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

WRESDAY, mRUARY" _r.2.-4ifif," 1917. ". V :- . i.. .. _ _ I. l; L. _ _" F 0RDE " 2 ' T . i. . ' C, _ ..-------" +I-----------------------------" is Goiernment Uses Power ml N q ' Legislature to tttrt Mr. Rowell's Resolution---" i O . Liberals Bitterly Chal- . lenge Action as Without Precedent By a straight party vote of 53 to 27, Premier Hearst and his follow- ers by brute force voted the Howell amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne calling :'or votes for women "out of order." Premier Hearst failed co meet the direct challenge of the Liberal leader to cite a precedent to justify their course or to meet the arguments of Mr. Hartley Dewart ,backed " Messrs. Proudfoot and Elliott, that the Government arbitrary methods were "merely jockeying for poaition." Premier Makes Objection. In asking for the Speaker's ruling on the Howell amendment, Sir Wil- liam Hearst said it raised a point of wonsiderabie importance and he could ', not do otherwise than call attention, to ft. It seemed to him that it "Li; out of order because the question had i already been brought to the 'Ztlenthil of the House by private members and -ecause it asked the Lieutenant-Gov- ernor to pass legislation on a specific subject. It appeared to him that the. amendment should be ruled out ot or- der. It it were possible for any mem- ber to move an amendment of the character of the one in question there was nothing to prevent any member of the House from anticipating legls- lation on the order paper. The Oppo- l shim: leader was violating rules of the Legislature, declared the Premier. ( Rowen Challenges Premier. I In reply to Sir William'.,; atorc-) merit. Mr. Rowell contended that his} amendment was in order, and chal-' longed the Premier to Point to any, case where an amendment to an Ad- C dress in reply to the Speech from the Throne had been ruled out of oral r because some private member had given notice of a, bill dealing with l the same subject. He argued that the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne might be amended in any way that was relevant to the matters ' under consideration. Mr. lttmxll ' Pointed out that his amendment dnl not request the Government to lil- l Troduce legislation: it merely oxprcsq- 1 ml the opinion that this House would l, .tpproVe, such legislation as that which the amendment had reference. to. The rules and precedents quoted 5 . by the Prime Minister had no appli- l cation whatever to a, case of this kind. [ and he still contendetrthat the Leg- ', islature had the right to represent to l, the Crown. its views on any matter I of public moment in its reply to the 6 Speech from the Throne. It was (me V of the inalienable rights of Stub as- semblies. When the Premier suggest- . od that his amendment was out of order 'he was suggesting something which was unprecedented in Pen-- l liamentary history. He was surprised l that the Premier should come down and ask the members to deny a right l which had existed ever since they had I 1 had Parliamentary government. J . . I i Stealing Policies l of the Opposmonvl i _----, A