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

we"--- "r; 3' Mr. Hudson t'ttl,tf the reaeoee win he had eppoaed ehill in Committee to: the poet two yearn. He reed a letter from Mr. Janet A. Davie.ChieI Engineer of the firm of Rathbuu & Cu., Deeoronto. to whom he had tent a copy of the bill. Mr. Davie eiated that there were under hie charge engiuee and boilers oi from 400 to800 hone Power, and they had the greateat ditticultr in training eunineere to take charge of the engines If the bill became lay they would have to dieiniee their engineers, becauee they would never be able to qualify them. Ielvee to puts the examination. and they would be unable to obtain practical men to take their plaeee. Mr. Ingram criticieed eeme of the objec- tioue that had been expreeeed against the bill. It was very rarely the one that u man connected directl with labor who heard on the floor of the ileum. Wh 'tt euch happened to be tho cue the Home should ive due con-ideration to their contentiuna. fl wee unfair to attempt to kill the hill in the war eome hon. members were doing. Mr. Phelps reiterated tome of in: objec- tions to the bill. When clauee four of the bill came up for ooneiuerotion Mr. Meredith Mid ho pro- pond to rid the bill, if poeeible, of all the eectione dealing with graded otrtiticmtva. The ciaueee dealing with thie point were an _ .iollowe c-- , Mr. Meredith moved the etriking out of all than subsections and the substitution: of A clause declaring the. all competent. per. sons elreuly in charge of engine: Iludl.wuh- out osatninariou, be coueidered competent to take charge of mu engine of equal or interior power. The amendment wee curled t 64 to 25 and the Committee than role on reported, with leave to nit again. BRIBERY AT mnzcnoxs. Mr. Whitney moved the eocond reading ot a bill to amend the Ontario Election Act. The scope of tho Ilietsnre has already boon expeineil in 'J'm:Gl.om:. he most im- portant provision is to make the crime oi bribery, at preeent punishable under section 157 of the Election Act, eub-eection 2, by A fine of Woo, punishable by u term of eix monthe iutptisoumernt in addition to the pecuniary penalty. The bill also extentll the operation of the penal clnneee of the Act to persons who accept a bribe as well in pen-none oxercieing undue iulluenoo. Mr. Whitney declared that he had come to the conclusion that, in the in. toreete of political morality, it mu neces- sary that the County Attorney should he present at bribery trials . hence he iuul a Drovilioll to "Ilka hill "ttrsuel-, a. A second-class engineer shall require A thorough knowledge ot steam and us uses. the frlnciplon of "on": heating and the working of cod pump. And condense". Ind spell c'etrtitlcrtto shall amino the holder to operate, any steam blunt of three hundred horse ppnjgl'pr less. W A third-cltum engineer tsttuil have a fair kpowlm1tw of steam and In nan-u. mo prim-irks of steam hunting and the Walking: of and pumps, and such cttrtificate, shall entitle the holder to operate: any steam plant cf eighty horse power or under. Ito-m plum over Which {Mai ifcGiikiiUir4, control. (4t-tit Two or more inspectors elmll examine All perwne applying tor crrtitictxtus underline Act. and than tuser, power to issue threo gnaw. viz :-Finicuu" engineer. wound-class engineer. third-clues engineer. and such m-rti- iicutee almillu plain tonne name thoparticu. lar utoum plum tho holder le quelilied to operate. (2) A lint-class engineer ehall require a thorough knowledge of steam and its uses. of the on of tho steam engine indicator. thu 'principles ot combustion. the dotnlleut con- nlrucuon of boiler. and engines. lino nircuglh ot nulerinle used in each conelrucliou. the principles of lien"! boating and the Working of cmnlonsoreumi feud pumps ', and such amm- cnte elmll entitle tho lluidvr to oporuluuuy _e........ ._I....- ........ "4.x": .lx . A . .. . hm! a provision to "make his ntteniltnce compulsory. lie invited the attention of the Attorney-General particularly tn this matter. He came fortitied with the opinions of the pron-lit Attorney-Go-al of Great Britain, Sir Richard Webster, and Sir William Vernon Harcourt, who had been Solioitor.GUnerat in one of Mr. Glad- stone's Administrations. Sir Richard Webster wrote to tho eh'ect that impriaou-. ment tor bribery had a distinctly deterrent otfeet in Englund, although it was only in very exceptional can» that such punishment waninilicted. Sir William 1fdroourtiuti. muted that he ind no experience of that on A penalty for bribery. The Attorney-General, who rose amid eppl-uso. aid the ollcnce of which his hon. friend had been speaking not only enh- jecteil the offender to a fine but also subjected him to tltuqutuitictxtion, and that was e very severe punishment, as everybody would edmit. The enactment on the subject was the 164th suction of the Election Act, which declared that eny cen- Jidate found guilty of corrupt practice- should, during the eight your: next after the date of " being so found guilty, tro in. capable of being elected hull of sitti_ng in um on my "tar an a . voter, aid of "wing " my election or of holding any oftiee at the nomination of the Crown or of the "manhunt-Governor in Ontario on va one -t"qF"maqFiaW. In Ulla!" at any municipal office. The punishment wail, very far from being a mere tine, for a", other punishment was a far more serious matter, much more serious than the mom payment of a tine. llie hon. friend had re. ferred to the fact that if the penalty was not immediately paid the law anther. teed the J edge to indict imprisonment forthwith. But there were certain pocu. liarities that the hon. gentleman had not referred to which made the bill " a whole objectionable. He did not believe that it would have such a deterrent effect as the hon. member seemed to imagine. Cm the l contrary, it was practically a change that would be injurious rather than bemsfieUl. ', Our statute differed in this respect from the legislation elsewhere, for we had consti- tuted a Court consisting of two Judges, with jurisdiction to try such oifeneim. " Let me," said Mr. Mewat, "call the attention of the House to this for a moment. The section dealing with this tsubject-ec. tion 178 of the statute-provides that "any two of tho Judges appointed for the trial of election petitions shall he and constitute a Court for the trial oi all cert-u t practices and other illegal acts committed, during an election, being offences in respect of which the Province has legislative authority." Under this enactment they had power to try these cases. Under the bill now intro. duced the Judges, in addition to inflicting a fine, were also to be at liberty to inflict im- prisonment. Now, the principle of our laws, and it was a principle upon which we laid great stress here, and upon which great stress was laid wherever the English law prevailed, was that oilences involving imprisonment should be tried by a jury, unless the offender himself desired to be tried in some other way. These offences were never tried by a Police Magistrate tut. less the oil'ender consented that they should be so tried. Everybody had a right to be tried by his peers. The punishment already provided in respect of this offence was as severe as We ought to go when offenders were tried without a jury. The Attorney- Ueneral then drew attention to the mode of trial under the Dominion Act, and to the practice in England where the offender had the option of beingljtried by a jury, and it was expressly 1 provided in the Corrupt Practices Act l in that country that the trial must be be. fore the liighCourt oi Justice. The reason why jurisdiction was given to the Judges in this respect was that our system required A unanimous verdict of twelve men, and strong political feeling could prevent a vars diet in such cases, and prevent it honestly. (ilear, hear.) A man might ascribe greater importance to a statement made by either side than tho statement deserved, and the practical result would be that it would be almost impossible to get a verdict. That Was the reason these cases were referred to the Judges. His hon. friend did not wish that the additional punishment should be after trial by jury. In addition to the authority, therefore, which the Judges now possessed, they would have ) this further authority, and he did not feel I inclined to vest this additional power in the , Judges. We had, in his opinion, gone far enough in this direction. A complete change of law, providing for cases of corn ruption being tried by jury, would not, for tho reason he had stated, tsfreetsdirnimr, tion of the amount of bribery, and he did I not think anybody would seriously advocate a change which would have the estieet of referring such matters to a jury. These were the reasons why he thought the whole bill was objectionable. The bill would, more. over, have tho effect of making it still more dillicultto obtain proof of those offences than it was new. Bribery might be com- mitted in n hundred cases, probsbiy in several hundred cases, and the dii1ieulty was to obtain the proof. Not one case in several hundreis, probably in several thoustusds,where the oifence we.- committed was the oifender brought to justice, and where itnpritsotuttourin addition to fine was imposed proof would be still more difficult to obtain. Thus. then, in reality the bill would have the effect, instead of increas- ing the punishment, of lessening the chances of any punishment at all being iuilictod. There was one part of the messnre to which he had not yet referred. Hie hon. friend proposed that the County (grown Attorney should attend every elec- tion trial. So for as the Judge who pre" sided at the trial was concerned, he could see that all matters were brought under the notice of the Court, in the absence of the Crown Attorney, just " well es if he were there. The prosecution would be conducted just " well if the Crown Attorney were not present as if he were. He sew no object to be gsined br the uresence ot the County ind of