SCHEDULE of School Lands sold by public auction at Regina, &c.-Concluded. WRECKING PLANTS. Mr. MARSHALL: tenders been received for the establishment 1. From what persons or corporations have or maintenance of any wrecking plant, in the River or Gulf of St. Lawrence, and whether on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts or what was the subsidy in each case? Hon. L. P. BRODEUR: Tenders for the maintenance of a wrecking plant on the Atlantic coast were received from the following: Dominion_Coal Co., Glace Bay, N.S.; St. Lawrence Floating and Wrecking Co., of Montreal, P.Q.; Maritime Newfoundland Shipping Co.,_of Halifax, N.S.; J. E. Moore, St. John, N.B.; Messrs. Larder Bros., North Sydney, N.S.; William Leslie Kingston, Ont.; J. A. Farquhart, Halifax, N.S. Only one tender was received for the maintenance of a wrecking plant on the Pacific caost. This tender was from the British Columbia Salvage Company. tered into with Messrs. Geo. T. Davie & In the year 1901, an agreement was enSon to maintain a wrecking plant in the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence. The subsidy granted for maintaining a wrecking plant on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the River St. Lawrence is $10,000 per annum in each case. SHIPPING STATISTICS. Mr. SINCLAIR: 1. Distinguishing between sail and steam, how many tons of shipping were added to 31st March, 1909? 2. Yes. 1905-06, Nil; 1906-07, Nil; 1907-08, the Canadian register during the year ending $37; 1908-09, Nil: 1909-10, $19. 1. What quantity of grain was received during the season of 1908 at the following points: Depot Harbour, Midland, Tiffin, Collingwood, Owen Sound and Goderich? 2. What quantity of grain was shipped from Port Arthur and from Fort William to Canadian ports and to American ports, respectively? 3. How much grain was transhipped at Kingston and Prescott during 1908? 4. What quantity of grain was received at the Port of Montreal during 1908, from Port Arthur and Fort William by water from American ports? Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for Minister of Trade and Commerce): Has the government given to Messrs. Mcfinancial or other aid to encourage them in Curdy. Baldwin or Dr. Graham Bell any their efforts to navigate the air? Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. The Department of Militia and Defence placed the Petewawa camp grounds at the disposal of Messrs. McCurdy and Baldwin during the past summer, for the purpose of carrying out trials with their aerodromes, and lent the services of one or two engineer officers and men to assist them when required. The Department also erected a shed for the temporary housing of Messrs. McCurdy and Baldwin's machines while at Petewawa. No financial assistance was given. TRENT VALLEY CANAL. Bushels. Section No. 7 2,624,622 Randolph McDonald Co... 20,940 00 1,058,030 00 1. Depot Harbour.. Midland.. Tiffin.. Collingwood.. Goderich.. VETERAN LAND GRANTS. Mr. DANIEL: How many land grants have been taken up by veterans, and how many assignments approved? Mr. OLIVER. 433 land grants have been taken up by veterans up to the latest returns from the various Land Agencies of the department. 2,588 assignments have been approved. POSTAL SERVICE. Mr. S. SHARPE: 1. In what constituencies were the follow ing post offices established, viz: Cedar Croft, Kawartha Park, Midlothian Wharf, Ojibway Island and Rigaud sur le Lac? 2. What is the number of persons that the department estimate is being served by each of these post offices? Sir WILFRID LAURIER: (for the Postmaster General): Cedar Croft, in Parry Sound, Ont. Population served-15 families with cottages and 75 boarders. Kawartha Park, in Peterborough, W.R., Ont. Population served-A boarding house accommodating 25 guests, 15 cottages with from 75 to 100 occupants; also several new cottages, together with the Y.M.C.A. camp of Peterborough, and other camps in the vicinity. Midlothian Wharf, in Parry Sound, Ont. Population served-A number of summer cottages, 8 families and about 50 single people. Ojibway Island, in Parry Sound, Ont. Population served-25 families and 100 single people. Rigaud sur le Lac, in Vaudreuil, Population served-30 to 40 families. NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL M. P. & J. T. Davis, about three months beyond fixed date. Contract covers from Quebec bridge easterly for about 150 miles. THE APPROACH TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. GEO. TAYLOR. Before the orders of the day are called, might I draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that during the last two sessions on the approach of winter, cocoa matting was laid on the steps leading to the parliament buildings. The painted boards now on the steps are slippery and dangerous, and I would recommend the minister to have the matting laid down at once. Mr. PUGSLEY. I shall be glad to give the matter attention. NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAIL- Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any document to be added to those brought down in connection with the resignation of Mr. Lumsden. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend suggested that there was some correspondence from Mr. Lumsden to me and a letter from me to him. I asked my secretary to look for this letter, and he has not found it yet. Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln) moved Railway Act. He said: this Bill, as I exsecond reading of Bill (No. 2) to amend the plained briefly in introducing it, is I think Que.cision of the Ontario Court of Appeals, require'd by virtue of an unanimous degiven in a well-considered judgment, placing a construction on section 340 of the Railway Act as it at present stands. That is a section dealing, not with the question whether a railway company is liable or Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM. Mr. not, but with the question of the amount Speaker, I wish to make an addition to the that a company should pay in the event answers given yesterday to question No. 19, of its admitted or proved liability asked by my hon. friend from South Simcoe for negligence in the carrying of (Mr. Lennox). By some error, a portion | goods. It might not be amiss to of the answer to paragraph 4 was detached, and it is as follows: RAILWAY. 4. Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, about fifteen months beyond fixed date. Contract covers from city of Moncton westerly for about 50 miles. The John W. McManus Company, Limited, about sixteen months beyond fixed date. Contract covers from Chipman easterly a distance of about 8 miles. Lyons & White, about fifteen months beyond fixed date. Contract covers from near Grand Falls westerly, a distance of about 62 miles. state that previous to 1903 the law, as settled by the decisions of the courts, was in an unsatisfactory state. We thought in this House in 1903 that we had made it clear and distinct, and before this debate is over, I think the House will agree with me that the construction put on this section by the Ontario Court of Appeals is not the construction we intended that should be placed up on it when we passed it in 1903. The section permits a railway company, under certain conditions, to limit and restrict its liability to less than it would be at common law or ordinarily, when it injures or destroys goods through its negligence in carrying. It is not a question whether the company shall be liable or not, but whether its liability shall be reduced or impaired by any contract which it makes with the shipper or owner of the goods as a condition of carrying them. The courts held previous to 1903 that a company could not contract itself out of the total liability; but they afterwards held that it could contract itself out of a part of the liability by virtue of giving the shipper a special rate under a contract by which the shipper agreed that he would take only a part of the damages, if entitled to damages at all, for the loss of his goods. That was the state of the law in 1903. In 1903, we left to the Railway Commission, the question as to what should be a fair contract to be made. We provided in the statute that these contracts, before they should be held to be good, should have the sanction of the Railway Commission. I had better, perhaps, read the exact words of section 340, which I am seeking to amend, as it now stands in the revised statutes of 1906. It reads as follows: No contract, condition, bv-law, regulation, declaration or notice made or given by the company, impairing, restricting or limiting its liability in respect of the carriage of any traffic, shall, except as hereinafter provided, relieve the company from such liability, unless such class of contract, condition, by-law, regulation, declaration or notice shall have been first authorized or approved by order or regulation of the board. Now, the trouble turns upon these words, 'class of' in that section. I think parliament meant in these words a form of contract, and not that any court should say that a contract which was not the one authorized by the commission should be held to be good and binding on the shipper. That is what the court says could be done, and it is that which I object to, and which the House should amend. The case decided by the Ontario Court of Appeals last year, Sutherland vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company, is to be found in volume' xviii of the Ontario Law Reports, beginning at page 139. It was decided by Chief Justice Sir Glenholme Falconbridge in April of last year, and his decision was upheld by the whole Court of Appeals in November of last year. Mr. Sutherland shipped from Brocton, Massachusetts, to Grimsby, Ontario, $16,000 worth of valuable horses, which the chief justice held were fully proved to be worth that much money. That was his loss when the Grand Trunk railway were negligent at Trenton and in consequence of the collision his horses were destroyed. He, however, was unable to ship those horses from Brockton, Massachusetts, unless he signed a contract, not authorized by the Railway Commission, but something like it, under which he bound himself to accept $1,200 for a carload of horses worth some $16,000 in case any loss occurred through the company's negligence. He had no option, no other rate was offered him, he could not ship those horses unless he signed that contract. They were taken by the Grand Trunk railway from a point near the Vermont line and were destroyed at Trenton, Ontario. Mr. Sutherland, having obtained on opinion that this contract had never been authorized by the board, thought he was entitled to his full amount of damages. He was given no option when he made the shipment, he had no chance to ship at any other rate, he had signed no contract which the Railway Board had sanctioned, and consequently thought he was entitled to recover his full amount of damages, but the judges held that the words unless such class of contract' entitled them to rule that although the contract was not authorized by the Railway Board it was in that class, and therefore was just as binding as if it had been authorized by the Railway Commission. That ruling is contrary to the spirit of our legislation. We appointed the Railway Board to deal We did not with questions of this kind. want the ordinary judge of the land to decide what should be considered a fair contract. We appointed a board, specially selected for their knowledge, ability and acumen in railway matters to decide what shall be a fair contract, and the moment we agree that any judge, no matter how able, can in any sense usurp the functions of the board, we do a highly dangerous thing and a thing against the principle of the Railway Act. The Railway Board has declared that a certain contract, and no other, shall be the one the Grand Trunk railway must use in cases of the kind, but here we have a different contract, one which would be binding over the route in a foreign country, but which the Grand Trunk railway made apply to Canadian territory, and the company succeeded in convincing the court that because the words 'such class of contract' are in the Act, they let in any other contract besides the one the Railway Commission adopts. That is the chief point I make, but I go further and I say that as those contracts are based on the understanding that a man has to give up his common law rights, that he has to give up a part of what he is entitled to, he should at least have the option of paying a higher rate in order to be fully indemnified in case of loss or pay a lower rate should he agree to lesser indemnification. It is evidently manifestly unfair that if a man is willing to pay a higher rate and get his full common law indemnity, he should not have the right to do so before being compelled to ship at a lesser rate with a reduced liability on the part of the company. I might point out that we have already dealt with this matter in another REVISED EDITION. |