IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) ^ (./ :/. & 1.0 I.I ISO m n2i ui Itti S 1^ iio L25 i 1.4 iiiiim 1.6 /a :^5 Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4303 m \ \ V '-(^ ^ ''•i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa The Institute has attempted to obtain the bast original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly changa the usual method of filming, are checicad baiow. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de coulaur I — I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagte □ Covers restored and/or leminatad/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou palliculAa Cov < tie missing/ □ Cov . Le 1 ti' D n n n de couvarture manque I — I Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.e. autre que blaua ou noii ^1 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en coulaur Bound with other material/ Reli* avec d'autres documants Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie paut eauaar da I'ombra ou da la diatorsion la long de la marge intiriaura Blank teaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certainas pagea blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissant dana la taxta. mais, lorsqua cela Atait possible, ces pagaa n'ont pas ix6 fi^mtes. Additional comments:/ Commtntairas supplimentaires: L'Instltut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details da cat exemplairr; qui sont paut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibiiographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithoda normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. |~~] Coloured pages/ Pages da coulaur Pagaa damaged/ Pages endommagias □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurias et/ou palliccilies r~l/9nqm» discoloured, stained or foxed/ l^ Pages dicoiortes, tachattes ou piquAes □ Pages detached/ Pages ditachies r~T/Showthrough/ Lb^ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality inigala de ('impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material suppl^mantaira □ Only edition available/ Seula Mition disponibia D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalament ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmies A nouveau de fa^on A obtanir la meillaure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux da rMuction indiquA ci-dassoua. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 12X 16X aox MX 30X 24X 28X n 32X The copy filin«d har« has b««n raproduead thanks to tha ganarosity of: Archivn of Ontario Toronto Tha imagas appaaring hara ara ttia baat quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacifieationa. Original eopias in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning with tha front eovar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, or tha baeic eovar whan appropriata. All othar original eopias sra filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaslon. L'sxampiaira filmA fut reproduit grAca A la ginCrositA da: Archives of Ontario Toronto Laa imagaa suivantaa ont Att raproduitas avac la plua grand soin. eompta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da I'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac laa conditiona du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la eouvartura an paplar aat imprimte sont fllmte mn commandant par la pramlar plat at an tarminant soit par la dami^ra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraasion ou d'lllustration. soit par la sacond plat, salon la ess. Tous laa autrsa axamplairaa originaux sont filmte an commandant par la pramMra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaaion ou d'llluatration at nn tarminant par la damiira paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microfieha shall contain tha symbol --»> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (maaning "END"), whichavar appllaa. Un daa symboiaa suivants apparaftra sur la damiira imaga da chaqua microfieha, salon la caa: la symbols — *> signifia "A SUIVRE", la symbols V signifia "FIN". Mapa, platas, e iyemment . that perhaps there was not so much importance to be at- tached to that point, because he urged that you might raise tilie population limit so high that you will put great value on the license and give importance to licensees to such an extent that they •ould not be succossfully attacked, and therefore we have left the population limit as it was suggested in the original Bill. The honxB •f selling have been left to the mimicipal councils, as asked by soma •f those who have been canvassing about the House. A Record of Reform. Put these provisions together with others in the Bill and yoa will find almost as formidable an array of im.portant amendments grafted on a present large and important license system as it is pos- sible to ask. (Hear, hear.) What did my hon. friend point out that we should have done that wp have not done ? Is an hour and * halfs criticism to be devoted to saying nothing 7 What does he ask ? Nothing. It was pointed out by the Treasurer that during twenty years twelve great license measures have been adopted and passed by this House and approved by the country. We cannot therefore go back to original principles, but must deal in matters of detail. It has been said more than once by, for instance, no less a person than the Rev. Dr. Carman, (General Superintendent of the Methodist Church, and by the Secrctai!ry of the Dominion Allit^nce, Mr. Spence, that they do not ask legislation which has for its aim the mere harassing and hampering of the hotel men, so long as their business is licensed by the Qovemment and their money goes into tile revenue of this Province. If, then, that question is laid aside, the question of merely irritating and harassing the license-holders, what has my hon. friend pointed out that we have done which m •ought not to have done, or left undone that we ought to have done f I do not say there are not some things which have been asked for by the Alliance and by other temperance bodies that we have nol included in the bill, but I say that my hon. friend has not taken tho twpoiiailMlity of saying what'thqr ue. Notwithstanding his do- PVi^^^^ ^^ oUration fchat there are no poliiios in this question, my hon. friend has not had the courage to stand up and say upon what particular lines they want further legislation, but he has only indulged in gen- eral and vague talk, and asks the country to ta!:e it for granted that he wants more stringent temperance legislation. (Applause.) How different from the plain statement made by Sir OliTer Mowat ; how different from the plain statement made by the humble individual (Mr. Hardy), who ga.'e the other answer which my hon. friend has quoted. rir. riarter's Futile Criticism. Now, I shall leave to others the opportunity, if they think it desirable, of following my hon. friend. I rise for another purpose, and propose to deal with the proposition around which my hon. friend has, so to speak, cavorted. That other purpose is to show that there has been no breach of faith, no broken pledges, by the (Government. (Applause.) He has taken every attitude ; he has contradicted every proposition that he himself laid down. He has proved the reverse of everything that he has stated in the nature of a proposition by the quotations which he has read, and by his own declarations. I have heard no more futile attempt to discuss the merits of a license bill, or as to what was contained in the promise of Sir Oliver Mowat or myself. There is no dispute as to whether or not, generally speaking, there were politics in the convention to which the hon. gentleman has referred. No one has said, that I am aware, that politics entered into the discussions of the convention of 1893, generally speaking. Far from it. But if I were to make any reference at all to that matter I would point to the action of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Marter), and mjshon. friend from West York (Mr. St. John), who stood alone, who had no one at their back, and if politics took any part at all in that convention they came from my hon. friend who has addressed the House this afttonoon, and from my hon. friend who was then on the point of seeking the suffirage of West York. I do not need to discuss that. No one has accused the convention of having political motives or purposes. They met for the one purpose of dealing with the ques- tion of prohibition, in whole or in part, not of restriction, not of Heense law in any shape or form. They repudiated restriotioa and I>, 6 license law, and the quotation read by my hon. friend shows that they wanted naught to do with restriction or with license law, bub had met for the purpose of dealing with the greater and more im- portant question, namely, cotal or partial prohibition, and they refused to lower their demands upon the Qovemment by dealing with restriction or license law. If it were not for my own record and my own statement I should not need to traverse in any sense the ground my hon. friend has gone over on that point. Happily, I say, there is no dispute as to what Sir Oliver Mowat said : "If the decision of the Privy Council should be that the Province has the jurisdiction to pass a prohibit- ory liquor law as to sale, I ,will introduce such a bill at the following session, if I am then at the head of the Government. If the decision of the Privy Council is that the Province has jurisdiction to pass only a partial prohibitory liquor law — no question of a mere prohibition, no question of a license law — I will introduce such a prohibitory bill as the decision will warrant, unless the partial prohibitory power is so limited as to be ineffective from a temperance stand- point. " What was his proposition ? As I say, happily there can be no dispute as to his words. There has been an attempt to nusrepze- sent the language, by some honestly and by some dishonestly. There has been a bold attempt by political opponents to misapply, to misinterpret and to misconstrue his language. I maintain that his language is plain and direct and deals with prohibition wholly or partially only, and has no reference to the license law, and I undertake to establish this to the satisfaction of this House and the country at large. It needs, perhaps, as my hon. friend says, some reference to the events of that time, and I must ask the fore- bearance and patience of the House if I weary them a little in going over the grdlmd. Mr. Marter's Bill. What was the situation t The hon. member for now North Toronto had introduced his partial prohibition bill in 1893. It was a measure to prevent the issue of all shop or tavern licenses or their renewal or extension within the Province. It was, therefore, a par- tial prohibition bill — prohibition as to retail. The (Government of Sir Oliver Mowat had taken ground against it, Sir Oliver stating that he thought Uiere were grave doubts as to whether we had i \ that power ; but Sir Oliver very tirmly stated that from hia reading of th* deoiaions of the Privy Oounoil in Hodgt r. Th€ QuMn and in other oaaes, if we had the po#er to pass a prohibitory bill aa to retail we had the power to pass it as to wholesale ; that there wia no valid dlstinotion, that the distinction was a technical one founded upon our own statutes, and could have no value in fact when tested by the powers conferred > on the Provinces under the Act of Con- federation. What did the hon. member call his bill ? He haa no% read us that. In moving the second reading, what did he call hia bill? I read from The Mail : " He had no desire in introduoing the bill to make capital for any party (he says the same to-day), bat it was his desire to have some law on the statute books that woold be efficient and effective." "He would, therefore, say to the Attorney-General and the hon. members that if the bill was allowed to go to committee he would in committee be prepared to assent to any reasonable amendment that would be calculated tc make the bill more stringent and effective." Dealing with Sir Oliver's remark as to wholesale licenses that was his proposition. ■ " Strong resolhtions were passed condemning the liquor traffic (speaking of the convention), the pith of which was that nothing short of pro- hibition would satisfy the people of the province. To abolish the liquor traffic would ciftuse a greater amount of happiness than any- thing else the Legislature could do, but, on the contrary, to permit the traffic was to sanction the greatest cause of misery." Still talk- ing of prohibition and stopping the traffic, " He was further advised by those learned in the law that this bill was within the province of the Legislature. He had been informed that they had not the right to deal with the wholesale traffic. The liquor license act thai was now in force prohibited 399 out of 400 persons in Ontario from entering lipon the actual sale of liquor. If they could do that why oould they not prohibit the 400 from selling it ? Then, if the Pro- vince possessed the power to prohibit the traffic part of the time, such as on Sundays and Satiurday evenings, he contended that it Lad the power to prohibit the traffic all the time." These are quo- tations from Mr. Marter's speech on the motion for a second read- ing of his bill in 1893. I do not understand that my hon. friend denies now that his bill was a prohibition measure, a prohibition of the retail trade. My hon. friend asks what oould the words in the latter part fi Sir Oliver's promise refer to when he said he would give prohibition or partial prohibition to the extent of the jiurisdiction of the Legiala- / [>, tuitt. Bfi asks what oould it refer to if not the license Act. Why, ■Ir, it referred to the partial prohibition of sale by retail and to local option, and no man who chooses not to shut his eyes and shut his ears oould for a single moment doubt it. It refers primarly to the bill which my hon. friend introduced for the purpose of establishing partial prohibition, namely, prohibition of sale by rotaii as dis- tinguished from the prohibition by sale 'by ratail and wholesale. That is what Sir Oliver meant by it. . ' Now we go a little further. What were we dealing with when the delegation came to ask questions 7 What was the purport of Sir Oliver's answer? At what was it aimed? To what did it refer 1 Let me for a moment read you a few extracts from decisions of the courts as to the construction, interpretation and application of language used upon particular occasions. In King v. Hodl, 1 Bamewell & Creswell, at page 136, it is said by Abbott, O.J. : — ** Now the meaning of particular words in Acts of Parliament as well as other instruments is to be found in the subject or occasion on which they are used, and the object that is intended to be attained." That is the first canon of construction. In River Wear CommiS' $ion«r$ y. Adamaon, 2 appeal cases, it is said by Lord Blackbiurn at page 736 : — " It is impo^ible to know what that intention is with- out inquiring further and seeing what the circumstances were with reference to ^rhich the words were used, and what was the object appearing from those ciroimistances which the person using them had in view, for the meaning of words varies according to the circum- stances with respect to which they wex? used. " In Edir^^irgh Street Tramuxiy Gompamy v. Torbavn, 3 appeal cases, it is said by Lord Blackburn : — "But then the words again are to be understood by looking at the subject matter they are speaking of. " In Hodge v. The Qu«en, 9 appeal cases, 117, it is said at page 129 : — " Those observations should be interpreted according to the subject matter to which they were intended to apply." I I Prohibition or License Law, There can be no question, sir, as to what the true canon of the Intetpretation of an expression is. What was Sir Oliver replying to? What had he in view? To what did he refer? To what did the 4*l«gation call his attention? What had transpired at the conven- tkmf What was the conyention asking. It would have been folly te Sir (Niytr Mowat to have undertaken to make a statement broader than that which they required, on bo delicate and importaal a subject. It would have been folly upon his part to have gone out- side of that and to have dealt with a subject which the delegation had not come to conault him about at all. Therefore he confined himself in his remarks to the question of total or pai lul prohibition. Indeed there was involved the question of local option as partial prohibition. I think it was in 1890 or 1891 that this House passed the clauses drafted by the eminent counsel fo - Uie Alliance, tho local Option clauses. A case had been brought before the Divisional Court to quash a by-law as unconstitutional a by-law pasned by the Town- ship of South Norwich. Chief Justice Qalt, before whom it was brought, had held the clauses unconstitutional. Thio was in 1891. The case had been carried to the Supreme Court; it had beenarj^ nd once, but so doubtful was the Supreme Court about it that they called for another argument, and ultimately it was decided by a majority of one that the law was constitutional. Therefore this ques- tion was before Sir Oliver at the time as another question of partial prohibition ; so that the partial prohibition referred to related to a question of a prohibition of sale by retail and the question of our power to pass local option clauses. What did the convention do f My honorable friend has read you that— quite to the destruction of his argument. The Delegation's Resolution. What was the resolution of instruction to the delegation which waited upon the Government? What did it say? The resolution finally adopted by the convention was as follows: — "That a deputa- tion be appointed to wait forthwith upon the Ontario Govemme!>t and respectfully request them to declare in favor of total prohihition of ih» traffic in intoxicating liquor to the full extent of the power vested in the Legislature." There was an able and vigorous discussion upon that resolution. How can any man who was at that convention, and who saw or heard discussed that resolution, and who knows what other resolutions were submitted and were voted down, pretend to apply Sir Oliver's language to anything else than the prohibition which the convention had instructed the delegates to demand from Sir Oliver Mowat and the Government? Gentlemen can only do it because they have forgotten, or because they have not recently read the proceedings of that convention. Gentlemen of honor and in- tegrity — and they are all gentlemen of honor and int^rrity who ooBN onrard and state that Sir Oliver referred to anything eke ,^«J>^ ■biaaiiW J lM'— W^WiWi" 10 iTs than prohibition or partial prohibition does so only because they liave forgotten what took place or have not read the proceedings recently. If there had been any doubt about its meaning an amendment was moved by no less a distinguished temperance man than the member from West York (Mr. St. John). He was under the protecting wing of my honorable friend (Mr. Marter), who was his companion, philosopher and guide at the time. What was his resolution which did not pass? Here is wliat the paper says :~" Moved by Mr. St. John, seconded by the Rev. T H. Orr" — another most respectable gentleman — "that a deputation of this convention be appointed to wait forthwith upon the Ontario Government and request them to declare now in favor of ihe restric- tion and prohibition of the liquor traffic in the Province of Ontario to the full extent of the power vested in the Legislature, and that they will use all diligence in speedily ascertaining such power." (Hoar, hear.) What was the result? In the words of. the report, the resolution was "absolutely and overwhelmingly defeated." Mr. St. John — Are you aware, sir, that the reason it was defeated overwhelmingly at that convention was that the mover and seconder of the resolution said it was wholly embodied in their resolution? The Attomey-Gteneral — I have heard a great many men who profess to voice public opinion, but I have never before heard one wiping to say he knew precisely what the 1,400 men who snowed under his resolution had in their minds in voting on a moral ques- tion bristling with points. There was a fierce argument upon the question. That point had probably no more to do with it than other arguments that were used. It was because they did not like the resolution ; they did not think it was a wise resolution, and they did not wish to deal with restriction. I will show you the reasons why, perhaps, in a little while, they voted that down "absolutely and overwhelmingly," as it is reported. Let us see what some of the leaders of the convention thought, what some < -^ reasons were that they gave why they would not have what u\. .arable friend desired, namely, that the delegation should deal with restriction. The Bev. Dr. Kettlewell is a most excellent man, a very able man, a man truly in earnest in temperance matters, differing somewhat, however, from the programme of the Alliance. I believe his is the programme which the Good Templars put forward, and this is one question to which I draw your attention. The Alliance had one programme and the Templars had another ; the Templars say, do away with the bars and stop treating ; that is principally what they mw 11 Mked. The Alliance has a programme, I think, of some twebty- four propositiona, five of which they principally insist iqK>n. They are gentlemen for whom I hew the greatest respect, men who devote their lives to the cause of temperance and other great moral ques- tions. Mr. Kettlewell said : — "What I want to see done is an issue made"— something of a philosopher in the matter. It was not per- haps this bill or that, but the raising of the issue that he was desir- . ous of — "the getting of a law passed is a secondary matter, for the peculiarity of prohibitive legislation is that enforcement is of more value than the terms of the law ; therefore what is the great desid- eratum is to have a Government that is a prohibitionist Government, that is committed to prohibition principles, that will enforce with a will any prohibition measure that may be enacted. What I wish the convention to do is to approach the Government and endeavor to get it to declare itself prohibitionist" — nothing about restriction. This is one of the gentlemen, the Chainnan, who wai^ upon the Attorney-General. My honorable friend urges that Attorney-General Mowat's lac guage meant restriction and had reference to the license law, when the convention from which he came and at which he- was present and heard the question discussed, when the resolution moved by the honorable member for West York was voted down so overwhelm- ingly, when every speaker of rank who stood upon the floor, except my honorable friend and his colleague, took the ground that it was prohibition in whole or in part that they were after and in no sense restriction under the license law. My honorable friend of North Toronto, in his speech, quoted Mr. Kettlewell's argument and, in- stead of helping him, it absolutely overwhelmed him. Mr. Kettlewell continued: — "What I wish the convention to do is to approach the Government and endeavor to get it to declare itself prohibitionisfc." Dr. Madaren's Remarks. What said Dr. Maclaren, of whom my hon. friend has spoken, another great light of the temperance movement ? Here are hla words : " I think the convention should send a deputation to inter- view the Government and to ask them to declare for prohibition in ■o far as it may turn out that they have the power to enforce it" Again, Mrs. lliomley, who has also been quoted, said that '* whal they were after was the total prohibition of the liquor traffic."! It -will be observed that tht; one queston referred to by the speakera tras prohibition, or so &r as the Legislature could go in that direo. ■MMM IS Hmu And then Ifr. Spenca took up the discussion. Mr. Spenoe, ■a we all know, is an authority upon temperance matters. There was no more potent voice in the convention than that of Mr. Spenoe. " All present were agreed to send a deputation to ask the Government to declare for total prohibition to the full extent of the powers with which the courts declared it endowed. He wanted a prohibition policy not tied down to narrow limits. He toanted no rutrietioM, but prohibition. The day -for restriction was gone. They wanted to see the Grovemment make a straight, c'ear, decided declaration that they would give prohibition as far as they could go." And there were others. These were just a few of those who spoke upon that question. Dow, can there we any doubt as to what the deputation came to the Attorney-General to say and as to what the Attorney-General replied ? Can there be any doubt as to what the Attorney-General's answer referred to or what he was aiming at ? We find that they were introduced by Mr. Davis, then M.P.P., and is there anything in his remarks about a license law ? Not a word. Mr. Kettlewell, who was introduced, spoke to the Attorney-General, and was there anything referring to the license law or restriction ? Not a word. Mr. Spenoe then read the reso- lution. Dr. Potts was then asked by the Chairman to speak. Addressing Sir Oliver and his colleagues, Dr. Potts said that the majority cast for prohibition in the plebiscite was sufficient to impress anyone with the magnitude of the movement which that deputation were representing. They represented a convention of 1,400 men and women ; there were men in the room from nearly every county in the Province. The moral purpose for which this great force is working, he said, must be crowned with success, and they thought they had arrived at a period when they could ask the €k)vemment to crystalize into law the reforms they were advocat- ing. " And I would like personally to congratulate you," he pro- ceeded. " upon being Prime Minister of the Province at this time. (Applause.) While it is a grave responsibility resting upon you, it is a golden opportunity for you, with the support of the majority of 82,000 people, to declare for prohibition." Mrs. Thomley followed in the same fashion, and then followed Sir Oliver's speech, and afterwards the few remarks which I made. Sir Oliver's remarks are too long for me to read, but there was not one word in them which touches the license law, and there was no reason for touching tibe license law. The nearest approach was when he said this, in •oneluding and before he read the paragraphs formerly quoted : 18 '* A« wym M a decision is reached hj the Privy Oounoil, at the fisH seesioa thereafter, if the Privy Oouncil decides that we have jori' diction to pass a prohibitoiy law for the sale of intoxicating liq«or, and I am still Premier, I will introduce a bill for that puxpoaa. (Great cheering.) In ease ioe have authority for a partud pnhSbi- tory law, it it difficult to say anything, because toe cavvnot cmtteipaU tchat the jTotrer may be." That is still dealing with partial prohiU- tion, and not with a license law. But if there was anything said which touched, or bordered upon, or which might by any inferenm or implication be construed as referring to a license law, that is the statement. Let us see a little further what the situation was. In 1803, as I mentioned, the hill of the hon. member for North Toronto waa before the House, the plebiscite was ordered and the vote had been taken and immediately thereafter, and before the delegation waited upon the (Government, the case had been made up and had been snbmittecLto the Supreme Court. What were the questions f I am arguing now entirely in reference to what Sir Oliver was aiming at, and was anxious for. I am drawing the attention of the Hotun wholly to the questions which the convention had discussed, which the delegation were discussing, and which Sir Oliver was answering. Here are the question submitted to the Supreme Court : " (1) Has a Provincial Legislature jurisdiction to ph>hibit the •ale within the Province of spirituous, fermented or other intoxi- eating liquors ? "(2) Or has the Legislature such jurisdiction regarding sock portions of the Province as to which the Canada Tempf *ance Act is not in operation ? ** (3) Has a Provincial Legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the manufacture of such liquors within the Province T *' (4) Has a Provincial Legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the importation of such liquors into the Province 7 " (5) If a Provincial Legislature has not jurisdiction to prohibcfc ■ales of such liquors, irrespective of quantity, has such Legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the sale, by retail, according to the defini- tion of a sale by retail, either in statutes in force in the Province at the time of Confederation, or any other definition thereof Y *,* (6) If a Provincial L^;islature has a limited jurisdiction only as re^purds the prohibition of sales, has the L^pslature jnrisdietioa to prohibit sales subject to the limits provided by the several s«b- 'm^' 14 sectfioiu of the 99th section of The Canada Temperance Act, or any of them (BeviBed Statutes of Canada, chapter 106, section 99)?" Where is the license submission there ? Where is the question of license touched in any one of these questions ? The other one relates to local option and to the Canada Temperance, or Scott, Act, and as to the issue of druggists' licenses, and is as follows : "(7) Has the Ontario Legislature jurisdiction to enact the 18th section of the Act passed by the Legislature of Ontario in the 63rd year of Her Majesty's reign, and intituled ' An Act to improve the Liquor License Acts,' as said section is explained by the Act passed by the said Legislature in the 54th year of Her Majesty's reign, and intituled, ' An Act respecting local option in the matter of liquor-selling' ?" / No Pledge Broken. Here is what Sir Oliver was discussing ; here is what the con- vention was discussing. In the light of these questions which had been submitted to the court, Sir Oliver was giving his answer, and in the light of these which, and in the light of that the delegation had been instructed by the convention to do. Who can, therefore, in the face of men of inelligence, pretend for a moment that we have been false to our pledges, or that we have made any pledge which we are violating in any sense because we do not turn a license bill intu a proliibition bill, and attempt to screw up the License Act into what might be called a partial prohibition Act? (Cheers.) I repudiate in the strongest language which I am capable of, that there has been a breach of faith or of pledges. Gentlemen who make charges, persons who send in petitions to that effect do so in ignorance of the facts, perhaps without argument and without having studied the ground upon which they make these accusations; and I venture to say that when they come to hear the discussion and to know what has been done and said and thoroughly to under- stand our position and their position and the position of the con- vention they will regret as long as they live that they have hurled these imputations at the Gk)vemment. A Gk>vemment which has endeavored in the past and in the present to give a good license law and to enforce it by all the power which it has at its disposal. "Mj hon. friend spoke of Sir Oliver's absence and observed, " I wish we had Sir Oliver here." Of course he knows Sir Oliver is not very likely to be here, and, therefore, the wish is a perfectly safe one. Sir Oliver's views are not different from my own. wr 16 Mr. Whitnisy. — How do you know 7 The Attornby-Gbneral.— I will give my hon. friend all he wants to know about Sir Oliver Muwat and his opinions on the matter. If we have not Sir Oliver here in person we have his own declaration upon the point. (Applause.) I read you his letter : Sir Oliver's Letter. d A >n e, re fie ,ct I lat ho in >ut ns; ion er- on- -led has nse sal. rish not saf* Ottawa, March 24th, 1897. My Dear Premier, — I do not know whether your temperance Bill this Session goes as far in the direction which temperance peo- ple desire as it would be practicable for you to go at present, but I concur in what I notice you have said as to the nature of the pledge given to a deputation in February, 1894. I agree with you that the pledge had exclusive reference to a prohibitory law, and had no reference to a license law. License law amendments were nob under our consideration, nor (as we understood) under the consideration of the deputatitMi. I recollect that in settling the terms of the draft memorandum prepared for the purpose of being read to the depu- tation on behalf of the Government, one or more of you suggested a slight change in the wording in order to prevent, as was thought, an^ possible misapprehension on that point. Most of us regarded the meaning as clear enough in the draft, bub as the -change of expression was suggested I think it was made. What this verbal changef was I do not now remember. The memoraadum as read was int^the terms which we had all agreed to. What was being pressed on our attention at the time was a prohibitory law, and the questions which had been submitted to the Judges were as to the e)wer of 'Provincial Legislatures to pass an absolutely prohibitory w, of which the prohibition of selUng by retail is an example. Some thought the province had power to prohibit sale by retail and not sale by wholestde. I am dear that none of us supposed that we were understood by the deputation to be giving any pledge with respect to a license law. The amendments which your Bill pro- poses to the license law, and the further amendments which tem- perance organizations may desire, ought to depend upon their merits and not on any alleged pledge on the part of your Gk>veni- ment. (Great applause.) . I am, yours very truly, (Signed) The Hon. A. S. Hardy, Attorney-General and Premier, Toronto. O. MOWAT. I think, sir, if anything were wanting to close the mouths of our AocHsers that we are false to Sir Oliver's record, that we are false to his pmmises or to his declaration at the time when he was the M HP nmmmmmstr 16 flpokesman and the centre and principal figure, his own deolaratioa alone would convince 'every candid mind as to what was the inten- tion, what the object, what the aim, and as to the pui^iort of the pledge which Sir Oliver gave upon that occasion. , The Evening Session. * After recess the Premier resumed :-^I pointed out before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, an array of facts, of records beyond dispute, leading, as I contend, to the conclusion that the alleged pledge o included and that they should not confine themselves to prohi- 17 bition alone, was voted down by an "overwhelming niajoritj." The delegation, upon proceeding to disoues the matter with Sir Oliver Mowat, made no allusion to license measures or to anything but prohibition. That the questions which Sir Oliver Mowat re- ferred to, and which had been submitted to the courts, related wholly to prohibition, and not to licenses, and from these incontro- vertible facts we drew the conclusion that Sir Oliver's answer had relation not to license law, but wholly to prohibition, and we followed it up with the production of the letter from Sir Oliver Mowat himself, who said that it had no relation to license or license law, that his answer related wholly to prohibition in whole or in part, and that the memorandum was drawn advisedly — not advisedly in the sense that he so understood it himself, but that all his col- leagues so understood it, and that it related only to prohibition in whole or in part, and not to a license law. Some say that license means partial prohibition. In the abstract possibly, but there is a wide difference. A license permits, legal- izes the sale. Prohibition prohibits. A license says the sale shall be lawful. Prohibition says that eVeiy sale is unlawful. They are as wide as the poles asunder. They are at the opposite extremes of the poles, and men who talk of license law as partial prohibition law in this connection as being of the same confuse terms and for- get their logic. A license is license to sell ; prohibition is prohibi- tion against sale. There is the distinction. And it does not do to take popular language or the language of the platform and place it in an Act of Parliament. Tou would only have confusion worse confounded. If you deal with license you must speak of license, and you must remember that you license to sell and authorize sale, and in that case you protect them in their sale and take their money for the use of the State for the permission to sell. If, on the other hand, you prohibit you say they shall, not sell under pains' and penalties of a very severe character. Restriction, as the convention of 1894 veiy properly understood, and as the convention said was one thing and prohibition another thing. The Privy Council. I haye but one point more on that branch of the case to refer to, namely, the judgment of the Privy Council. Let us see what Sir Oliver said : " If the decision of the Privy C!ouncil should be that the Province has the jurisdiction to pass a prohibitory liquor IJ,WPII!»I 18 law as to sale, I will introduce it." Let the most vigorous advocate of the theory that we made pledges that we are now violating take the judgment of the Privy Council and point out where and when that court has decided that the Province has jurisdiction to pass a prohibitory law as to sale ; and if the court has not so decided, then there can be no violation of pledge becau ^e there would be no pledge in existence ; and yet through every part of the country, without looking at the judgment of the court, but assuming to speak with authority and knowledge, some persons — some of the best men and some of the best women — having seen it stated in the paper or elsewhere that there has been a violation of pledges, assume ic to be true and formulate resolutions or petitions founded upon that assumption. Let us see further if there could be any violation of the pledge. Unless there was a decision of the courts that we had that power to prohibit the sale, there is no pledge that has been broken, because the condition of the pledge has never happened. Did the learned Judges treat license and prohibition as one ? No. They were not dealing recklessly with the question ; they were dealing as Judges with judicial minds, botind to probe the question to the bottom and to use accurate terms. It cannot be found in the answer to any question that they find that we can prohibit the sale wholly, or that we can prohibit the manufacture or that we can prohibit the importation. That answer is not given to any one of these questions. Over and over again the conven- tion has so stated, the Good Templars have so stated, and every delegation since the judgment has so stated. Where is the breach of pledge if the court did not decide that we have the power to prohibit the sale? Sir Oliver said: "I \»ill introduce a bill at the following session, if I am at the head of the Government " We take the responsibility, we were parties to that pledge. (Applause.) We were parties to drawing the declaration, and we stand by it, and we will not be driven from it because people tell us in a moment — I think sometimes of recklessness — that we have violated our pledge. I leave my hon. friend to gather up the fragments as he did and hurl all the harsh expressions across the floor of the House that he could gather up from meetings and from resolutions and petitions. But these opinions were founded upon error — they had not examined the pledge which they quoted or the position which led up to the pledge. I do not nead to pursue this branch of the case any further. If I have not convinced all who hear me, I am afraid it 10 Is because they have preconceived opinions, and it is hard to remove precorxeived opinions. Fulfilling Pledges. Just another matter to which I wish to allude before sittting down ; that is, my own statement to the delegation from the Al- liance in July last. Happily there is no room for cavil or dispute as to what that statement was — that we were a temperance Govern- ment, that we could not go backward, but would go' forward as fast as our jurisdiction would permit and public sentiment " >uld clearly warrant. I say there is no shrinking from that pledge either. What is public sentiment 1 What is our jurisdiction ? There is not now much question about our jurisdiction. The Judges were not called in their judgments to deal with the license question. It had been solved.' Therefore how could Sir Oliver Mowat be refer- ring to it as to what thoy were to decide. That argument would be conclusive to a Judge upon the bench. But public sentiment, that of course is a very uncertain quantity. Looked at by different* men it may not appear the same, but it cannot mean that the Govern- ment and the Legislature are to have no voice in determining what public^ sentiment is. It cannot mean that because a convention assembles, however respectable, however patriotic, however de- voted to the cause of temperance or of good morals, however de- voted to the cause of Christianity and religion, it cannot be said that they are to say precisely and alone what public sentiment is for those who are to legislate upon the question. It cannot be said that those who are to legislate are to have no voice in determining what public sentiment is. That perhaps is where we differ. I have pointed out more than once that it is easy to arrive at a con- clusion where all are of one view and of the right view ; it is easy under such circumstances to meet and frame a programme, yet perhaps not so easy after all, because hon. members well know who have been at such conventions that there is a difference of opinion there as well as elsewhere. I pointed out before that of the two great delegations which waited upon us when wo were framing this Bill, one took the view laid down in the programme of the Alliance, the other thrust it aside. They were led by eminent men— Rev. Mr. Kettlewell, representing one branch of the temperance winp of the people of this country, supported by able men, Mh Buchanan, Mr. Lees and others. They wanted something else, the abolition of bars and the treating system, and they claimed to be in advance - \ »■ f, ^•p^-mm 90 el the programme of the AJlianoe, and perhaps they were. Al- though if it is true what we learn from Halifax and Nova Sootia, where that system is in force, in a small city of between 30,000 and 40,000 inhabitants, with 84 places where they sell liquor openly without regard to the law. perhaps it is not so much in advance either. All these are questions of judgment, and public men and legislators are bound to bring their judgments and conscienoes to bear upon these matters, and no man is to be at liberty to say, " we will make a programme and you must accept it just as we lay it down." With the greatest respect for the men and women who assist in frwming these resolutions, I say we must ourselves be the judges in the last resort of how far we can go and what public sen" timent will warrant, and go no further than what the people de- mand and can be enforced. They have frequently quoted, and very properly, the large majority in favor of the plebiscite. While it was a very significant vote, it does not chow precisely what would have been done if the question had been submitted to the country, mixed up with other questions, with all those questions which a Qovemment is bound to consider. If it be said otherwise let me refer to one or two cases. In Hamilton, not longer ago than June last, in a city which gave an overwhelming vote in favor of the plebiscite, two excellent men, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Watkin8,.a very able man and of the highest character, came out as representa- tives expressly of temperance views and sought the suffi-ages of the people of Hamilton. Compare the vote which they received with the vote in favor of the plebiscite. Their vote was a mere fragment of the tqtal vote polled, and we must look at that as well as the vote in the affirmative for the plebiscite. In South Wentworth a few months preceding that, what happened ? Mr. Buchanan claimed that he came out expressly as the representative of the advanced temperance views. Temper- ance men eminent in their sphere, eminent in every walk of life, flocked to his assistance, and what was the result ? He polled but a fraction of the vote which was polled by the hon. member for South Wentworth. Tou must, therefore, I say, look things in the face ; you must look at them as you find them, and when you find, in dealing with the temperance question, along with all the other questions wl)ich go to mi^ke up the functions which the hon. members of this House are sent here U, perform, you must see precisely what bearing the general questions, the political questions, and all other questions, have when they are submitted along with the temperance t 'H \ I ^ "»'P-blic.o„J::':^ •dt.m.tely «t « the i„d,e. L .! ''«^'<»" of the country mo- "ya,mg„„r„tri^,^^ «^^^ wheth„ ite de.u«,d. ,fli^ '"''''-'■''•^"'"''•-"dMfr.XuJ^T'"'*"-^ . SnUth. a«,rrtaor Ontario uii ^l!r ^''*'°*' *°rt« St, Toronto "''^ '*-»<>i«*i«»n. 84 Vfe. 1