cumstances to stop stone-still until he learns whether a train is coming before he attempts to cross the track. I am prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member from De Salaberry. waited very patiently while others spoke to see if light would be thrown on that subject. If I am to vote, I want to know what I am voting for. I do not want involved clauses and bad English. We are dealing eral statements. The amendment, as I unwith abstract principles, and not with genderstand it here, is conflicting the clauses are not in harmony one with the other. If I understand English, and I ought to, there is a maximum of speed provided for in this amendment, and there is an implied minimum of speed in the latter part of the clause, and that minimum is in the judgthe hon. senator from Marshfield with very Then it is quite possible, I see in the rement of the Board, whatever that may be. Hon. Mr. McGREGOR-I have nothing in the way of argument to use; I only want to explain my vote. When the Lancaster Bill was first brought to the Senate, I was rather in favour of it, and said it should not be thrown out without very serious consideration. Certainly the Bill has received consideration; it is going to be amended, and it should be amended. I listened to great interest. He deserves credit for the facts he laid before us. At first I intended to support him, but, after very serious consideration, I have come to this conclusion: We want safety first, but we want speed as well. If a train is going to Montreal to-night and I can reach there a quarter of an hour sooner by a fast train than by taking a slower one, I would take the fast train. What we want is speed with safety. Absolute safety we cannot get as long as railways run. Even if a train runs only five miles an hour, you will find foolish people will get in the way and be injured. In the town where I live, I saw a man seriously injured by a train backing up, shunting. He was crossing the track with a horse and did not get out of the way. Hon. Mr. FERGUSON-That is well provided for by section 276 of the Railway Act. Hon. Mr. McGREGOR-I take risks myself very often with the street cars here. If I see a street car coming fast, I stop until it passes; if it is moving slowly I try to pass before it, and there is more risk in crossing when the car is going slowly. When I am out driving at home, if I have to cross the Intercolonial Railway and see a train approaching slowly, I whip up my horse and cross before the train comes; but if the train is moving fast I do not take any risk. I think I can fairly accept the amendment of the hon. senator from De Salaberry. Hon. Mr. DOUGLAS-I asked the hon. gentleman from Toronto if he would kindly give us some light on the relation of one part of this clause to the other. I have lation of one to the other, that the minimum may overlap the maximum, because the judgment of a court may in this case, with reference to speed at any rate to as they have power given to them in any case, decide what it deems proper in its judg ment. sion of ideas, and I see the groundwork I certainly think there is a confuhere for a great harvest for the legal profession. A case might come before the courts in which they would reap a good harvest in seeking to define what is the maximum and what is the minimum. Do I understand by the maximum speed that it is modified to ten miles an hour in cities, towns and villages? Am I to draw the conclusion from the latter part of the clause that the Board may fix the speed in any case,' whether in a town, city or village, at any rate' not ten miles an hour, but possibly fifteen miles an hour, or even in places, where it might be done with perfect Northwest country it will not make much safety, at sixty miles an hour? In our difference whether trains run fast or not, because the nature of the country is such that we can generally see a train coming about three miles away and nobody need sings unless he has something to warp be in any great hurry in getting over croshis judgment, as once happened in a case I saw at Portage la Prairie. I saw a farmer drive his team right across the track when the train was moving eastward. The cowcatcher caught his wagon and threw it and the team into the ditch and stripped the horses of their harness. The train was stopped and everything was found but the We went back looking for arms and man. limbs, expecting the man was in pieces, but we could not find a trace of him. After a time we found him sitting on the cowcatcher unhurt. I suppose it was what was in him that enabled him to get off so successfully. He had in him more than he should have had. The question now is not so much a question with us in the west as to whether the Board should increase the rate, but how far it should be increased in towns, cities and villages. I do not see why we should have the maximum speed in conflict with the minimum. Virtually, there is a supposition implied in this last sentence, that the Board shall have power to exceed the rate fixed in the first instance, if they deem it expedient or proper. I do not think it is a credit to this honourable Senate to allow involved clauses of this kind to leave the House without being put in plain English. I look to the hon. senator from De Salaberry, who is the author of this amendment, to throw some light on these two points, and then I shall be able to consider the amendment much more favourably than I do at present. My difficulty with it is that it is not straight English. The clauses are not sufficiently and clearly cut to prevent mistakes being made when you go to court and adjudicate a case, because the judgment of a court is here so peculiarly defined that it may altogether supersede the statement, ́A greater speed than ten miles an hour.' I should like very much to get light on this subject before I vote, and there is ground for asking the hon gentleman who has prepared this amendment to give us some idea as to how these two clauses may be harmonized. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-How would the hon. gentleman do it if he were on the bench himself? Hon. Mr. DOUGLAS-I would say that this is work for legal gentlemen to do; but not for men who want simple justice. Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-The hon. gentleman asks a question which it is my duty to answer. I may say, however, that I would have much preferred if he had persisted in putting the question to the hon. senator from Toronto, because I do not claim to be an English scholar. However, I have oc casion to read English as well as French law pretty often, and have had occasion to do so for forty years in the exercise of my practice, and I cannot see that there can be any confusion arising from this clause from the point of view of a legal man. What the phrase conveys is, this, that the speed is limited to ten miles, unless one of two conditions obtains; first the construction, maintenance and protection according to an order of the Railway Board, or, second, pending the issuing of an order of that kind, or even simultaneously with the issue of an order of that kind, or after it has been issued by special permission given by the Railway Board, to either exceed that speed, or if the Railway Board deems it advisable, to limit it to a speed less than ten miles an hour for these specific or individual highway crossings. only at certain hours of the day, and 1 cannot see that there is any conflict between that part of the clause and the other part of the clause. Hon. Mr. DOUGLAS-I understand the hon. gentleman's explanation, but I do not see the necessity, after such an explanation, that that clause should include the words in the first part of the amendment, A greater speed than ten miles an hour.' It is quite uncalled for, if you give authority to the Board that they may from time to time fix the speed at any time,' at any rate' it deems proper. They have all the authority and power that any Board can desire. There is an effort to fix the maximum speed in the second line, and then that speed may be exceeded if an order is made by the Board. Hon. Mr. JONES-If there was nothing but the last clause which the hon. gentleman read, and there are 2,500 or 3,000 crossings, what would the railway do pending the decision, without that part of the amendment that he speaks of in the first part, which he thinks unnecessary? Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I wish to approach this question in a judicial frame of mind, and give whatever experience I have in regard to the interpretation of clauses which are passed by this parliament and others. In the first place, I regret that in the original Bill,‘An Act to amend the Railway Act,' the following was put in : Section 275 of the Railway Act is hereby repealed and the following is substituted therefor. I may say in regard to that action, it was not a wise one; it is not in the interests of the people of this country to withdraw section 275 of the Railway Act as it stands, and if hon. gentlemen will just listen to the reading of it, they will see the necessity for its continued existence in our statute. That section reads: No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village t a greater speed than ten miles an hour unless the track is fenced or properly protected. lity in the Dominion of Canada, as well as Railway Committee or the Board of Com- Unless such crossing is properly protected, or I would like to have the law without This clause deals with the track, not with the crossing, but with the track running through cities, towns and villages; and if we strike out this clause we relieve the railway companies, as far as this goes, of all responsibility of keeping their track fenced in thickly peopled sections of the country. With the new law, we simply force them to protect their crossings. There is not a word in the Bill which will force the railways to do what they are forced to do under section 275 of the Act. So that the Bill, in that respect, is inadequate, and it was a mistake to attempt to repeal clause 275. As I understand the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman from De Salaberry, he inserts this clause. Now take the clause itself and examine the two. They are identical, with the exception of three words omitted and the change of one letter. Why the three words are omitted, any chance of evasion, or interpretation on is more than I can tell, and the three the part of the courts-that is compulsory words omitted are the essence of the Lan-regulation: that regulations be sent forth caster Bill, when it says, Unless such as a matter of right, not only in one case, crossing is properly protected.' Why drop but for all crossings, and give the railway out the words, Properly protected.' one or two years, whatever may be desired, to put the crossings in a proper condition of protection. If such were done, then the object of the Bill would be attained; but if it is going to be left to individuals to enforce the law, it will be a cumbersome and awkward thing. I hoped such would not be the effect of the amendment, but the hon. gentleman made answer to me and said that practically in every case we would have to take special action. I do not think that would be a proper thing for this parliament to do. If he can see his way, not to force individual action for each crossing, I would say that the amendment is on the right lines. I understand Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-The words are 'Constructed, maintained and protected.' Hon. Mr. CLORAN-That is not included in the hon. gentleman's amendment. Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-Yes. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-Supposing the hon. gentleman's amendment covers what is already in existence in the Bill of Mr. Lancaster, I find fault with this provision in it, and I think the railway companies will find fault equally in regard to that provision, as well as every municipa run on. were 1,107 people killed in the Dominion of Canada, and I was very much surprised to find that there were over 176 people killed on farms, falling off haystacks and being over by wagons, machinery, and so In navigation there were 117 killed. In fishing and hunting, fifteen. In lumbering 119 and in mining 119. In railway service-that is comprising all branches of the service, not merely railway crossings, of the different systems of railroads throughout the Dominion, I find there were 252. So that the comparison is not so much to the disadvantage-we will not say to the discredit-of the railways, and what I would ask is, that when they receive a request from a municipality, people who do not act lightly, who come to them on behalf of human life, that they should accede as far as possible and not block the wish of municipal authorities who are responsible for the lives in their midst. Then what was the total of non-fatal accidents? It was 2,745. On the farms there were 262 that railroads have a great deal to contend with. They have a great deal to contend with in getting their trains through immense distances-three or four thousand miles. I can understand railways cannot have protection at every crossing, but there is no doubt that if the railway companies themselves and some companies have done this and benefitted by it-would undertake to protect crossings on their own initiative, wherever asked, especially in large communities, like passing through St. Henri near Montreal, or other places, that they would have the good will of the people, that there would be none of the feeling that exists to-day, antagonistic to the railway interests, because in many instances railways do not accede to the desires of the municipality. But if they did it in a great number of cases, they would gain the goodwill of the people, and there would be none of this antagonism towards them. The railways are all trying to build up the country, and we are not called upon here to hinder their efforts. Our first duty, how-fatal accidents. Fishing and hunting, five, ever, is to the people, to protect human life, as was well said by the hon. gentleman from Toronto; at the same time, we must not throw all the sacrifice of human life on the railroad. I find by the statistics that in every calling and in every walk of life there are many fatal accidents as well as non-fatal. I find that in 1906-7, there lumbering 156, mining 174, building trades 272, metal trades 562, woodworking 133, and in railway service 340, out of a total of 2,748. There were other callings where there was a smaller number of accidents as shown by the table submitted to parliament by the Deputy Minister of Labour, as follows. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, CANADA. STATISTICAL TABLES VII. A. R. No. 27. TABLE OF FATAL INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS IN CANADA DURING 1906. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, CANADA. STATISTICAL TABLES VII. A. R. No. 28. TABLE OF NON-FATAL INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS IN CANADA DURING 1906. gentleman from Saskatchewan says, to make our laws clear and plain, that everybody who runs may read, and that as little interpretation as possible shall be thrown on the court. Just imagine what the hon. gentleman from Marshfield said the other night, to the surprise of myself and the hon. leader of this House, that the Supreme Court of Canada had decided that citizens of this country, not only citizens, but any person in this country have no rights under the common law. He cited the case of MeKay vs. the Grand Trunk. I have gone over that judgment. I read it last night and this morning, and I must confess that the view taken of that judgment by the hon. gentleman from Marshfield is correct. There is a statement made there that the com But, on the whole, the situation is not so bad as it appears to be, and if this parliament will put this railway crossing question in the hands of the Board and make it compulsory on them, and give them sufficient time within which to carry out their instructions, it would be a proper course to pursue. I would dislike, however, to be party to legislation that would be obscure, that the courts would have great difficulty in interpreting, and that is one of the things I am against as long as I have a seat in parliament. We must have our laws as clear and distinct as possible; our judges have no right to interpret the law. They should have only the right to apply it. That is a statement that I have made several times in the past, and I have it from judges themselves, that the great diffi-pany was not responsible because they had culty in their judicial experience is to be obliged to interpret the nonsense of parliament. That is what they complain of-the nonsensical statutes. Why do they not make their law clear the judges ask? One lawyer says this, and the other the other thing, and the judge throws up his hands in distress, and says, 'What can I do ? I have to interpret the law.' It is our duty as legislators, as the hon. fulfilled the instructions and regulations |