Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

by the words "one thousand," and the second by inserting "five thousand."

Hon. Mr. MILLER thought this was going very far. In every part of this country there were magistrates within easy reach, and it would be better if a police officer had reason to believe that any person was about to engage in a prize fight in violation of this law, to go before a magistrate and submit his reasons, and if the .nagistrate thought them well founded this power should be vested in him. He thought it was very summary.

stations of that railroad. 2nd. Copy of the minutes or other record of any inquiry which may have been instituted as to the causes of said accident, the names of witnesses examined," and minutes of their evidence. 3rd. A return. of the number of new sleepers or ties used on accident referred to, together with cost of same; the said railway since the occurrence of the also, a return showing the amount expended in epairing all damages caused by said accident." The motion was agreed to.

THE PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT. SECOND REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. Hon. Mr. SIMPSON moved the adoption of the second report of the Joint Committee on Printing. He explained that it recommended the printing of a number of returns called for last session. The report was adopted.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL admitted that it was summary, but a summary process was necessary, and this was the provision which had been adopted in some States of the neighboring Union. He laid great stress on the fact that it only pointed to persons who might be engaged as principals in prize fights, of BETTER PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL whom there were very few in try.

the coun

SECOND AND THIRD READINGS.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL moved

further to continue in force for a limited time The Better Prevention of Crime

The motion was agreed to, and the the second reading of Bill (D) An Act clause was adopted. The remaining clauses of the Bill were Act 1878. He explained that it was adopted.

[blocks in formation]

intended to continne for another year the Act under which persons might be searched for arms.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read the third time and passed, under a suspension of the rules.

PRIZE FIGHTING BILL.

IN COMMITTEE.

The House resumed, in Committee of 3.25" An Act respecting prize fighting." the Whole, the consideration of Bill (A)

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.
MOTION.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said it was understood, when the Committee rose yesterday, that he was to have an amendment to the first clause drafted so as to define more accurately what a prize fight was. He proposed, instead of an amendment to the first clause, to move that the following be added as a new clause to the Bill:

:

Hon. Mr. PELLETIER, in the absence of Hon. Mr. HAYTHORNE, moved :— "That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that His Excellency will cause to be laid be- "If, after hearing evidence of the circu fore this House:-1st. Copy of all correspond-stances connected with the origin of the fight, ence or telegrams which may have passed or intended fight, the person before whom a between the Railway Department and the complaint is made under this Act is satistied manager or other officer of the Prince Edward that such fight, or intended fight, was bond fie Island Railroad, having reference to an accident which occurred during the month of pute between the principals engaged, or who the consequence or result of a quarel or dis August last, between the York and Suffolk | intended to engage, therein, and that the same

was not an encounter or fight for a prize, or on the result of which the handing over or transfer of money or property depends-then such person may, in his discretion, discharge the accused, or impose upon him a fine not exceeding twenty dollars."

This did not expose the Crown to the necessity of proving that a bet, or prize, or money depended upon the result of the fight. It threw the burden of establishing that on the defendant. If he could prove that it was not a fight on which money or bets depended, then he might be discharged or fined, in the discretion of the magistrate.

Hon. Mr. MILLER said that on the whole he was satisfied with the amendment.

regard to the objection raised by the hon. Senator from Ottawa, he thought that cases might arise in which it would be the duty of the magistrate to diseharge one of the parties to a fight. For instance, suppose a police officer should find a man defending himself from assault, would it be just to fine him for defending himself?

Hon. Mr. SCOTT said his remarks

applied to cases where parties fought according to agreement.

Hon. Mr. MILLER thought that either this amendment, or something like it, should be added to the Bill.

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL considered should be liable to be arrested on a seit a hardship that an innocent man rious charge and imprisoned for twelve months.

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL would prefer to have the definition of a prize fight appear in the first clause. He thought that in many cases our legislation was carried too far, and might be inconvenient to innocent persons, as in the Pool Selling Bill and the Gambling on Rail-nience. ways Bill. Such measures, as a rule, brought before Parliament by persons who made hobbies of them, and members generally, seeing the good objects in view, did not oppose them.

were

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said

that in this case no person had a hobby, but the legislation was suggested by actual occurrences which had taken which had taken place on the shores of Lake Erie last summer. The amendment, which he had moved was the best, perhaps the only way to confine this Act to persons engaged in a prize fight.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT thought it unnecessary to define what a prize fight is. The judicial officers might be trusted to decide that. He objected to this amendment because it conveyed the idea that Parliament did not at all disapprove of a square stand-up fight," as it was called, between man and man. It gave the magistrate discretion to fine or discharge the parties to a fight unless they were engaged in a prize fight.

Hon. Mr. MILLER, in reply to Hon. Mr. Cornwall's objection, said any criminal enactment placed on the statute books might prove inconvenient to innocent parties. It was an inconvenience which law-abiding people must risk for the security of the public. With

It

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said there was no danger of that inconveIn the first place, the Act was only to operate against prize fighting, which it was designed to suppress. was possible that parties might be arrested who had no intention of engaging in a prize fight, but on proving what their intention was they could not be convicted. In reply to the objection. that discretionary power should not be given to magistrates to discharge parties accused of participating in a fight, he thought that there were circumstances under which punishment ought not to be inflicted. For instance, in the case of a fight between school boys, the magistrate

should have the discretion to dismiss them with a caution not to repeat the offence. The amendment might be adopted, and the Bill re-printed as amended for further consideration at the third reading.

The amendment was adopted.

Hon. Mr. FERRIER, from the Committee, reported the Bill with amendments, which were concurred in.

The Senate adjourned at 4.10 p.m.

[blocks in formation]

AN EXPLANATION. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL

I

property qualification up to and including desire, before the Orders of the day are

the 28th of December last.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said that this was a return of those members of the Senate who had made the declaration in accordance with the rule of the House. He was informed by one of his colleagues, Mr. Girard, that he had arrived too late to make the declaration as required by the rule, within twenty days from the opening of the session, and he thought it better and safer that a motion should be made to allow him to comply with the rule.

Hon. Mr. MILLER thought that no leave would be necessary on the part of the House. Any Senator who had not been able to be present within the first twenty days of the session should be allowed to make the declaration on his arrival.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said that the rule was absolute, and it was so regarded by the Clerk, who thought his authority was at an end after the twenty days, unless instructed by the House to permit the declaration to be made.

As

it was an important matter, and one that might be attended by serious consequences to the House hereafter, it would be better to establish a precedent. He, therefore, moved that the Clerk be authorized to take the declaration of the hon. Senator from St. Boniface.

Hon. Mr. DICKEY assumed that it could not have been intended that any gentleman who was prevented, by stress of weather or other unavoidable reason,

called, to make an explanation with reference to an item which appears in the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending 30th of June last. I was then Minister of Militia. The item occurs at page 57 of vol. 2, where I find charged, as having been paid me for cab hire, the sum of $183.70. This item should have read "travelling expenses and cab hire." On inquiry, find that the omission of the words "travelling expenses" was the error of the clerk who copied the state ment for the printer. Of the whole amount so paid to me, some $172 were for travelling expenses on two occasions on public business, and the remainder only for cab hire.

PRIZE FIGHTING BILL.

THIRD READING.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL moved the third reading of Bill (A) "An Act respecting Prize Fighting." He said that when this Bill was last before the House an amendinent had been introduced to make it clear that it did not cover ordinary fights, and to confine it strictly to prize fights. That amendment was as follows:

"If, after hearing evidence of the circumstances connected with the origin of the fight, or intended fight, the person before whom a complaint is made under this Act is satisfied that such fight or intended fight was bona fide the consequence or result of a quarrel or disintended to engage therein, and that the same pute between the principals engaged, or who was not an encounter or fight for a prize, or in the result of which the handing over or trans

fer of money or property depends, then such person may, in his discretion, discharge the accused, or impose upon him a fine not exceeding twenty dollars."

He thought that this amendment met the case, and the only suggestion he would make further was that the fine

should not be limited to $20, but that the magistrate might, even if the case was not one of prize fighting, impose a higher fine in his discretion. He would suggest that the words "not exceeding $50" be substituted for "$20." In order to show the sort of prize fighting which took place sometimes in this country, and which this measure was designed to prevent, he would read the following paragraph, which he had clipped from a newspaper the other day :

"PUGILISTIC.

"New York, January 10.-Dick Holliwood,

[ocr errors]

the ex-feather weight champion pugilist, to day accepted the challenge issued by Dick Goodwin, better known as Spring Dick, of Cincinnati, to fight for $2,500, and the feather weight championship of America. Holliwood agrees to fight Goodwin either within a hundred miles of Buffalo, in Canada, or within a hundred miles of Pittsburg or Cincinnati." It would be observed that the fight was arranged and the betting took place in New York, but the fight was not to take place in that State, where the laws were sufficient to prevent such combats, but in Canada, or Pennsylvania or Ohio. It showed the necessity of taking such precautions as this legislation furnished to prevent such fights coming off in this country. The amendment, as originally contemplated, would, perhaps, have impaired the usefulness of the Bill by making it very difficult to secure a conviction, but as the amendment was now worded, the onus of proving that the meeting was not for a prize fight, if the circumstances attending it indicated that it was, rested with the accused, and the just and useful operation of the Bill would not be interfered with.

Hon. Mr. ALMON said that he had objected to the Bill as originally framed, not because he approved of prize fight ing, but because it would have tended to put down the common mode of settling quarrels which he thought a very much better way than with the bowie knife or stiletto. As to the surgeon being present, he still held the views which he had

expressed when the Bill was in committee. He might be summoned to a prize fight in his professional capacity, and his presence would have a tendency to stop the fight. Nobody had ever heard of a surgeon being punished for being waive that objection, the other amendpresent at a duel. However, he would ment having been made.

Hon. Mr. REESOR asked whether a party who should in a combat that was not a prize fight, inflict serious injury on another, would be liable to no heavier punishment than a fine of $20 ?

Hon. Mr. MILLER No; the law is open besides that.

Hon. Mr. REESOR (continuing) Supposing very serious injury did result, of a character that would make the party inflicting it worthy of punishment in penitentiary, or of being heavily fined, it seemed to him that a fine of $20 or $50 would be too light.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said that a party who maimed another intentionally would be liable to be sent to penitentiary, and if the injuries resulted in death, he would be liable to be hanged. The existing provisions of the law were not to be interfered with by the Bill, nor did he think that $50 was to be the limit of the punishment. On the contrary, under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. gentleman, the other punishment might follow.

Hon. Mr. DICKEY quite agreed with the hon. the Postmaster-General that

there was no such difficulty as regards this clause as was apprehended by the ties could be indicted separately for the hon. gentleman from Kings, as the pargreater offence, and this Bill in no way limited such a course, if parties thought fit to resort to it. Besides, the party who suffered injury under such circumstances, if he were not in the wrong himself, would have a civil remedy for damages. The principle of the Bill was to prevent prize fighting, and it was because some hon. gentlemen, himself amongst the number, thought it might be construed so as to apply to parties who casually quarrelled and fought it out on the spot that he had suggested amendments might be made so as to bring it more clearly within the scope of the reason that the

hon. the Postmaster-General gave for introducing the Bill that was, to put down the scandal of prize fighting. The extract the hon. minister had read to-day showed very strongly the necessity that existed for legislation of this kind. The clause proposed to-day was identical with the one that had already been agreed upon in committee, and that clause was the result of a compromise; therefore his hon. friend would see that, while they should not provide for aggravated cases because there was a remedy already, they should legislate in such a way as to prevent the recurrence of prize fights in this country. Then, coming to the question of casual quarrels, they had to provide a simple remedy, an additional or alternate remedy to those existing to make the parties liable by fines. That was the whole case in a nut-shell, and he, therefore, thought it was hardly necessary to go into the question whether the fine should be $20 or $50. He thought they should agree to the amendments made in Committee, especially as they now had the admission of the mover of the Bill that there was a remedy for a case where a party suffers a severe injury. The law gave a criminal and a civil remedy also for the party injured, therefore it would be just as well to leave the Bill as reported to the House. The clause, as amended and passed in committee, had removed entirely his objection to the Bill, and he was quite willing that it should pass with that amendment.

did not care to take the remedy under this statute the law already gave them another remedy.

his remedy by indictment, provided he Hon. Mr. SCOTT said the party had did not take it under this 9th clause;

The

He

but if he chose to take it under the 9th clause, and have the matter adjudicated on by the magistrate or police officer, that judicial officer could either dismiss the case or impose a limited fine and take it entirely out of the criminal code, which, he thought, would be very unfortunate. He would prefer to see that clause struck out altogether, as he could Bill as it stood before. see no embarrassment arising from the It was not póssible that any judicial officer could make any mistake as to its meaning. question of prize fighting was one that everybody in the community quite understood, and it would be perfectly clear that an ordinary quarrel between two men resulting in a fight on the spot could not be called a prize fight. had known what prize fights were, and had seen them reported in the papers, and it had not occurred to him that there could be any confusion. He thought it was rather straining the language to suggest there was a difficulty in the interpre tation of the Bill. To his mind it was perfectly clear and satisfactory as it was, and he very much feared that they were going to complicate it by leaving the 9th clause in. It seemed to him to be rather directory to the functionary who tries Hon. Mr. SCOTT thought, personally, cases of that kind to say acquit the parthat the Bill was a very good one with- ties or impose a fine. Certainly if he out the ninth clause, and would very enters upon the trial of the case and dismuch rather have seen that clause omit-poses of it, no matter what the injury ted, because he felt that it was an inter- might be, the party could not be tried ference with the criminal law of the land. j again. They were, by this clause, giving special directions to the magistrate or judicial that the hon. gentleman seemed to forget

officer who undertook to dispose of a case of this kind, apart from the criminal law of the land, and he did not agree with hon. gentlemen who said that a man might be cumulatively punished. Under the law of the land, if a man was tried and punished, or tried and acquitted, he could not be tried again for the same offence.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said

that it was not the view which he (Mr. Scott) took of a prize fight, nor his sense of how clear it might be what a prize fight was, but how it would strike the magistrate.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT I see no difficulty about it at all.

Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL sail Hon. Mr. DICKEY said he had not that was because the hon. gentleman stated that that was a cumulative remedy | knew what a prize fight was; but this at all. He had stated that if the parties Bill proposed to define it, and said that it

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »