WADE (Annapolis) presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as follows :

Tuesday, August 4, 1903.

The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections beg leave to present the following as their second report :

In obedience to the order of reference dated 22nd July, 1903, your committee have inquired fully into the allegations therein in reference to George M. Doy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Beauharnois ; they have investigated all the circumstances connected with the acquisition by the government of Canada. of the property therein referred to, and all matters mentioned in the statement therein contained ; they have also heard the statement made under oath, by the said Geo. M. Loy, Esquire. as well as the evidence of all the witnesses who appeared before your committee, and have examined all papers, documents and exhibits produced, and beg to submit the following as the result of their inquiry, viz.:-

1. The statements contained in the first seven paragraphs of the siaid reference have been substantially established, but your committee cannot discover that the said statements have any bearing upon the charge made against the hon. member for Beauharnois of a violation of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.

2. As to the allegation in paragraph eight that ' from the time that the said Geo. M. Loy handed his property to Archambault. up to the day of the sale of the said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of the said property,' your committee find that under the law of the province of Quebec, as applied to the circumstances proven before your committee, Mr. Loy had ceased to be the ownpr when possession was taken of the property by Mr. Archambault. under the said agreement with Mr. Foy, dated January 4th, 1898, and that the property reverted to Mr. Loy on or about the 15th of June next following.

3. As to the further statement in the said paragraph eight that * at the time of the sale of the said property on the 20th January, 1903, the said Robert Bruce Johnston was merely

acting lor and on behalf of the said Loy, who In said manner did indirectly sell the said property to the Crown in violation of said chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes,' your committee find that the said Robert Bruce Johnston was not at any time, nor in any sense, acting for, or on behalf of. the said Loy ; but the said Johnston represented to Mr. Loy that he was purchasing the said property on his own account for commercial purposes, and Mr. Loy when he agreed to sell the said property to the said Johnston believed the said statement to be true, and he parted with the title to the said property in favour of the said Johnston without any knowledge or notice that the same was not required by the said Johnston for the purpose for which he had so represented ; and the said Johnston according to the evidence adduced, was not an officer of the government and was not aware when he made the purchase for Mr. Dandurand that the property was required for purposes of the Crown, and your committee find that there has been no violation by Mr. Loy of the said chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada ' An Act respecting the Senate and the House of Commons.'

4. As to the statement in paragraph nine, your committee find that while the assessed value was as therein stated, the same furnished no criterion of the actual value of the property, inasmuch as it was shown that the assessments in Valleyfield are based on ratios varying from a half to two-thirds of the actual values, and your .committee find that the price paid for the property did not exceed Its real value.

5. As to the statement contained in paragraph ten, your committee find that at the time of the said sale there was no property owned by the Crown in Valleyfield available and suitable for the purpose for which the said properly was acquired.

6. The evidence given by Mr. Loy, under examination, was not contradicted in any particular by that of any of the other witnesses, but was supported and corroborated by the other parties who had knowledge of the transaction.

In accordance with the instructions received, your committee herewith submit the evidence taken before them, together with the exhibits and all their proceedings on the reference.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

(Sgd.) P. B. WADE,

Chairman.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

If I am in order, I beg to move that all the evidence and all the proceedings of the committee, as well as the reports, be printed for the use of the members of this House. The evidence is considerable, covering about 250 pages of closely typewritten matter, and I presume that the House will not be able to pass judgment upon the two reports, namely, the report presented by the majority and the report of the minority, without examining the evidence. As a matter of fact, I believe that the evidence has not been read by any member of tbis House or by any member of the committee. Those who followed the proceedings of the committee very closely were not enabled to take communication of the evidence, and, a fortiori, those who have not attended the meetings of the committee will require to look at that

evidence before deciding on the reports. The matter is a very important one ; it concerns the privileges of this House, and I think I am voicing the sentiment of every member of the House who will be called upon to pronounce upon that question of privilege in making this motion, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart).

Mr. SPEAKER.

I -would wish to have tht opinion of the House with reference to rule 94 before I put the motion. Rule 94 says :

On motion for printing any paper being offered, the first shall be first submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing for report, before the question is put thereon.

According to the rule, I would be inclined to believe that the matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on Printing before a decision is made by the House.

Mr. MONK.

If it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, I move that the rule which you have just quoted be suspended in this case. It is a pressing matter, both for the member concerned and for the House itself, and I believe that I am conforming to the usual practice in moving in the sense in which 1 have moved.

Mr. Speaker, I take objection to the motion unless I am informed beforehand what is the necessity for printing.

Mr. WADE.

The matter of printing the evidence was considered by the committee at two or three of its meetings, and it was almost unanimously resolved that it was not necessary. The story of this transaction, as it was told by Mr. Loy, was confirmed in every particular by every witness called who had any knowledge of the transaction, and there was no dispute whatever as to the facts. It is a very simple matter. The committee were of opinion that the real question to be determined was whether the statute was violated or not upon the admitted testimony of Mr. Loy, and the opinion of the committee was that it was not. I think that any hon. gentleman discussing this question would say that the evidence agreed with the statement made by Air. Loy on tbe floor of the House.

Mr. BENNETT.

I am surprised to hear the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat make the statement that there was a unanimity of opinion in the committee as to the non-printing of the evidence.*Surely the hon. gentleman must have been awake during the proceedings of the committee, and if so. he must have noticed manifestations of opposition to the suggestion that the evidence should not be printed. Moreover, there was this striking fact, that it was before the committee got fairly launched on its work and before two-thirds of the evidence was taken, that the majority in

the committee took the ground that the evidence should not be printed.

Mr. WADE.

I did not say that the committee were unanimous. I said that they were nearly unanimous. I believe three were of the other way of thinking. But the question of printing the evidence was put to the committee on three separate occasion, and the strongest possible expression of opinion was given by the committee on the line I have stated.

Mr. CHARLTON.

I can see no reason why the House should not conform to the regular usage and to the rule laid down for cases of this kind. I see no reason why we should not refer the question to the Committee on Printing in the regular way, and let that committee decide whether this evidence shall be printed or not. That is my opinion as to the proper course to pursue.

Mr. LEMIEUX :

I have followed the

sittings of the committee from the beginning, and I may say that this morning a vote was taken on the minority report presented by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and there were only two to vote for that report-my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Therefore, it seems that the committee are practically unanimous in favour of the hon. member for Beau-liarnois.

Mr. LaRIVIERE. I was in the committee this morning, and there was no vote at all taken in the committee.

Mr. BARKER.

I would like to call attention to the fact that the first person to move that the proceedings of this committee be printed was the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). He moved at the very beginning of the proceedings that all the evidence and proceedings should be printed for the use of the House. He was induced by some bon. gentlemen behind him to let the motion stand for further consideration; but the fact that he thought at the time that the evidence should be printed is some indication of the proper course to pursue. I presume that the minority report, as well as the report which has been presented by the committee, will be laid before the House in some form, and I do not see how this House is to decide between the two reports, or as to the facts set forth in the minority report, without seejng the evidence.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, the course of the government in declining to have this evidence printed is one of the most unusual occurrences that I have ever witnessed in this House. I have had some experience in the committees of this House, and I have never heard any such question raised before. I do not know anything about the evidence myself. Unfortunately, I was not

Mr. BENNETT.

able to attend the meetings of the committee, although I believe I am a member of it; but I can say to my right hon. friend that in the inquiry with regard to the Drummond Counties Railway there was not the slightest question raised about printing the evidence from day to day; in the inquiry about the alleged election frauds in West Huron and Brockville, the evidence was printed as a matter of course almost from day to day; in the inquiry with regard to the emergency rations, the same course was pursued; and indeed in all the cases with which I have been familiar since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, there has never been any such question raised. What is the objection to printing the evidence? Surely there cannot be any well-founded objection. The members of the House are supposed to have some knowledge of what they are voting about, and if they are to have a knowledge of the facts and to be in a position to vote intelligently one way or the other, there cannot be any objection to having the evidence in such a shape that they can read it, understand it, and come to some conclusion about it. I have not the slightest idea of the nature of the report or of the conclusion at which the committee have arrived; I know nothing about the nature of the evidence; but I do submit to my right hon. friend that this is a most unusual departure from the ordinary mode of procedure. It is not a matter that requires to be sent to the Committee on Printing; it is a matter that will have to be discussed and considered by the House; and we know as well as the Committee on Printing can tell us, that we cannot properly understand or weigh the evidence unless we have it in printed form.

Mr. RUSSELL.

Reference has been made to the motion I made at an early stage in the sittings of the committee that the evidence should be printed from day to day. I moved that purely as a routine motion, so that there would be no question about it. Then it was suggested that as there was nothing very serious in this case, as it was similar to the case we had before with reference to the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell), it might be waste of time and trouble to print the evidence. Therefore, I did not press the motion, thinking that if it should be thought necessary later on, the committee would decide the matter. I do not understand that anybody is objecting to the printing of the evidence. The question is whether it would be well to suspend the rule. My opinion is that it would be well to suspend the rule and come down to the plain question whether we ought or ought not print the evidence. The reason I suggest that is that an lion, member whom we all respect is out of his seat while we are considering whether we should print the evidence or not instead of determining the main question. My opinion is that we might as well dispense with the rule requir-

ing the Printing Committee to consider the matter, because that committee has no better light for considering it than the House has this afternoon. The Printing Committee 'will not examine the evidence to ascertain whether it is important that it shodld be printed. The hon. member for Annapolis can inform the House better than the Printing Committee. As to the main question, that comes up later on, and is another question.

My reason for the attitude I have taken in this case is simply this, that I desire to act in conformity with the rules of the House. The position has invariably met the approval of the House that the report of a special committee ought to be confirmed by the House, as we presume the committee have considered the matter. In this case the question of having this evidence printed was considered by the committee more than once and the committee decided that it should not be printed. In the cases referred to by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition -the emergency rations, the Brockville and West Huron elections and some other matters-the committee itself passed resolutions to have the evidence printed and its report was adopted by the House. In this case, however, the committee did not think it advisable to have the evidence printed, after fully considering the matter, and I think we ought to adopt its report. But the matter may be referred to the committee on printing whose decision will guide the House.

Mr. SPEAKER.

With regard to the motion, I think it contrary, to rule 94, which I quoted a moment ago, and which provides that no motion can be made for printing documents unless on the report of the Joint Committee on Printing. The suggestion had been made that the rule be suspended. This can only be done with the unauimous; consent of the House. Is there any objection to the motion that rule 94 be suspended.

I take objection.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Then I declare the motion out of order.

Mr. MONK.

May I not amend my motion and ask that reference may be made to the Joint Committee on Printing ? I understand that the Senate has adjourned for a considerable time, and it was in order to hasten the matter that I asked to have the printing ordered directly.