Mr. URIAH WILSON.

Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a statement which he made in the House that he would bring down a statement as to why certain voters' lists had not been printed. I have before me the voters' list for Sunbury and Queen's for 1904, and I have not yet had any voters' list for my constituency for 1903. I think this is unfair treatment. I understand that this means that two voters' lists have been got out for New Brunswick since 1 have had any.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I would ask my hon. friend to renew his question on Monday, as I have a letter on the subject which I cannot lay my hands on.

Mr. WILSON.

I may not be here in time on Monday, and I would ask the right hon. gentleman to kindly put it on ' Hansard.'

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

The next time my hon. friend is here.

Mr. WM. ROCHE.

Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to refer to an apparent discourtesy on my part to the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). Yesterday afternoon by a previous arrangement, I paid a visit to a very interesting object lesson in connection with the agricultural estimates in the shape of live stock and other attractions. While there I witnessed exhibitions of high tumbling, but had no idea that we were going to have any exhibition of low tumbling in this House. In the evening at seven fifty, I came into the House to get my letters. I did not open them all at the moment, but went to an interesting social function and it was only after eleven o'clock that I found among them a courteous invitation from my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), inviting me to be present in the afternoon as he proposed to revive the discussion of the matter in controversy between us. Had I known this earlier, I would have been present yesterday afternoon, and have put aside the arrangement I had made. I am not aware however that he lost much by my absence, because in any event I would not have replied to the observations which the hon. gentleman made. I wish to avoid as far as

possible any personal controversy with anybody. I do not challenge or attack anybody, and on several occasions have avoided encounters, though perhaps it was my duty to have met them. The reason why I did not wish to have any controversy with my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), is because I am afraid of him, for I think that to some slight extent he was in the right. But I had other reasons for not wishing to meet my hon. friend from Bast Elgin. I am afraid of my hon. friend physically, intellectually and morally. And further, I am afraid of myself ; and do not wish to make in this House any exhibiton of temper whatever. When I do, I am sorry afterwards, because X prefer not to say or do anything which will leave an unpleasant feeling. So far as the observations of my hon. friend from Lennox are concerned, I merely spoke from memory, and I am quite willing to offer any reparation, if unintentionally I have done him any injury. I hope to continue to enjoy the friendship of my hon. friend. We occasionally exchange some words of banter, but are usually on the best of relations, which I trust will continue. But with regard to the observations of my hon. friend from Bast Elgin, I cannot make the same free admission. I did not refer to him either directly or by imputation, yet he volunteered a personal attack upon myself. He attempted to convict me of an untruth and of having had my views coloured by the fact that I am an agent of the Hamburg-American Line. On the latter point, let me say that whenever I have spoken, I have taken pains to openly state that it was in consequence of my connection with that line that I was in a position to obtain information and consequently could speak from personal knowledge. The hon. gentleman, however, was very anxious to accuse me of having stated what was an untruth, and as there were a number of people in the House and the galleries at the time, he made his charge as conspicuously as possible. ' Hansard ' in hand he made this statement without any reservation or qualification.

I would remind the Junior member for Halifax (Mr. William Roche) that he is mistaken when he thinks that the hon. member for Lennox followed him last year with his speech or even with a speechlet. There is no record of either such speech or speechlet. But I can tell him that the hon. gentleman who did follow him and who criticised his language very severely was the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).

Mr. INGRAM.

Hear, hear.

I shall now quote from page 6610 of last year's ' Hansard ' to show what did take place and what is recorded. The Minister of the Interior said:

The only persons we hear that suggestion from is the hon. member for Lennox and his friend the United States inspector, Mr. Watchorn. If my understanding of the hon. gentleman's argument is correct, it is in effect Mr. WM. ROCHE.

that we should make such an arrangement as would allow the officers of the United States to decide who should come into Canada.

Mr. WILSON.

I made no such statement. What I said was that we ought to enter into an arrangement with' them, that we ought to have as much to say about it as the Americans, and that there should be a good understanding between the two governments.

That brought up the whole question as to the strictness of the inspection by our Canadian officers. The Minister of the Interior went on to say :

They are all presided over by a general inspector of first-class professional attainments; and we have no reason whatever to believe that it is necessary that their inspection should be revised by officers of the United States.

That was in the same debate and in pursuance of the same controversy. The hon. member for Lennox then said :

Mr. WILSON.

When was the medical inspector appointed at Montreal ?

I cannot give the hon. gentleman the date.

Mr. WILSON.

I may say that his deputy minister was before the committee as late as the 11th of June, and, according to his evidence, no one had been appointed there then.

There are three instances of the hon. gentleman from Lennox making short speeches and yet the hon. member for East Elgin says there is no record of his having made any speeches or speechlets after mine.

Mr. INGRAM.

They had no reference to you at all.

Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE.

Without any reservation, equivocation or limitation he wanted to make a direct attack, and he made a positive statement there were none and he shall not wriggle out of it. Now, on the same evening there was another debate on the question of salaries and appropriations on the same subject, and during the course of that my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) made five short speeches. That is sufficient. I was only speaking from memory and only reciting what was my impression at the time, for I had no opportunity of consulting the record or refreshing my memory- Now I want to say that I do not appear in this House as a gladiator by any means ; I do not want to enter the lists in competition with my hon. friend. Now and hereafter he may say what he likes and do what he likes with reference to myself ; I shall not reply to any personal observations. But if at any time anything is said affecting the interests of my constituents that seems to me to call for a word from me, I' shall take the opportunity of replying.

On this question that what really troubles my hon. friend is the truth ; and on this subject his conscience smites him, for once at any rate. In this case he was clearly in the wrong. He spoke without full investigation of the subject and made a flamboyant speech hoping that I would not take notice

of it and that it would pass as a refutation of what X had said. If he thinks he is equipped and qualified to enter into competition with those who engage in personalities, who are apt to fling back recrimination for recrimination, and to bandy comparisons perhaps as expressive as his own or indulge in any scurrility, he may find that there are people of that kind who will meet him and transfix him, when he will be dead as a smelt.

Hr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).

I have only a word or two to say in reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche). If a man is to be attacked, at least he can prepare for the attack if he has reasonable notice. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) in this matter, .has not done me the courtesy of giving me 'fair warning. When I intended to speak of him yesterday I gave him due notice. He read my letter and though he replied also by letter which was sent to me last night at eleven o'clock, he did not have the courtesy to say in that letter that he was going to make another attack on me to-day. This is the hon. gentleman's letter to me :

Ottawa, 2nd June, 1904.

11 p.m.

Ingram, Esq.,

House ofCommons.

Sir,-I have just opened your letter. Had I received it in time, I might have put aside a previous engagement, hut, was out of town this afternon.

I am, dear sir.

Your most obedient servant,