the The House resumed adjourned debate proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, tj,e Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, f° ceI-House to go into committee to consider a tj,e tain resolution concerning the ratification aBa agreement between His Majesty the Wins the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway foni 0-dated the 8th day of March, 1904 ' ; and tn - ;n posed motion of Mr. Borden (Halua amendment thereto. . Mr. BENJAMIN RUSSELL (Hants)-?,,' Speaker. T occupied such ail " uncoBS0 able time " last session in discussing ,j. main contract which is the subject of " tjie fication by the amendments now ^ef01 to House, that I shall do all in my P°". at 1 atone for the past by compressing 'v,jjrlits have to say to-day within as narrow re!l-as possible ; and that will be partly 3M-V^r0iii son for not following my hon. friend East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in his 11 tj,js scopic analysis to which he subject''1. Ji|gt contract in his remarks o f0i-evening. The points which he broug ^,(>re ward were in the main not new. Tb®? o''er points which had been fully dealt wn' jgjit and over again, during the seven o months o'f the last session of tin? ,y ah' and if they have not been conchisi'. " alid swered by the hon. Minister of <R,H ,)V the the hon. Minister of the Interior pceh e'*e11: .eB Lild learned counsel whose opinions ha eVe* $ given to this House, I am afraid tBa one should rise from the dead, the B '^-piiK1 bers on the other side of the H°u®.niitt®®' not be convinced. I may be P jn t* however, to refer to some fallacies with hon. gentleman's method of t*eaIl0r' those points. He holds up the t*eeh fications of the contract which wBa introduced, and asks you to P0'?V coaI)tSa *- in them for the benefit of this ^ lie *3f' Everything he discovers in thenb 'tpei'ehe is for the benefit of the compa'H0f t nothing in them for the Benen , country. Of course, that is P*®. My lcn0 we should expect; because every Posed't1611 tlle oriSinal contract was pro-cessi Pie company, they asked for con-'hodifi118' [DOT] an<^ very Pul'l>ose of the this !Sati°ns which have been presented to obif,r.t!Use 's to meet the difficulties and e°nina °nS tllat llave been raised by the Yon any to the contract in its original form, con,.. w?l,'(l not expect to find in these c°iintrS-10ns anything in favour of the in jit'5"' 1)ut you would expect to find of various modifications in favour iiinp ? company. So that it is an extremely iacjo,, 8 ancl Plausible, but utterly fal-the ,s an(l unfair mode of presenting this Datt?r to the House, to hold up to flna,10cViie,I contract and challenge us fit 0f !. *n it any points for the bene-Uiothni e country. The fair and proper as a(-|a Would be to take the main contract road i . by this House last session and then t 0 if; these modified provisions, and entirety .say whether this contract in its iic-cen+n 18 or is not a fair contract for the That i!rlce of' the people of this country, ized mvn6 of 't-fre fallacies which character -this eoJ' aon' friditl's method of presenting ancl ni.ff t° the House. It was ingenious ed more of the 'nest rnetorician ' than of the fair and , st critio ,. Another and ni ,° the House. It 1 soniii„a!lstfrle. but it savore hon(,st tical rhetorician ' than . °st critic. *ented fallacy which my lion, friend pre->0n!s 'vas this, lie took Sir Rivers-Wil-L'Un]. pCch to the directors of the Grand said that Way. In which Sir Iiivers-Wilson hartiip,. 1 the Grand Trunk Railway was a with ____________________________... «* i)r°Ject 'Vl<:,J the government in this great therefor an(* then he exclaimed : You are "It UiV(f, resPonsible, as a partner, for what hon'8}'.il80u Presents to liis company, tt'oin tho triend picks out one statement as, tuany made by Sir Rivers-Wilson, htetation Us to accept that as a fair inter-?lltse ?, °*' this modified contract. Of ,'6nt of ^ one WH1 see that that state-k.etor}P„, tr Rivers-Wilson was merely a o fanev nourish. In the exuberance of !:°§aize 10 used what every one will re-Partno .a .taetaphor, when he said: We * ht of eft's in this matter with the govern-®aSe, I uada. And, in a metaphorical i^e. Partus pos? we might concede that they / ^ is not Sr with the government, but sure-,11*t gravp, to take a rhetorical flourish fm, gal „ y found upon a figure of speecli j *°Wed .fe,,tnent. Yet that is the method Qi.^iH no/ tlle fr°n- member for Hastings. Jfrte 8o say that my hon. friend was dirt frer fnl°"S 1,1 this direction as the hon. hot „v, west Toronto (Mr. Osier). He l3o 6 of „r ®° far. He did not say that be-boo ah(l <>-o ,e r®cent change in the law of fj,, 1 sain ,vei'ninS companies, what had L\ys. in n„o ®iu Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Of oors 0f ."abating their case to the share-tt,p uch a oh Gran(l Trunk Railway, was fiw Sovcrmo''U'''S.Cte1, tllat it absolutely bound it , , from , . and prevented the governaiight ot, *Slsting upon tlio rights which her wise have insisted upon as contained in the terms of the contract between it and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Surely that is the most absurd contention ever offered to any parliament under heaven. If it were so easy as that to get rid of the obligations of a contract, nothing would be simpler than for the company to put up a director-and the more stupid the director they could find the better-to give his interpretation of the contract, and by that interpretation bind the other party, and discharge themselves from their obligations and liabilities under the contract. Surely the hon. gentleman could not have been serious in presenting such an argument, and I acquit him of any such imputation. Of course, when the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrop) quoted the statement of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and suggested that tlie government was bound by it, he was only speaking in a facetious way, and did not seriously mean to present that as a legal argument. It was only the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who ever dreamed of presenting that statement as an argument to control tlie action of this House with reference to this contract. There was one important admission made by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrop) witli reference to an argument which had been made by my bon. friend tlie Minister of Justice. Referring to the argument of the Minister of Justice last session, that the mortgage of the Grand Trunk Railway came after that of the government and was an additional guarantee therefore for the payment of tlie government mortgage, he admitted that that was a perfectly good and sound argument at the time, blit that it had since been swept away by the provisions of this modified contract. Of course, it has to a certain extent, but what I want to call attention to is the fact that my hon. friend made tlie admission that the argument of the Minister of Justice last session was in this respect a sound one, and I would ask why did not tlie hon. gentleman make that admission last session ? He was very careful not to do so then, nor would he make it now did he not think that the admission now could not hurt his case. I am reminded by the course taken by our lion, friends opposite of an incident said to have occurred when the commission was sitting in England to revise the new testament. One of tlie dignitaries was asked whether a certain disputed text should be retained or whether it was not spurious. He was so anxious about tlie matter that he sent a despatch to higher authorities asking for an opinion, and received the reply : Probably spurious, but it is not to be surrendered without a fight That aptly represents the attitude taken bv our hon. friends on tlie other side. Ther admit to each other that their contentions are probably spurious, but none the less they are not to be surrendered without a fight And while tlie contentions of the

Minister of Justice were probably correct, still they should be careful not to recognize their correctness until such recognition could do them no harm. I have no doubt that if it were conceivable that we should come back to this House next year with another modification of this contract-