DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE ADDRESS RESUMED.
Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD requested the
[?] of the House, in not carrying out the
[?] which was that he should reply to Mr. McMillan. In consequence of indisposition
he could
30 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
not do this ; but he would like to make
some remarks during the course of the
debate.
Mr. OTTY. I was absent from the
House, during part of the time my
hon. friend (Mr. McMillan) was speaking, consequently l cannot take up all
his arguments. I have a want of confidence, not in the Government, but in
the hon. mover of the Amendment,
from the peculiar language in which it
is worded. He goes on to state, after
the Amendment which we have before
us, " we regret that that no sufficient assurance has been given, that the people
will not be found unprepared to defend
their families, their homes, and their
firesides, against lawless conspirators
from the neighbouring Republic." That
part was before the public, but he has
withdrawn it. I can make allowance
for any gentleman in the excitement of
speech making errors of this kind, but
for a man to sit down and write an
Amendment like that, shows a great
want of ability in language, to say the
least of it. He has abandoned the most
important part of it which relates to
defending our homes, and moved merely
what relates to " want of confidence in
the Government," thereby showing that
he considers office the most important
part. The hon. member for Restigouche said, the Government was bound
by the Address to bring forward some
scheme for a Union of the Provinces.
I cannot see how they are bound either
by the Address or Speech from the
Throne, to do so. It is putting a construction upon them which they will not
bear. He alluded to the " Minute of
Council" which says, "a large majority
of the people of this Province are opposed to any closer political union, &c."
There is nothing in the Address which
is contrary to that " Minute of Council."
The Crown in its Address to the people
says, that despatches received from the
Home Government will he laid before
us. The people say, in answer, that
they will consider those despatches, and
the opinion expressed by Her Majesty's
Government will command that respect
and attention which is due to suggestions emanating from so high a source.
That is all the Government promise, and
they are not bound to bring in any scheme
whatever. The Hon. Attorney General
said it was not his intention to bring forward any scheme for a union of the
Provinces, and in so doing he is acting in
accordance with the wishes of the people.
They speak of a change of feeling in regard to this Quebec Scheme. ln the
County of Kings there is very litttle
change from what it was at the last election. If the scheme was brought before
the public to-morrow, the majority opposed to the scheme would be actually larger
than at the last election. But that does
not appear to be the point at present.
Confederation is left out of the party
nearly altogether. If I understood the
Speech of the hon. mover of the amendment, he stands pledged not to support
the Quebec Scheme. No wonder, then,
that he secured his election from both
parties. The people of York would not
return a Confederate, for if Confederation
was carried, the public business of Fredericton would become a nonentity. To
say, then, that the Confederates have obtained a victory, is to put forth a false
statement to the public. The hon. member for Restigouche makes use of the trite saying,
" Union is strength." It
may be in come cases, but not in all. The abstract idea is very well, but even then
the union of oil and water will not make strength. It will make strength where the
wolf enters into compact with a lamb. The life blood of the lamb, after it is devoured,
causes strength to the wolf. The hon. member for Kent seems to have been afraid the
members for Kings would be stuck in the mud. I do not know what kind of soil Kent
is composed of. I think it must be very different from that of King's. When we plant
potatoes it does not produce pumpkins, and when we plant apples it does not produce
thorns. I think he is like an Indian who was engaged as a guide by a party of caribou
hunters, who, before night, began to think they had lost their way, and upon questioning
the Indian closely about the track, he replied, " Indian not lost ; wigwam lost."
I am merely taking up the time which should have been occupied by the Surveyor General,
who is indisposed, which has prevented him from making any remarks. I have no doubt
he could answer and completely refute all that has fallen from his predecessor in
office. With regard to a union of the Provinces hereafter, it is a matter which requires
serious consideration, and I, for one, am disposed to go into union upon fair and
equitable terms. I fully endorse what appears in the Address, " But in any scheme
for a union of the British North Amerian Colonies," &c. I think a large majority in
this House endorse those sentiments. I have no doubt but a scheme of union will be
pressed upon us, by the Home Government. Our Government is in an embarrassing condition
in regard to outside pressure, but they have done all they could under the circumstances,
and I have no want of confidence in them. The charges brought against them by the
members of the Opposition do not amount to any real charges against their character
as a Government. If they did I would be one of the first to give my vote against them.
They were in error in allowing the law for collecting " export duty" to expire, but
every Government and every man is liable to errors. They throw themselves upon the
people, and acknowledge their error. There have been other charges made but I do not
see anything in them to induce me to go for a want of confidence in the Government.
It has been said that the expiring of the " Minute of Council" regarding the Crown
Land regulations, should have been published in the Royal Gazette. The same rule would
apply to the law for collecting export duty. I consider it the duty of the exporters
of lumber, or the persons applying for lumber, to search these Crown Land regulations,
and then they know as well as the Surveyor General that such a law or order has expired.
It is not necessary when an order expires to have it published, although it would
have been well to have published that the export duty law was about to expire, but
that was the duty of the preceding Government ; certainly it was not of this. I only
hope the Government will be able to steer through the shoals and whirlpools thrown
in its way, and I think they will, for I have every confidence in the ability of the
leader of the Government, who is now at the helm of the state.
Mr. WILMOT said he wished to reserve what remarks he had to make until the Attorney
General was present, for he
wished to refer particularly to the members of the Council, for he considered his
honor and integrity impeached by them.
Hon. Mr. CUDLIP moved that the
debate be adjourned until half-past two.
Mr. CORAM said, if the Opposition
were not prepared to go on with the debate, they had better take the question at once,
and not be delaying the business of the country, for they could not do justice to
the Bills that were brought before them until this question was settled.
Motion for adjourning the debate carried.
A BILL RELATING TO MARRIAGE.
Mr. CONNELL in moving this Bill said, it was before the Legislature last year,
and there were two objections made to it. One was with reference to the amount which
should be paid for marriage license, and the other in regard to the manner of registration.
One of the greatest objections under the law as it is now, that it makes the minister
collector of the taxes. If the House do not think proper to reduce the license there
can be no objection to the other part of the Bill, which relieved ministers from becoming
tax gathers for the purpose of registration. With regard to the license fee, he thought
it should not be a source of revenue. In Nova Scotia they paid but two dollars for
a license, and the machinery was more complex than that provided under this Bill.
He thought the license should be $1.50, and the registration fee 50 cents. There was
another difficulty in the Bill of last year, which a section of this Bill provides
for. It will enforce the registration of these certificates, which in many cases is
not now done. It also provides for the publication of the banns of marriage twice,
instead of three times, as at present.
Col. BOYD remarked that money paid for a license was paid very cheerfully. In regard to the
clergymen collecting the tax, some of them liked to do it very well, for they collected
the tax and did not register the marriage, but put the fees in their own pocket. He
then related an instance of a woman, whose husband was killed in battle in the United
States, not being able to obtain a pension in consequence of the clergyman not having
registered the marriage.
Mr. CONNELL explained that this Bill made provision for that.
Mr. NEEDHAM said that the Bill provided that no minister, or any other person
shall solemnize marriage until the party has produced a certificate from the Clerk
of the Peace, that he has paid for the registry thereof. That relieves the minister
from paying the Clerk, which they often do out of their own pocket. I do not believe
it is good policy to reduce the fees. No man was ever prevented from getting married
because he had to pay $4 for a license. If he could not do that he could be published,
that is the legitimate way of doing it ; it is the way they do it in England, therefore,
no man need be ashamed to be published.
Mr. ANGLIN said, if he understood the Bill, it involved an important principle,
which was, that without the person had paid the fee for the registry a legitimate
marriage could not be celebrated. This was interfering with the rights of the clergymen.
He would mention a case
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 31
in point: In Missouri an order had the
been issued that no clergyman should
attempt to preach until he had taken the
oath of allegiance. No man disputed
but what it was perfectly right to take the oath, but the case was this: A Gen eral
acting for the State had taken the right to license parties to preach after administering
the oath of allegience to them; but many respectable clergymen submitted to imprisonment
sooner than accept of such terms; and several clergymen of Catholic and other denominations
took the same view. They said they were commissioned to perform certain functions
by authority supreme to the State, and they claimed the right to preach the Word
of God, and administer the Sacraments, without interference from the State. They
takethis ground, they would take the oath at once, but when they tell them they cannot
peach with out taking the oath; then they say you attempt to stand between us and
the person we think are commissioned from. Therefore, he thought if any person did
not choose to hand over the 50 cents the clergyman should not be prohibited from
marrying him if he chooses to do it out of kindness or charity. He did not think they
ought to reduce the license fee at all, and before they touched what might be a difficult
matter, they had better let the present law stand, although it was not exactly what
it ought to be.
MR. HILL would go for the reduction of the fees, for he considered them far too high. It appeared
to him that that section which requires a certificate of registration from the Clerk
of the Peace, before a clergyman is entitled to solemnize marriage, will cause inconvenience.
In one-third of the marriages in his County the parties come from the State of Maine,
in some instances they come one hundred miles and are married at St. Stephens, and
having to get a certificate would put them to a great inconvenience. It should be
provided in the Bill that they could get a certificate from the Issuer of Marriage
Licenses.
Progress was then reported.
A BILL TO ABOLISH IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
MR. NEEDHAM in moving that the House got into Committee on the above Bill said, I will endeavour
to explain to the House the nature of the BIll, and the reasons that induce me to
spend time in endeavouring to frame it. In doing which I do not pretend that that
Bill is perfect in all its pats, for it is almost impossible for one man, engaged
in a matter of such vast moment, to perfect a Bill in which, when it comes to be carried,
there will not be found some imperfections. I have been perfecting this Bill from
the time we last met here down to within a few weeks of the present Session ; this
being the tenth copy from the original draft. I have also submitted it to two or
three Judges of the land, and those Judges approved of it in almost every particular.
In reference to the guards I have thrown around the Bill. I asked them to make any
suggestions which they thought would be a benefit to it. They replied they did not
see that anything more was required, but we all know that when a case is to be tried
; before a court of adjudication they would see errors, which they do not see in
reading the Bill. The Bill does not provide against imprisonment for debt in cases
where they have been already contracted, for these debts have been incurred under
certain restrictions, providing certain rights for the creditor, and these rights
are not to be disturbed at all. This question of imprisonment fo debt is a subject
which has occupied the attention of great statesmen. The abstract principle is, that
it is a barbarian custom which has been long disgraced the statute book of a civilized
country and ought not to exist. You imprison a man for a felony, and for a debt, thereby
making the debtor a felon by turning the Jailor's key upon him. While I admit there
are a great number of people in the world who have run into debt recklessly, and have
failed when they ought not to have failed, I have yet to learn that there is more
evil than good in the world. Honesty and wrong are comparative. It is not every man
who runs in debt and does not pay is a rogue, but the rogue is the man who runs in
debt and will not pay. When a man gets trusted for goods by falsely stating he is
worth so much property, he should be dealt with as a felon, you should not jail him,
but you should put him in the Penitentiary. Why should the unfortunate poor man suffer
for rogues. (Mr. Hatheway, did you ever know an instance of the kind?) The same law
is made for both. This Bill is made to
protect creditors and honest debtors, and to punish dishonest debtors. If the hon.
gentleman will suggest any improvement I shall be glad for I want to make it as perfect
as possible. It has been conceded by the statesmen of England, and acknowledged by
the United States, that imprisonment for debt is at variance with the pinciples
of the day, and had its origin in the dark ages of antiquity. Unless we are only fit
to live in those times we will adopt the principles of that Bill. I purpose in this
Bill to abolish imprisonment for all debts that may be contracted after a time be
fixed by this House. Some people may fancy that by doing so the whole credit system
of the country will be abolished, and the lawyers will not have so much to do. I do
not believe it will have this effect at all. In a great number of instances when a
debtor is incarcerated, he not only loses, but the creditor also. I am not willing
to take away any privileges from the creditor without giving something in lieu of
it. In lieu of imprisonment for debt, I substitute an attachment law. Some have said
this was of American origin, so it is; but that is no reason why it is not good or
why we should not adopt it. Americanism is itself of British origin, and their common
law is the same as our law. This principle of attachment, if it works well in America,
will work as well here as there. Some men are afraid of it, because they think it
will give one man the power to come down and take all the debtor has got, and the
other creditors get nothing. This is not the case, for the very moment all the man's
property is attached, his business is subject to investigation by a Jury who shall
have power to compel the debtor to produce his books, and any documents relating to
his business transactions, and to examine witnesses under oath, to see if he has conduccted
his business in a fair way, and that his failure has not been occasioned by fraud,
but has been by acts over which he had no control, in which case the verdict of the
Jury sets the man free, and his property goes to his creditors; but if it is shewn
that the debtor has been guilty of fraud, the law provides he is deemed guilty of
fraud, and on conviction, is liable to punishment. It is a very extraordinary thing
that we should be the only Province or State on the whole North American Continent
that has not a Bankrupt Law. (A member.— We have had three, and they have been repealed)
Those Bankrupt Laws were made for the occasion ; they were made to swindle creditors,
and as soon as they had accomplished their object they were repealed. All the debtor
had to do was to get two-thirds of his creditors to accept a penny in the pound. I
have put a good many through thate law. A man once came to me, and wanted me to put
him through the "Unfortunate Debtor's Law." I put him through the operation, although,
at the same time, he owed me £50. I got his creditors to consent to take a penny
in a pound, and for that the man got clear of all his debts. The cost of putting
him through was £10, and he turned round and offered me ten pence for my cost. Served
me right. He did not even think to offer me the half-dollar for the £50 he owed me.
That is the way you left us lawyers with your Bankrupt Bills. This
32 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
occurred, although I have no doubt that
a great majority of the men that took advantage of thatAct were honest men, for it
does not follow that because a man went through that Bankrupt Court that he was a
rogue. It is one thing to charge a man with being dishonest, and another thing to
prove him a rogue.
" Who steals my purse, steals trash ; 'tis something, nothing, 'Twas mine, 'tis his
; has been slave to thousands! But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of
that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed."
It is a very easy matter to give a debtor a bad name, which he will find it a
hard matter to get rid of, when he does not deserve it. We should protect the poor
unfortunate honest man, even if some rogues get the benefit of it. You hear judges,
lawyers and ministers quote : " It is better that ninety-nine guilty persons should
escape, than that one innocent person should be punished." The Judges, in laying down
the principles of the law, in addressing the Jury, say : " If you have a reasonable
doubt concerning the guilt of the prisoner, give him the benefit of that doubt." There
are forty- one of us here, and we say in our own strength, we are the assembled wisdom
of New Brunswick. The law says so, when it commands the Sheriff to return wise and
discreet men, and they have returned those men who sit here. Therefore, if we are
the assembled wisdom, let us show our wisdom, not only by our conduct as men while
here, but by our acts as legislators, which will prove to the people of this Province
that we have not been sent here in vain. Let us legislate for the poor as well as
for the rich. If we cannot feel for the poor, some of us cannot feel for ourselves.
This Bill has long been called for, and somebody had to take what is called in Parliamentary
language, the initiative. I have done it, but I am perfectly willing for any other
member who has a better Bill, to strike out this Bill from the beginning to the end,
and introduce other sections in lieu thereof. I would not care if it was cut up so
I would not know it, so long as it contained the principles of this Bill. I should
rejoice to think that though my Bill should sink, I had been the means of bringing
forth a Bill that would have the desired effect. But if you have no better, don't
go against this because it is a new thing. You have tried Bankrupt Bills, and they
have proved a failure. Try this, and you will never repeal it. Is it a new principle
? We came here to legislate on new principles. What is the use of men sitting down
here and originating no new thing at all ? When the Sheriff returned " Mr. Needham"
as the most wise in all York, why should he tell the Sheriff by his acts that he told
an untruth ? I want to show them they did not make a mistake. Are you afraid of all
new things ? If so, the world would soon come to an end. It is a new thing for a man
to get married, and if all men were afraid of new things, men would never get married.
It is because people are afraid of new things that makes so many bachelors. The same
thing might be said regarding the Canadian volunteers, who were dragged from under
the beds, and brought up to the mark at the point of the bayonet. It is no wonder
they wanted to get the Bluenoses to fight for them.
Mr. FRASER said that, under this Bill, a creditor could attach nine-tenths of
his debtors' property, not allowing the other creditors to share in it.
Mr. NEEDHAM. My impression was, that when the whole of a man's property was taken,
it was an act of bankruptcy, but if a less amount was required to constitute such
an act, I would have no objection. My object in guarding the Bill in this way was,
that I did not want to give the debtor a chance to become bankrupt until he ought
to be. Therefore, I put in that all his property must be attached before he could
take advantage of the act. There never was a time in the history of the country, when
it was more necessary and essential that something of this kind should be done. We
have had seasons of depression in consequence of the war across the border, which
has caused our trade to be depressed, but now we are looking up a little. The little
cloud which, when it commenced, was about the size of a man's hand, has rained the
last drop upon the top of Mount Ararat, and times of great prosperity are coming.
I do not prophecy it ; but any man looking at the past, and from the past, judging
the future, will say, there are seasons of prosperity coming over this little spot
called New Brunswick. Commerce is going to rise, business is increasing, deals are
up, and it is only when men are enjoying prosperity, that they will go into large
operations, expecting large returns ; but all at once a crash comes, and then the
honest man is bowed down to the dust. Therefore, let us prepare for the unfortunate
time to come afterwards ; and in our prosperity make a law which will not only benefit
the debtor but the creditor, and, by so doing, show to the world that our aim and
object is to make such laws as shall reflect credit upon ourselves and do our duty
to the men who sent us here.
Dr. THOMPSON said he could not agree with the principle of abolishing imprisonment
for debt. If they wanted to keep men honest, they must make them amenable for every
dishonest act. If a man does not pay his debs, and has no wish to pay them, he ought
to be punished, and under the present law we have the power over him to punish him.
Under the proposed law a poor man could not get along ; if he could not get his wages
people would not trust him, for by abolishing imprisonment for debt, they would have
no power over him. There was no great quantity of debtors put in jail, not more than
one out of a hundred. They had better let the 99 excape as heretofore and let this
law alone. If a man who gets into difficulty is an honest and civil man, they would
not find one man out of ten thousand who would incarcerate him. He was going to vote
against the bill, for they had had too many bankrupt laws already ; by one of them
he had already lost thirteen hundred and some odd pounds. " A burnt child dreads the
fire." They had better not put temptation in the debtor's way. We pray to be delivered
from temptation, and he would add, deliver us from this Bill.
Col. BOYD thought a Bill of this kind was very desirable. If a man owed them sum of money,
they had a chance by this attachment to secure themselves ; and if the man owed more
than his property
was worth, the creditors all shared alike. He had sued a man a few days ago who gave
him notice that he would swear out. He had property, but he swore he had none. The
Justice had almost come to the conclusion that he must discharge him. He (Mr. Boyd)
offered him one dollar a day to work for him, and would pay him half his wages every
Saturday night, the other half to go to his credit ; but he would not work. If there
had been an attachment law, he would have paid himself out of that man's property.
Mr. WILMOT said he differed from his hon. friend who said that an honest man never
would be sued. As far as he had watched the course of events in St. John, the only
plan for an honest debtor was to run the country. The idea of locking a man up in
jail, he looked upon as one of the relics of barbarism. He knew an honest man in St.
John who had given all his property up to trustees, but had been kept on the limits
for four years by one man, and that was not the only case of the kind. The only way
for them at present is to run the country. He did not think it was desirable to drive
men out of the country because they met with losses over which they had no control.
In England they had abolished all bankrupt laws and imprisonment for debt, and had
some very simple law instead. Imprisonment for debt was also abolished in the United
States. Whatever would do away with the credit system would be beneficial to the country.
There is plenty of property in the country, but there is a want of a circulating
medium. When times get bad, there is no money to represent the property, and in consequence
property becomes depressed in value, therefore difficulties will arise. What we want
is less credit and more cash, and then we would have less debt.
Mr. NEEDHAM thought it advisable that the Bill should be referred to a Select
Committee, to take into consideration the suggestions thrown out by hon. members for
its improvement. He would therefore move that they report progress.
A conversational debate then took place concerning how the bill should be improved
in the hands of the Committee, and progress was reported.
House adjourned until 10 A.M. to-morrow.
T. P. D.
This individual participated in:
