- ~ s

\ ™~

\~

oR ee

et

THE SUPREME COU’T.

Ghe Examiner.

Charlottetown, June iv, i576, PARENTA L RIGH TS

WE notice,

' the N rerside Journal, and the

with astonishment, that the | that the

ue that. in the matter of educa-

| el license, he may render the proceed- ines void by dissenting from them ; and Ino license to marry can be granted unless | an oath be made that the parties are of lace. or that the consent of the parents or e Why such

the part of the State

a enardians has been obtained.

extreme

|

eare, on - rights of the parent, i this re- spect, shall be maintained ? Simply, that

the future well-being of the child may be '

, : ‘ar it ) parent can assure : ae adh: passiete’ Duthie! assured, in so far 28 the pare re tion, parental rights and pareos ts The Cuc cikes if Tor grantec ” os ’ 12 he vebeidiavy tu thu T*” ; . . z on Oe ." 7 ‘ } > e st } the parent 18 the best judge better than State. We notice, a { \the child, better than the State itself—ot % 1: re cn ‘ « t t the onpimi1ons, on this } int, 0 f . . . .-# 1 i ise, ti t | ‘ i : and it P ho f the introduction of re- | that which od for his child hose who faver the int: ott ae - , . “s : Wi } have been | bears him cue in his efforts to obtain that ion into the public schools, have Yceh | sie lla De cure his — 1 The Patriot of which will be most likely to secure hi “rossiy misrepres¢ nted. « ai Education, itis admit-

Thursday last has an article commencing th the follewing statement :—

rhe denominationalistst rit ' ts as if they hold that children hsoluie property of their parents,

+ that they may do with them exactly as as . } sar ¢? . they see fit. They make It appear that the Stale acts oppressively when it interferes bel ween parent and child.’

What friend of religious education was | ever heard to talk or write as if parents may do with their children “ exactly as ti o sce G¢,”’ or astf the State acts oppres- siv ly when it “interferes between parent

nd child 2” Wilithe J’afriet name one?

For our part we repudiate the statement. |

No man whose opinion is worth anything, could possibly have talke d or written such nonsense, Onthe contrary, all intelligent men will agree that when a parent neg- leets to perform the duties to his children which the laws of nature (or in other rds the laws of God) imposes upon him,

right—it is its duty—to

wi the State has a interfere. It is the duty of the parent to maintain his children unti! they are able to maintain themselves ; to protect and cuard them until they have reached the ave of diseretion ; to educate them so that she may able to provide for themselves nil to fill, as efficiently as possible, the

several stations to which they may be called. Should the parent neglect any of these divinely imposed duties, the State very properly steps in, end either forces the maintenance, tion, if the

is unable to do so,) provides them itseit.

him to afford protec-

and education, (or parent

In a “ Free State in which there is mane

}

hood suffrage, subjeets or citizens should be educated up

’ it is important that all its

to a certain standard. And we are de-

os =0

opinion, that the Government

Jk and write of

child’s happiness. \ted by all Christians, more or less affects | che tuture well-being of all children, not | only during the comparatively short space | they are in this world, but throughout | eternity. And why should the State as- sume to itself power, in respect to educa- ‘tion, which it leaves to, and secures to, the parents with regard to marriage ? Why | should not a parent be allowed to be the best judge of the school in which his child

should be educated as well as of the man lor woman to child be | Why should parents, who con-

whom his shall married ? | scientiously object to sending their chil. dren to secular schools, be compelled to pay maintenance of those schools, and be shut out from any

taxes towards the

participation in the fund set apart by the Legislature for the purpose of paying for the instruction of children in secular knowledge.

It is admitted by the Patriot, and all the secularists, that good secular instruc- tion is imparted in all our denominational Then why not pay for that edu-

Why put five-twelfths of the parents of this Island—parents who have the right to direct where and how and by whom their children shall Le instructed— parents who contribute annually their fair share towards the educational fund— in the position of persons who, while allowed perfect freedom to worship where and how they please, are yet required to pay rates in support of an Established Church which they cannot attend ?

In truth there is no sufficient reason. The “ impracticability ’ argument is ex- ploded. Mr. Davies’ Parliamentary Com- mittee did that. The argument that the

schools,

cation ?

1deaiy @l }

of this Island would be perfectly justified

n passing a law requiring the education

of every child. Such a law would simply mmpel all parents to perform a duty im-

posed upon them by nature and reason.

Blackstone, the

—a standard authority—whose opinion

have

great Commentarian

will, we feel quite sure, some weight with the editors of the Argus, Pa- triot and Summerside Journal, says :—

‘ The last duty of parents to their child- ren is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life; a duty point-

ed out by reason, and of far the greatest im- portance of any. For, as Puffendorf very “ observes, it is not easy to imagine or

w that a parent has conferred any con- siderable benefit upon his child by bringing m into the world, if he afterwards entirely neglects his culture and education, and iffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others, and shameful to mself, Yet the municipal laws of most itries seem to be defective on this point, t constraining the parent to bestow a

r education on his children.”

John Stuart Mill—another great au-

thority on civil government—the greatest, perha of

opinion that the duty of parents to select

ps, modern times — was ol

the teachers of their children should be | recognized, but that the education of all} children should be required by the State. |

"his is, we be ht ve, the proper position to

of th Arg i's erside Je

Pat int,

urna’ may yet be converted to

and Sums

the views of Blackstone and Mill. The difference between them 1s simply this : . . ' Blackstone and Mill would compel parents | ‘ ] } : 2 - ay > 4 > ] » to feed the minds of their children-—leay ing them free to seleet the food. Th

e trio of newspapers above mentioned would have the State supply a portion of the food, and prevent parents from sup- plying the balance which they deem neces- their mental sustenance in the

sary to manner they believe to be best. They would have the State supply the bread ind butter of ednestion, and they would prevent the natural and legal guardians of children from supplying cake and fruit and wine at the same table. If parents the bread and butter which the State provides, the State has of the

submit, the State is not justified in pre-

agree to receive

course right to provide it. sut, we

venting parents from supplying other

kinds of food at the same table, if they : fit so to do; and it is not justified in fining, by double taxes, the parent who, because he cannot have his child fed with

the eake and wine, refuses to accept ef the bread and _ butter, supplied by the State. If there are divinely imposed duties to children which the

State requires unnatural or ignorant pa- rents to respect, there are also certain parental rights which the State has been We hold that it is the right of the parent to direct where and

careful to maintain.

how and by whom his child shall be edu- eated. And we hold further, that the State exceeds the bounds of its duty when it punishes by the imposition of double taxes, the man, who from conscientious or other motives, refuses to send his child to State schools. By the laws of England, (and we believe, of every civilized nation which exists or ever has existed,) parents are entitled to the service and obedience of their children until their children reach the age of discretion, and are able to take care of themselves, Speaking generally, the parent may, under British law, con- trol and govern the actions of his chil- dren until they reach the age of twenty- one years. He may tell them to go and come as he pleases, so long as he does nut command them to commit crime ; and if he be resisted the State comes to his as- sistance, or he may administer reasonable punishment himself. This power is so settled and imperious, that it may even ex- tend beyond the limits of the parent's life; for the parent may, at his death ap- pointa guardian to control his children and all that belongs to them until they “come of age.” The “empire of the father,’ —as Blackstone puts it — has referenee, particularly to the future well- being of his children. He may refuse his sanction to the marriage of a child in its

mioority, and no clergyman or .nagistrate

dare perform the ceremony. In case of

the marriage of his child (under age) with-

| cured.

Nor are we without hope that the |

State has nothing to do with religion is of none effect ; for, under Mr. Pope’s scheme the State is not asked to support religious schools, but to pay only for the secular instruction therein imparted. The “ secularists’? are certainly in a sad plight when they are reduced to the necessity of making an attack upon “ par- ental rights "—rights which every Legis- lator in Christendom sedulously guards and maintains.

In England,although the State requires the education of every child, it has yet left the parent free to select what school he pleases, and all schools are, to a greater or less extent, assisted by the State. In Scotland the law of selection prevails. In Germany parents are required to send their children to be educated, but care has been taken that the spiritual adviser of the people of any district shall have a voice in the superintendence of the dorf schulen, or village school. In Upper and Lower Canada, the rights of parents in the matter of education are carefully ses Mark how carefully the rights

}of parents and even of a minority of | parents are secured by the following

| clause, respecting the schools of the North- west—a clause which, if not actually written—as stated by Senator Millar—by | the Hon. Mr. Laird, editor-in-chief of the

| Patriot, yet received his sanction and | support :—

‘The minority of the rate-payers there- in, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein, and | thatin such latter case the rate-payers es- | tablishing such Protestant or Roman Catho- lic separate schools, shall be liable only to | assessment of such rates as they may im- | pose upon themselves in respect thereof.”

But says the Patriot:

‘When discussing the education ques- tion from au ecclesiastical point ofview the right of the parent, upon which such stress is now laid, immediately disappears, and the parent is taught in this matter that it is his daty to bow with submission to the author- ily of the Church, education being incladed in the domain of faith and morals, over which the Church to which most of them belong, claims to exercise exclusive right.”

We submit that this isa consideration which does not come within the scope of the present discussion. The question for the people to declare their opinions upon at the coming election, is one between the State and the Parents. It has nothing whatever to do with the relationship in which Parents may stand to any Church or denomination. We may, however, re- mind the Patriot that this is a free country ; and that no Church is—like the State,—all-powerful. No man is bound to any denomination as he is bound to the State. If a parent believes that the denomination to which he belongs usurps his rights, he is free to leave it and he is at no financial or social Joss. If a large body of Christians in the State choose to surrender their parental rights to their Church, the State has nothing to do with the transaction. There is no union of Church and State here. On the other hand, the Church cannot levy taxes ; and, therefore, it has not the power of forcing a large minority of its followers to contribute towards the main- tenance of schools which it may establish. The Church could not, if it would, treat five-twelfths of its people so unjustly and superciliously as the Government of sevenstwelfths of the electors of this Pro- vince are now treating the remaining por- tion of the population.

>

ALBERTON NOTES.

(By our own Correspondent.)

Atnertox, June 10th, 1876.—The Sylvia was got off yesterday morning and now floats safely in the harbor. She will sail for Pictou aud go on the slip for repairs. | The Lucy Pope is being finished to~day outs side the Harbor bar. Mr. Pope has begun | large ship 800 or 900 tons at Cascumpec Point. Building is going on briskly at Alberton. Capt. M. Foley has just opens ed out in anew shop which will compare with some of the best in your city.

Queen's Birthday was celebrated by Alberton No. 1 Company, Prince County sattalion, firing a feu de joie, near the resi« devce of Hon. R.B. Reid, M. L. C.

»eo-o-—--—____

A good Hairdresser can have steady em. ployment and good wages at the Union House, corner of Queen and King Streets, by applying to Chas. Otto Winkler. tf

NORTHWEST By SOUTHEAST. he School Question, or t, we always credit for |

con-

In discussing the any other controverted subjec wish to give our opponents

: sincerity in their views. lo our temporaries (except one) from wh : differ on this point, we willingly give credit for being in earnest. [ven the Presbyterian, which has descended to the lowest depths of bigotry and profanity, may deserve # lidele consideration from the fact that it means what it says. But the ove exception is the organ of the Minister We seareely know any-

om we

of the lnterier. thine more contemptible than the position which it occupies to-day, It is an insult te the intelligence and the honesty of the country that such a line of conduct should be openly adopted.

The Patriot of the 10th inst., speaking of denominational schools being paid for from public funds, says :

“If ever there was an unholy alliance this is one.” °* * * ‘How conscientious people to whom religion is a reality can enter into so singular a compact, passes our com- prehension.” * * * «They object to the State undertaking to pay for religious teaching of any kind, and ‘cney are Ricut,” * * * “$y this system every institution

could claim to be sapported out of the peoples’ taxes.”

Plain enough words these—words which prate about “conscience.” Well, these are for the Southeast. Let us turn tothe Northwest. What is heard from the same source there? Listen :

“Where and so soon as any system of taxation shall be edopted in any district or portion of the Northwest, the Lieutenant Governor * * * shall pass all necessary ordinances * * * * util sball therein ALWAYS BE PROVIDED * * * that the min- ority of the rate-payers therein, whether Pro- vestants or Roman Catholics, may establish SEPARATE SCHOOLS THEREIN.”

The Patriot has, before this, charged us with unnecessarily attacking Mr. Lainp. We, therefore, to-day, make no further attack than to place side by side the two statements. ‘They certainly do not speak the same language. Out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing of separate schools. ity has said that ‘‘ these things ought not so to be.” Even a heathen poet could put into the mouth of his hero the burn- ing words :

A very goed author-

“ Who one thing thinks,another dares to tell, My soul abhors him like the gates of hell,”

As we said in a previous article, while some are conscientious in their opposition to separate schools, others act in the mat- ter with the utmost hypocrisy, and simply use the religious convictions of others for their own political or selfish ends. One mots flagrant instance of this we have just given. We will state another. An inspection of the poll books of the Char- lottetown electors, will show that there were men who chased Mr, Brecken about town to demand a pledge from him on the r School Question, who yet—a few month® after—voted for Mr. John A. Medonald— an avowed supporter of separate schools. No language is too strong to condemn such conduct.

However, we leave the “ Patriot”’ the present. It must have a profound and cynical contempt for the intelligence of the community, when it comes out as the opponent of denominational schools. There has, however, evidently been a twinge of conscience. In a late issue, the “ Patriot’’ depreeates piteously, the bring- ing of Dominion issues into local poli. ties. To do that, will, indeed, be death to the ‘ Patriot.”

LORD CARNARVON ON THE

SCHOOL QUESTION.

Tuk following words of Lord Carnar- von, one of Her Majesty’s constitutional advisers, apply as forcibly to this Island We ask the loyal electors of this to consider them carefully cre they rote on

as they do to New Brunswick

Province

Mr. Pope’s scheme :

‘““Atthe same time there can be impro- priety in my expressing lhe slrong hope which ] entertain that, as in other British communities, the majority of the population in New Brunswick, which through its res presentatives controls the educational sys- tem of the Province, may be disposed to adopt such modification of the existing rules as may render them less unacceptable to those who from conscientious reasons have felt themselves obliged to protest against the system now in force.—Exlract from lhe despatch of the Colonial Secretary, Lord Carnarvon, daied Oct. 18th, 1879.

FP. E. ISLAND ELECTIONS. [From the St. John ‘ Freeman.’]

Politics appear to be badly mixed in P. E. Island at present. The general elections are at hand—some say they will be held in July —and the school Question, we are told, will be the issue at the poils, although it is ex- ceedingly diflicult to make out how that can be the question, unless there be an entire reconstruction of parties and an entirely new departure. For years those who talked most loudly in support of non-religious schools told their followers that the system in the Iss land was strictly non-sectarian, and as such should be maintained inviolate. Late investi- gations have shown that some of the most violeut of these very men did themselves in schools under their contro] cause the Pres- byterian Cateehism to be regularly taught, while in many other schools the Catholic Catechism was taught. The whole system was a sham, and moreover was a failure. In the present Government, we are told,are men who have deserved the confidence of the ad- vocates of ireligious schools by having always resisted every altempt made to aller the law so that Christian doctrine may be openly taught in the schools, and with them for this purpose a number of leading men of the Op- position always united. On the school ques- tion and the land question the Patriol, the chief organ of the Opposition, says, “ the policy of the Government has been the policy of the Opposition.”’ The Government cannot, therefore, be charged by the Opposition with not having done what they ought lo have done in school matters. Any charge made against the Government in this respect mustalso be a charge against the Opposition according to the Pairiot. It is always absurd to talk as many do of the burden of Separate Schools, as the existence of such sehool does not in the slightest degree add to /he burden of tax- ation, but it is particularly absure in the Iss land after the revelations ma‘le before the Le gislative Committee last sesion. Perhaps the Patriot wishes for a union of men of both existing parties, whom it names with honor. Perhaps, indeed, such a coalition, is contem-

plated. Perhaps it is possible, notwithstand- ing recent exposures and the fact thereby es- tablished; that the majority of the people are in favour of denominational schools, to work up the No-Popery feeling in favor of such a combination ; but it is surely very extra- ordinary to find the Patriol, while proclaim. ing that the School question in some shape or other is to be the issue, warning its friends to be cautious, telling them that—

‘* Without moderation and regard for the feelings and prejudices of those whose co- operation we require, nothing can be done.”

What can this mean? Itis possible that of those who profess to be friends of religis ous education any can be seduced by the artifices of the advocates of the godless schooy system to support the candidates of that party ?

for |

OUR APPEAL CASE,

Orrawa, June 8.—The case ti +t came on before the Supreme Court this morning tor argument was that of Kelly v. Sulivan, This was an appeal from the de ision of the Supreme Court of Pine 1 wo | Island res lative to an award made by ertain Com- missioners, who awarded to Miss Sulivan $81,500 as the price of all ler township lands on the Island, There appeared ag counsel for the appellants, M’. Cockburn, Q.C., Mr. F Brecken, and Mr, Louis H. Davies, for the respondents, Mr. M. C. Cameron, (). C,, Mr, Edward ilodgson, and Mr. J. UH. Bell,

The forenoon was occupied in arguing a question of jurisdiction. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the courts of last resort in the different provinces, and the re. spondents allege that there exists in Prince

proceedings returned it does not appear that the commissioners were sworn as the Statute requires; that it appears that only one, J, G, Haliburton, was sworn, and that ws at the time he took his seat; that to give the commissioners jurisdiction, it was necessary that the Commissioner of Public Lands should have given notice setting out the parcels of land that he wished to take on behalf of the Crown, and the notice given only speaks of them without specifying them. The Statute requires the commiss sioners to publish the time and place of their meeting for three consecutive weeks before the time of meeting; that the first notice was on the 7th of August, and the laston the 21st, and the meeting was held on the 23d, so that three weeks did not intervene between the notice of the sitting; the commissioners were therefore not a legally constituted Court, and were

Edward Island another court above the so- called Supreme Court to which the appel- lants should have applied before applying to the Supreme Court here. In proof of this they referred to the various royal instrucs tions to the Governors constituting them in Council Courts of Error and Appeal, and instructing them to hear appeals from the other courts; and in all the other British Colonies there have been Orders in Council passed to enable parties to appeal direct from the Supreme Courts of the respective Provinces to the Privy Council, without re~ cognizing or appealing to the intermediate Court, composed of the Governor in Couns cil, but that in Prince Edward Island no Order in Council or Act of Parliament has changed or ailected the law as it once stoed ; that by various Acts of the Legislature of the Island, this Court is recognized to have an existence; that the decision jn re Cam.~ bridge , shows that in the year 1841 the Privy Council decided that an appeal would not lie to them from the Courts of the Is- land except through the Governor in Coun, cil; and that the practice in appeals to the Privy Council must be followed in similar cases in the Supreme Court here.

On the part of the appellants it was urged that the Court never had an actual exist» ence in point of practice, and it never trans acted any business; that the instructions to the new Governors avoided the instructions to the former ones, and that the late ins structions do not contain any powers for the Council to act as a court of law.

The Court then took recess.

After recess the Chief Justice said that certain documents, such as those of the Vice Commission to Governor Fanning, should be obtained, as well as those to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, before they could give any opinion on the question.

Mr. Brecken said the case was import- ant and urged that it be heard on its merits, leaving the question of jurisdiction in abeyance. The case was then called, and Mr. Brecken, on behalf of the appels lants,commenced his argument. He gave a history of the land tenure in Prince Ed- ward Island,and of the circumstances under which the Land Purchase Act of 1875 had been passed; and stated that the award in this case should be sustained, because the Commissioners had complied with section 28. Several facts and circumstances as contained in that sub-section were only in- tended as beacons to light their way to a conclusion. Moreover, section 45 of the Act takes away the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, and declares that no award shall be voided by reason of defect in in- formality. In fact, he said, the whole case depended on the interpretation to be given to clause 28 of the Act. The learned counsel cited numerous authorities in his factum in reference to the finalityand uns certainty of the award, the’ jurisdiction of the Court to set the award aside, and the nonspayment of the award into the Trea-~ sury.

Orrawa, June 9,

In the Supreme Court this morning, in the Prince Edward Island Land Case, Mr. Cockburn, Q. C., followed Attorney Genes

ral Brecken, He said: We submit that | the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Is- land had no jurisdiction to declare the award void; when there is no submission to make the award a ru/e of the Court, there is no jurisdiction. We therefore argue that the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island had no right to take jurisdiction in this case in the simmary way it did, by allowing arule nisi to set aside the award. 3 No Court, by the summary exercise of its powers, has a right to exercise its jurisdic- tion over awards where there is no submis- sion. The learned counsel then cited Can- adian authority in support of his argument, As to the uncertainty of the award, we cons tend that all the estate of Miss Sulivan having been awarded upon there was no necessity of describing the lands by metes and bounds. By the notice Miss Sulivan received under the section of the Land Purchase Act, she was informed that the Government intended to purchase ‘all of her Township lands on the Island, liable to the provisions of the Land Purchase Act.” When the quantity of land is readily ascer. tainable, the award cannot be set aside on the ground of uncertainty. Now, as to the contention that the award is not final be- cause it did not award on the subject which the 28th section of the Act directs that the Commissioners shall take into considera- tion, it is well to remark that a similar clause is inserted in the Public Works Act, where arbitrators in taking lands are to consider certain things in making their award. Now, in cases which have been brought out before Courts, we connot find any decision which has declared a unani- mous award void on the ground of its being silent on some of these considerations. In this case the only duty of the commission. ers was to award on the amount of money to be paid.

Mr. Davies argued that the intention of the Legislature with reference to the duties of the commissioners was to find but one thing; that is, the amount to be paid. In section 27 of the Act it is stated that “the object of this Act is to pay every proprietor a fair indemnity, or equivalent for value of his interest, and no more.” Now, the ins tention of the Legislature is certainly well expressed, viz., to find the amount to be paid. Further, by section 26, the commis- sioners are ordered what to do: “After hearing the evidence adduced before them, the commissioners shall award the sum due to such proprietor.’

At one o'clock their Excellencies Lord Dufferin and the Countess of Dufferin, ac- companied by the Premier, visited the Court.

Mr. Cameron, fox the appellants, argued with reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to set aside the award. It does not matter whether the award is brought before the Court by certiorari, by a rule to show cause, or because the Court is seized of the award by its being fyled there, as an Appellate Court never interferes with the practice of the Court appealed from, As to the jurisdiction of the Court to en- quire into the matter, the Commissioners under the Act were an inferior Court, and the Supreme Court has a right to interfere to prevent an inferior Court acting in excess of its powers, This Court (the Commission ers) was without jurisdiction, as by the

powerless to award; and appearing before them, being an inferior Court, was no waiver of their want of jurisdiction, The ward was bad by reason of its not finding and describing the lands with reference to which they awarded the sum of $81,000. The Statute itself was ultra vires, as it is not competent for a Local Legislature to deprive aman of his property,except for the public good, and it could not be said that it was for the public good that the Crown should resume property which had once been granted and was in course of cultivation ty the tenants of the proprietor. The award was bad also for excess of authority in ap- propriating the whole of Miss Sulivan’s land, instead of allowing her 500 acres, which the Statute permits. The learned counsel referred to several clauses of Statute and a number of authorities to sustain his position,

Orrawa, June J1.—In the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. E. J, Hodgson, from the Province of Prince Edward Island, who argued the cause before the Supreme Court in the Island, followed Mr. Cameron on bes half of respondent. He said :—

My co-associate counsel, Mr, Cameron, has s0 ably commented on the arguments in favor of respondent’s pretension, that it will not be necessary for me to troutle your Lordships at any length, There are, hows ever, one or two points which I wish to argue before a decision is arrived at. The first ground [ will take is that there is no analogy between the principles of Laws which govern an arbitration and those which are applicable to the case now be- fore the Court. In an arbitration we cannot object to a decision arrived at by the arbitrators, but in this case it is provided by Statute that we can apply to the Supreme Court to remedy any error, omission or informality. The Supreme Court has a statutory jurisdiction to remit an award or to correct any error or omission. Now, how cau we find if there has heen any omission, when there is but one thing mens tioned in the award ?—the amount of money to be paid by the Crown. When a statu» tory power is given to deprive a person of his lands, that is not for the benefit of the public, the strictest interpretation must be given to the Statute, and every means af- forded to the proprietor to find out if any omission or error has taken place.

The Chief Justice—Is not this provision in the Statue for the express purpose of giving you an opportunity of applying to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Is~ land to have the omission you complain of corrected ?

Mr. Hodgson—this is not a proceeding in personam; We argue that the award, be- ing void, we could not believe the Commise sioner of Public Lands would ever attempt to enforce it. This is not a proceeding in personam, but a proceeding in rem, and als though it is true we appear by counsel, there can be no waiver when a question of jurisdic- tion arises. When an officer derives his aus thority from the Statute—not from the proprietor—and there is irregularity in his proceedings, no waiver will be recognized. In answer to the pretensions of counsel for appellant, that in this case it would have been impossible for the Commissioners to find no matters and things contained in sub-section 28 of the Act, as they did not apply to this case, I will refer you to the Fifteen Years’ Purchase Land Act. Here we find the question of quit rents and fish- ing reserve set at rest, but nota word is said with reference to the non-performance of the settlement clause. By the 20th secs tion, the Commissioners are required to as~ certain the facts necessary to carry this into effect, and the meaning uf these facts, which it is their duty to ascertain, in order to give fuil effect to this Act. Now, as to describ- ing the metes and bounds of the land, it was impossible for us to see whether they have made any error: Surely it could not have been contemplated by the Act that the Commissioners should frame their award in such a way as not to allow us to see if there were anyomission! We claim that we were not bound to set aside the instru- ment,

Mr. Davies replied at length on the part of the appellant, and in the course of his re~ ply read the following extract from Com« missioner Philips’ (?) memorandum, written at the request of the Governor General :— “ The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island have held that, instead of simply awarding in each case the sum due to the proprietor, it was our duty to incorporate in our awards some hundreds, in fact some thousands, of decisions on matters — some small, some great, some of law, some of fact, and some of mixed law and fact, apparently in order that each of them might if neces« sary, be considered by the Supreme Court in event of proceedings being taken to send back our award for corrections.” In Miss Sulivan’s case it would have been neces- sary to appoint an army of surveyors to exs amine minutely the proprietor’s accounts for many years past, with above a thousand farmers to enquire on the spot as to the actual particulars of squatting operations by several hundred persons during the last thirty years. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Act, it would be abso« lutely unworkable under the interpretation put upon it by the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island.

This being the last case, the scessions closed.

—_—_—_—"_"

We had occasion a short time ago to refer to the somewhat low conception of honesty which existed among the trading masses in the United States, Apropos of this subject we have to notice a very shame« ful instance of thieving at the Annapolis Naval Academy. Nine Cadet midshipmen, from the ages of seventeen to twenty-one, have been detected in a robbery of wearing apparel from a Baltimore dealer,who visited Annapolis for the purpose of selling goods to the midshipmen. His room was broken open, and silk stockings, neckties, shirt studs, sleeve buttons and other costly sams ples were caried off. The rooms of the middies were searched and the stolen goods discovered. The nine offenders were res quested to resign, which they did; but so low is the tone of sentiment at the Aca- demy that it is expected they will be allow~ ed to return shortly. A case is cited where a middy stole a valuable gold watch from a citizen and was expelled, but six months after he was taken back to his old class, It is evident that there is more truth than poetry in the remark of an old citizen of Annapolis that “ there is some pretty tough cattle among ’em.” If such barefaced crime is tolerated among those whe are presumed to have some claim to the title of gentlemen, what may be expected from

those of inferior station.

_NEW ADVERTISEMENTS, TRADE SALE BY AUCTION.

THE SUBSCRIBERS WILL SELL AT THEIR SALESROOM,

On Wednesday next, 21st inst., AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK: 150

bbls. CANADA FLOUR, 20 puns. BARBADOES MOLASSES,

175 bbis. K. D. CORNMEAL,

5 hhds. “ SUGAR, 5 * English Refined “ “

10 bbls. CRUSHED 10 ** GRANULATED «

15 ** WHITE BEANS,

25 casks American KEROSENE, 130° 20 * Atlantic as

10 rolls SOLE LEATHER,

50 boxes LAYER RAISINS,

20 drums FIGS,

10 boxes TOBACCO,

28 *“ BROWN SOAP, 20 ¢ ee

10 doz. WASHBOARDS, 10 * BROOMS,

20 boxes CONFECTIONERY, 10 kee BAKING SODA, 10 nests WASH TUBS, 10 casks WASHING SODA, 15 cases MATCHES. FENTON T. NEWBERY & CO. June 19, 1876.—ne pat ar lin

AUCTION SALE.

WE will sell by Auction, on THURSDAY, the 22nd inst.,at the hour of 11 o’clock, a. m.:—

Tea, Tobacco, Crackers, Digby Herring, Soap, Potash, Wrapping-paper, Twine Brooms, Buckets, ‘'ubs, Hay Hakes, Forks, &c., &c.

MACKENZIE & STUMBLES,

Ch’town, June 19, 1876. Auctioneers.

Valuable Property,

DWELLING HOUSE

AND LAND.

AM instructed by the owner, to sell at AUCTION, on the premises, on

Thursday, 29th instant,

AT 12 O'CLOCK:

That very valuable and beautifully situated property on Richmond Street, fronting on Hillsborough Park (at present occupied by W.C. Hopxtr«, Esq.) being part cf Town Lots No. 62, and 63, in the second hundred. The land fronts 40 feet on Richmond Street, and extends back 160 feet.

The Dwelling House is a three-storey wooden building, (flat root) containing ten rooms—Pantry and Outer Kitchen is in thorough good order, with a prime frost- proof Cellar, and is fitted throughout with gas. Stable and other out-buildings in the