Jean 
 had received employment from her for many years, and had been in her employ lately. He 
 goes to Mr. Kane to settle his account Kane gives him a bon to get wheat at the mill, and 
 speaks to him about the election. He tries to jiersuade Gregoire Jean that Mr. Tremblay 
 wishes to destroy religion, (citit detruire /a religion). Jean answers that he is in favor of a 30 
 resident of the county ; that even if Laugevin were " rouge" from head to foot he would 
 not vote for him. Seeing that Jean cannot be won by religious terror, nor by political rea- 
 soning, Kane attacks him in what he hopes may be a more sensitive part, that of his pecu- 
 niary interest. Jean is poor, and earns his livelihood by days work. On his raying he 
 would vote for Mr. Tremblay, Kane observes to him " This might embarrass you " " Ce/a, 
 pourrait vous gener " •' / do ruH fear you " immediately replies Jean, '' the Seigneurisse is teilh 
 vie " " la Seigneuressr est de mon bord.'' 
 
 This important evidence was not contradicted. Mr. Kane was in Court, when Jean 
 gave his evidence ; he also came to the Court almost every day afterwards, and he never 
 dar.'d to appear as :i witness, no doubt being convinced of ihe truth of Jean's evidence, and 
 being unwilling to perjure himself. "Whenever an incriminated person can give evidence, 
 and does not do so, he is presumed to be guilty. 
 
 The Court below said that Kane's words were too vague to have any meaning and to 
 
 40 
 
r .A^ 
 
 l^X^V - K^ 
 
 ^t<Z^ 
 
 i— 
 
 ^^<^^ e^,^^^^ 
 
 £. 
 
 6t^>v(^ 
 
 C^ ^'^t 
 
 
 rt 
 
 7- 
 
 l4j^-^ 0^^^^^-^ 
 
 A.^<->^M^^»-A.^^.X-^^-^^ 
 
/// 
 
 produce any effect upon the election. This would l»i p.-rlVotly true if the words, this hn'<i,„ 
 embarass /ou, w^ere alone. But here, as everywhere else, and nior.- perhaps than anywhere 
 else, (becr-.si^ we have to deal with a fraud, and a fraud is never perpetrated with the same 
 clearness and openness as a legal act we must take those words in connection with ^hose 
 that preceded and followed them, with the tenor of the whole conversation between Kane 
 and Jean. Kane was trying to influence Jean's vote. He must naturally be supposed to 
 have that intent in saying the words complained of. If such was his intention, the only and 
 clear meanini^ of his words is evidently a threat of dismissal or refusal oi employ. No inno- 
 cent meaning can be given to them. 
 
 6' Threat bjj Dt'tn's GtuUhier to Char(e.< nnitchtird. lo 
 
 Bouchard, who is in Gauthier's employ, acknowledgo.,- to him in the house of his foreman, 
 that he is n supporter of Mr. Tremblay and says he will vote fur him. ■ Yo>i will hear from 
 me on Monday," replies Gauthier ; " T/i auras connaisxtince de mot luiidi." 
 
 The voting took plare on the Saturday, and this took plac" on th<' evt*. 
 
 Gauthier"s threat was the cause of Bouchard not having voted. We .see by the witnesses 
 for the Defence that through iear he told Mr. l^a'.gevin's supporters that he was for Mr. 
 Langevin ; to Mr. Tremblay's friends he expressed his real convietions in saying he was for 
 him. The Defence tried to establish that Bouchard did not vote beeause his father was sick. 
 But I ask, was the illness of the father a sufficient cause to prevent the son from voting .' His 
 father was able to vote and lie did not require his sin by his bed side. AVill the Defence say 20 
 that the fatlier, fearing to die and being frightened by the cure's sermons, prevented him 
 from voting ? We here fall from Charybdis into Scylla; it is thus demonstrated that the 
 intimidation practist-d on the father l)y the cure of St. Fidele, operated on the son. Bouchard 
 revealed what had passi'd in the room where Gauthier had shut him up, only because his 
 conscience obliged him to tell the truth. It would have been his interest to have said the 
 contrary, to avoid the misfortune which happened to Narcisse Bouchard, who was expelled 
 from Gauthier's employ for having given evidence in the present trial against the Reverend 
 Mr. Cinq-Mars. 
 
 Denis Gauthier endeavored to contradict Charles Bouchard; but his iestiraony is full 
 of unlikelihoods. Gauthier tries to pass for a Paragon of electoral virtue. Let us hear this 30 
 incorruptible man. " If I had known, says he in his evidence, that Bouchard had voted for 
 Mr. Langevin through fear of losing his place, I, who am for Mr. Langevin, would have 
 expelled him from my lumber-yard." What scnipulous virtue ! Virtue is necessary, but not 
 too much. 
 
 This Very .scrupulous man does not dare to speak to Mr. Tremblay's supporters, no 
 doubt through fear of being led into temptation. He does not speak of the election to any 
 one, even to influence him legally. Nevertheless, hearing that Bouchard is for Mr. Langevin, 
 he brings him to his bed-room, locks the door and asks him if it is really the case that he is 
 for the Respondent. Let us imagine the scene : Gauthier brings in Bouchard, locks the door 
 on him, and when he is quite alone with him says : " Well, it -seems that you are going to 40 
 vote for us." Gauthier does not relate Bouchard's answer. Why such a mystery ? Did Gau- 
 thier bring all Mr. Langevin's jiartisans into his bed-room ? If he did not do so to the others, 
 

 ^ 
 
 <L-<3 
 
 ^^"^^ ^W^ /t ^ L^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 ^^!z:7 
 
 ^^^^^■< — -<_. 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 C^^/^ 
 
 ^.-A_y 
 
 ^//M^r ^vXL^ Y 
 
 i^y 
 
 2^ g? 
 
 
 
 V\^^^ 
 
 ^Z^^^I^^^^j^^ 
 
 A 
 
 ^c^- 
 
 <^:!Le--:> 
 
 ^O 
 
 a^Yf ^^ ^^-^^^^ 
 
 
 ^. ^ ^" 
 
 
 t?\^. 
 
 
 ^^'^^ 
 
 

 •wherefore this pri'lerciice to Bouchard ! lleally if Gauthier supposed that the Court would 
 believe this story, he must have thought it iiossessed of more credulity than it will evince, I 
 am sure. 
 
 7" Threat hy the Respondent to Alfred Dujour. 
 
 Mr. Alfred Dufour is major in thf volunteer militia. He owes his place to the Govern- 
 ment of which Mr. Langevin was a member. Major Dufour brought up as witness gives 
 proof of his intelligence and respectability. His position is worth $120.00 a year, which 
 remuneration costs him but little work ; and consequently for a man who lives by daily 
 work, for he is a blacksmith by invde, it is of great value to him. 
 
 Several persons who daily frequent Mr. Langevin's head-quarters at Theophile Simard's lo 
 hotel warned Dufour, that he ran the risk of losing his place if he continued to work for Mr. 
 Tremblay, of whom he was then a warm supporter. 
 
 He at first took but little notice of these warnings ; but when his father came and 
 repeated the same thing to him, he became alarmed. Maxime Dufour, the Major's father, 
 was brought up as a witness by the defence, and corroborated his sou's testimony on this 
 point. Major Dufour then calls on Mr. Langevin, and relates to him what he has heard. 
 Mr. hangevm Ti^pMcs that '' i{ continues to work for Mr. Tremblay he will he almost certain to 
 lose his phice." ill perdra presqne certainement sa place.) 
 
 From this moment Dufour ceases to work for Mr. Tremblay ; more than that, he pre- 
 tended to work for Mr. Langevin, and he even attended his triumph. Astonished at such a 29 
 conduct, his brother in law, Mr. Danais, reproached him " with having sold himself. " When 
 J am without bread, anstceis D„,uur, you tcilt not give me any.'^ 
 
 It is therefore evidv*nt that Dufour was alarmed by Mr. Langevin's threat. No one 
 dared to attack Dufour's character; on the contrary, the witnesses for the defence declared 
 him to be an honest man. That Dufour should have acted as he did, he must have been 
 strongly impressed by Mr. Langevin's answer and by the threat it contained. The bet 
 which Dufour's father offers to make three or four days before the polling day, that his son 
 will vote for Mr. Langevin, also corroborates the Major's testimony and that of Mr. Danais. 
 Another witness, Epiphane Guillemette, also declared that he had laid a bet or wanted to 
 bet that Dufour had voted for Mr. Langevin. 30 
 
 Dufour's testimony is so clear, so conclusive, that there is no other means to deny the 
 threat charged against the Respondent but saying that Dufour has committed a wilful 
 perjury. Not to speak of the great improbability there is of a man of his position and 
 character committing such a crime without any motive or interest, his testimony is corro- 
 borated by those of his father, of Elzear Danais and of Epiphane Guilmette, as well as by 
 the fact that Dufour's conduct in the election underwent a complete change after the time 
 when he says he was threatened by Respondent, a change that nothing but that threat could 
 explain. 
 
 It has been contended that the threat complained of could not have any effect upon 
 Dufour, his situation being a federal one and Respondent being opposed to the government. 40 
 But that is, first, of no consequence : the law does not require that the threat shall have any 
 
x.^^^^ ^J5/^ ^^^ 
 
 cy 
 
 C^^^^^ 
 
 / 
 
 at/%^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 (^' 
 
 a/ 
 
 l*^ 
 
 / 
 
 r 
 
 
 2^/^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ^^ ^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ ^<^<^ 
 
 z/r 
 
 ^ 
 
 -A/""^^ 
 
 >c^ 
 
 
9 
 
 i^ffect ; th»* attt'mpt to intimidate 18 as niuoli a cornipt piactice aw th«' intimidation itst>lr ; 
 secondly, Dui'our, though he knew that Kobpondent was in oppoHitioi, was prrffctly juMtilied 
 in thinking that a political man of Mr Langevin's pohition, who lor many yrars had been a 
 minister of the Crown, might be influent enough to have him di^mis^ned. He was the more 
 justified in bi-ing afraid of the Respondent that Mr. Langfvin, in his speeches, tried to 
 persuade the electors that the government would soon be defeat<'d and replaced by his own 
 friends. 
 
 As might have been expected, the Itesj^ondent has tried to contradict Pufotir's cvidenc*', 
 hut who is the witness that has been brought up for that purjiosv' ? A nian nr.nied Zcphi- 
 rin Giiillemette. This man had not prepared his plan sufhciently well that it would not be lo 
 defeated. 
 
 Hf had determined on saying that he had remained from y //// 7 ocli^rk hi the door leading 
 from the entrance room fo the parlor in Theophile Simard's house, so (hat he misiht be able to say 
 that no one would have cnii red the parlor where Mr. Langevin was without his knowledge. 
 He begins by saying that there were people in both appartments. (luillemette remains in the 
 door way two hours, watching all that passes in both appartments, talking with about 2'.> or 
 .30 persons concerning election news, but never stirs; he remains always in the door way as if 
 he had been warned that iJufour wns to pass through it. Seeing that the man would swear 
 anything, we made him swear too much. Being surprised himsell at the a])surdity of his first 
 reply, he ended by saying that he had remained seated beside the door. Then, either not to 20 
 be obliged to name his neighbours, or perhaps to prove that Dufour had not come to 
 Simard's, or had not spoken to Mr. Langevin. he ends by saying that there were people only 
 in one room. According to his last reply, he then remains two hours in a room where there 
 was no other person. lie therefore conversed alone for two long hoixrs of election news, 
 and he says that he did not find the time long. 
 
 "VVhy did the Defence not bring up some of the persons, well known to Mr. Langevin, 
 who were at Mr. Simard's that evening, Mr. Tarte for instance. Major Dnfour says that the 
 aristocracy were in the parlor. Guillemette mentioned in his testimony a man named 
 Thomas Laroucho who was at Simard's at the same time. AVe endeavored to bring np that 
 witness at the beginning of our case; a sii})pa?na was served on him, but he refused to 30 
 appear. The same man Larouche came to the Court at the same time as Guillemette, at the 
 Resi>ondent's request ; but for good reasons, no doubt, care was taken that he did not appear 
 as a witness, not to put him in our hands to confirm Guillemette's testimony. Mr. Langevin 
 is therefore alone to cojitradict Dufour's testimony, which we have seen is well supported. 
 How does he contradict it ? He does not say that he did not speak to major Dufour; he says 
 he did not speak to him knowing that he was speaking to major Dufour. This is evidently 
 a confirmation of Dufour's testimony. 
 
 "We now come to the question of clerical undue influence to which this affair owes 40 
 its celebrity. That question, when raised in this case, was not new either in Great Britain 
 or in this country. In Great Britain, the law on the subject, which has never been doubt- 
 ful, which has been applied by the committee of the House of Commons in the Mayo case, 
 in 1857, in the Longford case by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, in the Gal way town case by Mr. 
 Justice Keogh, has been finally settled by the Gahvay county case, in 1872. In Canada the 
 
/Ae . uZ- t^.A^-ny^^e^^u 
 
 y^;;:^ ^fc^^f" <:^ '-v^ 
 
 £?J.x^ 
 
 ^ U.,,^..*^'-^ 
 
 ^^^.^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 d^t^Cc^ 
 
 
 A/y^^^^^-^ 
 
 /I 
 
 6^^^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 /A 
 
 -r 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 A.^n^^.y<^ ..^^^-^^t^ 
 
 / 
 
 ^0<;/ 
 
 
 
 .::A^>ft^^ 
 
10 
 
 same law, whith had hciu applied in the Bagot case by the c<»imnittee of the Canudian House 
 of Commons in 1868, hns been liit.-ly exiMunded and applied in the Bonaventure case by 
 Ju8ti<reH Casault, Majrnire and McC'ord. 
 
 The principles of our la'v on the question of undue intiuence by the clergy, were laid 
 down for the lirst time by that }?rent jurist Sir Samuel Romillv, in the celebrated case of 
 Hu<ruenin vh. Basely, where it was souirht to have a will annulled for this same reason. 
 Here are the words used by this eminent Judge: " Undue inlluence will be used if eccle- 
 siastics makv use ul llieir /n>ir> rs Itt ixrile sitjwrslitioiii fears or /nuns ho/ier ; to inspire, as the 
 object may be best promoted, despair or conlidenee ; lo nlnnn the cnnscieuce by the horrors of 
 eternal misery, or support the drooping spirits by unfolding the prospect ol eternal hap- lo 
 I>iue8s, that good or evil which is never to end." 
 
 The law thus laid down was afterwards applied to elections, as a])ove stated, by the 
 Mayo committee in 1857, which unseated the sitting member for clerical undue inlluence. 
 It was left for Mr. Justice Fitgerald to expound that law in the Longford case. Speaking 
 of what is allowed, and of what is forbidden to the clergy in election matters, he 
 expresses himself in this manner : " he man «"^ appeal to the fears or horrors or superstition of 
 those he addresses. He must not hold out hopes of reward here or hereafter, and he must 
 not use threats of temporal injury, or of disadvantage or of punishment hereafter; he must 
 not for instance, threaten to excommunicate or to withold the sacrements, or to expose the 
 party to any other religious disability, or denounce the voting fOr anij particular candidate as a 20 
 sin, or Its an offence involving punishment here or hereafter. If he does so trith a view to inji-ience 
 
 a voter or to affect an election, the low considers him guilt// of undue injiuence As priestly 
 
 inlluence is so great we miist regard its exercise with extreme jealousy, and seek by the 
 utmost vigilaiu-e to keep it within due and proper bonds." 
 
 What can he more conformable to good sense, than the interpretation given to the law 
 in this matter ? 
 
 If the threat of the loss of any place, if the giving of the smallest sum of money, even 
 25 cents, is suHicient to annul an election, with much more reason should this be the case as 
 regards a man who believes in another world, with threats of the loss of the place which he 
 hopes to occupv there. 
 
 ... 30 
 
 The law does not say, nor do we claim, that the clergy should be deprived of their poli- 
 tical rights ; still less does the law prevent them from instructing the electors on their duty 
 as to elections. They may then, as at all other times, and it is even their duty, to preach on 
 morals, to inculcate virtue, to condemn Aice and error, but they should not threaten nor 
 intimidate any jierson. 
 
 Priests, in one word, have the right of voting, and of discussing all questions of public 
 interest. What the law denies them is the right of doing what others are not allowed to do, of 
 threatening and intimidating the electors, of depriving them of the free exercise of their 
 electoral franchise. The legitimate inlluence of the Priest is not condemned by the law, and 
 it is at the option of the Minister of religion to use it or not within the prescribed limits, ^g 
 Civil law reaches only the abuse of this influence. It does not condemn the existence of the 
 influence of the Priest, no more than it does that of an extensive manufacturer, who employs, 
 for instance, 600 or 700 men. The latter may declare himself in iavor of a candidate, and 
 give him the benefit of his influence. But he becomes guilty of undue influence, if he uses inti- 
 
/ 1/ »_-■«-' / » 
 
 ^^A.^^^^ ^^^^ (■ 
 
 
 
 :<^.A-^^>^><-r 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 /Wc ^i /"^^/^ 
 
 
 /^^^.^A-y-.^-rr^ 
 
II 
 
 midiitioii with rt-giird to bin i-inploviMK, or if he throatfiiM them with th«' lowi of «mploympnt, 
 shoiilil tht-y v»)ti» agaiiiwt his cmididnto. It is not Ifj^ilinnito iiiliut'iict' which is condemned, 
 nor the legal exercise of it ; it is the nhnso of this inlluence It is not the use of thin iniiuenue 
 when appealing to the noble sentiments of respect or of gratitude which leaves full and 
 complete liberty ; it is its use in iippenling to the miserable sentiment of fear anu terror 
 which deprives a man of his liberty, nnd makes a slave o{ him. 
 
 "Who would condemn an influence which iuises from virtue, talents, rich%esk and social 
 position ? Nothing' is more legitimate ;iud useful th:in this inlluence, but it, as well as all 
 good things, may be abused. It can be used to frijrhten, to intimidate and to dei)rive the 
 electors of their liberty. It is this abu>-e w liich the law condemns, be it committed by a lay- !• 
 man or by a Priest. A manufacturer is not nllowed to say to his employer: 1 will discharge 
 you from my employ if you do iu>t vote for such a one, Ijccause it would be an abuse of 
 his influence ; nor does th«' law allow a Minister of religion to say to one whose conscience he 
 directs; " If you vote for siicli a one, you will commit a sin, and consequently you will 
 forfeit hea\en, where 1 am deputed t(. bad you ; I declare to you your place in heaven will 
 be lost. '■ This species of intimidation is more dangeious th:iii the first, becau.se it operates 
 especially on the most respectable electors, on those who have the most profound religious 
 convictions, ^^uch an elector, who would be deaf to any menace of temporal loss will, 
 when his conscien<e exacts it, sacrifice his political convictions, if he believes his salvation 
 requires it, and if he is threatened with the loss of tluil eternal happiness, to the acquirement afr 
 of which liis whole life has been consecrated. On the contrary, the elector who has no 
 conscience, no religicms convictions, who can be })ribed by a f^mall sum, who can be induced 
 to vole agiiintt his opinion by a threat of the slightest petuniary loss, may be threatened 
 with the greatest evils in the next life, and his vote will not be influenced. 
 
 The law on the question of the undue influence of the clergy is so clear, so well esta- 
 blished })y the authorities above quoted, that we do not deem it necessary to enter into 
 any leUL' thy argument to show what it is. We shall content ourselves with answering a 
 contention urged in the court below and adopted by that couil ; it is that the word intimi- 
 dation, in clause 95 of our statute, means intimidation by threats of temporal pains only, and 
 not intimidation by threats of sjuritual i^enalties. The reason given is that the State has not 30 
 that control over the Church, which it has in the moth<r country, and that the catholic 
 church being free according to the Paris tnaty of 1703, law courts can have no jurisdiction 
 over catholic priests for acts done or words .'ptken by Ihtm whiU in the exercise of their 
 ministry. . "^ 
 
 An answer to that reasoning has already been given in the Bonaventure case : The ^. 
 catholic ( hxirch is as free in Great Britain by the emancipation act of lb29, as it is here by the 
 treaty of 17C3 ; tha<^ hov»- ver, has not prevented the British Courts from annulling elections 
 for undue clerical influence. ., 
 
 But there is an( ther answer : when the very words of a statute have been copied lite- 
 rally from an English statute, the meaning of which had been before perfectly well esta- 40 
 blished, by what rules of interpretation could another meaning be given to the same 
 words in Canada than in Great Britain ? It is for that reason that the American Courts have 
 uniformly decided that, whoiiever an English statute is reenacted in the United States, it 
 must there receive the Avell admitted interpretation that it had before received from the ' 
 English Courts. 
 
 '■-4 vN 
 
^^Lv^^^Cc^^^-^ 
 
 C{AA^9--2i.X- 
 
 /7 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^' 
 
 <<^ 
 
 A_€^ 
 
 «C-<^--*:-£-<C-^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 t.^^ — <^^ 
 
 r 
 
 <^^S€-^V^ 
 
 /-^^ 
 
 
 ^z::?^ ^ 
 
 -- — ^ / 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 i/ 
 
 ^..,;^^fc .^^^A:/ 
 
 ^^^^-^ 
 
12 - 
 
 Such being the law on the question of xmtlue clerical influence, before coming to the 
 individual case? of that kind relied upon by the Petitioners, we shall make a few remarks on 
 the question of agency, on the mnnner in which such a connection may bo established 
 between a candidate and the clergy, as to render him liable for the consequences of their 
 acts or words, in as far at least as regards his seat. We shall do that once for all, the relations 
 of the Respondent with all the incrimated priests haA'ing been almost the same. 
 
 In the Limerick case. Baron Fitzgerald has expressed himself on this subject in the 
 following manner : " As Mr. Coffey said, if this be essentially aHoman catholic city and if 
 the influence of theRoman catholic clergy be enormous, if, more than that, from the position 
 of the majority of the Roman catholic electors in the city, they naturally look to better lo 
 educated men than themselves for the management of their temporal as well a.s spiritual 
 affairs, if that be so, bearing in mind the organised condition of thoR'oman catholic clergy, 
 and the f\vct that in every parish in this city there are at least two or three clergymen, 
 60 connected with the poor class of voters, a question arises in which as a body this 
 clergy is interested. If they make the cause of the candidate their own, and give him 
 the benefit of having what may be equivalent in its effects upon the election to a 
 committee-room conducted by themselves in every parish, they being the canvassers, 
 and if it then turns out, at the time of the election, that the candidate represents his 
 cause as indentical with that of the clergy, and publicly gives out that the cjucstion between 
 him and h s adversary is, whether the clergy shall be put down or raised up, and is accom- 20 
 panied by them through the streets canvassing ; if that be so, thorgh the particular cler- 
 gyman of the parish be not the party who accompanied the candidate in canvassing, I, for 
 my part, will doubt long before I say that the candidate is not, so fivr as his sitting in parlia- 
 ment is concerned, responsible for the acts of those parties in their several districts and 
 parishes." 
 
 One would think that Baron Fitzgerald was speaking of the Charlevoix election. Indeed, 
 taking into account the differences resulting from the differences of places, the conduct 
 of the clergy and of the candidate in the two elections appears to have been absolutely the 
 6amt>. According to the evidence, it is clear that Mr. Langeviu had placed his election in 
 the hands of the clergy. Without the assurance given him by Mr. Onesime Gauthier, that he 30 
 would have the support of the clergy, and that he could most certainly rely on this powerful 
 inllueiice, he Avould never have come to the county of Charlevoix. He has made this 
 acknowledgment in his evidence, and it was Mr. Gauthier who acted as his agent with ^_^ 
 the clergy. 
 
 At the public meetings Mr. Langtnin declared he had the support of the clergy and that 
 the electors sJ.ou'd hear the voice of their pastors. At Eboulements, at a public meeting where 
 Mr. Langevm was present and at which he announced his candidature, while the Honor- 
 able Mr. Cauchon was asserting that all the clergy had not declared themselves in favor of 
 Mr. Langeviu, the reverend Mr. Gosselin, virnire of that parish, was called as a witness by 
 Mr. Langeviii's friends, and opening an attic window of the presbytery, declared publicly 40 
 in a w^ay that he could be heaid by all the assembly, that the clergy of the Conty had 
 unanimously chosen Mr. Laugei-in, and had promised lo suj)/>orl hint. This fact alone suffices to 
 show that Mr. Langeviu had constituted all the cvn's of the county his auents, and that 
 he then accepted the responsability of their acts. How can he, after that, deny the agency 
 of the cures. 
 

 r \ 
 
 ly^Y' 
 
 A/U 
 
 r 
 
 /-'^/'(^ ^^ 
 
 
 / 4 >^£-^__^^^^j^ 
 
 
 (^e^) 
 
 IVVi^ <-*^/ 
 
 C<jC / ^ 
 
 ? 
 
 __^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 
13 
 
 8" Intimidation by Reverend Mr. Cinq-Mars, upon theHonian catholic electors of St. Fidile. 
 
 Let us now come to the first case of clerical undue influence we have to deal with, 
 that of Reverend 'Mr. Cinq-Mars. That case is twofold: 1° Intimidation committed upon 
 Narcipse Bouchard and Johnnj- Des^biens individually : 2° Intimidation upon all theHomau 
 catholic electors of St. Simeon. 
 
 The facts with regard to Narcitse Bouchard are as follows : Bouchard was taking Mr. 
 Cinq-Mars to his place to adminisler the sacraments to a sick person. On the way up to Bou- 
 chard's, Mr. Cinq-Mars commenced talking of the election, and i^aid to Bouchard that voting 
 for Mr. Tremblay was a grave sin (un cas de conscience). This was a few days before the 
 poUinn-, and it was Mr. Cinq-Mars who con.menced talking on that subject. lo 
 
 On the same occasion, Johnny Desbiens, Bouchard's brother-in-law living in the same 
 house, took Mr. Cinq-Mars back to the presbytery. When there, the cure commenced talking 
 of the election, and said to Ue&hiens that voting for Mr. Tremblay was a mortal sin. 
 
 Great efibrts were made by Respondent to show that Desbiens, made a statement in 
 writin"- diiierent from his testimony. But it is useless to examine that point, because Mr. 
 Oinq-Mars himself heard as a witness by the defence proves that he said the words attributed 
 to him, but with that aggravating circumstance that he said them not to Desbiens alone, 
 but also to William Savard, and to Francois Bergeron. Later on he repeated the same words 
 to Michel Tremblay and to one Dallaire. 
 
 a* 
 
 Johnny Desbiens was brought up a second time by the defence, and this illiterate man 
 repeated word for word, what he had said when first examined. 
 
 AVhen we heard that Revd. Mr. Cinq-Mars was to be brought up, we expected that gentle- 
 man was coming to prove that he had not said it was a mortal sin to vote for Mr. Tremblay; 
 but, to our ureat surprise, it was only to contr: diet an insignificant detail of Desbiens' testi- • 
 mony. I)esl)ieus had declared that Savard and Bergeron were not present when the cure 
 spoke to him of the election ; Mr. Cinq-Mars came to say that they were present, which 
 only aggravates the case. 
 
 And with respoct to this detail, why did not the defence bring up Fran<;ois Bergeron 
 and William Savard to corroborate Mr. Ciiiq-Mars' testimony? The Court Avill be astonished 
 at the testimony given by this Reverend gentleman ; several times, he, at lirst. declined to 30 
 answer, he often took upon himself to indicate the manner in which he wished to be ques- 
 tioned, and two or three limes. he even ordered the questions to put in writing, 10 have the 
 time to prepare his answers. He admitted, almost by force, that he had read and com- 
 mented upon the Bi.^hops' pastoral letter, and that he had given to understand that Mr. Trem- 
 blay was a liberal catholic, that he was a dangerous man, and that one could not vote for 
 him without committing a grave sin. When Mr. Cinq-Mars' interrogatory on the re-exami- 
 nation was continued, two days after having been heard on the cross-questions, he a( know- 
 ledged having read his first testimony, and having spoken of it to Mr. Relleticr ^counsel for 
 the Respondent) to prepare himself for the re-examination, a fact contrary to all rules of 
 evidence, and which renders this pait of his testimony valueless. ,.^ 4» 
 
 William Savard was brought up by the defence, but he was not questioned with regard 
 
' /ui'd^i^ Tf^^:^' c-L^^^- ^ 
 
 dc9 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 -n 
 
 X., Ar^'^ ^^--^ "^ 
 
 ^?/^<^ /^^ ^ 
 
 
 ^^^C^ 
 
14 
 
 to the conversation held at tht> presbytery of St. Sinn'on ; n fact which proves that this 
 witness could not contradict Johnny Desbiens, even on the insiguiHcant detail for which 
 Mr. Cinq-Mars was brought up 
 
 9" Inlimidalion by Rev. Mr. W. E. Trtmblot/, iifioti the Roman Ciitholir electms of Si. Fidile. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Tremblay, cure of St. Fidele. is guilty of spiritual intimidation, first, in regard 
 to Johnny Tremblay, merchant, of that parish, a very intelligent man, and who gave a very 
 exact account of his conversation with the cure. The real meaning of the cur»*'s words is 
 that it was a nin to vote for Mr. Tremblay. The cure exempted from .s/w only those who 
 were ignorant and who did not understand the explanation.'^ he had given on the pasto- 
 ral letter of the Bishops. Undoubtedly a man sins only in as much as he knows lo 
 he does wrong. To Johnny Tremblay, as well as to his pniishioners, the cure of St. 
 Fidele said it was a sin to vote for Mr. Tremblay, but added that those who did not know 
 what Mr. Tremblay was, would not commit that sin. " As for me," said he, ' knowing as I 
 ^lo, that party, I would believe I would commit a sin in voting for him.' The Rev. cnr6 
 gave an account to the Archbishop of this part of his sermon, and the expressions which he 
 made use of in his letter to the Archbishop, were corroborated by the witnesses for the De- 
 fence. 
 
 Johnny Tremblay also established the fact Iha! the cure said theie ira.< no difference 
 between catholic, liberalism and political liberalism, which has not been contradicted by any 
 witness. 20 
 
 According to Denis Gauthier, the cure ended his sermon with a threat which would 
 most effectually inlluenee his congregation. 
 
 Alluding to the liberals whom he accused of wishing to confine the priest in the sacristy, 
 he said that " God loouli jierhai's permit that they ivould die suddenly, and the priest icoidd remain 
 in the sacristy and could not go to administer the rights of the Church to them." 
 
 10" Intimidation by Rev. Mr. Doiicet upon Denis Harvey. 
 
 Denis Harvey, a respectalde farmer of the parish of Malbaie, declares that the Reverend 
 Mr. Doiicet, cure of that parish, said nothing in the pulpit against Mr. Tremblay: it was in 1 
 private conversations that he spoke against him. Denis Harvey seemed pained at being ^ 
 obliged to tell what his cure, for whom he has great esteem, said to him. 
 
 He has heard reports of sermons preached by the cures of the other parishes of the county ; 
 he is alarmed on being told that i? Mr Tremblay is elected, religion will be abolished before ttvo 
 years have elapsed. He goes to his cure expressly to consult him. Mr. Doucet says to him that 
 it is true Mr. Tremblay, his parishioner, is a perfectly honest man, capable of rendering great 
 services to the country, but that he supports <i dangerous party. " / will read the pastoral letter 
 of the bishops, ncrt Sunday,'' he adds : " nftcr that, those who wish to losp their souls may do so, 
 (ceux qui vondront se lerdre se perd ontJ' ) Denis Harvey declares he understood that these 
 words were directed against Mr. Tremblay, and certainly he could not otherwise understanc 
 therh. 
 
 This fact related by Denis Harvey is very important, not on account of its intrinsic value, ^o 
 but as it establishes how vinanimous the cures wore ajrainst Mr. Tremblav. Mr. Doucet is " 
 
 -' i 
 

 
 ^t^A_-^ 
 
 d..\.^ 
 
 / 
 
 ^ /^^.^ 
 
 4^/ ^/^<? 
 
 ^. 
 
 t^ 
 
 /" 
 
 ^^ C^^C^TC^ 
 
 'f^A/ 
 
 /' / 
 
 
 r 
 
 CvT^^U/ o- (^^^t^^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 4 
 
 U ly ^^ ^-^^^—^^^ 
 
 /T 
 
 ^v^^^/c^^^^-c-^-t-" 
 
 ;^yLA,-^ 
 
 /. 
 
 'C^lA/^-^ 
 
 
 (^^^ ^'^^G^^^^^^^C-e 
 
 
 ^A^ <^( 
 
 /-^fe^ /^<^ /6t^ 
 
known to bo a very moderat*; man, n priest of en'raplary pi udence ; he never interfered in 
 politics. So much so that in the preceding elections his opinions could not even be surmised. 
 Rut wi this election, the action of the clergy was so decided that he could not resist the 
 ujovemcnt, and was carried as it were against his will, by the force of the current. 
 
 ir I/itimif/dtion by Ihe Reverfnd Mr. i trots, on the Roman Catholir tlecton of Bay St. I'nuf. 
 
 I come lO the most important fact of spiritual intimidation. The Reverend Mr. Sirois, 
 cure of Bay St. Paul, was the soul of the organisation prepared by the clergy of the county 
 to secure Mr. Langevin's election, the means employed being that of threatening the electors 
 with eternal torments, if they had the misfortune of voting for Mr. Treniblay. "We find 
 nothing stronger in the Galway trial ; we see the same violent and abusive expres- lo 
 sions. From the preceding lall to the end of the election, in January, Mr. Sirois did not cease . 
 to preach against Mr. Tremblay and his party. 
 
 The priests of Galway were always speaking of Cromwell, well-known throughout all 
 Ireland for his tyranny towards Catholics; to alarm the electors, Mr. Sirois madf use of the 
 names of Garibaldi and Victor Ennnauuel, well-known throughout all our country parishes 
 for having deprived tlie Sovereign Pontiff of his States. There are not in the province 
 of Quebec many foreign personages so generally known as Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi, 
 in as much as every Sunday prayers are offered in our churches for the temporal reesta- 
 blishment of the Pope. Petitioners brought up 17 witnesses from Bay St. Paul, who all agree 
 as to the meaning of cure Sirois' words and as to the strongest expressions such as : " Srajfofd, ao 
 the blood of priests, falsf jn'ophets, false Chrisis, venomous set /tents," expressions used against 
 Mr. Tremblay and his friends. 
 
 After having heard the testimony of Mr. Piquet, member of the local legislature, 
 whose integrity and intelligence no one will question, and who, while Mr. Sirois' sermon was 
 still fresh in his memory, made, with the assistance of two friends who had been present 
 with him in the Church, a complete analysis of the sermon of the 16th of January, I was 
 astonished to see the Kespondent bringing up 40 or 50 witnesses to contradict the witnesses 
 of the Petitioners. 
 
 lie feigned not to understand that even 200 witnesses who do not recollect are not ^o 
 worth one witness who c?oe.s recollect. 
 
 The system established for the witnesses of the Kespondent, was not to remember, and 
 to say that the Cure did not name Mr. Tremblay, as if in an election where only two can- 
 didates are in the field it was necessary to designate them by their names. Witnesses were 
 made to say the most impossible things, enough to make one's hair stand on end. Although 
 they had heard Mr. Cure Sirois thundering for one hour or an hour and a half, against Mr. 
 Tremblay and his friends, call them false prophets, false Christs, venomous serpents, they swore 
 positively that he did not show for whom he was. It was truly revolting to hear people 
 perjure themselves in such a dreadful manner. 
 
 A witness for the defence, "Winceslas Tremblay, put before the Court an analysis of Mr. ^q 
 Siroi.s' sermon of the 16th of Januaiy. This analysis had been prepared by Mr. Sirois 
 himself to be sent to the Archbishop of Quebec. The Court will remark that the witness 
 said it was only an analysis : Well we find in it exactly the substance of the sermon as 
 
 
T^ ^L^-L^ -" 
 
 ^'^^ 
 
 *-^*v>^^ 
 
 
 C^ 
 
 J^^^-u^ ^^^-^-"i^^l^^^*^ 
 
 "-<c 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^ A 
 
 < 
 
 
 ^^xz:±- ^-^ ;7^' ^^^^--^^Tf^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 X^u*/ 
 
 
 ^^^Le-t^^-e^^ ^^L<_^ 
 
 S^-^7'i9^-C^-^~^ 
 
 -'- 1^ 
 
 xr 
 
 ^—^^^^l.-<J 
 
 aJV-) 
 
 /.Cc f 
 
 ^L^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^L 
 
 ^i^ 
 
 y. M^^ 
 
 . .^/v /^^/^t:^^^ - 
 
related by Mr I'aquet Mr. Moril Houchard, a lawyer, and a supporter of Mr. Lan«Ti'vin, 
 doolared that Mr. Sirois' sermon last«d one hoxir or one hour and a half. We can imagine 
 what a man so violent as Mr. Sirois can have said with such a ground work. It is easy to 
 suppose the impre.>-sion produced by such a discourse, in which the .speaker recalls the horrors \ 
 of the French Revolution, on such men as Octave Simard, for instance, this respectable 
 citizen, a Churchwarden of 15a y St. Paul, who related in Court, with so much precision and 
 exactitude, what he had heard. 
 
 "When questioned as to the eflects of the sermon on him, he says he had alwavs been in ^ 
 favor of Mr. Tremblay, that he continued lo say he was for him during the election, but in 
 the end the Ncrmons of the cure had changed his convictions. It was painful to see the air lo 
 of humiliation with which that honest man acknowledged /hat he had been ninrmetl by the 
 sermon of the cure, and was obliged lo saij he had voted ngaiiD^t his derid'd ronvirfions. The 
 object of the sermon was evidently to frighten Mr. Tremblay's supporters. It was only those 
 who thought they knew more than the cure, or who were determined to risk their eternal 
 salvation, who would after that sermon vote for Mr. Tremblay. A witness who communi- 
 cated to us the anxiety he had experienced, said to us : " I was very much embarrassed, 
 but finally I .-^aid to myself: I hope I shall not die suddenly, and after voting for Mr. Tn-m- 
 blay, I shall have time to go to confession and obtain the pardon of my sin. 
 
 The sermon preached on Christmas day, which several witiiesses have mentioned, leaves 
 no doubt as to tlie part which Mr. Sirois intended to play in the election. " \ certuia candi- io 
 date came to see me, said he in this sermon ; if I h \d been at home, I would have turned him 
 out ( je I'aurais chasse), do the same to hivi." It was well known that Mr. Tremblay was at 
 that time the only candidate in the Held, and the only one who was in the parish on Christ- 
 mas eve. 
 
 I think it proper to cite to the Court this other passage of a sermon reported by Mr. 
 Sirois himself to his Lordship, the Archbishop, and which Petitioners have proved by the 
 witnesses for the Dei'enci' : " They (the liberals) will do so much that they vill uiimnsli them- 
 selves and will show themselves as they are. so as lo leave no doubt as to their aim. There are some 
 whose hearts are so hiacic that if a reliij^ious persecution was to break- out at this monirz/t, they would 
 be the first to hold the rojie or th'' knif that would give us the death blow. In hlniiiiiiix and rriticis- 30 
 ing as they do the word of d'od and of his ministers, in presenre of their children certain jiarents 
 assume a terrible res/ionsibility btjhre God. When they will be dead and reduced to a^hcs they will 
 have left children u-ho perhaps will be ready to steeji their hands in the blood of the jiriesls, if ever 
 a religious persecution broke out." And all this because some pe irons said that the cure was 
 too violent a partisan of Mr. Langevin. 
 
 Mr. Paquet, member for Levis, who had gone expressly from Quebec to Bay St. Paul, to 
 address the electors of that parish, on the Itith of Januavy, in Mr. Tremblay's interest, did 
 not dare to do so. fearing a riot, as the cure's sermon had created so much excitement. 
 
 Flavien Cote, heard as witness, arrives home two days after the sermon ; his daughter- 
 in-law describes to him the terror of the people : " every one has turned over, said she ; and if 40 
 you ha b en at Church, she added, you would hive been frightened as tcell as the others. " 
 
 As in Galway it was the women who were the most impressed, and to have peace 
 in their houses, the husbands were forced to vote for the Cure's candidate. The faint * 
 
A. 
 
 
 / 
 
 7^ 
 
 ^^ ^^-^^^^^^-^-^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 ;^^ 
 
 7^ 
 
 
 ,r 
 
 
 ^tX "^^v ^^--yC^^'^-y^c^ 
 
 y/'XAyC-^'-'*^ 1^ P-*t>A-^ *C-C> 
 
 .A^. 
 
 <>^ 
 
 ^^^cX <^ 
 
 ^4(^ 
 
 VtA^a^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 <> 
 
 . 7 
 
 ^ .^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 n^L^A^-i^ t. 
 
 
 C^t^\^-VL^ 
 
 d 
 
 ^^ ^^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 {Z<L^/^k^ "^ ^/u-c^^ ^^-^-«^- 
 
 ^^^ 
 
n 
 
 aiiiilysis piojuced in Court by Winci'slas Tn'inblay, sufficiently iudicutos the wild remarkH of 
 the Curt', the sceno must have been terrible and the terror created almoKt general 
 
 An old man named Jean Larouche, a warm supportt-r of Mr. Tremblay, being too deaf 
 to hear what the priest said in the Church, is so frii,Mitt'ned by what he has heard of the 
 sermon in the parish, that he vot»s ;igainst Mr. Tremblay, and also prevents his son, a warm 
 partisan to vote for the liberal caiulidate. 
 
 Thomiis Perron, a witness in this trial, and who rt-maiiit'd at horn.' on that Sunday, relates 
 that the people returned home from Church in the greatest consternation The report made 
 to him of the sermon had so frightened him that he did not dare to vote. 
 
 Let us put ourselves in the place of those poor people, and let us imagine the effect lo 
 produced on them by the threat of the most terrible calamities, o{ sirk/iiss, of the /oss of their 
 rrops (ui'l of eteniril /muislniieHfs. 
 
 The Dei'ence tried to prove by means of witnesses drilled for the purpose, that the cure 
 had spoken of misfortunes which might happen far in the future. Let use read the analvsis 
 made by the cure himself; it speaks in the present : the revolution which is to destroy 
 religion is just going to break out. 
 
 Joseph Bouchard, a witness brought by the Respondent proved that, since the preeeeding 
 autumn, • Mr. Sirois did not cease to speak about elections in the pulpit, and th;it each 
 Sunday Mr. Tremblay lo.*t some supporters." According to witnesses worthy of eonfldenee 
 and who were ac(juaiiited wiih the dispositions of the electors, Mr. Tremblay should have 20 
 had 150 of a majority at Bay St. Paul, and he was in a minority of 1-33 votes. 
 
 The Kespondent could find witnesses like "Winceslas Trembh^y and Luc Siniard to 
 swear any thing, to say that the cure's sermons produced no eli'eet : but it is not to Mr. 
 Langeviii's pirtisans we should go to ascertain this result, to people p:edisposed in his 
 favor, and who must have chieliy met electors favorable to the same jiarty ; it is amonixst 
 Mr. Trembly's friends we should inquire to know the impression produced by the sernioms 
 of the cure and the change produced on the electors. 
 
 12' hilimii/iiliou biy llic Utceretiil Mr. Lmi'^laif. itpou (he Roman Calholic eltcfursof Si. llilarion. 
 
 For forcible and violent denounciations of Mr. Tremblay and of his party, for the desire 
 to prevent by terror all the electors from voting for the liberal cundidute, Mr. Sirois has had a 30 
 rival in ^Ir. Langlais. and it would be hard to .say which must car^-y the price. 
 
 It is proved by Mr. Reul Asselin. Zephirin Savard, Zephirin Bergeron, and all the other 
 witnesses of the retitioners, that the citrt distinctly said, that it was a mortal or a grave 
 sin to vote for Mr. Tremblay, and that at the hour of death the electors would prefer 
 having followed the banner of the Pope, than that of Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi. 
 Was it possible to tell them more clearly that if they voted for Mr. Tremblay, eternal 
 damnation would be the consequence ? 
 
 The Respondent, feeling the importance of that evidence, and seeing that if left incon- 
 tradicted, it would upset his election, has tried to destroy it by bringing as many as 18 
 
^. 
 
 6^^^—^ 
 
 
 
 2_ 
 
 x^*^ 
 
 ^:^ 
 
 
witn»»s8<»H from that ninull iiiul iliHtaiit [lariHh, ufler huviiii>; l>r<>u«,'h( ihcin logotht'r »t «he 
 fuesbytew, and given thorn a good drilling to propare tht'm to give their evidence. , 
 
 The witnesses IVoui St. llilarion brought by the Respondent to <'ontradiet our witnesiiea 
 often reminded one of the Italian brought up as a witness in the trial of Queen Charlotte, in 
 England, and who iiivarial)ly answert d to all embarrassing qnestionH : " Nonmi remnlo" "I 
 dti not renunihfr." Having hei-n previously assembled at the cur»'''s, they had agreed on a 
 pass-word ; to all questions put to them to obtain the words or the meaning of the words of 
 the Reverend Mr. Langlais, they repeated the " non mi rei-'tn/o," '■ I Uo not remember." Un- 
 fortunately f<»r them, but fortunately for the Petition«'rs. they had signetl, at the request of 
 the cur»''. a solemn declaration prepared by the cure himself, and ( ontaining an analysis of lo 
 the sermon, preached in the Church of St. llilarion, on the lOth of January. After having 
 denied in answer to the questions of the Counsel for the Defence nearly everything i*ontained 
 in the declaration, ^hey admitted immediately afterwards, in the cross-examination, having 
 signed the declaration \vhi«h I have just alluded to, that is to say, they swore for and against, 
 without appearing to feel the least embarrassment. Without this declaration, the I\'titioner» 
 would have Iteen in the impo.s.sibility ot knowing by the numerous witnesses for the Defence, 
 what was the meaning of the cure's sermon. They were so decided to swear anything, that 
 t.hey positively denied the most striking expressions contained in the declaration that they 
 had signed. Some ol' them went so far as to swear that it was impossible to find out, by the 
 sermon, that the curt'- sympathized with one candidate more than with the other. The •• 
 analysis alone of the sermon sent by the cure to His Lordship the Archbishop, and which 
 was proved by the witnesses for the Defence, is sixfRcient to annul the election. The cur6 
 declares havin-j .said to his parishioners. " it iras a sin to vote for the liberal party, and that at 
 the houi of dtalh those irho would have rotedfor that party, icoiild rei^ret having followed Garibaldi 
 and Victor Emmanuel in preference to the Pope and the bishops." 
 
 13 Intimidation by the Reverend Mr. Fafard on the Roman Catholic elect, ins of St Urbain. 
 
 The violent language of the Reverend Mr. Fafard, Cure of St. Urbain. shows that he 
 was not K'ss decided than his confrires to force tht* electors to vote for the Respondent. 
 
 Two witnes.ses, Pitre Gilbert and Dominique Duchesne, have related the sermon 
 preached by the Reven-nd Mr. Fafard, on the IGth of January. Their testimony agrees .10 
 perfectly with the solemn declaration sent, shortly after the election, to His Grace the 
 Archbishop of Quebec, and prove<l by the witnesses lor the defense. This declaration forms 
 part of the record. 
 
 The defence tried to discredit Pitre Gilbert one of the witnesses for the Appellants, 
 but on what do they found their assertions ? 
 
 On the fact that Gilbert had been condemned by the Court for having sold liquor 
 without a license, and on the fact that he had become bankrupt. Amongst the numerous 
 ■witnesses from St. Urbain, brought up by the defence, there was not one who could give a 
 single reason why Gilbert should not be perfectly credible on oath. 4* 
 
 Those witnesses, who had been previously well prepared for that purpose, swore that 
 the Revd. Cure Fafard had made them sign a declaration, contradicting in every point, the 
 

 <-</ 
 
 
 W ^^' i^^-^ /'^ 
 
 
 

 one signed by P.tre Gilbert and Xavior Girard, and consequently, contradicting the testi- 
 mony of Gilbert and Duchesne. 
 
 Being rxamined on each point in particular, they all made important admissions, Avhich 
 completely destroyed the first part of th^-ir evidence. Theri' was also among them an honest 
 man whose conscience could not be stifled, and who had the courajre to admit the <Treater 
 portion of the truth. We wish^"ourt had been enabled to notice the feeling of terror by 
 which this man, Cleophas Thibault, was seized, when he w;is commanded to say all that he 
 knew, and that which his conscience and the sanctity ofhi^ oath ol)liged him to reveal. Thi- 
 bault confirmed in all their most important details the t' sliijioni"s of Gilbert and Duchesne. 
 
 He alone had the frankness to ackuowltdge a grave fact, dt>niod by all the other lo 
 witnesses from St. Urbain, and which was so recent that it conld not have escaped their 
 memory. It is this : immediately.JoL-fore tlKir coming to appear as witnesses in this trial, 
 Mr. Ouesime Gaulhier, member of the local Legislature had assembled them at, his house, 
 to instruct them with regard to the testimony tliey were to give. All the other witnesses 
 for the Defence, from St. Urbain, must Ihcu have p^-rjured th'-mselves on this point. "What 
 then is the remainder of their e\ideiice worth ? Even if this proof of perjury did not exist 
 against them, their testimony would still be of no value, for ^ve made them admit they had 
 denied all Pitre Gilbert's declaration, which v> as on the whole perfectly correct, merely 
 because it made Rev. Mr. Fafard to say, " latdu Lscapalfmrn i riwn " instead of only •' escaped 
 from //rison. "What should we think of \\iLuesses, who, to deceive His Grace the Archl)ishop 20 
 had recourse to such shuffling. It is established even by the evidence for the Defence, that 
 the Rev. Mr. Fafard spoke of Mr. Treuiblay as a - stubborn headed man," and of his support- 
 ers, as " heartless people " (Gens sans ca-ur) that he ridiculed the residents of " la Decharge " 
 w^ho were supporters of Mr. Tremblay, for having hold meeiings in his favor. It is established 
 that he said that those people ought to remember that if they had been able to sow their 
 lands, in the preceeding spring, it wis dt/e lu the assistance Ihey had received from their cur€ 
 and from the farmers in good circumstances, giving clearly to understand that if they would 
 vote in favor of Mr. Tremblay, the same assistance would be refused them in future. 
 
 There i ; one point on which all the witn •sses, without exception, agreed ; it is this : that 
 Rev. Mr. Fafard called Gilbert, Mr. Tremblay's chief supporter, an escaped prisoner, 30 
 " echappe de prison." "We may take the liberty of remarking that Rev. IMr. Fafard has a singu- 
 lar manner of practising christian charity. Even if this had been true, it certainly should not 
 have been mentioned in the pulpit, but what is still much more serious, is the fact that Mr. 
 Fafard deliberately asserted against Gilbert what he knew to be an abominable calumny. 
 Let us judge from this of the manner in which he must have dealt out spiritual threats. 
 
 The effect of such language with reference to one of Mr. Tremblay's principal supporters 
 in a parish such as St. Urbain, where the Cure has always had great influence, may be easily 
 understood. 
 
 If it can be said that Gilbert is " an escaped prisoner" (un echappe de prison) because he 
 paid a line instead of going to goal, the same epithet might be used in reference to Mr. Tarte, 40 
 Mr. Langevin's election agent, who also avoided going to goal in the same manner, by pay- 
 ing a fine of $40. 
 
F 
 
 rUfyu^-^-^' 
 
 a>^4 ^(^ ^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 X- 
 
 yat^ 
 
 ^yU_^ 
 
 i> 
 
 J\ 
 
 ) 
 
 
 ^dyy, 
 
 Jl/^ 
 
 "U 
 
 Oic.^ 
 
 <^^et>i^ 
 
 ^<_^ 
 
 ' /^^Ci. ^<^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^^-"^LJ, 
 
 / 
 
 
 '^CW 
 
 Ata.— ^-^ 
 
 Zt 
 
 ir 
 
 ^/- ^^z^Z_^^- 
 
 
 
 Ko^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 AA^ 
 
 64^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
20 
 
 The testimony of Cleophas Thibault is overwhelming against Mr. Fafard and against 
 the witnesses for the Defense who concealed an important portion of the truth. 
 
 In the Galway election trial, the Judge declared Rev. Mr. Loftus guilty of intimida- 
 tion, merely on account of his having said of one of Captain Trench's canvassers that he was 
 a blackguard. 
 
 o ' 
 
 lO 
 
 14" Intiviidalion by the Reverend Mr. Roy, upon the Roman Caiho'ic electors of St. Irenee. 
 
 We find in the account given of tho .'^ermon preached by Reverend Mr. R*y, cure of the 
 parish of St. Irenee, on 10th January, similar threats to those made by certain Priests of the 
 covinty of Galway. Because there had been some disturbance at a meetin"-. held on the 
 evening of the preoceeding Sunday, the cure di'prived the parishioners of High Mass. He 
 also threatened them with going away, and leaving them without a Priest, if there should 
 be any further disturl)an(i!?. " You are strong here " said he in addressing Mr. Tremblay's 
 supporters, but go to Eboulements, you will see you are not so strong there." 
 
 The Respondent, to contradict the irrefutable proof of the petitioners, brought up a 
 dozen witnesses of the " non mi recordo" kind' " I do not remember" or " I do not understand.'' 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 These witnesses had the audacity to say that the cure did not speak of the election, that he 
 
 did not make known his opinion, that they were not aware whether he was for Mr. Langevin 
 or for Mr. Tremblay. Through respect for the Court, I will not cite the vulgar expressions 
 used 1)y the Rev. Mr. Roy on this occasion, according to the witnesses of the Respondent. 
 
 II. F.\CT.S OF A GENERAIi CHAR.4.CTER. 3© 
 
 1" Insufficienry of Rc^poadoiCs account of election cxjiens'S. 
 
 To prevent any illegal expenses tho law (37 Vict., ch. 9, sect. 121), enaets that no election 
 expense shall be paid otherwise than by an agent v.'hose name must be given to the returning 
 officer and published by him. The law makes an exception only for personal expenses 
 which may })e i>aid by the candidate himself More than this, the agent named by the 
 candidate to pay his el^-ction expenses must, with'n the two months after the election, 
 furnish the returning officer with a DETAILED account of all the election expenses of the 
 candidate, comprising his personal expense.s, sect. 128. Clause 12.5 expliins what are the 
 personal expenses that clause 121 allows the candidate h'mself to pay. 
 
 What are the consequences of the no^i-observance of that law ? Some of them are indie- 30 
 ated by the law itself, I m(>an penalties. We will not here mention them. Eut there is 
 another which is very important, based upon numerous precedents, and which has a 
 direct relation to this ca.se ; it is that the non production of the account required entails a 
 presumption that corrupt -■■•actici s have been employed, and the candidate is obliged to 
 destroy that presumption if he wanis to keep his seat. 0. & H, a'oI. 1, p 20 and "8 : 19 L. 
 T. N. S., p. 718. In this case it is not for the Petitioners to prove the illegality of the 
 expenses of the Respondent, it is for him to establish their legality. 
 
 The law requiring a -detailed account, it is not enough to produce an account by 
 heads of expenses ; an account by items is necessary, except in cases where it would be 
 practically impossible. Ibid. ^° 
 
J 
 
 tx^'Cu 
 
 
 -C^\^(^ 
 
 /sy ^' /^ 
 
 J 
 
 J^ (^Ax^H^-t^^^-^^ 
 
 
 
 ,^ ^_^ A-^z^ -^ '"^f^ 
 ^ 
 
 /^y^ ^5.^ 
 
 // 
 
 t:i^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^?^ ^^t^^ 
 
 c c^f X'^-<-^^ 
 
 /?Z^^' 
 
 (r 
 
 ^^-Cc^ 4_J^^ 
 
 ^-^^^^ ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 Vr^ytyi^ 
 
 t/F ^UVU^ 
 
 ^/^C^4(^y(Ayi/'<.^<^ 
 
 / 
 
 ^-LA^ 
 
 ^^iI^Z.^>--y^ 
 
 Jr 
 
 ^^^M. 
 
 ^n- 
 
21 
 
 This is the law. Let us now see wether the Respondent has conformed to it. He should 
 have conformed to it the more strictly, as the amount of his expenses was of a nature to excite 
 suspicion. The sum is of $1,088, not including the personal expenses. The total forms about 
 $1 a head for each elector who voted for the Respondent. What accounts did he furnish ? 
 Only one of those accounts by heads declared insuflicient by the authorities. It contains 
 items like the following: Personal expenses, $155 ; carters for calling meetings, $218 ; board 
 and travelling expenses paid to Arsone Simard, Mrs. Riverin, Ismael Lavoie, Lapierre, Alfred 
 Filion, Theophile Simard, $371.43. 
 
 If, as in the Quebec East case, a satisfactory explanation had been given of these three 
 items, which form more than half of the expenses of the Respondent, no unfavorable pre- lo 
 sumption would be created against him by his not having produced a detailed account. Quebec 
 Law Reports, a^oI. 1, page 305. But this was not done. 
 
 As to the item of $218, carters for convening meetings, the Respondent has not 
 given a satisfactory explanation of the same. The one given by Mr. Tarte, is that 
 the money was expended from day to day and paid by him at once. This suggests 
 several remarks : V Mr. Tarte having, as he says, kept an account of the sums, why did 
 he not file that account with the Returning Officer ? 2° Mr. Tarte having remained at 
 Bay St. Paul during the whole time of the election, if, as he says, the expenses were 
 paid as soon as incurred, they must have been incurred at Bay St. Paul. So that $218 
 must have been spent in that single parish, under color of convening meetings, whereas 20 
 in all the other parishes we only find an expenditure of $2 for the same purpose. Mr. 
 Tarte, the Respondent's election agent, in his testimony, says, that as many as five meet- 
 ings were held in Bay St. Paul alone in a single evening. It is quite evident that there 
 could be no use for so many meetings in a single evening, and that most of them were 
 nothing but a blind to pay the services of a great many so called carters, and secure the sup- 
 port of those who always go to the side where there is money to be obtained. Bearing in 
 mind the change, proved in the record, of the political opinions of that parish, one is com- 
 pelled to come to the conclusion that the largest portion of that money was expended for 
 bribery and other corrupt practices under cover of engaging carters. 
 
 There is more yet than a mere presumption. We have in the testimonies of J. B. Bolduc 30 
 and Laurent Pilote a direct proof that some of that money was expended to pay carters for con- 
 veying the electors at the election, contrary to clause 96, which, combined with clauses 98, 
 102, 103, makes that act a corrupt practice fatal to the election. 
 
 No sufficient explanation has been given of the item of $155.25 for personal expenses. 
 That item would not call for any particular remarks and would not be noticed by uc, if the 
 amount was not more than we may suppose the legitimate expenses of Respondent to have 
 been. But the amount is certainly out of all proportion with the sums which the Respon- 
 dent must have paid for his board at hotels and his travelling expenses, which are, by clause 
 125, the only expenses that can be included under the head of personal expenses, and which 
 may be paid by the candidate himself, and not through his expen/^^e agent. We must not 40 
 forget that the w'ork of the election only lasted one month, and that a large portion of the 
 expenses of Respondent for board and travelling is already included under some other heads 
 of the account, viz: expenses incurred for visiting the county $8; board paid to Mde. 
 Riverin (where Respondent was putting up during the canvass) and some other expenses 
 $371.43 ; paid Jos. Poitras for one trip to Bale St. Paul for Messrs. Langevin and Tarte $20, etc. 
 
 ) 
 

 jL^^n.^^P'^A.ycJi 
 
 
 /L-^t-^ 
 
 '^L^ 
 
 P 
 
 
 tf^^ 
 
 A- ^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 C^i^^^ 
 
 / 
 
 jc^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^^ 
 
 /o^o^ 
 
 -T^fc^ 
 
 ^^^<^^' 
 
 ^i^:^-^^^^ 
 
 ,^,^^ 
 
■• •■ ■ t. y 
 22 
 
 As to tho item of $371.43, no satisfactory explanation has been given of the sum of #305 
 included in the same and paid to Theophile Simard, an hotel-keeper of Bay St. Paul. 
 The facts as stated by Mr. Tarte are as follows : Simard's hotel was the head-quarters 
 of Respondent for the upper part of the county. It was open to all the electors at all hours, 
 day and night. All those who happened to come to work for Respondent were there freely 
 supplied with board and lodging for the asking. It is also in evidence that at times electors 
 of the county took meals with the committee men and speakers of Respondent. Neither 
 Simard, nor Tarte, nor any one else kept any account of the expenses. Some time after the 
 election was over, Sirrard went to Quebec, saw Mr. Tarte and asked him for 1^450 in a block 
 sum for the use of his house, for the board of Respondent's friends, etc. Tarte cannot say at lO 
 first whether the amount is too large or not. He then sits at a table and makes a rough 
 calculation, taking as a basis a mere guess as to the number of speakers supplied with board 
 and lodging. Even with thf t loose and eai^y way of making the acooimt, he does not suc- 
 ceed in squaring up the amount paid Simard : he arrives at 838G and only pays him $305. 
 
 There is the whole explanation as given by Mr. Tarte. From his own showing, though 
 he says the contrary, he could not have said, when he paid the account, that the amount was 
 correct, since he admits that he could not give any details, could not single out any one item, 
 but had to proceed by way of suppositions and mere guess. In view of those facts, how could* 
 he say that he had ascertained that nothing was paid for illegal purposes ? He may have 
 intended not to pay for any illegal expenses, but where is the proof that none were paid by 20 
 those $305 ? It requires a great deal of boldness on his part, not lo use a harsher word, to say 
 that he can swear that none of that money was for illegal expenses, that he knows that none 
 were made, when he himself says he was absent four days from Bay St. Paul, and that 
 every day he used to attend meetings held in that parish and elsewhere. 
 
 There was only one man who could give an explanation of that account, and that man 
 is Simard himself From his own showing, Mr. Tarte can only speak from what he has 
 been told by Simard. Why then, did not the Respondent bring Simard as a witness, when 
 he could much more easily than Mr. Tarte, have been produced ? Evidently, because Simard 
 could never have sworn that none of that money was for illegal expenses, because, under 
 oath, he would have been compelled to admit that the amount paid included the price of 30 
 the meals given by him to electors of the county, as proved by Tarte, and the sums paid to 
 carters to convey electors at the election, as proved by J. B Bolduc and Laurent Pilote. 
 
 The case of Benoit vs. Jodoin (19 L. C. Jurist., pp. 185 and 132) decided in Montreal by 
 Mr. Justic(! Boaudry, whose judgment was afterwards unanimously affirmed by three judges 
 in appeal, was quoted by the Petitioners in the Court below, and it is dilficult to find a case 
 more to .the point. It is so similar to this one, that were the names left ou', one could think 
 that Mr. Justice MacKay's remarks were made in reference to the present case. The only 
 difference there is between Simard's aflliir and that of Gribeau, is that Gibeau was brought up 
 by Jodoin and tried to give an explanation of the amount paid to him, whereas here Simard 
 was not produced. 40 
 
 It is contended that there is a difTerence between the two cases, in that Mr. Tarte 
 BW^ears that no part of the sum was for illegal expenses, whereas Gibeau swore that some of 
 the liquor paid for, was given to electors. But Mr. Prefontaine, who in the Chambly case 
 occupied the same position as Mr. Tarte here, had also sworn, as Mr. Tarte has done here, 
 
c^ 
 
 
 ^-^ju-^JLrt^ Ai 
 
 0*- ^i^^x^'^ 
 
 / 
 
 ^?^ 
 
 Av6c<; t/^£e^>c,^^t/-d^=tp^^^ 
 
 jC<'^^ A 
 
 J. 
 
 /-^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e^^ ji^ cS^-e 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
 <^^ 
 
 ^ ^ ^6 
 
 
 A^/ X^i 
 
 /^ 
 
that none of the money hud been paid for illegal expenses. Mr. PrrEbntaint' \v:ik contra- 
 dicted by Gibeau, because he could not speak by personal know ledi^e and only said what 
 he had been told by Gibeau, as Mr. Tarte has been speaking from tho informntion !<npplied 
 by Simard. If the latter hud been heard, we would have sivn between him :ind Mr. Tarte ' 
 the same contradiction that was found between Gibeau and Mr. Frrfontaine. 
 
 The court cannot therefore, but follow the precedent established in the Chambly case, 
 where the Respondent Jodoin was unseated and disqualified for the payment of a sum of 
 ^362 of which no satisfactory explanation had been given. 
 
 2' ' eneral Si/slem of Sinrifuaf Ititimiilntion. 
 
 Each of the facts of Spiritual intimidation that I have mentioned up to this is oi itself lo 
 sufficient to annul the Respondent's election, on the only condition that the agency ol those 
 who committed those acts be proved. But I go further, and I maintain that there is in the 
 record sufficient proof to establish a general system of spiritu!>l intimidation, as alleged in the 
 petition, and even supposing thnt no agency was p.oved, this sufPoes to annul the election. 
 
 It is useless to discuss the question whether the proof tliat sueh a system has been 
 put ill piactice lor the l)enefit of a candidate is sufficient to annul an election. Our Statute 
 does not mention it, it is true ; but the English Statute does not mention it either, and in 
 England, there has never been any hesitation in aunulling elections for that reason, 
 according to the common law, which requires that all elections b;- so made that it can be said 
 they are the expressioii of Ihe free will of the electors. If so many illegal practices have 20 
 been committed that it may be believed that the electors have not been free, the election 
 should be set aside. 
 
 The principles admitted in England on this point, were applied here in the Dorchester 
 election trial, in which Mr. Rouleau's election was annulled in 187) by a decision rendered 
 by the Honorable Justices Casault, Taschereau and Meredith, on account ofagenenal-system 
 of (renting-. 
 
 It is well to remark that for the voiding of an election on account of such a general 
 system of illegal practices, it is not necessary to prove that the result of the election was 
 actually changed by it, it is sufficient to prove that they were of such nature that they de- 
 prived many electors of their liberty, and were the cause that the election was not what it 30 
 would have been. 
 
 It is according to that principle that the Court acted in the Dorchester case above cited, 
 The Court annulled that election, not because the sitting member owed his seat to the ^^ 
 treating practised in his favor, but because it was proved that there was so much treating 
 that the election could not bt? considered as the result of the free choice of the electors. 
 Judge Keogh had previously given this same interpretation of the law in the Galway 
 case already cited. ;0. & H., vol. 1, page 256, 257, Cox and Grady, p. 323, Warren election 
 committees, p. 323.) In the Galway case, out of 150 priests who were in the county, 50 or 60 
 only were incriminated, and the judge found sufficient evidence against 35 only. Nevertheless 
 he declared there had been a general system of spiritual intimidation. This is easily under- .g 
 stood ; the electors of the different parishes of a county having frequent intercourse between 
 
Cl''tf.'i^<^jiL'<^<^ /^"/tl^^^wC^ 
 
 
 (fuM-i f 
 
 /^^^g^^'^r^ ife^^^i^-^C^^tf^<^ 
 
 
 "<;^cc-<- 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
t4 
 
 each other, the sermon of a single priest will be reported throughout the whole county ; it 
 will be generally spoken of, and thi' spiritual threats will have the same effects elsewhere 
 as in his own parish, l»ecause the Catholic doctrine is known to be the same every where, and 
 if it is a sin at Bay St. Paul and at Ht. Ililarioa to vote for Mr. Tremblay, it is also a sin in the 
 neighboring parishes. § 
 
 The Court below has considered the law in a different light, which appears to me to be 
 the re.sult of two important t-rrors. The judge appears to have maintained th;it to have the 
 election set aside on account of intimidation practised by the clergy, it was necessary to 
 prove that Respondent's majority was obtained through terror, and would not have been 
 obtained otherwisa. And peahaps through an excess of good will, finding evidence with lo 
 regard to four electors only that fear had prevented them from voting, he concluded that the 
 intimidation provod was not sufRcient to void the election. 
 
 In this there are two errors. In the fir.>t place the Court s^ras flfrhi^'e taken no 
 notice of the attempt "^t intimidation, which by the statute is assimilated to intimidation 
 itself, inasmuch as the Court, without e.\aBiiniiig the attempt at intimidation, sought only to 
 find out if electors had been intimidated and to ascertain their number. In the second 
 place, entering as the Court below did, into an examination of the votes influenced by the 
 sermons of the Cures, is reallv entering into a scrutiny of the votes. 
 
 All the authorities agree, and it is also common sense, that there is an essential differ- 
 ence between a procedure wlm h would have the effect of voiding uu election on account of 20 
 the number of illegal votes being sufficient to destroy the majority of the sitting member, 
 and a procedure having for its object tht; voiding of an election on account of its not having 
 been made with the liberty and the independence required. In the first case the Petitioners 
 ought to have produced a list of the A'otes objected to, and to have given the reasons in- 
 voked to have them set aside. That list is what is called a s rutinij Hat. In the second case 
 they did not require a scruthiy list, nor even particulars. In a case of smdinij, there must 
 be also an a^ 'gation in the petition showing that the majority of the sitting member is only 
 colorable^ becaiise a certain number of votes given for him are illegal on account oi the 
 reasons given. On the contrary in the case of a general system of lorriipl jiractices, there 
 is no neces.^iity of inquiring who had or who had i;ot the majority of legal votes. 
 
 30 
 
 Such is the law. In reading the petition the Court will see that the question is not 
 whether the liespondent had the majority of legal votes, bixt whether; lo he or his agents 
 have been gtiilty of corrupt practices which annul an election ; 2o the election has been 
 sufficiently free to be held legal, or has been so affected by corrupt practices or clerical 
 intimidation that it cannot be said to have been the result of the free and independant 
 will of the electors. 
 
 The quei:tion we shall now examine is this: was the present election made in such a 
 manner that the electors made a free and independent choice ? I do not think that in view of 
 the evidence in the record, it is possible to answer in the affirmative. 
 
 Let us see the facts. The number of incriminated priests is much larger in the present that 
 in the Gahvay case. Out of the twelve priests and the two vicairea of the county of Charle- 
 voix, eight cures and one vicaire are incriminated, and there is evidence against seven cures 
 and one vicaire. It is evident that the system was much more general than in Galway. 
 
 40 
 

 . 
 

 » *^-* A. V > > 
 
 sS 
 
 Let us now compare mc ovidi'iKJe adduced in both ca«e«. In Gulway, theelorgy. at a 
 meeting held at Athenry, h;vd paMHcd rcsohitions in favor of Captain Nolan, who had re- 
 quested the Uewrend Mr. Luvelle to call that meeting. Later on, a great numher of priests 
 preached violent sermons in dillen-nt parts of the county against Captain Trench. Not only 
 did judge Keogh, see in this a general system of intimidation, hut he was also of opinion 
 that Captain Nolan, by his letter to lieverend Mr. Lavolle, was the instigator of that intimi- 
 dation, that he should be held personally responsible for it, and in cojisecpience disqualified 
 him. Whit do we find in the present case? Mr. Onesime Gauthier tenders the candidature 
 to Mr. Langevin. Mr. Luigev'ii says he will not come forward unless he has the assurance .^ 
 of the support of the clergy. Mr. (Jauthier goes in to the county; a meeting of the h/ies lo 
 takes place at Bay St. Tanl, at the resid'-nce of Mr. Sirois, who was the presiding spirit of 
 this plot against the lil)erty of the electois, and rightly so to, because he had sufficient 
 violence of character to communicate the same to the most peaceable clergymt-n of the 
 county. A resolulioii is there passed to the effect that they would support Mr. Langevin. 
 Mr. Gauthier returns to Quebec, a^d informs Mr. Langevin of what has taken place. Mr. 
 Langevin, now being certain of his election, through this organisation, accepts the can- 
 didature. He declares every where that he is the candidate of the clergy, that the 
 electors mu.st obey their clergy, and represents Mr. Tremhlay and his party as dangerous to 
 religion. To prove this he even goes so far as to read a letter which his brother, IIi.« Lord- 
 ship the l.'ishop of liimouski, has tak.n the trouble to write to him, denouncing Mr. Trem- ao 
 })lay and th.' liherul party. The rleclion was scarcely begun when violent denunciations 
 of Mr. Tr.'inblay and .his party^were spread broad cast in several parish's. They say 
 everywh.'re^hat it is asin to vote for Mr. Tremblay, ami that all the li])erals will ])e damned. 
 In the second week before th'- ' " Mid of a meeting held at Ilyppolite Trem- 
 
 blay's house, at St. Ililario.i he " clergy seem to be in his favor, 
 
 but that ii would be better .1 tuey wouici spe dearly." Mr. Langevin answers 
 
 Jule.s Tremblay, who has made this remark, /lint . lojtnt, iicrt Siimlaij it irill be said 
 more explicitlv, re sera /i/iis Hair, il I'esjjire, le dimanciie sitii-an/. The following Sunday, 
 which was the la-.t before the polling, cure Sirois preached that terrible sermon to which 
 we have referred, against Mr. Tremblay. and his party, and after which, as Terron tells 30 
 us, the inufile returned lo their homes in sadness. Re\ ennd Mr. Langlais, on that Sunday also 
 asked his pari.-jjiioners, " if they would side ivilh Garibaldi and Vielor Emman.iel, or tpith the 
 Pope, " and a riot took place at the church dooiy after his discourse. Oa that Sunday also, 
 Reverend Mr. Fafard, of St. Urbain, insulted Mr. Tremblay's supporters and called their 
 leader an fscnped prisoner, (uu echappe de jirison). On this same Sunday, lieverend Mr. Hoy, 
 of St. Irenee, said only a low mass because Mr. Lajiigevin had been ill received on the pre- 
 vious Sunday, and threatened to abandon the i)lace and leave the pariijh without a priest 
 if the like should occur again. On that day also, lieverend Messrs. W. Tremhlay and Cinq- 
 Mars told their parishioners that it was a sin to vote for Mr. Tremblay. 
 
 The electors w -re mad with fear, those only voted for Mr. Tremblay, who were sufli- 
 cieutly informed to know that the curCs were wrong, or who were such determiiK>d partisans 
 that thev would vote for him even at the risk of committing a mortal sin, of endano-erin" 
 the existence of religion and the salvation of their souls. The organisation is so complete 
 and so powerful, that Revd. Mr. Doucet, the cure of the parish where Mr. Tremblay resides, 
 a prudent priest and up to that time entirely devoted to his ecclesiastical duties, who had 
 never interfered in politics, who esteems Mr. Tremblay, and considers him a man worthy 
 
 40 
 
 ^ \> 
 

 <i:^c^^ 
 
 '/^ 
 
 /^ 0-^<^ 
 
 t^~2. 
 
 <fhf~S^ 
 
 /^. ^ ^ .^ (:v^ /,5^^ .^7<. '^^ 
 
 (^ /^/VH/^u-d^ 
 
 0u<-t>^ A^'^ 
 
 ^^^1^^ 
 
 '^^ A 
 
 > <f 
 
 ^..^^ ('^^ ^- /-^-^ ^^^ //^ -/^j- 
 
J - 26 
 
 of confidenco in all respects, is carried away by the force of the ci;nent. The wild denun- 
 ciations, the violent harangues of some of the Cures, their united efTortf- t^^ oppose the liberal 
 party, had the effect of making him believe that Mr. Treniblay'js party must be vi-ry dan- 
 gerous. If the impression was such on Reverend Mr. Doucet, what mvist it have been on 
 the mass of the electors, who have generally but little education, who are accustomed to 
 follow their clergy and to believe all that the Cures teach them from the pulpit ? 
 
 In order the bettor to persuade the elocrors that their .sermons against the liberal party 
 were founded on the doctrine of the Church, the most violrnt among them road and re-road 
 the Pastoral Letter of the 2'2nd of September, 1875, which condeains catholic liberalism, 
 knowing well, that even without making any comment, the illiterate portion of the electors lo 
 would take lor an anathema against the liberal party the condomnation pronounced 
 against catholic liberalism. Why thf.se violent denunciations of catholic liberalism, in a 
 county where perhaps not a single elector, not a single pii -st, knew the nature of that 
 doQirine ? It was for the purpose of making the people believe that Mr. Tremblay's party 
 was condemned by the bishops, and of persuading ihe electors that in voting for Mr. Trem- 
 blay they would rebel against the Church. 
 
 As to the facts I have just mentioned, they have^ been fully pvoyed by the witnesses of 
 the Petitioners. These have proved that the incriminated priests nfade i^ ' of exactly^'the 
 same expressions which caused Captain Nolan's election to be annulled in the Galway case. 
 As in that case, the ernes recalled Ihe horrors of the French revohilio/i, ihe massacre of the priests, 20 
 the destruction of Ihe Church ; they asked the electors to choose helireen the Pojie and his perse- 
 cutors : they predicted what vould o-cur to them on their death beds; Ihey threatened them 
 icilh sudden death; they sjiolie of false projdtets, of fdse Christs, of venomous serpents; they 
 presented to their imagination terrible phantoms, frightful abysses open to receive them, and 
 maledictions suspeniled over their heads. , '* 
 
 One would say that the cures of Charlevoix repeated the ha^angxies of the cures of 
 Galway ; thay changed only certain names for others better known. The dreaded name 
 of Cromwell answor»d perfectly the purpose at Galway, where that celebrated^ man is well 
 known on account of the horrors committed by him in Ireland, As this name Would not 
 have had the same effect in Charlevoix, that of Garibaldi was substituted, as being known, 30 
 for the last twenty years, as a persecutor of the Catholic Church. 
 
 As to the effect those threats and denunciations had on the liberty of the electors, the 
 mode of proof which we have'adopted and which consists in establishing the promises of 
 support received by Mr. Tremblay, and the non-fulfilment of those promises, is the same 
 mode of proof whieh w«s fisllowed in the Galway trial, as the court may see in reading the 
 testimony of Captain Trench. :Soe also O. & H., vol. 2, p. 152, 1S3.; 
 
 TYi^ witnesses for the Resi)ondent did not contradict this evidence, and had they even 
 contradicted it, we submit" that their testimony is of no value, cottsidering the fact thaj^^ the 
 cures were not brought up to contradict our witnesses with regard to their violent 
 discourses and their threats. They could easily have been- broti^ht before the court; there 40 
 was no reason why the respondent should not have had them as'witnesses. Seeing the zeal 
 they had displayed for him during the election, he could not apprehend that they would 
 object to come forward and try to uphold an election which they had made, nor that they 
 would be ill-disposed witnesses. 
 
 -^ . J 
 
 ■-r.'X 
 
/4x^u^-/-^ 
 
 (L 
 
 J 
 
 A^ 
 
 
 ^.^Z — 
 
 ~iC-i^wjt-^ /^ } 
 
 
 ^<^ — <^ 
 
 
 
27 
 
 If thoy wore not brought up to give an account of their own sermons, the Respondent 
 cannot give as an excuse that he feared to infrmge ajj some ealesinsdcaf immunity, as care was 
 taken to phice in the record a hotter from Ilis Grace the Archbishop of Quebec, to the h'arned 
 counsel of the llespoiulent, of which a dupHcate was add;essod to all the cures, fully 
 authorising them to give evidence in this case, with regard to all they had done and said , > 
 during the election. Why then were they not brought up to give an account of their 
 sermons V If they considered the witnesses of the Petitionners had made them say things ' ■• 
 they had never said, why did they not come forward to contradict them and to give the 
 authentic text of their yermons? Why instead of this did they send us doz.Mis of witnesses >^ 
 
 whose testimony consisted in saying tliat Ihey did not remenbcr the cures had said this or lo 
 that, and who could scarcely ever toll what their cures had said ? It was b>>cause the n.. 
 
 cures could not contradict our witnesses. "Which among them would have dared to say, » \ 
 on the holy Evangelists, that hi\ had t:tken no part in the election, tiiat he had never 
 by his words givoji to undereT^ihjtl for wliom he was, as some of the witnesses for the 
 Hespondent had'the audacity to tell us? OiT^ Fne "'cure was brought up, Ile.erendMr. 
 Cinq-Mars : he was one against whom our witnesses had said very little; and nevertheless, 
 his testimony against the Kespondcnt was crushing. He proved more than even our own 
 witnesses had said. ■ N ;» 
 
 "What then must have been expected from Reverend- JTr. Sirois, if he had been 
 brought bel'ore the court ? "What evidence woxrld we not have had from Reverend Mr. 20 
 Langhiis and from Reverend Mr. Roy? 
 
 It cannot be said that we should have brought them up. Our evidence was complete 
 without them, and it cannot be pretend'd that we should have put ours* Ives at the mercy 
 of witnesses from whom we could not expect anything but hostility. 
 
 That f^ the mai^ier -^n.^^vhicl^^udge Keogh cojjsidered the question in the Crahvay 
 case. He tot>k as establi.'^hed all that had been pr^.^ed ftgainst Hie priest.s who jji^^t appear, .^ 
 and he did not take into consideration the evidence of lay witnesses brought up by the -• 
 defence. lie declared that, in the absence of explanations Hj-o2i>them, when there was no 
 obstacle to their being examined, he would refuse to lake into consideration any contra- 
 dictory ^vidence,'SveiSi ther$ 200 witnesses of the " non mi rcroi-do" kind. 30 
 
 The general system of intimidation r:maiiis then irrefutably established; and the 
 Resp*ideflt having been its instig-aitor and cooperator he should be held personally res- 
 ponsible for the same. 
 
 The Appellants, thei^fore, beg to itek Bopefully that the judgment appealed , from will 
 be reversed with costs in both courts. 
 
 LANGELIER & LANGELIER," ■ ' ' 
 
 ^ -..^ ♦ For Appellants. 
 
 "Oliawa, Janlwry ia7v7/, - "^ ^ ^ % '• T 
 
 % 
 
 /•x» 
 
 V 
 
 .<f-i-J '3 -^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^'i 
 
 
 \ --J * 
 
^J^^x^ 
 
 
 /? 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^ CCu£tf 
 
 /^J 
 
 /^. 
 
 
 
 ^/i^L.^t^>- <^te:-> 
 
 c^^ 
 
 4^^ ^/S^^ — -'^^-y^C^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <:^-/ 
 
 ^ ^U.^^ 
 
 .e^^o^/,-^^21:^ <4^ 
 
 a^^^^^A,^^^^ 
 
 /U^