view raw text
CANADIAN CHARTERS HAVE WIDE SCOPE. Recently Incorporated Racing Associations Can Conduct Meetings in Various Cities of Dominion. Ottawa, Ont.. March 2.". — Official notification of Ik incorpotat i"ii of tlio now l.omlon and Toronto Racing A seoclstloae liavo been given in the Canadii Uasette. The London Jockey Club, l.iinitod, is empowered o bold race meetings not only in London. I lit also in Winnipeg and Montreal. The Tnorncliffe Park Racing and Rreeding Association of Toronto is empowered to hold race meetings at or near Toronto. Montreal. Winnipeg, "and other cities in the Dominion of Canada. The London Club is empowered to carry on agricultural, horse, flower, in duatrial and boxing shows, and the authorized capital sleek is 50,000. The incorporators are Ralph R. Bruce and John L. Counsel!, barristers: W. J. Soutliam and Horace W. Wilcox, manufacturers, and St. Clair Balfour, wholesale grocer, all of the city of Hamilton. The ThorneBffe Park Association is empowered to construct and maintain race courses and steeplechase courses, with all the accessories of a modern racecourse and clubhouse, and "to hold race meetings and races and other tiials of skill and endurance of man and beast." The authorized capital atocfc is 00,000, and the incorporators are Robert Davits, manufacturer; William Burgess, brickmaker: George T. Havies. brewer; James Jenkins, traiuer. ami Robert W. Pavics. brewer, all of Toronto. While strongly endorsing the wisdom of Hon. Mr. Poherty*a bill to amend the criminal code by tightening up the restrictions against the incorporation and privileges of race track associations, the Liberals in Parliament equally strongly protested against the recent incorporation by the secretary of state of two new race track associations, which would be exempt from the new restrictions and whose applications for incorporation had been held up under the late goernment for two years and one year, respectively. Hon. Dr. Pugsley moved an amendment to restrict the betting privileges of race tracks owned by associations incorporated prior to March 1, last. That would bare the effect of debarring the two new associations from operating unless they came under t hi law. The bill, as presented by the government, put the limit as March 20, to include the two ineorjxjra-tions made four days before. Dr. Pugsley said the minister of Justice had objected to retroactive legis-lation. but his own measure was retroactive in that it went back two days. The amendment was lost in committee on a straight parti division, and the bill passed on the same rote. The principle of Mr. Pohertys bill, which requires all race track associations in future to secure incorporation by act of parliament or by act of a provincial legislature, instead of by the issue of letters patent as at present, and which fait bet tightens up the present law by declaring that the fourteen days of racing allowed during any one Calendar year shall he under the auspices of the association owning the track, and no oilier association shall have the privilege, under the strict wording of the law. of leasing the track for another race meeting was commended on both sides of the house as being in the public interest and in line with the spirit of the Miller bill. In this respect there was no objection taken to the bill. But there was objection to the action of the government in incorporating on the eve of the new iegislatiou the London ami Tnorncliffe Racing Associations. The minister of justice justitieil the granting of these latter two charters on the ground that the applications having lteen made under the existing law. the secretary of state had no right to* withhold them, and parliament had no moral right to make tlie present legislation retroactive. The constitutional authority of the secretary of state to withhold the granting of letters patent was argued at considerable length, the minister taking the ground and assuming full responsihillty for advising, that there was no discretionary power in the state department to refuse tlie granting of the charter, while the liberals contended on the larger ground that the public interests as well as the interpretation of the law itself gave discretionary power to withhold charters of this description. The one salient fact brought out was that the former secretary of state had declined to act on the applications, since their receipt on September 24, IMS, and June 13. 1910, respectively, until the late government went out of office. Now both applications J nave been granted, and London and Toronto will d each get an additional race track, where meetings g may he held and betting permitted. C In contrast with the interest manifested in the a house on the subject two seasons ago. when the Miller bill was up for discussion, and when the 1 conservatives sought to make capital ont of the J gaining of the charter to the DiilVerin race track, it was dgafatcant that practically no interest was -taken on tlie government side of the house. For meal of the time Mr. Doherty was the only govern- „ meat member present, while the two front rows t -the speakers right contained only one other occu- I pant. Criticism of the incorporation of the two new -asaoclatioas came entirely from the liberal side. Hon. Mr. Doherty, in support of his bill, argued that the secretary of state could not do otherwise than , grant the incorporation, just as the former secreta- | tary of state was compelled to grant the DulTerin Park charter. The government, he said, did not feel justified in making the legislation retroactive -for a few days to cover the two cases in Question. Hon. Dr. Iugsley argued that there was some doubt as to the mandatory construction of the law in regard to the obligation of the secretary of state g to grant tlie charters. At any rate the late score- f, tary of state had held them up. and the new govern- , meat had also delayed action for live months after t assuming office. This was prima facie argument in support of the contention that they might have , been held u,p for a few days longer until the new legislation came into effect. Then parliament Itself ] would had the right to say whether or not they should be incorporated. - Hon. Mr. Lemieux — If there had been ten applica- -tions pending, would they all have bam cranted? Hon. Mr. Doherty — Whether two or two thousand. ; they would all have been entitled to get letters , patent. Now we are seeking to remedy th» situation. Tin doctrine on xvhich we are standing is that the . law as it stands must be a Jministered.
