GERMAN (Welland) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 181) to amend the General Railway Act of 1888.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) please state briefly the purport of the Bill ?

Mr. GERMAN.

The object of the Bill is to put the law in such a condition that persons owning property adjoining a line of railway, which property is injured or destroyed by fire resulting from the operation of the railway, will be able to secure compensation for damages more readily than under the law as it now stands. The present law makes it incumbent on owners of property injured or destroyed by fire from a railway to prove negligence on the part of the railway company. Practical experience has demonstrated that this is always difficult, and very frequently impossible. The evidence to prove negligence must he secured from the railway itself. It is quite evident that most of the locomotive engines at present on our Canadian lines of railway are equipped with screens of sufficient fineness to prevent the discharge of sparks and cinders that would be likely to set fire to the property adjoining the line of railway. But the difficulty is that the engine driver with a heavy train, coming to a piece of track on which is anything like a heavy grade, will immediately throw open the screen, the result being that large cinders, as large as an ordinary sized bird's egg will be discharged from the locomotive and carried upon property adjoining the railway. As the law stands at present, if the fire ori-Mr. SHERRITT.

ginates on the right of way and extends to property adjoining, the railway company have been held by the courts to be prima facie guilty of negligence. But if the fire originates on the adjoining property it is incumbent on the owner to prove negligence on the part of the railway company before he can recover damages. This, in many cases is impossible. For instance, a farmer has a large part of a crop of grain or hay destroyed by fire from a locomotive and sustains a loss of forty or fifty dollars. In order to prove negligence on the part of the railway company he has to ascertain in the first place, the number of the engine. That is a difficulty in itself. Then he lias to go himself or send experts to examine the engine to see whether it is equipped with a proper screen. Let ns suppose that on examination the engine is found to be properly equipped in this respect. Then, in order to prove negligence on the part of the railway company the farmer must call the engine driver to prove, if possible, that that engine driver had opened the screen allowing the free exit of sparks and cinders, which otherwise would not have escaped from the engine. We all know that when you have to prove your case with adverse witnesses you have great difficulty. The proposed amendment will absolutely overcome that. It will put the onus of proof on the railway company ; they will be compelled to prove that there was no negligence on their part. The Bill provides that if it is shown that the fire originated from sparks, cinders, or other burning substance which has escaped or has been discharged from a locomotive engine operated or being run on the line of railway, that is sufficient to fix upon the company the liability for the loss which has been sustained, unless they can show on.their part some good reason why it should not be fixed upon them. I think that the amendment is certainly in the interest of the people who own property adjoining a line of railway, and it is an amendment which fills a long-felt want throughout the country districts. I most sincerely trust it will be allowed to carry.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) please explain the object of the Bill.

In 1893 parliament authorized the printing for the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Rail-

way to be done in the maritime provinces as it was found to be more convenient to do it there than in Ottawa. There is a provision in the Bill to the following effect:

That the cost is not to exceed what would be charged at the bureau in Ottawa.

Now the King's Printer always certifies bills for printing as fair and reasonable ; ever since 1893 that has been the certificate put upon these bills. However, the Auditor General has decided that the certificate is not sufficient, that the terms of the statute must be carried out. Now the Order in Council is to change the law so as to authorize bills to be paid on condition that the cost does not exceed customary and fair commercial rates for similar work and for supplies of similar quantities. That is the intention of the statute, that is to , say it is to give effect to what has been done since 1893 ; but I must admit that what has been done since 1893 is to some extent a departure from the terms of the statute.

Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).

I desire to say a word or two in support of the Bill. As a resident of Hamilton, I am aware of the circumstances which the Minister of Justice referred to. The land covered by this mortgage is owned by hundreds of people, poor people and wealthy people ; and it would be exceedingly difficult, even supposing that it was possible, to maintain at the present day that anything was due on this mortgage from each of these people who may have been primarily liable. The amount of costs that would follow any attempt to enforce this mortgage would be something enormous. There is a grave doubt indeed whether there ever was any liability under it. Members of the legal profession fifty and sixty years ago, who were familiar with all the facts at the time regarding this mortgage, treated it as an unexisting security, as something that had no claim behind it ; and for sixty years at least this document which was again brought into existence apparently about a year ago, was treated as an absolute nullity. So that it would be a most unfortunate thing for many unfortunate poor people who own small portions of the property in the city of Hamilton, if any attempt were now made to enforce it.