around it by asking any such question as that. I will ask the hon. gentleman if any [customs house officer, postmaster, sheriff, city or town clerk or municipal secretary-treasurer in his constituency would not be a fair and reasonable man to hold an election.
once. But my hon. friend is not prepared to say that any one of the officials named in the proposed amendment would not be admirably fitted to conduct an election in his own riding. What he does say is this: " No, we won't accept any of those men, but w'e will accept a man that I may recommend to the Government to be my returning officer."
I have already spoken on this subject and I have no desire to repeat myself. I rise only to point out to my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) that nine-tenths of the very eloquent speech he made a few minutes ago is based upon an entire misapprehension of this amendment. I say "misapprehension" because I , know my hon. friend too well to assume that he would intentionally misrepresent me. Again and again he said: Under this amendment we are willing to trust an official appointed by the Provincial Governments, but we are not willing to trust an official appointed by the Federal Government. My hon. friend is entirely wrong. This list contains a number of officials who receive their appointments from the Government at Ottawa, and I think I am safe in stating that although in West Elgin probably half a dozen of the class of officials enumerated in that list have been appointed by the hon. gentleman himself, yet we are willing to trust them. So when he says we will trust only men appointed by the local governments my hon. friend is entirely wrong.