was "an encounter, or fight, with the fists or hands, between two persons who have met for such purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them." It was intended to define precisely what a prize fight was, but the hon. gentleman must dismiss what was in his own mind, and look at the language of the clause and say whether it did not introduce uncertainty into the measure. It was urged with considerable force that the language used might lead to very great difficulty in construction, because a fight between two persons might be the result of previous agreement and yet not be really a prize fight; as, for instance, two persons might quarrel in a house, and say, "let us go out and fight it out." There would be a fight by previous engagement, and yet it would not be a prize fight. Then, if it rested with the Crown officer to prove, as the first amendment suggested, that there was money depending on the result of the fight, it would be very difficult to secure a conviction, since the engagement for the fight might have been made in another country in the case to which he had referred-and it would be difficult to prove that there was any prize or money depending on the event. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him that, as objection had been, made, with a good deal of reason, to the language of the Bill, it was best to try and get over the difficulty in some way or other, and he thought that the 9th clause did get over it very well, and, to his mind, was a satisfactory change. He thought, however, that it would be better to increase the fine. It was true the clause was the result of a compromise, but the use of the word "twenty was not, but was inserted at his (Sir Alex. Campbell's) suggestion, as a sufficient fine. It had since occurred to him, however, that it might not be sufficient in all cases, and that was why he now suggested that a larger amount should be named. as state whether it did or did not apply to such fights. Really all the science could be displayed which a great many people go to see in a prize fight, and a good deal of punishment could be inflicted, in a fight with gloves. Hon. Mr. REESOR thought magistrates would be liable to be misled by The object of this legislation was to prevent the language of the 9th clause. prize fighting and not to punish other fights which were not of that nature. That object would be met in the latter part of the 9th clause if, instead of saying such person may, in his discretion, be discharged or a fine imposed, it were provided that, in such case, the parties shall not be liable to punishment under this Act. That would leave him open to punishment under the existing laws of the country - under the common law or statute law. What the magistrate would want to know was whether that would be the limit of the punishment that could be applied, whether it was twenty dollars or fifty dollars, or any sum be tween those amounts. If the Bill simply declared that a party fighting, though not engaged in a prize fight, should not be liable to punishment under this Act, it would meet the case, and remove the liability of the magistrate being misled by the language of the clause as it now stood. Hon. Mr. MILLER could readily understand how this view of it might be taken by the non-legal mind, and he had no doubt it presented itself to the hon. gentleman with considerable force. He concurred in the opinion of the hon. leader of the Opposition that if a party should, under this law, be tried and punished, no further charge could be brought against him for the same offence ; and if the crime was of so grave a character as to make it desirable that the party should not be punished under this law, he could be tried under the statute law or the common law of the country. He did not think that the objections which had been raised possessed much force, because this remedy was cumulative it was in addition to the punishIments which could now be enforced under acts on the statute book, for breaches of the peace, or injuries done to the person. The necessity of having some definition Hon. Mr. RYAN wished to know if a fight with gloves between two professional prize fighters would bring them within the penalties imposed by this Bill? Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL do not think it would. Hon. Mr. RYAN thought that it should be better defined; the Bill should of what a prize fight is, and what is not included in a prize fight, was that, from the moment you attempted a definition of it, it was just possible that if the law was merely directed against prize fighting, without attempting to define what was not meant by a prize fight, it would give more trouble to the judiciary to decide the point. With this definition, however, in the 1st clause, he thought it was almost imperative that there should be some such clause as the 9th, in order to show what breaches of the law were or were not intended to be included within the scope of this Bill. Hon. Mr. CORNWALL thought there was no necessity for defining what a prize fight was, and if the 1st clause were taken from the Bill, the 9th clause would disappear with it, and the matter would be perfectly plain, and then it would be left to the judiciary to decide when a case came before them whether a prize fight had taken place or not, and in such hands it would be perfectly safe. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL did not think that would be wise. Suppose a case came before a country magistrate, and the question was whether it was or was not one of prize fighting, the first thing that would occur to him would be to inquire for what prize the fight took place. Take the case which he had read from a newspaper: the fight was arranged in New York, and was to take place in Canada. Suppose that case were brought before a magistrate. He would read in the newspaper that $2,500 depended on it, but that would not be enough; he must have that proved. How was he to find that out when the fight was arranged at New York by people who knew how to keep their own counsel? Itwould most likely prevent a conviction. Hon. Mr. MILLER thought it would be very unwise where the Legislature could define what they meant by a crime to throw that portion of the duty of islation upon the judges. It was desirable to define, as near as possible, what a prize fight was. was increased by the 1st clause, because the magistrate would be tied down by the definition contained in it, that a previous arrangement must be shown. If that clause were left it would intensify the difficulty suggested by the PostmasterGeneral by requiring proof that the fight had been previously arranged between the parties. Under the circumstances, he thought the suggestion made by the hon. Senator from Ashcroft (Mr. Cornwall) had some weight. If it was clear that a prize fight was a fight for money or prize, or that bets depended on the result, it was better not to tie the hands of the magistrates and increase the difficulty of convicting and punishing the offender by leaving in the 1st clause. It might be said that they could not come there without a previous arrangement, but nothing was inferred in construing a law creating a crime; proof was neces say, and the 1st clause increased the difficulty of furnishing proof. Hon. Mr. MILLER did not think that the point raised by his hon. friend could have the force it would appear at first showing a previous arrangement. The sight to have, namely, the difficalty of object of this Bill was to prevent fights for a prize. If it could be shown that the encounter was a fight for a prize, or for any object in the nature of a prize, a have to be inferred from the proof of such previous arrangement would necessarily facts. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL did not think there was any difficulty about the proof; the 9th clause made it feasible for the magistrate to deal with. A prize fight, as defined in the Bill, was a meeting under a previous arrangement. The hon. gentleman from Amherst (Mr. Dickey) had asked, why not describe it in that very clause. That was the very first suggestion, but the language which he had suggested would have made it imestablish that a prize had been fought for perative on the prosecuting officer to or wagers had been made. There was no leg-difficulty in proving now that two perthe clause stood. Where a prize fight was sons had met by previous arrangement, as found to be in progress, and two or three hundred persons were assembled on the shore of one of the lakes of Ontario, for instance, there was no difficulty in es Hon. Mr. DICKEY said that the difficulty of proving that the parties met for the purpose of engaging in a prize fight tablishing that the encounter was the result of a previous arrangement, and no magistrate could have any hesitation about it. But, if by any chance, a fight took place by previous arrangement which was not a prize fight, then, under the 9th clause, the magistrate could deal with that offence also and impose a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars. The Bill seemed now to be in the shape they wished to have it, inasmuch as if a prize fight did occur, it could be dealt with as a prize fight; the parties could be arrested at once, and if they had no excuse to offer they could be punished. If the fight was not a prize fight, the parties establish that and the magistrate hears the case and dismisses it if he thinks fit. The onus of establishing that it was not a prize fight was left with the accused. He thought the Bill was in such a shape that a magistrate could with safety deal with prosecutions under it, and would not be obliged to procure evidence which would be very difficult to obtain, and would not be under the necessity of considering an ordinary fight an offence under this Act. Hon. Mr. ODELL said that there was Hon. Mr. SCOTT said they did not recognize such things. Whatever might be thought of boys fighting, under certain circumstances, no one wished to place on the statute book a sort of justification that two individuals may quarrel and fight and the magistrate may discharge them; certainly it was not proper to indicate to the magistrate that he should discharge them; he had the right to discharge the accused now if he thought fit to do so. It would be better to strike out these objectionable words. He did not think any intimation could be found in the whole criminal code that an officer might discharge an accused party. To his mind these words conveyed an intimation to the magistrate that the one point on which he would like an ex-of a quarrel or fight between two indi Legislature did not think very seriously planation from the hon. Postmaster-General with reference to the 9th section.viduals where it was not a prize fight. This Bill professed to be one to prohibit charging a party accused of fighting, but The magistrate might be justified in disprize fighting and punish all those per- it should be left to the magistrate himself, and not hinted to him. sons connected with it. Then the 9th section proceeded to make an exception in the case of a bona fide fight, the result of a quarrel or dispute, where the magistrate was given discretionary power to discharge the accused, or impose upon him a fine not exceeding twenty dollars. It appeared to him the proper way would be to leave out the words "may, in his discretion, discharge the accused," and then, if any further question arose, it could come up under the existing laws. Hon. Mr. SCOTT said that the words "discharge the accused" offended him very much indeed. It was language he took particular exception to, because, in the first place, it was wholly unnecessary, and in the next place it was a sort of justification for a magistrate to take that course if he was of the opinion that the party should not be convicted. It was a new feature in criminal legislation that they should direct a magistrate to discharge an accused person; it was for the Hon. Mr. KAULBACH said that the intention of the Bill was that, when the offence was of a trifling nature, the magistrate might have the power to impose a light fine or discharge the party. He thought that the courts should have such discretion, and that the clause should stand as it was. Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE asked how a twenty dollar fine could be collected from an individual who had not the money. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL the ordinary way. In Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE said that the object of the Bill was to prevent parties coming from the United States to this country for the purpose of engaging in a brutal fight. That object could be attained by putting this law on the statute book. At present they came to this country simply because they knew there was no legislation to prohibit them. If it was known, as it soon would be, to those people that Canada had provided means for punishing parties engaged in prize fighting, he thought there would not be many opportunities of putting the law in operation; but, if it was proposed to fine that class of people, it would be found difficult to collect the money from them unless they could be imprisoned until they paid the fine. to amend chapter 15, of 39 Victoria (1876), intituled: An Act to make provision for the crossing of navigable waters by railway and other road companies incorporated under Provincial Acts."" Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL moved that the order be discharged, as he understood that the provisions he had intended to introduce in this Bill would be found in a railway bill that it was the intention of the Minister of Railways to sub Hon. Mr. SCOTT - You have power mit to Parliament. to fine and imprison. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said that there was a general statute which provided how fines should be collected. He thought the objection taken by the hon. Senator from Ottawa was rather hypercritical, but he did not cling to the words "he may be discharged," and he had no objection to strike them out. It followed, as a matter of course, that the magistrate could discharge parties if he thought fit. The power was there, and he did not care much about the language. The Bill was read the third time. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL moved that the word "twenty" in the 9th clause, be struck out, and that the word "fifty" be substituted therefor. The amendment was adopted. Hon. Mr. MILLER suggested that there should be an alternative punishment, so that a party who could not pay a fine could be imprisoned. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL The general law provides for that.. The motion was agreed to and the order was discharged. QUALIFICATION OF SENATORS. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL — Since I mentioned the case of Hon. Mr. Girard, at the opening of the House, another colleague, Hon. Mr. Grant, has arrived, and the Senate will, I am sure, allow his name to be included in the resolution directing the Clerk to accept his declaration. The suggestion was agreed to. BILL INTRODUCED. The Senate adjourned at 9.20 p. m. THE SENATE. p.m. Prayers and routine proceedings. THE WILLIAMSBURGH AND GALOP'S CANAL. INQUIRY. Hon. Mr. BROUSE inquired :"Whether the Government intend to grant additional water power for manufacturing purposes on the Williamsburg and Galop's Canal, in accordance with the request made by certain residents of Morrisburg last spring." the Lachine He said: In giving notice of the motion, for wealthy individuals for the purpose I will offer a few remarks in order to of running machinery, and I hope the explain what I want. The two western Government will grant no additional rapids on the St. Lawrence are sur-privileges on those canals. There is little mounted for navigation purposes by enough water for navigation, as it is, in canals. They are short links, and at the the canals, and none to spare for manufoot of each of those links is situated an factories. They draw down the levels enterprising village, the first known as and create a current in the canals. They Iroquois and the second as Morrisburgh. are adverse, hostile and injurious to navAt these locations the Government have igation, and ought to be discountenanced granted certain water powers for manu- by the Government. I understood from facturing purposes. The inhabitants of the Government last session that they Morrisburgh last year sent a large and intended to grant no more power influential delegation to the Govern- on Canal, because ment, asking if additional water power the powers that had existed precould not be granted, also for manufacturing purposes. That delegation was composed of men of wealth and enterprise, and it was supposed that, if the Government could grant this additional power asked for, that any manufactories would be constructed. I understood at that time that the Government would take the matter into consideration, and would appoint an engineer to look over the work, and see if such power could be granted without injury to the public works. A competent engineer was sent Mr. Rubridge a gentleman who understands the navigation and water of the St. Lawrence probably better than any other engineer in our country, and I understand he did make a favorable report. It was expected that the Government would have granted additional water power, but up to the present time no such grant has been made. I, therefore, on behalf of the citizens of that section, have brought this question before this honorable House to make the inquiry of which I have given notice. This viously before the completion of the new works-were exceedingly injurious to navigation. They created a rush like a mill race, and it was exceedingly difficult to navigate through the canal. What was wanted was slack water navigation, not the velocity of a mill current to navigate through. There are complaints made every day of these St. Lawrence canals, by sailing-masters, with regard to the trouble they experience in getting through with these very mills. summer I have heard complaints from shipmasters of the delay and difficulty in getting through, from the mills drawing down the levels. They should not be allowed to draw them down; but they do it. If it was the surplus water they used nobody could object, but they draw down the levels and make use of the water that should be kept expressly for the purpose of navigation. I hope the Government will see that no further power is granted to any mill-owners on those canals for any purposes whatever. Hon. Mr. ALMON Perhaps the object which the hon. Senator from Hamilton has in view would be best subserved by abolishing the N. P.; the manufactures would then die out and give no further trouble. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL The question which has been raised by the hou. Senator from Hamilton is the very one which the engineers are studying →→ whether or notfany increased water power can be given on the canals without interfering with the navigation. The first duty of the Government is to preserve the navigation, and I have no doubt (and I hope the hon. gentleman has no doubt) they will not neglect that duty. |