1902-04-25

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 118) for the relief of James Brown-Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 125) to amend the Act of the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company-Mr. Champagne.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I would like to call attention to returns which I ordered some time ago. One is a return, ordered on the 9th April, showing the timber berths in the Yukon. I would like to have that down Monday or Tuesday, if possible. The other is a return giving the names of parties convicted of arson.



POLICE MAGISTRATES IN THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the salaries of the police magistrates at Dawson and White Horse read the second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 137) to amend chapter 41 of the statute of 1901, respecting the administration of justice in the Yukon territory.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts and the Territorial Court of
the Yukon Territory, read the second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 138) to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the registrar of the Exchequer Court, read the second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 139) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following resolution.
That it is expedient to provide for the appointment of an assistant commissioner of the North-west mounted police for the Yukon territory, at $1,600 per annum.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the object of the Bill of which this resolution is a preliminary is simply to authorize the government to appoint a second assistant commissioner of the Mounted Police. At present there is a comptroller of the Mounted Police stationed at Ottawa and a commissioner stationed at Regina. The object is to appoint an assistant commissioner stationed at the Yukon. The force in the Yukon is now under Superintendent Wood, a most competent officer. But some difficulty has arisen from the fact that, instead of being able to deal directly with matters concerning the Yukon he has to report to the commissioner at Regina, who has again to report to Ottawa. It would avoid many difficulties and promote the efficiency of the force if Mr. Wood were made an assistant commissioner and clothed with the powers of a commissioner, as is the assistant commissioner at Regina in the absence of the commissioner, and so be able to deal with all matters in the Yukon and report directly to Ottawa. The only increase of expenditure involved would be $200. At present Mr. Wood receives $1,400 a year with, of course, the allowance which is made to the officers in the Yukon. As assistant commissioner he will receive the same as the assistant commissioner at Regina, $1,600.
Mr. SPROULE.: What is the strength of the force in the Yukon now 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: Three hundred.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: It is not intended to make any additional appointment, but merely to clothe Mr. Wood with the powers of a commissioner 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: Of assistant commissioner-that is all.
Resolution reported.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 105) to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, 1890.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick read the second time ; considered in committee ; reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 114) to amend the Exchequer Court Act (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to understand the purport of this. These two sections are not prepared in a way which, I think, is approved by most workers on the subject, that is to say, to re-enact a section with an amendment instead of inserting the necessary words. Without the previous statute before us, we cannot understand it, and would the hon. gentleman say what is the effect of it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the Exchequer Court Act, as we have it now, the government has authority to appoint a registrar to the Exchequer Court. He must be a barrister of five years standing, and he shall receive, according to the statute which authorizes his appointment, a salary of $2,000 a year. As I pointed out when I introduced the resolution, the registrar has been in the habit of receiving, under an agreement as he represents, an annual increase of about $50 a year, the original intention being to increase his salary to $2,400. At the present time, as a result of the actual increases given to him, his salary amounts to $2,375. In order to get rid of this obligation to take an annual vote for the sum of $50, we suggest the propriety of fixing the salary at $2,400, which he says was the amount at which it was fixed originally. I agree the drafting might have *been a little better.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister tell us what the effect of this section is 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As my hon. friend is aware at the present time there is no appeal from a judgment in the


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Exchequer Court unless that judgment is a final judgment. Now, you may demur, and if the demurrer is dismissed, there is no appeal, but if the demurrer is maintained there would be an appeal. But there maybe cases in which it may be advisable to have the whole matter disposed of on a question of law, and this is to enable us to have an appeal in a case where the demurrer has been dismissed.


Robert Laird Borden: I recollect now the minister made that explanation.
On section 3, subsection 2,


Robert Laird Borden: There is no need I suppose of any limitation as to the cases in which service may be made abroad?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Difficulties have arisen in the Justice Department, and we found it necessary in some cases to serve a process on persons living in the United States, and we had no provision to enable us to do it. It was in order to meet that difficulty that this amendment is suggested.


Robert Laird Borden: I think in the English Judicature Act and in the Acts of the several provinces following it, the right to serve a defendant in a foreign country is somewhat restricted. Does this apply to a foreigner as well as a British subject 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not provide, I see, for the service of a writ, but simply the notice. The rules of international courtesy, I think, forbid the service of a writ upon a foreigner residing in a foreign country, only a notice can be served. The Bill seems to have provided for that.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I noticed an important decision in one of the papers as to the jurisdiction of this government even to legislate in the direction of making a service over a subject in a foreign country. It is following the line of the navigation laws that we have no jurisdiction over a British subject beyond the marine league. The effect of that would be, I think-I saw it argued in that direction anyway

that even in processes in a foreign country we would not have jurisdiction to legislate in that direction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This I think would be a matter affecting the procedure of our own courts. We authorize the court to make the service, at} least we authorize the service or the process out of the court. But as to whether it would be binding upon a foreigner abroad is another question.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be that a foreign court, in dealing with tha rights of a citizen of a foreign country, if a case was brought in that foreign court upon a judgment here, would not recognize it.

Different laws prevail in different countries with regard to that subject. But I assume that this particular section has been drawn with care; I have not had time to consider it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has been drawn by the deputy minister, after consultation with the judge of the Exchequer Court. I think that is a fairly safe guarantee.
Bill reported.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 115) further to amend the Canada Evidence Act, 1893 (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Chairman, it is intended to limit the number of expert witnesses. The number is limited to five, but if the judge presiding at the trial desires to add to the number, of course, it is optional with him to give permission to counsel to have any number in excess of five that the court may fix. I think it is quite proper that there should be some limitation to the nnmber of expert witnesses that are produced in certain cases in our courts.


Robert Laird Borden: What would be the operation of the Bill ? Is it confined to the Exchequer Court or to criminal courts ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This would apply to all cases to which the Canada Evidence Act would apply. That would be the Exchequer Court and also the criminal courts. In case of murder by poisoning, for instance, there is often an unlimited number of expert witnesses uselessly brought forward, and in this way the public expenditure is increased. The Chancellor of Ontario and the Chief Justice of Ontario have both agreed in recommending that this Bill should be passed.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-ATLANTIC SHIPPING COMBINE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['']
Mr.  C. E.@: IvAULBACH (Lunenburg). Mr. Speaker, I beg to call the attention of the House to the following cable despatch which I see published in the ' Citizen ' of to-day :
Londons April 25.-The 'Daily Mail' affirms this morning that the agreement of the Atlantic shipping combine contains secret clauses to the effect that the American promoters of the concern intend to ask congress to pass a new shipping bill permitting foreign built vessels to be
brought under the American flag. The adhesion of the 'Cunard' line is practically certain, continues the 'Mail,' and the corporation will be formed mainly with American capital. It will take over entirely the British shipping companies. Those companies refusing to Join the combine will be compelled to fight for their existence. For the three or four years that the present admiralty contracts still have to run, the paper adds, the vessels will remain under the British flag, at the expiration of this time the whole will pass under the American dag and he owned and run by the above mentioned corporation-, which will eventually -endeavour to carry its competition to every portion of the globe.
The 'Daily Express' declares that the shipping combine is trying to coerce Canada into accepting its terms and conditions as- to emigration- rates and traffic and that, if resistance is made, the combine will buy up th? Canadian railways and declare a commercial war. It is the intention of the combine, says the ' Daily Express' to demand that the Canadian emigration department in London should cease to give facilities to Elder, Dempster and Company.
This, seems to me, to be striking a vital blow at the shipping interests of Canada, as it strikes a blow at British shipping, it as a matter of course, includes Canadian shipping as well. It strikes a vital blow at those interested in commerce and manufactures and all interested in trade generally. It goes on further and says that they wiil also include traffic by railways and that if a resistance is made they will buy up the Canadian railways and declare commercial war. This seems to me to be very bold reference or statement and if carried out would interfere very -materially not only with the maritime provinces bordering on the Atlantic, but with Canada as a whole. It is declared that the trade of Canada is to be diverted from our Canadian roads across the American boundary to American ports, and in this way our seaports on the Atlantic will be seriously affected. It would not only interfere with our commercial interests but it would interfere with oar ship-building interests, and very materially affect the county which I have the honour to represent, having no less than forty new vessels building in the county of Lunenburg this year, and last year we had about a similar number constructed. This referred-to project would place us in the position of having not only the ship-building industry, now a success, hampered, but our general trade greatly crippled. I would ask the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to consider this matter very carefully, to view the situation as it might ultimately exist and place such safeguards around the interests of Canada as to prevent our being interfered with in this way. I only saw this matter mentioned iu the referred-to paper a few minutes before the House met this afternoon, and thought it my duty, in the interest of all concerned, more particularly for those interested in commerce and trade, that the matter should be brought to the attention of the House. I
COMltQNS
would like to have some information in this connection as to the right lion, gentleman's views and the position the right hon. gentleman would take.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Kaulbacli)' that I do not think there is much danger at the present time. If, as is stated in the paper, congress is to introduce legislation, I am afraid we are powerless to prevent it, and if congress intends to take hold of our railways, I think I can satisfy my hon. friend that there will be no such occurrence as this. We will keep our own railways for ourselves.


Mr. KAULBACH.: If any railways in Canada have subsidies from this government, then, the government should exercise careful supervision over these railways, and prevent traffic being diverted across the border into American channels. It would be very easy to deprive us of traffic, were our interests not vigilantly watched. We want to keep Canada for the Canadians, our trade for Canadians, and we want the shipping ports of Canada for our exports and for the trade of Canada generally, and to be maintained and upheld in the interests of Canada as one great and abiding country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, I will take it into consideration then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Government railways-Rental. Grand Trunk Railway, $140,000.
Mr. SPROtTLE. Can the minister give us any information as to how the Drummond County portion of the road is paying? We were assured most positively that once the traffic got well under way this would be a good paying concern.
['Well, I will take it into consideration then.']
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think I can give any details, but I can state generally that there is no part of the Intercolonial Railway which has conduced to an increase in the receipts of the road to the same extent as has the recent extension from Levis to Montreal. I attribute in a very large measure the immense increase in the traffic to out-having brought the line to Montreal, and of course, having done so we have to pav this rental.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can you give an approximate estimate as to the tonnage of freight carried, and the earnings of that portion of the road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid not. We do not keep our accounts on such a basis that I could give that information, and the hon. gentleman will see that it would be manifestly unfair to give an approximate estimate. I could get the hon. gentleman infor-Mr. KAULBACH.
mation as to what amount of business originates upon the Drummond County Railway, or I could get the information as to what freight was carried on that part of the line for its destination, but even then we would be far from being able to form even an approximate idea of the value of that piece of line.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I wanted to know was the proportionate earnings of that part of the road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not got that.


Mr. BENNETT.: When this road was acquired we were told that a large trade was expected to the maritime provinces particularly in grain. How much grain was handled last year through the elevators at St. John and Halifax, and did it come principally from American or from Canadian ports on the upper lakes ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that information was asked for and is published in ' Hansard.' I cannot remember what the details of that statement were, but I will be glad to make a note of it and look it up in ' Hansard.-


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely there must have been some such quantity as would create an impression upon the mind of the minister with regard to the grain trade from St. John and Halifax. From what I have heard from time to time there has been practically nothing of account. Yesterday a government supporter tried to throw discredit on the late administration because they built an elevator at Halifax. If that were a fault how much greater was the fault of this government, who when the old elevator was destroyed, erected another one in its place. Cannot the minister give even a approximate estimate of the grain trade at St. John and Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could not even venture to give an approximate statement from memory. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) is in error when he understood that any gentleman on this side of the House condemned the policy of the late government for building an elevator at Halifax. I think what occurred was, that when the present government were condemned for building an elevator in Halifax, it was pointed out that they were simply rebuilding the elevator which had been erected by the previous government, and that if it was a grievious wrong for this government to rebuild, it must have been at least a slight offence for our predecessors to have built in the first place.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am surprised that the minister cannot tell us even approximately the quantity of grain handled in his own city of St. John, by an elevator which has

been operated by this * government. Of course tbe minister does not live in St. John, and that being so, may be his colleague can give the information. The minister cannot tell the House whether or not a bushel of grain went through that elevator last year.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can set my hon. friend's mind at rest upon that question. I can say unhesitatingly that more than a bushel of grain went through.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister has now raised the limit, and let me ask him if 1,000 bushels of grain went through this elevator ? The minister should not treat this matter In such a flippant way.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have said that I will get the information and give it to my hon. friend.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, perhaps it might be as well to let the item stand until we get the information.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If you think it is really worth while.


Mr. CLARKE.: Might I ask the hon. minister if he will bring down a statement of the quantities of grain that passed through the government elevators at St. John and Halifax, and the quantities that passed through the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators at the same time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If I can get the information for my hon. friend, I will do it.


Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: It was not my intention to offer any observations on the subject now before this committee, nor indeed to take part in any of the proceedings of the House during the present session, in obedience to the command of my physician, who had enjoined upon me the necessity of abstaining as much as possible from any work which would involve any mental strain or excitement. The extraordinary character of the speeches which were delivered here last evening, and the way in which my name was used, constrain me to make a few remarks with respect to the Intercolonial Railway. Representing, as I do, a constituency which is very largely interested in that road, which is, indeed, the head centre of the government railway system, it might perhaps be expected of me that I would make some remarks when such a subject was under discussion.
Before referring to the remarks personal to myself which were made by the hon. gentlemen who have already spoken, I would like to invite the attention of this committee and of the country to the circumstances under which the Intercolonial Railway was
constructed. I think that a reference to the 145th section of the British North America Act will convince all hon. members of the committee that the construction and maintenance of that road was one of the essential features of the coming into this confederation of the provinces by the sea. Indeed, that 145th section was the stepping stone upon which the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered the threshold of this great Dominion, and therefore the people of those provinces are naturally very much intefested not only in the maintenance of that road and its proper management, but they are particularly interested in the road being kept in such a condition that there shall not be any prejudice created in the minds of the people of any other section of Canada against it, or against its maintenance as a government road.
Now, while it is true that in going over the history of the Intercolonial Railway and looking at its balance sheets year by year we do not find any large surpluses on the right side of the account, yet I am prepared to say that the Intercolonial Railway has been one of the most splendid assets that the government of Canada has ever possessed. I do not feel that I can show it in dollars and cents, but I think I can show this committee and the country that the dividends which it has earned have been of incalculable value. I need only refer to the first ten years of the history of this Dominion, before we had an Intercolonial Railway. Take the conditions which then prevailed. Even when the provinces by the sea sent to this parliament representatives of the people, how did they come to the city of Ottawa to attend to their duties? Only through American territory. Many were obliged to go to Portland by steamer and thence to Montreal by the Grand Trunk. Those conditions prevailed not only with respect to the assembling of the parliament of Canada, but in many other ways. When I started out as a young man to obtain a technical education, did I look to the province of Ontario or to the province of Quebec? Were my eyes turned to the great University of McGill or to the University of Toronto ? No ; and mine is only one of many cases. Where did we receive our technical education ? Passing from our higher schools, we were compelled to go to the neighbouring republic, across the waters of the Bay of Fundy, to Massachusetts or to universities in other parts of the American republic. The relationships between the provinces were such that we hardly knew each other. We were rather led to believe that the great province of Quebec was an impassable barrier between us and the province of Ontario. We did not know each other. Those who studied our geographies knew that there was a city of Montreal, it is true, but we were chiefly impressed with the fact that it was near Caughnawaga. that euphonious name

rather attracting the attention of the school student of that day. There was not much commercial intercourse or social intercourse between us. We were a separated people. What is true with respect to the educational features, is true with respect to all the conditions of life; and the construction of the Intercolonial Railway changed those conditions. If I may be pardoned for referring to myself, I was compelled to go to an American university; but I can refer witli pride to the fact that my son is attending McGill University; and what has brought about these changed conditions ? I think there is no element which has contributed more than the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. We now know each other as we did not know each other previous to that time. With respect to the province of Quebec, there was created in our minds as young students a prejudice against it; but the intercourse, social and otherwise, the interchange of trade, and the communications which have been provided toy means of the Intercolonial Railway have removed that prejudice. I remember the time in the maritime provinces when there was a prejudice against the great province of Ontario, when to call a man a Canadian was regarded as applying to him a term of opprobrium. We knew of Toronto, it is true : but studying our geographies, we knew of it as a city that was somewhere near the great Falls of Niagara.
When we took up our history we read of it as a city which in the war of 1812, had a number of its buildings, including the parliament buildings, destroyed. We knew of these things, but there was a separation between the people of the west and the people of the east These conditions were however changed by the opening up of the Intercolonial Railway. Then began the inrush into the maritime provinces of the commercial travellers from our western cities. Before that road was built, if any young man wanted a suit of clothes and could not get. what he desired at home, he would never think of going to Montreal or Toronto, but would run over to Boston. But all that has been changed and the people of eastern Canada have acquired knowledge with respect to the people of Ontario and Quebec which they did not formerly possess. We are to-day one people. We can go to the province of Quebec and give the hand of welcome to our brethren there ; we can go into the great province of Ontario and there meet our fellow-citizens as Canadians all. All these prejudices, which formerly existed, have disappeared, and in their place a national spirit has been engendered, to which I am sure the construction and maintenance of the Intercolonial Railway has contributed more than any other event in our history. It seems to me that we should discuss this question from a national standpoint. The expenditures on that road should be discussed in no carping Mr. EMMERSON.
spirit, and I was surprised to hear hon. members from the west on the opposite side speak in the way they did. I had supposed that they were the only true apostles of imperialism. That they were at least the great fed-erationists of the Dominion. They lay that flattering unction to their souls sometimes in their speeches, but in discussing this great national highway of Canada they did not show the broad national spirit which the subject demands. They did not approach it in a Canadian spirit but rather with a regard for sectionalism. When the ex-minister of railways (Mr. Haggart) and the hon. gentleman who followed him (Mr. Barker) referred to the expenditure, I wondered how the views which they expressed were accepted by their colleagues from the maritime provinces wiho sit on the other side. If the hon. gentlemen wanted to discredit and depreciate the Intercolonial Railway before the people of Canada, in the interests of some great corporations, if it was their intention to discredit that road and place it in such a position before the minds of the people of Canada that they would be ready to transfer its ownership to some great corporation, they took the very methods that would best tend to the accomplishment of that object. And I am sure that their utterances cannot .in any way receive the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite, who represent constituencies in the maritime provinces. I was very much impressed with the speech of the hon. the ex-minister of railways. He travelled all the way from Manhattan Beach to St. Peters' village In Cape Breton. But he in no sense discussed the Intercolonial Railway as a national highway, which should be dear to the hearts of every Canadian,-not merely those who reside in the maritime provinces, but those who reside in the great business centres of Toronto and Montreal and other sections of western Canada. His remarks rather confirmed the rumour that although he had been at one time Minister of Railways, he had never acquired much knowledge about the Intercolonial Railway. There Is a rumour, unfounded perhaps, that when he once did travel over the Intercolonial Railway in his official car, he went to Halifax and returned to Moncton, and there took a breathing spell of about an hour, but did not deign to leave his car to visit the works connected with that railway, although he was Minister of Railways at the time. That rumour may or may not be well founded, but I am sure that in so far as the speech of the hon. gentleman is concerned, it rather confirms the rumour that he did not have much knowledge of the conditions which prevail along the line of that road. You would think when he referred to the winter port of New Brunswick, that he was speaking of Newfoundland. He spoke of it as the city of St. [DOT]Tohn's. He does not even know that it is St. John and not St. John's. His knowledge of that road seems to be very imperfect, and

to have placed him before this committee in the position of one who was rather more interested in some prospectuses in New York than in the proper maintenance and advancement of our great national highway. I have said that the Intercolonial Railway is one of the most splendid assets of Canada, and I shall not attempt to elaborate the point. While I could not show that there has been any accumulation of profits in the treasury of the Dominion, yet I think that the building of that road has created a national spirit and a national life which, but for it, we would not have acquired, and which finds vent, not merely on the floor of parliament, but in the press of the country and on public platforms throughout the land. That national spirit is due to the cementing together of the various sections of Canada by this railway intercommunication. It may be that as this is an asset which cannot be estimated in dollars and cents, some people may regard it as of little value, but I do not view it in that light. And while this road has not given us an accumulation of dollars and cents so far, it seems to me that even in that respect it has a bright future. It seems to me that when the fathers of confederation framed the 145th section of the British North America Act, by which they recognized the fact that it was essential for the consolidation of these provinces that there should be an iron band connecting together the three provinces that then constituted Canada, the idea must have been dominant in their minds that in the future, as our Dominion came into its vast western territory, it was quite as essential that that road should travel beyond the lines of the St. Lawrence and go west, and unite whatever then might be the provinces of the Dominion of Canada.
I am sure those great statesmen, the builders of this confederation, had in mind at that time that it was in the interests of the then three provinces to have them united by such a bond, and would be still more in the interests of the Dominion as it became enlarged, as it extended and became the vast domain which it is to-day. And yet hon. members will complain with respect to the expenditure of the $65,000,000, as it is alleged, that went out of the coffers of this country to construct the Intercolonial Railway. We hear nothing from these hon. gentlemen with respect to the canals of the country. AVe do not hear it in the maritime provinces as a matter of complaint that there have been such large expenditures upon the canals. When a vote is proposed in this House with respect to our canals, you do not find hon. members from the maritime provinces rising in their places to complain. We recognize that the business interests of the Dominion demand that there shall be such means of transportation, we recognize that it is in the interests of not only western Canada but of all Canada that these canals should be maintained. We have 111
invested, as a Dominion, $65,000,000 in the Canadian Pacific Railway, not one rail of which do we owe, not a mile of which do we control-indeed, it controls us rather. I am not complaining with regard to these matters ; but when complaints are made with respect to an investment in our great national highway, and when these complaints are repeated year after year, surely I am justified in making reference to these other expenditures concerning which no complaint has been made. We have a Canadian Pacific, which is not a through line on our Canadian land, but which runs in part through a state of the American Union. We have a Canadian Pacific which, while a credit to Canada, is not in all its parts Canadian. When the British government requires to send its marines or its soldiers across the continent, it is obliged to utilize a portion of the Intercolonial Railway, because it is not permissible for it to send them through American territory over the short line of the Canadian Pacific. So I say that, in all fairness, when we discuss the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway we should remember the part it has played as a great public work in Canada, we should view it from a higher standpoint than that which has been assumed, I regret to say, by some hon. gentlemen on the other side. I * do not see my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) rising in his place to discuss the Intercolonial Railway from this point of view. He lives on the line of the Intercolonial Railway and knows something about it. I assume that my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who takes such a deep interest in it, has never been over the line of the Intercolonial Railway. I assume that he has never been in the city of Moncton, of which he has heard so much within the last month or so.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I am wrong in that I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) will correct me. I think that Mr. P. S. Archibald came to him rather. Certainly from the speech the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has made and the indications he has given before the Public Accounts Committee of his knowledge of the Intercolonial Railway, one would assume that he had never been over the line of Intercolonial Railway, and knew nothing about it. While he is the critic, and while the ex-Minister of Railways assists him in his carpings against the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, do we hear anything from hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Pictou, or my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler), or my hon. friend from Sunbury and Queen's (Mr. Wil-mot), or my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) 1 They must know a great deal more about the Intercolonial Railway, about its circumstances and its workings than do these other hon. gentlemen. But they have not made these complaints. I assume that they are not in sympathy with these



complaints, because they recognize the value of the Intercolonial Railway. They know what it is doing, not merely for the people of the maritime provinces but for the people of all Canada. They recognize that trade and the very heart of trade is centered in that great national highway under government control; and I am sure they would not wish to raise their voices in any attempt to depreciate the Intercolonial Railway as a government road, or tend to cause the people of western Canada to become prejudiced against it or to unite in any way against the maintenance of it as a government road.
Now, I have said that there was a future for the Intercolonial Railway. While the balances have not always been on the right side, yet I take this stand with respect to the matter-that that road was not. constructed as a dividend earning work for this Dominion. I hold that no Minister of Railways is called upon to stand up in this parliament and apologise even if the Intercolonial Railway is not a paying concern in dollars and cents. Its earnings are of a different character, its benefits to the people of the Dominion are not to be measured by mere dollars and cents. It was not built as a commercial road, and I hold, before this committee and before the people of Canada, that there should not be any complaint, even though that road may not show a surplus in earnings. In considering the Intercolonial Railway this committee and the people of Canada must reckon on the future of the maritime provinces.
I am not going to speak at any length with respect to the future of those provinces. In the great province of Nova Scotia there are magnificent industries in the island of Cape Breton, which are speaking in thunder tones to the Dominion of Canada, to the continent of America and to the world, of its great natural resources and its illimitable wealth. More than that. I think the province of New Brunswick has features which will make it a great factor in the support of the Intercolonial Railway and the upbuilding of the Dominion. It must not be supposed that because we have not increased in population we are in any sense going behind. You must bear in mind that while our population has decreased there are many reasons for it. You are spending thousands of dollars yearly of the money of this Dominion in your immigration policy. For the last thirty years, thousands upon thousands have been invested across the water in order to induce people to come to this Dominion. Are their eyes ever directed towards the maritime provinces ? Do the immigration agents, do the transportation companies, ever direct those intending immigrants to these maritime provinces, or instruct them concerning their wealth and resources ? Have we ever had on that immigration staff a man from the maritime provinces to direct the people of the old country to those provinces of this Mr. EMMERSON.
Dominion ? We find that while you have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on immigration, the object has been to direct the people who are seeking a home in the western continent, not to the maritime provinces, not to Quebec or Ontario, but to the wheat fields of the great west. I am not complaining of the efforts which have been put forth to build up our western country, which is worthy of all that can be said in its favour. But we should not forget that we have lands in the maritime provinces which will compare with the prairie lands of the west. I do not wish our immigration agents to forget that in our magnificent marshes of the lower provinces, in the counties of Annapolis, of Colchester, of Hants, of Cumberland, of Westmoreland, of Albert, and of numerous other counties in those vast regions of marsh lands, there is land equal if not superior to the very best prairie lands of the west, land that is inexhaustible in its richness, and land which, if it ever did become exhausted, can easily be renewed through inundations caused by cutting the dykes and allowing the muddy waters of the Bay of Fundy to enrich the soil over which they would flow.
I do not wish to assume the role of a prophet, but I venture to say that the Intercolonial Railway will yet prove to be one of the richest dividend bearing concerns in this great Dominion, that it will one day prove the wisdom of its founders, that it 'will one day justify the Minister of Railways and Canals in his efforts to make this railway worthy of this great Dominion. He found it a tramway and he has left it a railway. He has equipped it in a manner which I need not describe. But there is one thing which has not been mentioned. In mentioning it, I am not speaking upon my own authority, or from any knowledge I possess with respect to it, although I have some such knowledge; but I know the feelings of the business men of Toronto and of Montreal with respect to the establishment of a fast freight service between Montreal and Halifax and Sydney. That is one of the creations of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. I was told not many months ago in the city of Toronto, that it was proving of incalculable benefit to the business interests of the west, and that it was contributing to an increase in the business between the -west and the east. This is but one evidence of the value of the efforts which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has been putting forth to make a railway out of what seemed to have been the intention, or the result of an intention, to side-track at least a portion of the Intercolonial Railway.
Now, let me say to the members of this committee who are not familiar with the circumstances of the Intercolonial Railway, that there is a great section of it, that portion between St. John and the Sydneys and Halifax, which I suppose is one of the best paying sections of any road in eastern Can-

a da. I believe tliat there are corporations which are turning greedy eyes upon that section of the Intercolonial Railway. It is true that perhaps they might not be so desirous of having what is known as the northern division. It lias been alleged that the hon. gentleman who held the position of Minister of Railways and Canals in a former government, was to make of that a branch line, and that the line between St. John and the Sydneys and Halifax, should be handed over to some one or other of the corporations, with the view of letting them take advantage of the large expenditure which Canada has made on the Intercolonial Railway. I venture to say that if it is not known in this section of Canada, it is at least believed in the eastern section, that the intention in 1890 was that the Intercolonial Railway should cease to be a government road, at least that portion of it which is so desirable between Halifax and the Sydneys and St. John; the intention was that that portion should cease to be a part of the great government' system, and that only that section between Moncton and Levis should be under the control of the Dominion. It is true that that portion of the road, the northern division, goes through a great stretch of country, but not an unimportant section; it taps a splendid country, splendid in its lumber resources, splendid in its wealth of fisheries; but yet as it travels around the shores of the St. Lawrence it deviates so far from the straight line that its maintenance is rather expensive. But that it is an essential feature for that section of the country, that it is an essential feature for the Dominion, I am prepared to maintain before this committee and the people of this country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is believed to have been the intention of those who were charged with the responsibility of governing this country at that time; and I am led to believe by the tone of the speech of the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that there still remains in his mind a lingering intention of attaining that object by contributing in some manner towards prejudicing the Intercolonial Railway in the minds of the people, in order that, if ever an opportunity should occur, the idea at which I have hinted might be carried out. I do not think that, in justice to the Dominion as a whole, without regard to any sectionalism, without regard to the people of my own province nor of any other province-I do not think it would be in the interest of any section of Canada that any such arrangements should take place. It would be unfair, unjust, and it would be a breach of the terms of confederation. If the terms of confederation are to be carried out in their entirety, that the Intercolonial Railway shall be extended, it shall craw-1 further west year after year until possibly it shall extend to the graneries of the west and our seaports shall be the ports whence sail the rich products of the great 111*
western country. We hear much from hon. members who represent the western constituencies complaining of the exorbitant freight charges of the railway companies in the west. Complaint after complaint has been made, not merely in this House, but before the committees of this House. If there is to be a remedy applied, one that will be apt and effective, that remedy will be found in the extension of the government system of railways into that western country, so that the government may control freight rates in the west in the' same way as it now controls freight rates in the eastern section of Canada.
The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has spoken of the expenditure made in the city of St. John, and he has termed it a sink hole. I think these were elegant words of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) referred to the purchase of some marsh land within the city limits of St. John at the rate of $475 per acre. I want to know how far my hon. friends from the province of New Brunswick, having a knowledge of the completion of the terminal facilities at St. John, are prepared to say ' hear, hear ' to the remarks of the hon. member for South Lanark ? I take the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), who is in my eye at the present moment, and I am sure that he would not say ' hear, hear ' to any expression of the kind in respect to the expenditure made at the city of St. John. I think the complaint was that there was an expenditure of $225,000 in connection with the wharf and freight shed. Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) that a portion of the money was expended in renewing the building and perfecting the foundations of the station, in the city of St. John built by the hon. gentleman himself when he was in office, and which foundations were so imperfect that if they had not been repaired, and if this money had not been expended, the station-house would have tumbled to the ground. Let me tell him that if be and the hon. member for Hamilton complain of the payment of $475 per acre for marsh lands within the city limits of St. John, near the round house of the railway, if they feel badly, if their feelings are harrowed in respect to that, the only solace I can offer is to refer them to the public accounts of a few years ago when they bought the Harris property in the city of St. John at $1 per foot, and paid $200,000 for 200,000 feet. Then, they did not use it. My hon. friend has complained of the fact that there has been charged to capital account on the Intercolonial Railway a sufficient sum of money for the extension of the yards\ within the city limits of St. John, near the round house of the terminal facilities there. He has complained that the material, although charged against capital account and although set aside and assigned for this purpose, is not on the ground. Let me remind my hon. friend

of one fact that was disclosed before the committee, which he has apparently forgotten, that this has been the system which has prevailed along the line of the Intercolonial Railway since it has been the Intercolonial Railway. Let me remind him of the fact that Mr. Fottinger, in giving his evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, stated that that was the very course followed when the St. Charles branch was built in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman did not complain then. He did not tell this committee that that was a custom which had prevailed in the bookkeeping of the Intercolonial Railway as far back as the time of the construction of the St. Charles branch and that it has been continued from that time down to the present, not merely under this government, or under the regime of the Minister of Railway and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), but under the regime of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart). Yet, he made much ado in respect to the fact. The expenditure, he said, was charged to capital account in the city of St. John, and he complained that it had been done in 1900, and that the material was still unused. I want to remind my hon. friend, if lie wants something to weep over, that although the Harris property was purchased years ago for the sum which I have named, it remained idle year after year and year after year, and it was never utilized, except by the boys for playing base ball and cricket and ad an athletic ground, for any purpose in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, until the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals attempted to make the port of St. John what it is, and not until he attempted to complete the terminal facilities there was this property utilized.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was altogether unproductive during all these years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was absolutely unproductive during all that period of years. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) is made to say in his speech before the committee last evening that not a mile of the sidings in the city of St. John had been constructed, and yet he remembers the evidence of Mr. Pottinger wherein he stated that there was mile and over of the sidings constructed and that several sidings, amounting to about thirteen miles in all, were under construction and were being attended to at this moment. I want also to remind my hon. friend (Mr. Barker), who made a complaint in respect to the purchase of this marsh land at $475 per acre, that the property was owned by the Gilbert family and if he knows anything about the politics of that country he will know that these gentlemen were Conservatives.


Mr. BARKER.: Does that make any difference 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) thinks it does make a difference sometimes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Samuel Barker: I think it does not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It sometimesi acts as a boomerang, as my hon. friend has found out before the Public Accounts Committee on occasions. Had the hon. gentleman taken the pains to learn the fact, he would have known that when it was sought to purchase that property by the Athletic Association of St. John, they could not purchase It for less than $1,250 per acre ? Yet, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was enabled to purchase it at $475 per acre.
And now, Mr. Chairman, there has been considerable reference made to the production of a letter before the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that last evening when I happened to be out of the chamber for a moment, a very courteous remark was made by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) with respect to myself, and at that moment, if I am informed correctly, some hon. member from one of the Ontario constituencies interjected the remark :	That is a specimen of New Brunswick politics. I want to tell my hon. friends the Tory members from the province of Ontario, that if I wish for and need to take lessons In political morals or political ethics I will not go to them. I did produce a letter, and I have recited to the committee and it is part of the records of this House, the circumstances under which I secured that letter. I did not go to any spittoon and pick out the pieces and have them pasted together as was done by the Tory party some years ago in the province of Ontario in connection with a letter of the Hon. Edward Blake. I am quite sure that if any reflections are to be indulged in in connection with the production of the letter, the reflections should be upon the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). I have told that when I went to Moncton I learned with respect to this letter ; I secured the letter in the way which I have detailed, and I produced the letter before the committee, and that is what troubles the hon. member from Hamilton. That is the difficulty with him. I think, Sir, that the scene in the Public Accounts Committee when my hon. friend was examining the witness in respect to the letter-at which time my courtesy forbade me from interfering in his examination-I think, Sir. that that scene should have been the subject of the photographers art. The picture of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) would have been a study, and as for my hon., my restless friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) why, if I could describe him as he appeared to be at that moment this committee would revel in the description. I might perhaps indulge in a simile and say. that he looked very much like a hen that had been disturbed off her nest. Here was a witness who had stated that he had received a letter from the Minister of Railways and Canals, and he thought that the words of that letter were to tell him to

accept certain railway ties, and the bon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was pressing the witness with the question : Yes, the letter told you to take or accept these ties. The witness not having In mind clearly the exact terms of the letter did not know exactly, but he thought that was it. My bon. friends opposite in their anticipation, expecting to go before the country with a grievance, knowing that they had utterly failed in their exploring expedition before the Public Accounts Committee, knowing that they had utterly failed in respect to finding anything that would in any way besmirch the Minister of Railways and Canals, thought to themselves : Oh, here_is something we can appeal to the country upon ; the Minister of Railways and Canals has written this letter and it is not forthcoming. But unfortunately for them I had taken the precaution to secure that letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, unfortunately for them that letter was produced, and that is what bothers them, and. Sir, the country will thank me for having that letter and for having placed it before the committee.
My hon. friend (Mr. Barker.) has been kind enough to make a personal reference to myself in connection with the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). He said-I do not quote his exact words-that it was rumoured that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) were not on the best of terms. Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) that I have been a close and intimate friend of the Minister of Railways and Canals for a quarter of a century, and let me tell him that from the beginning of our acquaintanceship down to the present moment, our personal relations have not in any sense been strained in the slightest. Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) that we have been in close communion-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do my hon. friends opposite think that is strange. I do not belong to any nest of traitors. I have never been associated in any system of brigandage, political or otherwise. I have never gone into a constituency and had an ex-colleague of mine, a gentleman who was my premier come into the county and canvass against me and refer to me in terms that were certainly anything but complimentary. I have never been placed in any such position. I can say that as regards the Minister of Railways and Canals and myself, in so far as our personal relations are concerned they have always been of the most amicable and friendly character, even during this session from the very commencement of it down to the present day. But
let me say this : I have not always agreed with the Minister of Railways and Canals with respect to the management of the Intercolonial Railway. I have not hesitated to tell the hon. minister in private, and I am not ashamed to say it before this committee and before the country, that in respect to the management of the Intercolonial Railway I have not been in accord with him. These gentlemen opposite call it a political road, and well may they call it that; but, it is not a political road in the interests of the Liberal party. The complaint that has been made-and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals knows it-is, that the management of the Intercolonial Railway during the past six years in so far as its details and its officials are concerned, has been identical with that which prevailed prior to 1896. And while the Minister of Railways and Canals has stated before this House that he has given the utmost freedom to the employees of that road in respect to their voting. I want to tell him that his officers, and that his bosses, and that his foremen have not been so generous. I want to tell the minister that in many instances there have been good Liberal votes sacrificed, not in the interest of that fairness of which he has been an apostle, but of which his officials and his foremen have not always been apostles by any means. I have not seen eye to eye with the minister. I have felt on occasions that there had been men placed in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway who should not be there, and I have so told the minister. I have felt that these men were there to the exclusion of many competent men in our ranks, and of our own country, but, Sir, that has in no sense interfered with the relationship between the minister and myself. I hold these views, and I am an apostle of the idea that the minister should be surrounded by men who are in sympathy, by men who are not seeking to make the Liberal party dissatisfied with the management of the Intercolonial Railway, by men who are not seeking to create dissensions in the ranks of the Liberal party. I have been an apostle of the idea that the minister should be surrounded by men who are in sympathy not only with him but with the government which he represents. I tell the hon. minister that while it may be true-and it is preached on the other side of the House to-day, though it was not preached a few years ago-that there should be a generous treatment of the employees of the road, while they should be given the greatest latitude possible, while their manhood should not be stunted or suppressed in any way, yet I feel that they should not take advantage of that generosity. While they are not called upon to refrain from casting their votes in favour of the Conservative party, if they so wish, they should not be placed in a position where they- can

coerce a Liberal voter in the exercise of his franchise.
With regard to the personal reference made to myself in that connection by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), I want to tell him that that is the sum total of my complaint. The insinuation which my hon. friend threw out in his speech last night must have been, I am sure, from my observation of the hon. gentleman, unintentional; but if he harboured any suspicion that I could in any way be identified with those who belonged to the nest of traitors, or could in any way strike below the belt, I want him to disabuse his mind of any such idea. I produced the letter, because it came honourably into my hands, it came honourably into the hands of the gentleman who gave it to me, and I gave it honourably into the hands of the committee. The country has the benefit of it-that is what my hon. friend complains of-and the country having the benefit of it, the whole evidence is there, and the hon. Minister of Railways is exonerated freely and fully in respect to the matter.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Did he get that letter for the purpose of producing it to the committee


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to say to my hon. friend that that was my intention.


Samuel Barker: I am sure the Minister of Railways will be grateful.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will tell the hon. gentleman that that was my intention in the event of the inquiry being pursued, aud in the event of the matter arising. The inquiry was pursued, the question did arise, and I carried out my intention and produced the letter. I had heard rumours that possibly the letter might not be wanted. There were a great many rumours. A friend of mine, who was a political opponent at the last election, it is true, and who held a seat in this House in the last parliament, made two or three visits to the city of Ottawa, and I understood that he took my hon. friend from Hamilton under his tutelage, and attempted to pump into my hon. friend-I hope the term will not be considered inelegant- his ideas with respect to the Intercolonial Railway ; and I daresay that my hon. friend had intimated to him by that gentleman the fact that there was a rumour with respect to this very letter.


Samuel Barker: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then, if my hon. friend had not, I can only say it was public humour in the city of Moncton. I heard it as a rumour in the city of Moncton that there was such a letter, and hence I sought to get It; but I understood that after his visits, the gentleman to whom I have referred went away in a very much disgusted state with respect to the inquiry. I do not know Mr. EMMERSON.
who expressed the most disgust, my hon. friend from Hamilton or the gentleman to whom I refer. It is rumoured-if we want to indulge in rumours-that before they bade each other good-bye, they exchanged compliments of a not very complimentary character. But whatever may have transpired, I shall not place upon ' Hansard ' the rumours I heard, though I have no doubt they would be quite as interesting as the prospectus which was placed on ' Hansard ' as a matter of record last evening. While an attempt is being made to draw a herring across the trail with respect to this letter, I wonder if my attitude with respect to it was any less dignified than was the attitude of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways with respect to Mr. P. S. Archibald. Mr. Archibald, it will be remembered, is the hero of the shingle story, which I think is a part of the record of this House; certainly it was placed on the Table of the House. The story is that once there was a very interesting episode in the history of the Intercolonial Railway; that it was on the eve of the general election of 1S9G: that railway passes, which were made up in book form, were sent out by emissaries to various stations along the line of the Intercolonial Railway, from Lfivis to the Sydneys, and distributed free gratis, so that all who ran might read, and they could travel by the Intercolonial Railway without charge; that the telegrams kept coming in. ' Send me twenty-five thousand more shingles.' and so on; that although the supply had been very generous in the first instance, it had run out. and more and more came the cry of the horse-leech for these passes. Mr. Archibald was dismissed from the Intercolonial Railway, and I have no doubt that that gentleman is not very amiably disposed towards the hon. Minister of Railways. I did not think he would be a witness before the Public Accounts Committee of this House, because I remember an occasion in the legislature of New Brunswick, when there was a committee investigating a matter which had originated in the brain of Mr. P. S. Archibald, after his dismissal from the Intercolonial Railway, and when that gentleman, at the expense of the country, was brought to Fredericton, and was kept there week after week on the expectation that he would give his evidence as the originator of the story; but just before it was necessary to call him, he disappeared into thin air, and the people of Fredericton have not laid eyes on him to this day. It occurred to me, therefore, that possibly that gentleman might have found his way to Ottawa thinking there would not be any inquiry into thet subject of ties or any necessity for producing that letter. Therefore I did not rush to the committee at once and announce the letter. I produced it in all good time, unfortunately for the member for Hamilton. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has made reference to a gentleman holding a very responsible position" a gentle-
naan well and favorably known throughout the province of. New Brunswick, one of the ablest lawyers, as I believe, in this Dominion, a gentleman who holds the position of Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick. the Hon. William Pugsley. The member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) made reference on a former occasion to the Hon. Mr. Pugsley in terms that were at least intended to be slighting, and for which he was afterwards called upon to make amends and I believe did apologize. On this occasion he could not pass by a discussion of the Intercolonial Railway and its administration by the Minister of Railways without indulging in a reflection upon the Hon. Mr. Pugsley. He told us that Mr. Pugsley had been recently in New York in company with the Minister of Railways.


Hon.   S@: I did not say that he was in New York with the Minister of Railways, but I said he was in New York negotiating the sale of the Intercolonial Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will read what Sir. Pugsley stated himself, in reply to the statement of the hon. member for South Lanark (Sir. Haggart), last evening. I have here a telegram from Sir. Pugsley, dated St. John, N.B., April 25, and addressed to the Hon. A. G. Blair, Slinister of Railways :
I see by parliamentary report in' this morning's paper that Hon. Mr. Haggart stated that Mr. Meyer, of New York, had informed him I had been ini New York negotiating for sale of Intercolonial Railway. The story is a fabrication from beginning to end. I never either wrote or spoke to Mr. Meyer or any one else on the subject of the sale of the Intercolonial Railway or authorized any one else to do so, I have not been in New York for many months and have no acquaintances whatever with Mr. Meyer.



[Stage Direction]
I read that telegram in connection with what the hon. member for South Lanark (Sir. Haggart) said on the floor of this House last evening. This is what the hon. gentleman said :
I want to show the whole connection. I want to show that the hon. gentleman was down in New York in reference to it, and that he had his agents in New York negotiating for the sale of the Intercolonial Railway-Mr. Pugsley and others ; it is so reported down there. I would not have brought the matter up were it not alleged that these parties had purchased the Canada Atlantic Railway, which they say is part and parcel of their scheme. Mr. Webb has published the statement in the papers that he has bought the Adirondack Railway, and that its stock has advanced from 40 to 106 or 107, and that the stock of this Dominion Securities Company, which has not an asset in the world except the contracts or agreements which they professed to have made with the Dominion government, and the possibility of arranging this grand scheme with the province of Nova Scotia, has been selling up to 5 or 7 per cent premium. Will the hon. gentleman be quiet until I finish n ading this circular ?
The telegram which I have here Is certainly a complete refutation of either any statement contained in1 the extract I have read, on any insinuation thrown out against Mr. Pugsley or any other gentleman connected with the transaction.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was not any transaction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I assume that my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) will be prepared now, as he was on a former occasion, to withdraw his statement and apologize not only to the committee, but to Mr. Pugsley.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for South Lanark will be able to read his authority upon which he makes his statement afterwards.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will he kindly do it afterwards?


John Graham Haggart: I will.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I must apologize for taking up so much of the time of the committee, but I am sure that I am entitled to the indulgence of hon. members, because I have not trespassed, either this session or last, at any great length upon the time of parliament, either in the House or in committee.
But I want to invite the attention of the committee for a moment to the evident desire and attempt of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), to show that all these tie transactions and coal purchases were made during the election of 1900. Of course he could not bring any evidence to show that there was any wrong-doing or to show even suspicious circumstances, but he evidently desired to have it go to the country that these purchases were made In contemplation of and in connection with the Dominion elections. Innuendos and insinuations were the weapons which my hon. friend used. Having no evidence of any fact, he had to resort to these miserable tactics. He made a reference to Mr. Curran, but, as was shown before tbe committee, Mr. Curran is tbe foreman of the Sumner Company, which is presided over by one of the leading lights of the Conservative party in New Brunswick, and which carries on a very large business, not only at Moncton, but at Bathurst, and Mr. Curran is the general manager of that concern at the town of Bathurst, in the county of Gloucester. My hon. friend threw out the suggestion that Mr. Curran was in some way connected with the government, as the treasurer of the Liberal organization in that section of the province, but I am sure that my hon. friend has no facts upon which to base even a suspicion of that kind. I am sure that he has not been well advised, that he has not been well coached, and there seems to have been a failure of connection with respect to that information in the same way that there was with respect to a great

deal of tlie information that came from Sackville to my hon. friend from Hamilton. If my hon. friend will refer to the evidence before the committee, he will find that the contract with Mr. Curran was not entered Into until some months after the elections took place. He will find that there was no business transaction between Mr. Curran and the Intercolonial Railway until about January, 1901, and then that it was based upon a tender which Mr. Curran had put in for the supply of ties. And yet my hon. friend will have the country believe that this was an election transaction, and that there must be something wrong connected with it because it took place during the election year. My hon. friend has no evidence other than his suspicions, and I do not think, however, much he might wish to mislead the committee that this kind of evidence would enable him to do so. But I am sure he would not desire to mislead the committee


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He would like us not to buy anything for a year before an election.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, let the railway stop for a year whenever an election is to come on. What I have just said was true also with regard to the coal transaction. I am sure the evidence with respect to the purchase of coal was clear, convincing. The purchase was made at a time when a strike was believed to be imminent in the collieries In Nova Scotia. I know that it was a matter of common knowledge at that time that such a strike was feared to be pending. It was referred to in the press day after day. Notice was given by the men to the managers; there were disputes, there were threatenings. As Mr. Pottinger stated, there was, at that time, a great lessening of the supply of coal below what it was usual for the Intercolonial Railway to carry. Had there been such a strike, had it been impossible to acquire from the collieries of Nova Scotia the necessary coal, and had the railway been obliged to stop its traffic for want of coal, what a cry would have been raised from one end of the country to the other, as to the incompetency and incapacity of the Minister of Railways. I do think my hon. friend has strained the point, that he has endeavoured to mislead when he says this coal was purchased during an election year. Why, the coal was not even purchased during an election year, but during the year succeeding the general election of 1900.
Now, I do think the discussion with respect to the Intercolonial Railway should be based upon the value of the Intercolonial Railway to the country, its condition in relation to the work it is doing, and keeping in mind the work it has done for this Dominion. I trust this spirit will prevail. I trust there will be no attempt on the part of those in the west to create a prejudice against the maritime provinces or to seek to give the impression that this road is Mr. EMMERSON.
simply in the interest of those provinces. My hon. friend from Hamilton is a business man, he knows that it is not


An hon. MEMBER.: He is a lawyer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then I hoj>e that as a lawyer, he will appreciate all the more what I am saying, for some lawyers are very good business men. I think the hon. gentleman must appreciate, as he certainly should appreciate, the fact that the Intercolonial Railway is an essential feature of this confederation, as it was stated to be by the British North America Act, and that it is to-day more than ever an essential feature; that, as such, it should be treated in a broad, magnanimous spirit, and that the Minister of Railways, when he asks the support of the House and the country for that road, should be met in a spirit that means the upbuilding of Canada, a spirit that is not merely carping and captious, that does not savour of the littleness that should characterize only parish politics. I have endeavoured to view the Intercolonial Railway from that standpoint, and I leave it to the committee further to discuss the question.


John Graham Haggart: If the hon. gentleMan (Mr. Turgeon) will allow me I would like to say a word in reference to Mr. Pugs-ley, and to give the authority for the statement I made with reference to him.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: May I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart), before he goes into that, has he the same authority for coupling my name with the question of negotiations for the sale of the Intercolonial Railway ?


John Graham Haggart: The same authority-the same authority which said, as I stated last night, that when the hon. minister went to New York and heard about the matter, he said there was no probability of being able to carry out the deal. My authority is information given by an officer of the Dominion Securities Company. It says :
From the information- which I obtained from an officer of the concern- it appears that the Dominion Securities Company, was originally formed as a blind pool by Messrs. Seward Webb, Callaway and Van Etten. At that time Mr Callaway was president of the New York Central, while Mr. Van Etten occupied a somewhat similar position- on the Boston and Albany. In the early part of last year the company was organized under the laws of New Jersey. Mr. Webb was attracted to Nova Scotia by the development going on at Sydney, C.B., and, having become acquainted with certain friends of (he Minister of Railways at Ottawa, was assured by them that there was nothing to hinder him from gettiDg possession- of the Intercolonial Railway. Negotiations were carried on between Mr. Webb and his friends on the one hand and Hon. William Pugsiey on the other. In the end, however, the Minister of Railways himself visited New York and made it plain- to Mr. Webb and his friends that it was clean out of the

question for them to acquire the Intercolonial at any rate, under existing conditions.
I mentioned to the credit of the minister last night that that was my information on the subject.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not happen to be in at the moment when the hon. gentleman read that.


John Graham Haggart: The letter goes on -it is a long letter, treating of the correspondence with Mr. Murray and negotiations with reference to building the road and trying to get over the Mackenzie & Mann contract-but this is entirely pertinent to this question:
As said above they have no intention of building to St. John. They are out to acquire, if possible, the South Shore contract promised to Mr. William Mackenzie, which, together with their contract in Cape Breton, would afford them, they imagine, the means of getting the control of the Intercolonial Railway.
This, of course, is hearsay.
My impression is they have been seriously mislead by Mr. Pugsley and are buoyed up by expectations not likely to be realized, so far, at least, as the acquisition of the Intercolonial Railway is concerned.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the name of the writer?


John Graham Haggart: That is an interview with an officer of the Dominion Securities Company.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have the promise of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) that he would give the name of his informant.


John Graham Haggart: No such promise was given. I stated that the information from which I spoke was an interview with an officer of the Dominion Securities Company, and that that was the information given by the Dominion Securities Company. If there is any denial of the facts I will accept it as such, and assume that there was no such communication.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: So far as I am concerned, I have already denied it, and, if necessary, I would again give emphasis to that denial. There is not a single solitary word of truth in the whole story. I do not say that no such thing as a suggestion of the control by private parties of the Intercolonial Railway has never been made. During the time I have been in the department, I have had people ask me, I have even had people write to me. to know why the government would not transfer or lease the Intercolonial Railway. But, as for having had any specific proposition, or as to having ever negotiated or been cognizant of any negotiation looking towards any such result, either from or by
Mr. Pugsley or any other living person, nothing of the kind has ever occurred. The idea seems so absurd and preposterous that it scarcely calls for contradiction. Now the hon. gentleman has a letter there on the strength of which he has sought to impeach the character, or to reflect upon the character, of persons who have been named. The hon. gentleman, when asked if he would state his authority, says: I will be able to state my authority after the member for Westmoreland sits down. I asked him : Well, will my hon. friend do so ? And he did not say he would not. Later on he got up and said that he wished for an opportunity, if the hon. member was through, of stating the authority upon which he made these statements in the House. I ask the hon. gentleman now to say whether he can withhold the name of this correspondent after he has given such an assurance?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has given his authority in the plainest possible way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did not hear it.


Robert Laird Borden: The Dominion Securities Company itself.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. his statement is taken from an interview with an officer of the Dominion Securities Company itself, with regard to the business of that company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Who made the statement to him ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not at all necessary for my hon. friend to give the name of the particular officer. As long as it was an officer entitled to speak for that company, he has discharged his duty to the House in every way by stating that the information came to him from the Dominion Securities Company itself. I do not see the relevancy of asking the name of the particular officer. Reference has been made to the company. If the company sees fit to deny that any properly authorized officer has made a statement of that kind, that is another thing. My hon. friend has referred the Minister of Railways and Canals to the very company which has been named in the discussion carried on now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. The hon. gentleman may be under the impression that it was not necessary that this name should he given; but he cannot say it is not necessary in view of what has occurred. I again ask him whether he will supplement the assurance he has already given that he would furnish to us, who are interested in this

matter, and to the committee, the authority upon which he made this statement. It is not sufficient to say that somebody was informed by an officer of the Dominion Securities Company. That proves nothing, that affords no chance for pursuing the inquiry. He ought to state who his informant is if he wishes to supplement the promise he has given.


John Graham Haggart: I gave the statement for what it is worth, from information I received upon the subject. I stated that I heard from New York that Mr. Pugs-ley had been negotiating-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But who did the hon. gentleman hear it from ?


John Graham Haggart: It is not necessary to say. The statement may be entirely untrue, there may not be a word of truth in it whatever. I give it for what it is worth. If Mr. Pugsley denies it, I accept his statement at once. It has been current rumour on the streets of New York; it was mentioned in Mr. Doull's remarks that there were negotiations for the purpose of building a railroad from the Georgian Bay, or from the great lakes, down to the Atlantic. There was talk of that in New York. I had information on that subject again and again. I heard that Mr. Pugsley had been negotiating. There may be no truth whatever in it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Why did you mention it then ?


John Graham Haggart: I obtained my information from a gentleman in whom 1 have perfect reliance.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Name, name.


John Graham Haggart: I believe his word thoroughly. I will write to the gentleman and find out whether he will give me authority to make use of his name. It was information that I obtained privately. But the fact is one which can be very easily verified. Was Mr. Webb negotiating with Mr. Pugsley in reference to the acquisition of running rights on the Intercolonial Railway, or the acquisition of the Intercolonial Railway ? It is denied by Mr. Pugsley, who says that he has not been in New York for a couple of months. It is with reference to a transaction which took place more than a couple of months ago, it is with reference to transactions when the circular of the Dominion Securities Company was issued. Surely they would not make a statement of that kind in New York


The PRIME MINISTER.: Who ?


John Graham Haggart: The Dominion Securities Company.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is no authority. The hon. gentleman knows very well that corporations have no souls to damn or to save. Therefore it is no use to Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
give the name of the corporation. Who is the man belonging to the corporation who made that statement ? There is no use telling us that the corporation has done this or done that, but if an officer of the corporation has done it, let us have his name.


John Graham Haggart: In reference to whom ? Does the hon. gentleman say in reference to Mr. Pugsley V


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly, Mr. Pugsley or anybody else. Mr. Pugsley denies the statement, and he has a right to the name of the author of the statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I ask the hon. gentleman if his informant is Mr. Powell, the late member for Westmoreland ?


John Graham Haggart: I never had a conversation with Mr. Powell on the subject. My information came from New York from parties entirely indifferent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only other available source of information to the hon. gentleman is Mr. Archibald. Will he say whether it was Mr. Archibald ? Now, I would say this in all fairness : The hon. gentleman thought enough of the statement which he received to credit it. If he did not credit it, if he did not think the statement was worthy of credit, he ought not to have taken the responsibility of putting it before this whole country, of making a matter of record of the imputation which it contains. He ought to have ascertained upon what basis these things were being done. While I cannot say, and do not pretend to answer for the thousands of people that are in Canada as to what they may think or do, I do not think the hon. gentleman ought to couple my name as a minister in any transaction of that kind, and seek to create the impression that I was a party to or cognizant of any such transaction as he has described, without he is very sure there is a foundation upon which the statement has been built. I say it is due from the hon. gentleman to this House and to the presons who are concerned, since he has given publicity to these reports, that he should state the authority upon which he has given them. If he refuses to do it, he will not be doing what is just and fair by the members of this House, or by the persons involved.


John Graham Haggart: In speaking upon the subject I mentioned no letter, no information that I had received further than this, that it was rumoured in New York city that negotiations were going on for the purpose of selling the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. minister in his speech today said I had no authority to say so, and Mr. Pugsley, after reading my remarks in the ' Hansard,' gave an explicit denial to the rumour. For the purpose of justifying the statement that I made yesterday, I said I made it pro tanto, for as much as it was worth, and I read an extract from

a letter I had received. The hon. gentleman says it is no justification at all unless I give the man's name. All 1 have to say is that, on the authority of statements that were made to me, I firmly believed, when I made the statement, that such negotiations were going on. I was attacked by the hon. member for Westmoreland on the strength of the statement that Mr. Pugsley entirely denied it. Then, the justification for the statement I made was a private letter to myself, which I have not the authority to use, but I shall ask the party's permission. There are other matters contained in the letter which I would not like to make public, but I shall ask the party's permission to make use of this particular portion of the letter, and if I get authority I will read it to the House. If I do not get authority I will say so candidly and withdraw the statement.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax. The right hon. leader of the House is very much more sensitive over matters of this kind than I have seen him on previous occasions. I recall the occasion in this House, not many years ago, when the right hon. gentleman brought a telegram down from across the Atlantic denying that Mr. Hamilton-Smythe was an authorized agent of the Rothschilds. But, before that telegram was read to the House, it was rumoured the right hon. gentleman sent his secretary around to the Liberal press of this country for the purpose of making it public. I was present when the right hon. gentleman said, in answer to a question by Sir Charles Tupper who was then leading the opposition, that he would bring down to this House the telegram to which that was an answer, and I was also present on the following day when the right hon. gentleman came down to this House and said he would not bring it down because it was a private telegram. He produced in the House and distributed through the press a telegram for the purpose of discrediting Mr. Hamilton Smythe who had come forward with a better contract in respect to the Yukon railway than that which the government were attempting to put through the House. That was a public telegram, it was read to the House, it was sent to the press of the country, but the telegram which the right hon. gentleman sent across the Atlantic and which had produced that one, was, according to the right hon. gentleman, a private telegram. The Prime Minister, I think is not perfectly logical or perfectly consistent. He is very much more sensitive now than he was then. An hon. gentleman made certain statements in this debate. He said that there were rumours in New York which should be brought to the attention of the government. He was challenged for his authority and he said that he would give his authority.. He read a statement which he says had been communicated to him in an interview with an officer
of the Dominion Securities Company. The right hon. leader of the House says that corporations cannot act except by agents.
I never understood that it was absolutely necessary in order to bind a corporation that you should have the name of the agent. Has the right hon. gentleman always been provided with the names of agents when he has been dealing with corporations in this House ? I do not think so. It is perfectly patent that although Mr. Pugsley denies that he ever had any negotiations with any officer of the Dominion Securities Company, that he can make all the denial in this case that he could make if the name were given to him and if Mr. Pugsley wishes to make a denial, then, it is a question of veracity between the informant of my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) and Mr. Pugsley.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: How are we to judge of that veracity if we have not his name ?


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) say that if we had the name we could judge ?	*


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We could inquire.


Robert Laird Borden: How shall we come to a definite conclusion ? By moving a * resolution in this House stating which of these gentlemen is telling the truth ? The matter could not be definitely settled even if the name were given. The matter could not be definitely settled without a judicial inquiry of some kind 1 suppose. I am not aware that this House has any machinery at its disposal at the present time, as a House, for the purpose of making that inquiry. I submit therefore that my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) has in this case discharged every duty which he owes to the House and to the hon. member for Westmoreland who has read a telegram from Mr. Pugsley.


Mr. FRASER.: I think this is a matter of more importance than one of merely passing moment. Any one of us may some day be in, the same position. I do not think that any hon. member should make statements about another hon. member in the House, upon mere New York street rumour or upon a rumour that is obtained upon the curbstone, or in any offices of the brokers in New York, or in any office in New York. I think that the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) made a mistake, and I think there is no hon. gentleman in the House who feels it more than he does. The case mentioned by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was a different case altogether. The position there was of a telegram sent. Nobody has asked the hon. member for South Lanark to produce the letter he wrote to this man asking him for this information. All that this committee has anything to do with is with the

letter that he received and upon which letter he made the statement. Nobody cares about any other statements that may be contained in the letter which he received. Evidently the hon. gentleman wrote about a great many things. We have nothing to do with that letter and we have nothing to do with anything except the direct statement that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) and Mr. Pugsley were concerned in discussing this matter in some way. Mr. Pugsley could not speak except with the authority of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. Mr. Pugsley had no power to go to Mr. Meyer and discuss this matter with him. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was mentioned as going to New York in regard to this matter, and he was quoted as saying that he did not see his way clear to make this arrangement. That is a statement of the most damaging kind. It is a damaging statement to say that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would ever think of discussing the question of the transferrence of the Intercolonial Railway. Does the hon. -member for South Lanark, or does the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) think it fair, upon a New York rumour, upon a letter from a man whose name will not be given, to say that the Minister of Railways and Canals and Mr. Pugsley are talking about handing over this heritage of Canada to a lot of Yankee speculators ? This is not a trifling matter. It is not a trifling matter to say : We think the Minister of Railways and Canals should be looked after, that he is quietly going to work to hand over the Intercolonial Railway. The people in the maritime provinces believe that the Intercolonial Railway will not only become an admirable asset but a valuable road, and we must still have our own road in our own interest as well as in the interests of the people of Canada. I think the name should be given for these two reasons : The name should be given, in the first place, so that we may know the man who made this lying statement, and in the second place, the name should be given so that no member of this House may lightly charge a member on the other side and when challenged attempt to back it up by saying that it was rumoured in New York. Surely that is anything but fair. I think the hon. gentleman should rise in his place now and manfully say : Well, I heard it from so and so. The minister says it is not so, Mr. Pugsley says it is not so, I take it back and the man wno signed this paper was wrong. He might have heard this, but I apologize to the House for making such a statement as I did upon evidence of such a character.


John Graham Haggart: I desire to dispute the position which the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) occupies. Where is the charge against any member of the government, or any member of this House ? I made the statement that Mr. Pugsley was Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
negotiating on authority which I thought to be correct, in reference to the Intercolonial Railway. I made no charge against any member of this House or in connection with it, and the statement completely exonerated the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to the extent that I said that when he heard it he put his foot upon the whole transaction I am told. What does the member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser) mean ? What right has he to propose to teach lessons in honour and propriety ? Where is the lesson he can teach in reference to these things. What have I been guilty of ? I know my position in this House as well as any other man. Why is there all this absurd talk because at the most, I accused Mr. Pugsley of negotiating the sale of the Intercolonial Railway. I made no connection between Mr. Pugsley and any member of this House or any minister. Why am I taunted and questioned and taught lessons of propriety ; especially lessons from the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Guysborougli.


John Graham Haggart: I beg pardon of the hon. gentleman from Annapolis (Mr. Wade), I mean the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser). Look at the absurd position you want to put a member of the House in. You are asking a member of this House when he makes a statement with reference to a person outside of this House, to give proof and to furnish authority. The member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) has brought Mr. Pugsley's denial here. I accept his denial. I furnished the information to this House in reference to Mr. Pugsley, and I gave the statement on which I furnished that information. I will accept his denial fully, and I will ask the House to accept it fully, if I do not get authority to read these portions of the letter in justification of my course in reference to Mr. Pugsley. I am the judge of my own honour in reference to that gentleman. I know what is right and what ought to be done in the matter, and I will not receive lessons from the Minister of Railways or from any one else.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did not try to teach the hon. gentleman# (Mr. Haggart), although he has shown now that he needs teaching. I thought before he did not. I thought he had honour enough, that he should do what was expected from him under the circumstances. I am satisfied now to leave it to the judgment of the House that no teachiug and no training would improve him.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Hon. gentlemen opposite have been trying to divert the attention of this committee from the main point, and substantially the only point under discussion. My hon. friand (Mr. Haggart) assured this House that he would give authority for his statement. What did that language of

his mean ? Did it mean that he would ask the person who gave him this information, and whose letter he has in his hand, whether that person will consent ? Is that carrying out the promise which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) made to this House ? Why, Sir, if this question were free from political bias and if we were elsewhere than in this House of Commons, there would be no hesitation on the part of anybody in declaring that if the hon. gentleman were a$ good as his promise he should give the name and his authority.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Let him give his authority now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) says he made no charges. Well, there is a very convenient way, which the hon. gentleman often avails himself of, of doing what for his purpose is very much safer than making charges, and which at the same time accomplishes the end he would have in view by making charges. He has availed himself of that method which is a frequent and common method with the hon. gentleman, and some others on that side of the House-not all I am happy to say, but some few. I think I can show the committee that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) has adopted that expedient in this instance. He tells us that he makes no charge, but is not an insinuation just about as nasty a thing as a charge, and is it not harder to refute ? If I were to use the expression which would properly characterize the conduct of the hon gentleman (Mr. Haggart), he would consider it offensive, and I do not wish to use an offensive expression. I tell the hon. gentleman, that if he did not make a charge he did this : Referring to me he says :	The Minister of
Railways is going to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian Bay; the Minister of Railways hopes at some future date to reach the North-west; I wonder is it the syndicate of the friends of the Minister of Railways who are trying to negotiate the sale of the Intercolonial Railway at the present moment-not three months ago, not two months ago, not four months ago as the member for Lanark discovers now; but at the present moment. The hon. member for Lanark did this. He said :	That the
Minister of Railways and his friends were trying to negotiate the sale of the Intercolonial Railway at the present time in New York; and he exclaimed :	Is it under the
auspices of the Dominion Securities Company that this extension of the Intercolonial Railway is going to be made to the west ? Does my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) think that was a commendable and worthy insinuation for him to make against a minister of the Crown ; that that minister was connected with a syndicate that had his friendship and with which he was allied-if not actually allied, yet in a sense allied ? Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) intend to
convey that impression, or if not, why did he use the language ? If he did intend to convey the impression, why did he not take the responsibility upon himself as a member which he ought to take ? If he is not obliged to assume the responsibility, then, Sir, there is no responsibility attaching to the language which a member of this House may use at any time in this House as respects any other member. The hon. gentleman may, and can refuse to accept responsibility. But he is not the custodian of his own honour to such an extent as that he can fly against the judgment of the members of this House if they choose to sit in judgment on his conduct. If an appeal is made to the judgment, and arbitrament of this House, the hon. gentleman has got to submit himself, and in the last resort the members of this House are entitled to judge what the honour of the House will require at his hands. Let the leader of the opposition keep patient-


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman refer to1, me ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I thought the hon. gentleman wanted to rise.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware that I was interrupting the hon. geu-tleman.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) was not interrupting me a bit, but he seemed uneasy, and I thought possibly he might interrupt.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) tells us that he makes no charge. He tells us that he does not make anything which resembles or is intended to be a charge, or an insinuation, or a reflection on anybody, but the hon. gentleman's words do not bear out that statement. He was reading these prospectuses and he went on to speak about what is taking place between this syndicate and others, and I rose in my place and I said ;
Where is the relevancy of all this.
I could not for the life of me see why a member of this House who knew as much as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) ought to know, and who is as responsible as he is actually, and as he ought to hold himself before the House-I could not see why he should incumber ' Hansard ' with reading over all this absurd and ridiculous prospectus-fraudulent if you like to call it so, and you would be justified in so describing it- I could not see why he should drag this in; I could not see why he should drag in the government; drag in the Minister of Railways; drag in Mr. Pugsley and endeavour to create the impression that there was something that had not been probed, and

which if it were probed, would reflect upon the minister. So X asked the hon. gentleman :
Where is the relevancy of all this.
And what did the hon. gentleman reply ? He said :
I want to show the whole connection-
The House will remember what the hon. gentleman said a few moments ago, and here is the record which corresponds exactly with my recollection of what the hon. gentleman did say. He replied :
I want to show that the hon. gentleman (that is the Minister of Railways) has been down in New York in reference to this negotiation, and that he had his agents in New York.
Mark the words :
That he had has agents in New York negotiating for the sale of the Intercolonial Railway -Mr. Pugsley and others it is so reported were down there.
Now, what is all that intended to convey to any mind of ordinary intelligence which can understand the meaning of plain words ? What it is intended to convey ? Is it not, that I was engaged in what I would consider a most reprehensible, a most unworthy and a most improper act holding the position which I do-to be privately associated with a syndicate, and having agents employed with a view to effecting a sale of the Intercolonial Railway. The thing has only one redeeming feature, that is, that it is so utterly and ridiculously silly that I should scarcely feel justified in referring to it, only that in coming to that conclusion I should undoubtedly have to assign to my hon. friend a range of intellect which I have not any desire or thought of doing. What does my hon. friend mean by it ? The meaning is too clear to need any explanation or interpretation, it speaks for itself-it means to cast a reproach on me as the minister of the department. My hon. friend having undertaken to do that in these explicit terms, I say that, if he acts in a manner becoming to a member of this parliament, in addition to the fact that he has promised to give his authority, it is his bounden duty to give that authority here and now, or to withdraw the statements which he has made and apologize for the imputations which he has cast.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's tender heart is touched almost to sadness-the cries of the baby in the gallery show that he has already produced results.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 109) incorporating the Molson's Bank Pension Fund.-Mr. Osier.
Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Rental to Grand Trunk Railway, $110,000.
['My intention is to appoint a greater number of commissioners than we have had heretofore, both with the intention of getting the work done expeditiously and of endeavouring to cut down the expense. I have been looking over the accounts in connection with the last revision of the statutes, and I find that the great bulk of the expenditure was caused by work being given outside, such as translation; and special parts of the statutes were given to special persons, who were charged with their preparation. My idea is to make the commission a little more numerous than the last one, and to endeavour to have the work done entirely by the commissioners. I hope the work will be done within two years.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Saturday.', 'Monday, April 28, 1902.']
Robert Laird Borden: When the House adjourned at six o'clock, I was about to say a few words but the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals had produced such a marked effect on his audience that 1 was unable to proceed. The hon. gentleman had been so extremely plaintive in the language he used, expressive of his desire to have the name of the particular person associated with this company, that the results absolutely prevented me saying a word at the time. As the hon. gentleman seems to be sensitive on this subject, I would like to point out one or twro facts which it would be well for him to bear in memory. I dare say he recollects the statement of his leader in this House on one occasion that no man would be dismissed for political partisanship without being afforded an opportunity to make out his case by an investigation. The hon. gentleman does not seem to be disturbed in his mind that that promise has not been carried out. Would it not be well for that sensitive spirit of his to consider that feature of the case which has been going on for the last four or five years ? Let him explain to the House why that particular circumstance does not trouble his mind to the same extent as the failure of my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) to give the name of a certain officer of this company. I think the hon. gentleman has been in this House when charges of the grossest possible fraud have been made during the present session against people who did work for this country in 1891, without any opportunity whatever having been afforded to those men to meet these charges, without their being even acquainted with those charges when made in the House first by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and afterwards by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). Is my hon. friend troubled with that feature of the case ? He no doubt appreciates the conduct of his colleagues in that respect, and regards it as perfectly fair and perfectly praiseworthy.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know to what the hon. gentleman alludes.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a matter as to which apparently the hon. gentleman has not been taken into the confidence of his colleagues.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That may be.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I think it would have been as well for the hon. gentleman, before taking the course he has

done to-day, to have ascertained something of what has taken place in connection with these matters.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a very red herring the hon. gentleman is drawing.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is the one who has been drawing the red herring across the trail. Would it not be well for him, instead of talking about the name of an official of this company, to explain to this House how it is that this railway, which was going to produce such magnificent results under his management, has been costing 110 per cent of the receipts In railway expenses, whereas every other railway in Canada and the United States has been paying a handsome dividend during the last two or three years in a period of great prosperity. I would like to know how it is that the hon. gentleman has so much to say about this particular feature and nothing about that. I would also point out to my hon. friend that we have had officials dismissed over and over again, on charges of political partisanship, and when we have asked in this House for the grounds of their dismissal we have been told that the charges have been substantiated in such a way that the particular department concerned was perfectly satisfied, and took the whole responsibility, while the men who were so dismissed did not, in some instances at least, even know the names of the persons who made the charges against them, and, notwithstanding the promise of the leader of the House, were not given the slightest opportunity for any investigation. My hon. friend himself has not always been so careful of these matters as he would have us believe. And I recollect, on one occasion some three or four years ago, when the hon. minister's own estimates were under discussion, we had to sit in this House a very long time indeed because he was not willing to fulfill the promise he had made to give certain information. The hon. gentleman could have saved this House a great deal of trouble on that occasion if he had been as scrupulous and sensitive on this subject as he seems to be to-night.
I do not wish to detain the House at any length with regard to this matter. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) has told the House the source of his information. True, he has not given the name of the particular officer, but only the name of the company from which that information was received. But it is just as competent for Mr. Pugsley, the only gentleman who is concerned, to make, as I understand he has, a denial without the name of the particular officer being given, as if the name of every official of that company were given as the source of this information.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman
would not mind saying, whether, in his opinion as a member of this House, the hon. member for South Lanark has fulfilled the promise he made, that he would give the authority upon which he made the statement.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from South Lanark, in my opinion, has fulfilled every promise he has made to the House. I do not understand that he gave exactly a promise in the way the hon. gentleman puts it. But whether that be so or not, it is a matter for the hon. member for South Lanark to decide, and in any opinion he has done everything necessary.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Tbe hon. member for South Lanark may with reason ask to be saved from his friends. Of all that has been said on this subject, that which is most condemnatory of his course in what has fallen from the hon. the leader of the opposition. While undertaking to defend the hon. member for South Lanark, he has hardly devoted one minute to the subject of discussion, but spent his time talking about his friend, Mr. Hamilton Smith, and the dismissals of officials and things of that sort, which have no connection whatever with the question under discussion. When so able and astute an advocate has to take that course, it is evident that he sees no case in favour of his hon. friend from South Lanark. He would not have spent his time on these irrelevant matters if he had any defence to make of the conduct of his bon. friend. The statement is made that this concerns only Mt. Pugsley, but my hon. colleague the Minister of Railways read the statement made by the hon. member for South Lanark, in which that hon. gentleman distinctly stated that the Minister of Railways had been in New York and that he had ills agent in New York for the purpose of negotiating the transaction referred to. That is the point of the whole matter, and if that statement went further than the hon. member for Lanark intended it should-which might happen to any member when addressing the House-if he found that he made a direct statement affecting the Minister of Railways and not merely Mr. Pugsley, he should have admitted that he had gone too far and had made a mistake.


William Humphrey Bennett: The point seems to be narrowed down to this, whether the Minister of Railways should apologize to Mr. Pugsley or not. As I understand the discussion, the statement was made absolutely by my hon. friend from South Lanark that he was not conversant with the fact as to whether Mr. Pugsley was down there or not, as the accredited statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals. The Minister of Railways and Canals may well say save me from my friends-at least from one of them, who is Mr. Pugsley. It is well known that Mr. Pugsley's services are

sought as an intermediary when any person has a claim-I would not say shady- but a claim that cannot be passed by the minister. That is a notorious fact. It is a notorious fact that if there is a claim to be pressed against the Department of Railways, not only in New Brunswick, but in the" other provinces as well, the parties who are disappointed in pressing their claims seek recourse from Mr. Pugsley. Is it not an odd thing that when a man has a claim, which is honest and straightforward, he cannot go to the department with a counsel from his own province or city, but is advised that if there is any one who can steer his claim through the department it is Mr. Pugsley. Will the Minister of Railways deny that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly, in the most unqualified way.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will prove it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is hanging a wholesale statement upon the flimsiest possible material. As far as my recollection serves me, I know of but one instance in which Sir. Pugsley was ever engaged in connection with a claim with which I or my department had any concern, and that was two years ago-only one single solitary claim. And when he makes the statement he does in this broadcast way, I would ask him to state the facts upon which he bases such a charge against Sir. Pugsley, and such an insinuation against the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: The statement I have to make is this : that some three or four years ago there were some lands to be expropriated in Point Levis, opposite the city of Quebec

The SIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND-CANALS. That is the only instance I know of.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is the only one made public at present. There was a claim before the department. A tried official of the hon. gentleman's department went to Quebec to bring about the purchase of a very considerable portion of land. He asked for prices and got them. He came then to the present Minister of Justice, and that gentleman assured him that the price of 90 cents per foot was ample for the property. He reported to the minister that this was a fair price, and the minister consequently initialled the document and agreed to allow that. But in the month of November, 1898, the parties concerned got information that they had better not accept that price and the matter dragged on. Year followed year, and finally, three years after, the parties concerned-or one of them at least-not being satisfied with the price offered by the minister, and which was said by the Minister of Justice and the late Mr. Dobell, who Mr. BENNETT.
was then a member of the cabinet, to be a fair one, was advised-I do not suppose he came to that decision by intuition-to go to New Brunswick and hunt up a solicitor. He had had a solicitor employed, a member of this House, whose name I need not mention now because it is not pertinent to the issue. But there was a member of this House who laid down the principle last year that he had a perfect right to take advantage of his position, as member, to go into the department and press claims on behalf of clients. There never was a time in the history of the country when that practice obtained to the extent it does today. It is notorious, particularly in Ontario, that such is the practice to-day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is notorious ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The practice of members of parliament presenting claims in the departments for a fee, and that practice was defended in this House last year by an hon. gentleman sitting on that side, and he was not at all rebuked by the ministry. Now, what happened ? These landowners in the city of Point Levis, unable to get the price they wanted, had evidently been advised by somebody that they could get it, if, after they had availed themselves of the services of a member of this House, they would go further down to New Brunswick. They did so, and secured the services of Mr. Pugsley. Here is the proof of what I say :
Fredericton, N.B., March 1, 1901. Hon. A. G. Blair,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
(Re Couture property, Levis.)
My Dear Blair,-Mr. Charles Archer, of Montreal, has sent me copies of solemn declaration of L. M. Carriere, M.P., &c.
After carefully reading the declaration, it seems to me that a very strong case is made for a valuation of at least $2.50 a foot. If the matter could be settled immediately, I can, I feel sure, induce Mr. Archer to get his clients to accept $2.25. I will esteem it a great favour if you will kindly take the matter up, and settle upon this basis. '
Yours sincerly,



[Stage Direction]
Now, I think I can well use the words of the Minister of Finance, and apply them to the Minister of Railways, for that hon. gentleman must surely desire to be saved from his friends. It must be notorious-it certainly had become known to these parties in Quebec-that if they wished to get their full claim, if they wished to collect this amount- nearly three times as much as the minister had offered them-they must not rely even upon a member of this House, but the proper step was to secure the services of Mr. Pugsley. I do not know whether Mr. Pugsley was in New York or not, but I do know that the hon. member for South Lanark
[Stage Direction]
made the statement that he had been informed that Mr. Pugsley was in New York endeavouring to carry on these negotiations. That hon. gentleman has made this statement and has said that he must ask the consent of the gentleman who gave him the information before he divulges his name. He has read from a document, and the House is bound in honour to assume that it is a document received by him, and not a fictitious one. And, having read from that document, I say the hon. gentleman has done what he promised the House he would do. It will remain to be seen whether he gets authority to give the name of the writer of that letter. But, unfortunately for the Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Pugsley's relations with him were so notorious in the province of Quebec, at least with some people, that in pressing their claims they dispensed even with the mediation of a member of this House, they dropped even their own counsel and went away to St. John to secure the services of Mr. Pugsley.
Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to me we are entirely begging the question, putting up these men of straw only


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Em-merson) would allow me, I would like to make a statement, before he goes on with his remarks, in answer to the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). It is notable that the hon. gentleman, with all his astuteness was unable to discover anything that he could say in justification of the course taken by the hon. member for South Lanark, and his attitude before the committee, so he has been obliged to go back to the record of ' Hansard ' of four years ago to discover something that might possibly help to divert the attention of members on this side from the main question. But no effort on his part, or on that of any other hon. gentleman will succeed in that. We will come back-it may be with some loss of time, but we cannot help that-to the question before us, and will stick to it until we get it set right. Before I resume my seat, let me say to my hon. frienu that he knows that Mr. Pugsley does not represent me in any particular. Mr. Pugsley is a gentleman of the legal profession of very high standing in the country. He had business relations in the city of Montreal, I know, and was there at stated periods in connection with the company with which ne was associated. I do not know, but I presume that Mr. Archer, who is a resident of Montreal, and not of Quebec, as the hon. gentleman stated, would be very likely to come into contact with so prominent a lawyer as Mr. Pugsley.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will allow me, I will tell him that Mr. Archer is the law partner of the member of the House who had the claim in hand before It was handed over to Mr. Pugsley.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not care about that. I am telling the hon. gentleman that Mr. Archer is not a resident of Quebec but of Montreal, and he would naturally make Mr. Pugsley's acquaintance, and would learn of his ability as a lawyer just as he would that of any other gentleman whose services he might desire to avail himself of.	My hon.
friend has not seen fit to follow up the subject, to state, as the record has shown, that, while Mr. Pugsley and other gentleman who were associated with him pressed the matter in that way upon the attention of the department, the pressure and the argument advanced were of no avail-the claim put forward was not entertained, and the amount he demanded was not paid, nor was there any larger amount offered claimants than was fully justified by the valuations' made of the property. I ask my hon. friend, therefore, to endeavour, if he wishes to continue this diversion, to find something with bottom to it; something that has not been answered and disposed of already.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister should start by at least getting his facts right. This was not in ' Hansard ' of four years ago, but last year. And I am not, nor is any hon. gentleman who has not the departmental records in his hand, in the position to know what disposition was made of this case. Perhaps when the estimates come down we shall learn what disposition was made of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not recall whether it was last year or an earlier session. My own impression was that it was two years ago. But the hon. gentleman spoke of four years ago, and I supposed that was the time of the ' Hansard ' from which he was reading. I can only say that I entirely refused to entertain the demands made. I told the gentleman that unless he chose to accept the valuation we were prepared to offer, which our valuators sustained, he might take it to the Exchequer Court. And I believe it is in the Exchequer Court, unless there has been a recent decision in the matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am pleased to know that the minister resisted the pressure put upon him in that case. He will remember that he was pressed very hard, not only by Mr. Pugsley, but by the Prime Minister himself, to pay the claim. He will see on reference to * Hansard ' that the Minister of Justice wrote a letter asking for the payment of the claim at the advanced rate, and based that on the ground that the Prime Minister thought it was fair.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was remarking that I did not see the object of putting up these men of straw to have them knocked down. And I think the hon. member for East Sim-coe will see the point of that remark, as he



has been called upon to take back the statement he made as inaccurate. The point I wished to draw attention to is this-this afternoon I read a telegram from Mr. Pugs-ley repudiating in their entirety the statements made by the hon. member for South Lanark last night, and I suggested to the hon. member for South Lanark that it was desirable that he should at least withdraw his remarks in connection therewith. And the hon. gentleman stated that, as soon as I was through speaking he would give his authority for the statement he had made. I think this committee is entitled to that statement to the fulfilment of the pledge that the hon. member for South Lanark gave to the committee.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he will state what the authority was upon which he relied? Do I understand him to confirm what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), that his authority is one of the officials of the Dominion Securities Company ? Does that correctly define the person whom he puts forward as authority for these statements ?


John Graham Haggart: The leader of the opposition was referring to the letter which I read. This was an interview with an officer of the Dominion Securities Company.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was not a communication to you made by that officer ?


John Graham Haggart: No. The communication to me was that a party who communicated with the Dominion Securities Company got this information from an officer. I thought I had ended the controversy. This question between Mr. Pugsley and myself


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a question between the hon. member and myself.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all-the hon. member will stick to that. If the hon. member will read the ' Hansard ' he will find that last night I withdrew any charge against the minister, and why doea he repeat it again and again ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not understand you so.


John Graham Haggart: Read my remarks which are in the ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then do you do so now ?


John Graham Haggart: j I do now, and 1 did then. I stated that the information 1 had got enabled me to withdraw any imputation upon the minister-because he wenl down to New York and stated it would be impossible to carry on such a transaction. I read that from the document, I stated it last night. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Em-inerson) says he has a telegram in which Mr. EMMERSON.
Mr. Pugsley denies it altogether. I have to accept the denial at present. My information on the subject is what I read to the House. I stated to the House that I was going to ask authority to give the name of the party, and to read the whole letter, which contains a good deal more, and to put it on the Table of the House.
Intercolonial Railway, $5,500,000.


Mr. FOWLER.: I listened with considerable pleasure to the burst of oratorical fireworks we heard this afternoon from the hon. member from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmer-son). I regretted at the time that the members of this committee did not seem to appreciate that class of oratory the way they should, because shortly after he begun, the benches began to empty. That was rather regrettable.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That doesn't hurt me.


George William Fowler: I quite understand why it does not make the hon. gentleman feel badly because he is used to it; that is the usual result when he begins to fire off his big oratorical guns. The hon. gentleman drew a picture, a scene which he said would be worthy of the highest art of the photographer. He referred to the expression upou the countenance of the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) when this famous letter was produced by the member for AVest-moreland. Sir, I have in my mind a scene which I think would be still more worthy the art of the photographer. Some months ago, and up to the beginning of this session of parliament, we heard in New Brunswick very strong rumours of the belligerent attitude which the hon. member for AVest-moreland had assumed towards the Minister of Railways and Canals. The member for AVestmoreland is a gentleman of a somewhat impulsive nature, and' when he feels that he has a grievance he does not make any bones, as we say, in giving utterance to his feelings; and he gave very strong utterance to his feelings in his native county and throughout the province. It was a matter notorious and patent to everybody that very strained relations existed between the member for Westmoreland and the Minister of Railways and Canals. The member for Westmoreland came to this parliament with the same feeling of rancour, the same feeling of resentment in his heart towards the Minister of Railways and Canals concerning his management of the Intercolonial Railway. But, Sir, after he arrived here a change came over the spirit of his dreams, and he became disarmed; and the scene I would like to see properly portrayed was the scene when the two met and a reconciliation took place.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who says there was one ?


George William Fowler: Those who have heard the hon. member speak in this House can imagine the pathos in his tones as, with

tears streaming from liis eyes, be embraced tbe Minister of Railways and Canals and said to him : ' I have been deceived, I have been tricked, I have been cajoled by you, X have been induced to give up tbe position of premier of the province of New Brunswick by means of a glittering promise you made to me if I would take part in federal politics, and when I gave up the position I held in my native; province, and came into the federal arena, I found you did not, or could not, deliver the goods, and naturally I was cross and angry with you. But I have in my mind the memory of those twenty-five years of close intimacy and companionship-which the hon. gentleman told us about this afternoon-and for the sake of the memory of those years of friendship I am prepared to forgive you. And the minister, not to be outdone in generosity by the member for Westmoreland, said :	' Henry, I am willing to be forgiven.'
Now, Sir, the member for Westmoreland, in his peroration, grew very eloquent on the subject of broad statesmanship and he said to hon. members on this side of the House :
' You must give up this petty parish politics, you must be broad in your statesmanship, you must view this Intercolonial Railway in a broad and statesmanlike manner. Very good advice, excellent precepts, and I would that the example of the member for Westmoreland accorded better with his precepts. What he said to this House and country- and judging from the loud tones in which he spoke, if the windows had been open it would not have been necessary for the members of the press to have recorded his speech, because the country would have heard it-he said he was prepared to tell this House and the country that he was not altogether in accord with the policy of the minister in the management of his department. Sir, we expected him to give the reasons why he was not in accord, we expected to hear a discussion of the railway policy of the minister; we expected to be told on what particular he disagreed with him. What did we hear ? Was it something on broad lines of statesmanship in which he disagreed with the minister ? No, Sir, it was solely and entirely because, as he said, the minister had not introduced enough politics into the management of the Intercolonial Railway. And this is the sort of statesmanship we get from the hon. member for Westmoreland, the man who occupied the proud position of premier of the province of New Brunswick. We should expect something wider, something broader from the hon. gentleman than, that sort of doctrine. I failed to understand what fault he could find with the minister on that ground. I thought that in no department of the public service had so many men been displaced for political reasons as on the Intercolonial Railway, I won't except even the Post Office Department, and that was bad enough, in all conscience. The 1121
hon. gentleman had denounced what he termed the hydra-headed mismanagement of the Intercolonial Railway-those were the very words he is said to have used in characterizing the management of the Intercolonial Railway by the Minister of Railways and Canals. And the only fault that he now tells the House he has to find, is because the minister has not dismissed enough officials, that they are allowed to vote as they please And the minister, as I understand, though I was not in the House at the time, stood up in his place and said that there was no coercion used towards the employees of the Intercolonial Railway. Sir, along -the line of the Intercolonial Railway people will laugh at that statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals when they read it. The Intercolonial Railway runs through the county which I have the honour to represent in this House, for a distance of sixty miles, and upon nearly every official of that road coercion was brought in the last election; not satisfied with that, they even resort to it in connection with municipal and local politics, and 'in the very last election run in the county of King's a few weeks ago, that same coercion was brought to bear upon employees of the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By whom ?


George William Fowler: By those in authority who are over them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


George William Fowler: Perhaps if some of you knew your own names it would be better. Some of you can scarcely tell your own names. Names-an hon. gentleman says. I give the name and what would happen V


Mr. HYMAN.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) a question. He has said that pressure was brought and I submit that he should state on which side the pressure was brought.


George William Fowler: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) is so dense, so obtuse, so ignorant, as not to understand on which side the pressure was brought I will tell him. It was on the side of the party which he supports.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


George William Fowler: I give the name and what would happen ? The man coerced would lose his position that very moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


George William Fowler: And a place might be made for some hungry Grit heeler so that the hon. member for Westmoreland could fill it with some hungry heeler in his constituency. That is why the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) is so anxious for the name.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) permit me to ask him a question ? If the hon. gentleman is seriously of the opinion that the employees, or officers, of the Intercolonial Railway were warranted, or authorized or permitted, so far as the minister in the department is concerned, to exercise any undue, or improper pressure, or any coercion upon the employees of the road in the matter of the exercise of their franchise, I ask my hon. friend why it is he thinks that they are in any danger of being dismissed for doing what they were allowed to do.


George William Fowler: I would just say this to the hon. minister ; I have known him a long time and I know him to be too astute a man to place himself in such a position. The hon. minister will take yery good care that his hands were very clean, but a wink is sometimes as good as a nod and those under his authority would understand that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let me ask my hon. friend another question. Does he not know that there was no wink or nod about it ? Does he not know that a general order went out under my own hand throughout the whole Intercolonial Railway to the effect that no officer employed on the road was warranted in exercising any pressure in any shape or form, that every man must be left entirely free to vote as he pleased-given an opportunity to vote and be afforded facilities for going to the polls on both sides of polities and if there was any violation or infringement of the order they were called upon to notify the department of it.


George William Fowler: It is all very easy to issue these general orders, but there is not a man in this House, certainly there is not a man on the other side of the House, so absolutely simple as cannot understand how these orders can be evaded. I do not give hon. gentlemen opposite credit for any great' astuteness. To get away from this matter-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George William Fowler: Well, we will discuss it just as long as you like. The longer we discuss it the worse it is for yourselves. I do not consider that this sort of thing is very high statesmanship, and that is why I was so much surprised


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: 'I think it would be well, as far as possible, to confine the discussion to the question under consideration. The question under consideration is the propriety of granting $140,000 to the Grand Trunk Railway as rent for the use of their railway, and I would like the committee to confine itself to that question.


George William Fowler: I was referring to some remarks made by the hon. member for Mr. FOWLER.
Westmoreland. I have not deviated nearly as far from the question as did the hon. member for Westmoreland. He gave us a history of his early life and of his early struggles. He told us how it was necessary for him to look to Boston for his education rather than McGill and all that sort of thing. He was allowed to make this very great deviation without question on the part of the Chair, and yet I am to be strictly held to order when I simply refer to some matters in connection with the railway and not in connection with the different universities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) will allow me to make one remark. I will appeal to the Chairman whether it would not be fair to all members of tin; House to allow the discussion to continue in the same general way in which it has been carried on up to the present time. I think there should perhaps be some limitation, but I think, since the discussion of a general character has been commenced and has continued down to the present time, if you, Mr. Chairman, would so rule, it would meet the wishes of the committee as a whole that the hon. gentleman be allowed to continue the general discussion.


Peter Macdonald: The subject that was under the consideration of the committee up to this afternoon was the Intercolonial Railway itself, a much wider question than the subject under consideration now. Would it npt be better for the committee-


George William Fowler: On what item ?


Peter Macdonald: Item 268. Would it not be better to allow item 269 to pass and then the next item would be the Intercolonial Railway ?


Mr. INGRAM.: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has to bring down certain information which he has not brought down yet.


Peter Macdonald: Well, if it is the desire of the committee the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) may proceed.


George William Fowler: I rose before the item which was under discussion by the hon. member for Westmoreland was carried. I rose several times to speak while that little side discussion was going on, "but I was so unfortunate as not to be able to get the Chairman's eye. It seems to me that the hon. member for Westmoreland, in his desire to show to the committee and the country that there had been brought about, between himself and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, a reconciliation, should have made some defence of the railway policy of the hon. minister when that item was under discussion. It seems to me that he should have endeavoured to have made some reply

to the most convincing speech that was made by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) in connection with the mismanagement of the Intercolonial Railway, a speech the most argumentative, the most logical, of any speech that I ever remember listening to since I have been a member of this House, a speech which was most convincing in its arguments and a speech which showed that there had been the grossest mismanagement on the part of the hon. minister in connection with his department. Yet, the hon. member for Westmoreland, who comes from the railway centre of New Brunswick, was unable-we must presume he was unable, because he did not avail himself of the opportunity-to reply to a single one of the charges that were made against the management of the Intercolonial Railway. There was the question of the tie scandal; he might have shown, if he could, the necessity of purchasing 1,300,000 ties when the department required only 300,000 or 400,000, he might have shown why it was that they purchased ties whose life is only three or four years when they might have had the other kind. He knew that it was impossible to defend such a scandalous thing ns that. But, the hon. gentleman had to make a defence in his own behalf in connection with the tie scandal. He had to defend his conduct, or to attempt to defend it, in obtaining possession of this celebrated letter which was written in pencil by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to the tie inspector. He found it necessary to make some defence as to that. The hon. gentleman is a lawyer, but I do not think, were he defending a man who was charged with being the receiver of stolen goods, and he made such a lame defence as he did in this case, that he could expect any common sense, intelligent jury to acquit the man. He admits the whole thing. What a spectacle have w7e in this House of Commons ? An hon. gentleman who is the representative of one of the largest constituencies in tne Dominion of Canada and one of the most intelligent constituencies gets up in his place in the House of Commons, in the parliament of Canada, and admits that he is a receiver of stolen goods-admits more, admits that he is an accessory before the fact of the theft of these goods that this man McManus was acting under his direction, and acting at his request when he went to his brother's desk and abstracted this letter. What defence can there be for that ? Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House may say-oh, he was his brother and therefore it is no harm. Does it make it any less a theft because one brother takes from the property of the other ? Has the hon. gentleman never heard of one brother murdering another brother ; of a son murdering a father ? Why, to-day there is in one of the jails of this province a man charged with the murder of his father. It is a crime just as much as
though it was the murder of a stranger; aye, the relationship makes the offence the greater. And here is the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Bmmerson), who admits that by his direction this man stole this letter, and that he took the letter from this man knowing it to have been stolen. That is the whole case in a nutshell. And how does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) defend himself ? He says : I did not find the letter in a spittoon and piece it together. That is the only defence he can offer to the House and to the country for his conduct. Why, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of law, and he is lawyer enough to know it, whatever the moral offence may be, he could not be tried and convicted for finding the letter in a spittoon and piecing it together, but he could for the other offence.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) made an attempt to justify the purchase of these ties by saying they were not all purchased before the elections. What a defence that is. If they were not purchased before the election, how easy a matter it is to make a promise previous to the election and to carry it out after the election, and that is just what was done in this case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the hon. gentleman any evidence to adduce to show that a promise was made before the elections and carried out afterwards V


George William Fowler: I did not make the statement. I simply said that it was a very easy matter to make a bargain before the election and carry it out afterwards. Some of the back benchers on the other side are making so much noise that the minister does not hear correctly what I say. I notice that when things are getting a little too hot for them over there, they always take that way of trying to drown the voice of the speaker; particularly some of these gentlemen from the woolly west.
Now, Sir, the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) appealed to me to know whether I favoured expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway. In answer to that appeal I say, that I do favour proper expenditure upon the Intercolonial Railway. And let me say, that so far as this question of the sale of the Intercolonial Railway is concerned, I would at once acquit the Minister of Railways from having the remotest idea of ever making such a sale, or ot even bargaining for such a sale, or having anything to do with negotiations in connection with it. I acquit him because the Minister of Railways is a New Bruns-wicker, and he knows very well the feeling of the people of New Brunswick on that matter. He knows that the building of the Intercolonial Railway was a part of the confederation compact and that the people of New Brunswick would never consent to the Intercolonial Railway being handed over to any private corporation. We are in fa-

vour of any proper and reasonable expenditure upon that road, and I want to say in justice to the Minister of Railways, that along some lines he has made a very proper expenditure upon the Intercolonial Railway, and he has improved that railway to a considerable extent. But I do not go the length of the hon. member for Westmoreland, who said that the minister found it a tramway and made it a great railway ; nor do I go the length of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who told us they found the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway in a ploughed field. I should think that the hon. gentleman who represents Levis would not thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having spoken in such a way of the town of Levis.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was the Prime Minister who said that.


George William Fowler: The Prime Minister, was it ! I say that the Intercolonial Railway has always been kept up to a high degree of efficiency, and that the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) is deserving of the credit that he has not allowed it to run down, and that he has in many ways kept jjace with the improvements of the times, because, as we know all railways have improved in their rolling stock and every thing else. But I do say, Mr. Chairman, that many of the expenditures made by the minister on that railway have been wasteful and extravagant, and that the people have not got from that expenditure the good which they ought to have got. Take for instance this large purchase of twenty or more acres of marsh land some two miles out of the city of St. John, at $475 an acre.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not two miles.


George William Fowler: It is more than a mile.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not a mile from the station.


George William Fowler: Oh, yes, further than that. The roundhouse is well on to a mile out, and this is a long way from the roundhouse.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


George William Fowler: If the hon. gentleman ever walked it he would know it is a great deal longer than he thinks. But suppose it is a mile outside.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not a mile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is within the city limits.


George William Fowler: That may be true, but the city limits extend a long way out; they extend beyond the hotel known as the ' One Mile House,' and this land is beyond that. I had occasion to walk this, and I know what the distance is. However that may Mr. FOWLER.
be, this land was part of a property some of which was expropriated by the Horticultural Society.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When ?


George William Fowler: Some years ago, but land has not increased in value to an appreciable extent since that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was worth a dollar a foot then.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George William Fowler: Let them go on, they do not worry me at all. A part of the property lying nearer to the city than this was expropriated by the Horticultural Society, and a very much less price was paid for it than the government paid for this land. Instead of $475 an acre being paid, something over $200 an acre was paid, and some of the land, not the marsh land, I think, was sold for $55 an acre. At all events, the price paid by the government is at least double what it should be. Of course, there is some middleman who does not appear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no middleman.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister should not get so restless. He is so stirred up by this matter that he feels that everything that is said is a direct reflection on him whether there is an attempt to connect it with him or not. I do not say that the minister knew anything about the middleman, but I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that there was a middleman who had a considerable rake off.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) that there was not any middleman.


George William Fowler: I put it to the hon. minister-why could there not be a middleman without the minister knowing it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was no margin for any middleman business in it.


George William Fowler: This land was only farming land, and would not be built upon in the next fifty years, even if the city of St. John should have the growth we all expect. The best marsh lands in the county of Westmoreland can be bought for $100 an acre-better land than that. There is a man. another Gilbert, who has a farm of 200 acres, in the neighbourhood of this land, which yields about 200 tons of hay, and which he rents for $1,000 a year. How much interest would $1,000 a year be on 200 acres at $475 an acre ? It would not be 1 per cent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Would my hon. friend pardon me ? I wish to correct him, and to

say that there are marsh lands In the county of Westmoreland, remote from any town or city, which are selling at from $160 to $200 an acre, and large bodies of them too.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend knows that it is very rare that marsh lands run up to $150 an acre. The general price for the best marsh lands is $100, and they are not remote either. I am surprised at my hon. friend making such a statement. Some little individual piece of marsh land may sell at $150, but the English marsh land will not average more than $100 an acre. I say that expenditure is extravagant, and there are lots'of expenditure along the same line. Wherever the hon. minister has improved the conditions of the road, and done it at a reasonable cost, X would be the first to give him his due meed of credit ; but we have a right to condemn this wasteful and extravagant expenditure. We are anxious that the road should be maintained in a proper state of efficiency. I am glad that the minister extended the Intercolonial Railway to the city of Montreal, and I trust that he will go on and extend it further. I am in favour of making the Intercolonial Railway a great trunk line. In saying this I am stating my individual view ; I do not know to what extent it may accord with the views of gentlemen on this side of the House, but I say I am in favour of a proper and due extension of the Intercolonial Railway. Now, Sir, I do not propose to take up any more time of this committee at present. If there were anything more in the speech of my hon. friend from Westmoreland which required a reply, I should impose on the committee at further length, but I think I have amply replied to the few matters he brought forward.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of care and attention to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) as well to those of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). I did- on two or three occasions interrupt the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and I cannot complain of the courtesy he extended to me in replying to any questions which I may have asked him. But, Sir, after hearing the discussion of these three gentlemen in regard to the Intercolonial Railway, I heard a very serious charge made against the hon. memeber for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), that hon. gentleman being in the House at the time, and I took the liberty of rising before the House closed last night and asking why the hon. member for Westmoreland did not rise in his place and defend himself against the serious charge of stealing a letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, I am using the language which was used by an hon. member -who addressed this House yesterday. For charging that serious crime the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), who made the remark, and I was taunted to-day by the hon. member for Westmoreland to the effect that he did not have to go to the province of Ontario to learn either morals or anything else in connection with politics, and he did not see any reason why the hon. member for East Simcoe or the hon. member for West Elgin, as he termed me, should have anything to say about the matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I beg pardon, I mean East Elgin.


Andrew B. Ingram: Unfortunately for the hon. gentleman, he referred to an incident which must bring a blush to the face of every Liberal in the Dominion of Canada-


William Humphrey Bennett: They have no blushes.


Andrew B. Ingram: An incident which occurred in the province of Ontario some years ago ; an incident that brought about one of the most disgraceful acts that were ever committed by the Liberal party in the province of Ontario.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was not the letter which was issued to the people of Haldi-mand, I believe, during a certain election ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Come again.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will see you before I get through, and go you one better. My hon. friend referred to the incident known as the ' speak now ' and ' spittoon ' incident, which led to the defeat of one of the most honourable men who ever conducted public affairs in the Dominion of Canada. I refer to the late Hon. John Sanfield Macdonald, who was sent to his grave by the false charges preferred against him by the Liberals of the province of Ontario. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to place their fingers on one corrupt dr dishonourable act committed by John Sanfield Macdonald or his government ; but it was by such disgraceful tactics that he was driven from power, and it is a lamentable thing for the people of the province of Ontario. With regard to the hon. gentleman's reference to myself, I have conducted five elections in the county of Elgin. I have had the honour of representing both ends of that county, and during those five elections but one protest was filed against me ; and after four days of fishing by my opponents, they succeeded in finding three paltry cases which caused me to be unseated. I want to compare that record with an incident that occurred in the county of Elgin, one of the most disgraceful that any Liberal candidate has ever been guilty of. I have the proof here over the signature of the Liberal candidate in West Elgin, and for the information of my hon. friend, who has not been very long in this House, and perhaps


Andrew B. Ingram: This is signed by Donald Macnish. I just point this out to show my hou. friend that when he casts reflections on the Conservative party in Ontario, he had better study up the history of his own party in that province, and then I am sure that he will refrain from making any more charges of the kind.
With respect to the letter itself, my hon. friend made a statement before the committee that during the Easter recess, he went to Moncton and that he did not want to meet Mr. Charles McManus because he did not wish to have any conversation with him respecting the fraudulent inspection of ties.	*


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that I did not want to have any conversation with Mr. McManus with respect to any evidence he might be called on to make before the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman did not wish to meet Mr. McManus.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With respect to any evidence he might be called on to give before the committee. He had already been summoned, and I knew that fact as a member of the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: And the hon. gentleman said:
I would like to make an explanation. I had been attending the meetings of this committee previous to the Easter holidays, v'hen I was much interested in this question. When I returned to Moncton, I did not -want to talk to Mr. McManus, the inspector,-
Why did the hon. gentleman not want to talk to him? Was there anything disgraceful in talking to a man who, as he told the committee, belonged to a respectable and honourable family ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Surely my hon. friend will accept the statement that I made. What I said was that I did not wish to have any conversation with Mr. McManus with respect to any evidence he might be called on to make before the committee, knowing as I did, that he had been summoned before that committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell me when he procured the letter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated before the committee that I procured the letter during my sojourn at home, during the Easter holidays, and brought it to Ottawa when I returned to my parliamentary duties.


Andrew B. Ingram: And that is strictly correct, I presume. That is the statement which the hon. gentleman made. Here is some of the evidence to which I wish to refer. On the 30th March last the hon. gentleman said:
I would like to ask

He broke in on the question asked. He did not pause, he did not hesitate to break in when he thought he could make a point.

-I would like to ask if Mr. McManus is a man of good repute in that section of the country ? -A. I have never heard anything against him at all.
Q. You know the family with which he is connected ?-A. I do.
Q. One of the oldest Westmoreland families, of the highest respectability and highest character as a family ?-A. Yes.
Q. Is it fair to ask you this, I think, or do you not know that Mr. McManus absolutely and entirely repudiates the passing of anything like poplar ties or anything of that kind or fir ties? - A. That was what I was told by Mr. Russell, of Moncton, who has questioned him.
Will the hon. gentleman tell this House how he knew that Mr. McManus had repudiated the idea of inspecting fir or poplar ties?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will tell my hon. friend. That incident occurred on the 13th March, before Mr. McManus had been summoned as a witness. It was a matter of general repute that he had repudiated the passing of these ties. That was reported generally as the statement which he had made to the engineer of maintenance.


Andrew B. Ingram: And the hon. gentleman was present. That was the statement the hon. gentleman made on the 30th March. He was particularly eager to break in with a question to show that McManus belonged to a highly respectable family. What occurred later on? The hon. gentleman was present with this letter in his pocket, which exonerated McManus. Hid he rush up and interrupt the gentleman who was trying to find out whether McManus did have this ' letter in his possession ? He did not. That hon. gentleman had been questioning over half an hour, and the hon. gentleman sat in his place with the letter in his pocket, and did not get up and try to defend McManus by producing the letter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was very cruel on my part.


Andrew B. Ingram: What did he do ? He took the Minister of Railways aside and consulted him about the letter. Then he waited half an hour or so until Mr. Barker proved that McManus had been given this letter by the Minister of Railways. Why was it necessary to give this letter to McManus, in compliance with which McManus passed a large number of ties which he should not have passed. When McManus was desirous of doing his duty and refused to accept white spruce, when black spruce was named in the tender, what did this gentleman, who was trying to sell ties to the government say? Let me read what occurred :
Q. How many ties had you rejected of Mr. Ultican ?-A. I hadn't inspected any of them before that.
Q. You had not inspected them at ail ?-A. Which.
Q. Mr. Culligan'n ties.-A. He took me out to show me the ties, do you see, and I saw that they were white spruce ties, the big run
of them, and I said to Mr. Culligan : Your ties are white spruce, and he says: 'Yes, what of it,' and I pulled out this memorandum and showed it to him, that I was to take black spruce, he wanted to see the words, and he came and looked over my shoulder and looked at it and said: 'How the hell did that come there, I never agreed to give black spruce, there is none grows here.' I says. 'I don't know,' and he says: 'Its all right, I'll see Pottinger about it.' That's all the conversation we had.
Q. You were not going to take the ties on account of their being white spruce?-A. I was going to refuse them.
Q. He managed to get them taken afterwards ? -A. Yes.
I want to show that when McManus was desirous of doing his duty by not accepting the white spruce, he afterwards got a letter direct from the minister, telling him to accept these ties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, then, I will have to read it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Read the language in the letter.


Andrew B. Ingram: Here is the famous letter, and what does it say ?
Mr. McManus will please inspect Mr. Culligan's ties the same as Mr. Ultiean's.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) who does not appear to know much about the matter interrupts as usual. What did the tender call for in Ultican's contract ? It called for spruce ties, not for black spruce, and this letter was an instruction to this man to accept white spruce ties. Now, the government railways of this country have managers; they have chief engineers, and this Mr. McManus was acting under the engineer. If the minister had acted in the proper way, he would have instructed the engineer of the railway to tell Mr. McManus that he might inspect these ties the same as the others. No, he comes down from his lofty position as Minister of Railways and tells this gentleman receiving $2 a day, how he should do his work. This whole letter business from beginning to end is a fraud on the face of it. It is disgraceful, and dishonourable to say the least of it. And I will go further and say that my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Eminerson) must surely have some other object than that which he stated in the House for procuring the letter in the way he did and presenting it to the Committee on Public Accounts as he did.	#


Henry Robert Emmerson: I regret that the hon. gentleman does not feel that he can accept my statements.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am simply going by the evidence, and I prefer doing that in this case. I represent, it is true, a constituency in the province of Ontario. But

1 wish to point out in my eastern province friends that if they wish the government railways of this country to he a success, if they wish them to be popular throughout the Dominion, they should do what they can to have those railways conducted in an economical and efficient way. Coming from the province of Ontario as I do-the province that pays the greatest proportion of the taxes of this Dominion-is it not my right and duty as a public man to see that the government railways are conducted in as economical a manner as possible ?	1
challenge any hon gentleman to put his finger on a single syllable used by any gentleman on the Conservative side against the Intercolonial Railway. No hon. gentleman on this side condemns the Intercolonial Railway because it is a government road. What we do, and what we have a right to do, is to condemn unwise and extravagant expenditures on that railway. Do we want more proof than the statement made by the hon. gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) yesterday ? Since I first had a seat in this House, I have never heard a better statement in connection with the railway than the one made by that hon. gentleman last night. Let it be not forgotten that it is the statement of a gentleman who at one time was general manager of a railway in this country. No more capable man to discuss the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway could be brought forward in this House than the hon. member for Hamilton. And 1 am sure no hon. gentleman can say that my hon friend from Hamilton used language that could possibly have been offensive to hon. gentlemen opposite or to any other. We simply desire to discuss this matter fairly, to give our views frankly, hoping that by so doing we shall assist in making the road a success. And I will go further and say that if justification were needed for the complaints made by hon. members on this side concerning the management of the Intercolonial Railway, it is be found in the statement of the Minister of Railways yesterday. What do we find in that document which the hon. gentleman himself read in this House ? This is a document dated at Moncton, May 1st, 1899, addressed to the Minister! of Railways and Canals and signed by D. Pottinger, general manager. And on the last page of this document, I find the following :
It is difficult to speak with certainty of what ought to be done to meet the demands of the passenger traffic. Both with regard to the locomotives and cars, it is more a question of competition, appearances, speed, comfort and safety, than one of reducing expenses per train mile. ' I feel that you aro quite familiar with the facts, and requirements in regard to this and that I need not say very much about it beyond pointing out that our passenger engines are small and that the condition of our tracks is anything but a good advertisement for our road. A stranger visiting the provinces for the first time would conclude from their appearance that the road was very much embarrassed financially, so poor that it could not afford ic Mr. INGRAM.
make a decent appearance, unable even to spend enough to keep them clean, and when we know that they belong to the Canadian government and therefore in some degree represent it before the world, we cannot help feeding ashamed for their appearance. Our ears are built long before comfort was considered a necessity in railway travelling and we have not been renewing our cars at such a rate as to be able to say that we have a respectable aid modern equipment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will the hon. gentleman give the date of that letter ?


Andrew B. Ingram: May, 1899. Now, I wish to be perfectly clear-I am not trying to make a point against the government with respect to this, but making a statement as a member of this House who, I hope, seeks to offer something that will assist in making that road what it ought to be. And I say that if that road at any time, whether under a Conservative government or under this government, was in the condition here described, it is a disgrace to the Dominion. And, so far as I am concerned, if it is necessary to vote money for the purpose of making that road what it ought to be, and fit to compete with any line of railway in this country, I am prepared to vote what I believe is a sufficient sum to put it in that condition. At the same time, I wish to say as strongly as I can that I entirely disapprove of the methods followed in the management of that railway.
My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) referred to the case of coal purchases as an instance. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson) did not complain of any of the expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway. But I challenge him or any hon. gentleman In this House who knows anything about railroading to stand up in this House and discuss these expenditures. One who would not find fault in such a case as this is no true friend of the Intercolonial Railway. It has been admitted in this House that, on the 30th of June, 1900, there were fifteen thousands tons of coal in possession of the road. It has been proven in evidence that there was a feeling of unrest among the coal mines of Nova Scotia even from January or February. These being the circumstances, I charge the management of that railway with being negligent in their duty in not preparing themselves for that threatened strike. In the latter part of December, the railway management found themselves with only six days' supply of coal on hand, and this in the face of a threatened strike of the miners. Is there any railway in this country properly managed who would allow themselves to get so low in coal in the face of this danger of a cessation of supplies ? No, not one railway company in this country would do anything of the kind. What do we find further ? We find an agreement drawn up by the different coal companies in the province along the line of this railway, and we find the coal companies shrewd and sharp enough to have inserted in their

agreement with the government a clause that in case of a strike they should not be hound to furnish the required amount of coal under the contract. Now that is a fact. Do we find the government protecting themselves? Not at all. What ought the government to have 'done in a case of that kind? In preparing their contracts with the coal companies, when the coal companies demanded a clause of this kind, the government should have said:	Here you are demanding a certain thing to protect yourselves: now, we ask that certain protection should be given to us. And what would that be? That a clause should be inserted that in case of a strike by the miners, and in case they could not furnish the required amount of coal to the railway, in case of the government being compelled to buy their coal elsewhere and get a large supply on hand-in that case the government would not be bound to buy the supply agreed upon between the parties. That would have been a proper course to take, that would have been a protection to the government. The government had on hand over $500,000 worth of coal on the 30th of June, 1901. Why were they compelled to have so much on hand? Because, in addition to having a large supply of American coal on hand, they were compelled by their agreement with the coal companies to take the amount which the agreement mentioned. So I say they were remiss in their management of the coal contract with the companies. Every man knows that if you have a large supply of coal on a railway, that coal naturally becomes slack when it is exposed to the weather ; when it is exposed to the rain and the sunshine, it does not have the same heating properties as it would have when taken fresh from the mine. So i say in this instance the government lost a large amount of money in buying coal when the price was something like 50 per cent more than it had been the previous year. The coal they were required to buy during the time of this strike, rose in price, some of it as high as $5.12 a ton, an enormous price to pay for coal, a much larger price than is paid by any railway in this country.
Then we find the same bad management with respect to ties. The manager, under his sworn statement before that committee, says he was the gentleman who prepared the estimates, and he knew that it would only be necessary to have 300.000 or 400,000 ties supplied during that year. What do we find him doing? We find him taking no less than 1,300,000 ties. The question was asked:	Do these ties lose in life by
lying long unused?-No, he did not think so. Why, Sir, he was so inexperienced fn regard to ties that he could not form an estimate of the probable lifetime of ties of any diameter. That man could not say whether or not ties lose in value when lying around year after year without being used. Every man knows well, who has any railway experience at all, that the sooner you
place ties in the railway, the longer they will last. Now I think that is ample with respect to coal and ties.
Now, with respect to engines. I undertook yesterday to interrupt the Minister of Railways and Canals when speaking of engines. I am one of those who believe in Canadian industries. I have had some experience on railways in this country and in the United States; I have been employed on something like seven or eight railways in Canada and the United States, and I know something both of handling engines and of their construction; and I want to criticise Mr. Russell for his course in respect to those engines. Notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals that Mr. Russell had been a Canadian, and had been employed on the Intercolonial Railway years ago, I want to point out that he wrote a circular which could be taken advantage of by every manufacturer of engines in the United States-to the effect that these Kingston engines were not up to the mark, and that the Cooke engine was not up to the mark. To allow that to be sent around to the different superintendents and to be reproduced in the public press of this country, I say was a very improper step on the part of Mr. Russell. Why do I say so ? Especially in view of this fact, that Mr. Muhlfeld is a practical man, and Mr. Mulil-feld told him in conversation that the construction of these engines was not to blame, tnat if he had an opportunity of readjusting them he would be able to ascertain whether it was the fault of the engineers who were running the engines, whether it was the fault of the coal, or whether it was the fault of the construction of the engines. Why was not Mr. Russell content with that ? Why did he not instruct this gentleman to take these engines in and perform that readjustment, and try to give them a proper test ? He did nothing of the kind, but he issued this circular, and that is what I condemn him for. I know that these Kingston engines have performed their duties as well and better than a great many engines used on the railways in this country. I have no interest 'whatever in the manufacture of these engines at Kingston, I know that that industry has been used for- the purpose of promoting the interest of the Liberal party in this country; therefore I cannot be charged as a Conservative with any desire to show undue favour to that industry. Therefore I am the more free to say that I consider these Kingston engines are good engines, and I trust that more of them may be employed on that railway.
Now with respect to the rolling stock. Why, Sir, we have it in evidence that hundreds and hundreds of cars on that railway are lying idle ; we have it in evidence by this mechanical superintendent that he does not know the condition of a great deal of the rolling stock. Yet the government is expending large sums of money in purchasing new rolling stock to be used on that rail-

way. Now, would it not be in tlie interest of economy for the officers of that railway to Inspect the rolling stock thoroughly, and when they found some requiring repairs, to make the repairs so that it might be put in service again, thus saving a large sum of money. I can quite understand the indifference of the general manager on that point. What did Mr. Pottinger care about charging up new material to capital account ? If the government and parliament were satis-lied, what had he to do with it ? Why, Sir, if the general manager could get all the money he wants, is he going to exercise economy ? Certainly not. So I say that, instead of buying any more stock, a large amount of that on hand could have been saved by economy and proper management.
Now a good deal has been said about capital account, as respects earnings, and charging up to maintenance, and so forth. I have always understood that in conducting a railway in this country, or any other country, it was the duty of the management first, to conduct their railway as economically as possible; secondly, to keep their expenditure well within their earnings; and thirdly, at the end of the year, to take their expenditure and subtract it from their earnings and show, if possible, a surplus to the stockholders of the company.
1 always understood that was the proper method of conducting a railway in this country, but since I have been in this House I have found that a different method is pursued. A method is pursued whereby they can buy stock for the railway, and when it gets worn out they can simply throw it to one side, get fresh stock, charge it to capital account anti never charge it to maintenance at all. Now, hon. gentlemen have given the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals a certificate of character inasmuch as that hon. gentleman had conducted this railway in a non-partisan spirit. This is a question in regard to which I can fairly take credit to myself, because, when my own friends were in office, I did then, as I do now-I opposed the political influence that was being used on that railway in one way or the other, and from the information which I have from a very reliable source, I believe this same political influence is still in existence in the management of that railway. I want to say that we have in the general manager a gentleman, who, though, to my mind, may have very poor judgment in some cases, has very good judgment in others, but, I do say in that gentleman's behalf, that if he were not interfered with, if he were allowed to manage that railway without any interference from political parties, I believe he would be in a position to show a better record in the administration of the railway. But, as I said before, it is owing to political interference from time to time which is the curse of the management of that railway, and the chief reason why the people have to pay large sums of money that it is now actually termed Mr. INGRAM.
the sink liole of the government in this country.
Now, there is another question with the respect to the extension of sidings. Mr. Pottinger gave evidence under oath in regard to the Copper Crown Company's siding. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Westmoreland to the fact that he had better carefully re-read the evidence in connection with the Copper Crown question, and if there are any hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who will read that evidence very carefully, they will come to the conclusion that there was something materially wrong in connection with this transaction. It is all very well to say that it is a small case, that as it involves an expenditure of only $20,000, it is not worth bothering about, but it is the little things on a railway, when added together at the end of the year, which amount to large sums, and before the hon. minisfier undertakes to expend sums of money from $20,000 and upwards, the general manager should so guide these expenditures that no advantage will be taken, that a hundred cents' worth of material and labour will be furnished for every hundred cents of expenditure. What do we find that the general manager says ? Upon going to interview the Copper Crown Company for the purpose of finding out what the output of the company was, he found that tlie company had exaggerated the output of their mine. That he stated in his evidence. Now, I would like hon. gentlemen in this House to compare this statement with what I am going to say. Where any company or individual want a siding run into their works, the company or individual construct a siding, pay for iP and afterwards, if the railway company have secured freight, and they have continued to secure freight they give the company, or the individual, a rebate on that freight to compensate for the expenditure made on this siding. That would have been a wise course to lwive taken in this case, but what do we find to be the fact ? After the company had exaggerated the amount of material taken out of their mine, the general manager goes away, notwithstanding that fact, and authorizes an expenditure of $20,000 on this siding over which to-day there is not a pound of freight passing, over which only 4,000 tons of freight have passed, and for which something like $3,000 has been paid. And it is a question whether there will ever be a pound of freight passing over that line again. If he had taken the proper course he would have said to this company : Construct your siding, we will haul your freight, and when you have earned sufficient in rebate on your freight you will get your money back. That would have been a guarantee to the people of Canada that they would not lose anything by the transaction, but there is something like $17,000 to date of a loss on the transaction, and there is yet due to Mr. Macdonald $500 for legal

expenses in connection with the transaction. This is one instance of the way in which this railway is conducted.
Again, we have a principle In this House and one which not only applies to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, but to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and to every department of this government, and it is this :	Who has the
better right to pass these estimates ? Whose duty is it, as representatives in this House, to pass these estimates ? Is it not as much our duty to assist in passing these estimates and to criticise them as it is the duty of hon. gentlemen opposite ? Is it not in the interest of the people that we should discuss these estimates ? In an honest discussion of these estimates there should be a method pursued by this government and that method should be that where any public work is to be constructed, I care not whether it is a canal, a railway, a public building, or whatever it is upon which public money is to he expended in this country, the department that wishes to expend this money on such a project, should first have their engineer, or other officer, whose duty it is, give a proper estimate of the cost of the work. Then, once the government agree on a policy in connection with it. and once they agree to perform that work, it is their duty to come down to this House and, supposing a work is to cost $1,000.000 and that the government feel that they cannot expend $1,000,000 this year, let them come down with $200,000 in their estimates for this purpose. Let them say : This $200,000 is to be expended on a certain work: we expect, according to the estimate, that the work will cost $1,000,000, each year following we hope to expend $200,000 until the expiration of five years, when we will have spent $1,000,000 on this work, and this amount, we expect, will complete it. What is the system that, is pursued to-day by the government ? They first come down to the House, and for instance, taking the case of the Sydney Railway extension, they ask for $8,000 to finish this work. Does the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals confine the expenditure to that ? Not at all. What does he do ? He first expends $649 in advertising a work which cost $8,000.
Then he goes on, irrespective of parliament, and he expends nearly $17,000 on a work for which he was only authorized to spend $8,000. Is that the proper duty of government? Is that the way in which the money of the people should be expended ? Certainly not. But it is only one example of the conduct of the Minister of Railways, and of other ministers. We have had a unfortunate spectacle not long ago, of a minister taking some $13,000 out of an expenditure that had been voted in 1901, and applying it to a work that had been begun in 1891. Is not that a disgraceful way to conduct the affairs of the country ? It is simply a farce for the representatives of the people to come to this parliament, and pretend to
pass estimates when we have ministers of the Crown expending the money in whatever way they please and without any reference to what parliament decreed. No language is too strong to condemn such conduct. So long ns I occupy a seat in this House, I shall to the best of my ability protest against such misappropriation of the money votes given by this House. My hon. friend beside me points out that it was sworn to that no less than $1,364.94 was paid for advertising in connection with three roundhouses, and when the general manager of the Intercolonial Railway was asked, why it was necessary to expend such a large sum for such a purpose, what was the answer of this brilliant manager of this government railway ? He told us : People are so busy now and the contractors have so much other work that we cannot secure their services without incurring this large expenditure for advertising. That is something like what we were told the other night, that the government could not get people to accept positions in connection with the census. Well. I congratulate the government. It is the first government that ever had the pleasure of not being able to find people to fill positions. I could speak, Sir. about the Curran railway tie monopoly, and about several other matters, and if I should speak of them, I could speak by the book, because the sworn evidence is before me. I want to knew, are the people of Canada going to stand this kind of thing from any government ? I want to know if they will allow ministers to do these things. When Mr. McManus, inspector of ties, was changed from his position as tie inspector to be assistant inspector of lumber, a question was asked of Mr. Russell, the manager of the Intercolonial Railway, as to the reason of tnat change, and the Minister of Railways thought it his duty to get up and object. In no business concern in the world would a question of that kind be objected to by the man who conducted the business. It is the most absurd thing I ever heard of. Had such an objection come from the member for Westmoreland or from others on that side, it would not be so strange, because they believed it their duty so far as they can to burk any inquiry that may damage the government, but when the objection comes from the Minister of Railways, who is responsible for the Intercolonial Railway, it is all the stranger still. I hope at a later period, and before these estimates are passed, to discuss other questions about the expenditure of public money. I trust that I shall do so without offending my opponents, and that whatever I say may add something to help to make the government railway what it ought to be-a paying concern to the people of this country.


Mr. TURGEON.: I rise not to commend the action of the Minister of Railways though I would be pleased to do that; but

to commend the action of the railway administration at Moncton, which is well known the Dominion over, never wittingly to have sinned for the love of the Liberal party. I speak with some reluctance, because it was not my intention to take part in the debate, but if X did not refute some of the statements made by the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) it might have gone to the province of New Brunswick that the member for Gloucester, from whose district largely these ties were supplied, felt that something had been done that ought not to have been done. I believe I am in a better position than perhaps other hou. gentlemen in this House to give a statement in relation to this matter. In a previous debate I dealt somewhat extensively with the general administration of the Intercolonial Railway, and I shall content myself now by referring to some matters of more local import. X expected that the hon. member for Iving's (Mr. Fowler) would have delivered an oration which would have gone to the province of New Brunswick as a great condemnation of the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, but the hon. gentleman's speech was short and ineffective. Far be it from me to impute a motive to any member on either side of this House, but sometimes I am amazed at the extraordinary memory of some gentlemen opposite, in its pliability to the requirements or the needs of whatever case they are trying to make out. When the inspector of ties was before the committee, he swore that he inspected ties for Mr. Curran and for Mr. Culligan, and for other parties during many years past. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who was the chief cross-examiner before the Public Accounts Committee, got up in his place and left it to be inferred by the House and by the country that the contract to Mr. Curran had been awarded before the election, and in order to serve the purposes of the election. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) made this statement in view of the sworn evidence of Mr. Pottin-ger, general manager, that the contract given to Frank Curran for ties was given in December, 1900, or in the early days of January, 1901, several months after the election, and therefore could not have been given for the purpose of influencing the electorate at that time. The general manager himself explained in his evidence, the first day he came before the Public Accounts Committee, that he had advertised for ties for the following year, just as he had done every year since the inception of the road. It is always in the fall of the year, in September, October, and sometimes in November, that ties are asked for by tenders for the next year. He stated that he required at least 000,000 ties for the following summer, and he made an appeal for tenders to the amount of 800,000, as the supplies of previous years had Mr. TURGEON.
invariably run short of meeting the requirements of the road. And I am hear to say that in the years 189S and 1899, Mr. Pott-Inger sometimes sent emissaries to me from Moncton, begging me to try to secure immediately in the district to which I belong ties of which the railway was short. On some occasions I was not able to do it, and they had to get the ties from the upper end of the province of Quebec in order to supply the foremen and the trackmen in the province of New Brunswick and the province of Nova Scotia what they required. Therefore, I say that when the general manager asked for 800,000 ties and in answer to that requisition obtained only 335,000, he was more than justified in taking the course he did. He was not influenced by any political or personal consideration, for I know that Mr. Pottinger has no personal interest in Mr. Curran, but he was bound to secure all the ties he would require for the following year ; and after having given that contract for 185,000 ties or thereabout, to Frank Curran, he was still short of the requirement. It has been stated in this evidence that he only gave that contract after having received in reply to his request tenders for only 350,000 ; and I ask every member of this House who has been in any way connected with railroads, if, after failing to get during the winter the supply of ties required for the following summer, he was not obliged to remain without them until the next winter. Therefore, the contract was given for no political consideration, but as a matter of necessity for the requirements of the road.
Then, again, comes the fact that after having given that contract to Frank Curran, the department had not yet contracted for the full quantities required for the next summer, and knowing by past experience that every summer he had been put to in-corivience because of the scarcity of ties and knowing also that the best quality of lumber for ties is getting scarcer and scarcer every year in our district, he said to those contractors, ' bring me all you can.' Is it to be supposed that for political considerations the general manager bought a number of ties and left them over for another year ? The road is bound to run for another year, and what is bought in one year will not have to be bought the next year. No doubt the reason why the general manager succeeded in getting a larger quantity of ties than he expected was that many men on the north shore, in the counties of Restigouehe and Gloucester, and I may say Northumberland as well, were induced to go into the tie business, which would enable them to stay at home during the winter instead of going into the lumber camps.
Then this stock of ties would be as valuable to the road the next year as it would have been this year. I even go further, and speak not from my own authority, but from the authority of men who have had

twenty or twenty-five years of experience on railroads in our district-not on the government railroad, but on railroads of private corporations. I speak especially from the authority of the traekmaster of the Caraquet Railway, which runs through the same district. He claims that if he had the means to do so, he would get all his ties a year in advance, because when a tie has been dried for a year it is more valuable and will last longer in the ground than a tie which is cut fresh from the wood.
Again the statement is made that the ties were no good. I know that complaints were macfe against the inspector. I know nothing personally of the action of the inspector. Although belonging to that district, I never had the pleasure of meeting the inspector from the time the contract was signed until I returned home last summer after my parliamentary duties had ended in June. It was while parliament was in session that I heard the complaint made against the inspector of receiving ties which were not according to the specifications. I might also add that while in this House last spring I received letters from some of my friends complaining of the difficulty they had to get their ties accepted by Inspector McManus, claiming that he was too strict, and that he should not have rejected their ties.
My own personal investigation has shown me that these men had a certain quantity of ties which were certainly not acceptable, and which Mr. McManus refused to accept. Regarding the letter of the minister about which so much has been said, in our locality the inspector has stated that there are two or three kinds of spruce, but that the best kind, which is black spruce, does not grow there. We only see it once in a while, and the spruce which he called white spruce is the ordinary spruce of the country. It is a quality of wood which is certainly even better than cedar for ties. Men of experience know that the white spruce will hold nails for the first five years better than cedar, and therefore is as valuable as cedar itself, which is considered a first class quality of wood for the purpose. I may say also that the supply of cedar is becoming exhausted in that district, so that it is a matter of necessity for the management of the road to accept the spruce which grows in that country. If the black spruce grew there, it is certainly to some extent superior to the white, but it is only a portion of the black spruce, at the butt of the tree, which can be used for ties. Some times out of one tree you will only get one first class tie, because ten or twelve feet from the root the wood has no more value for this purpose than the white spruce. When, therefore, the hon. minister, at the request of the contractor, whose political feelings cannot be appealed to for he is a well reputed Conservative, who worked for the Conservative party even after
he got this letter from the minister, accepted white spruce, he did what any business man would have done. No other spruce could be found in that locality, and it was in that locality the minister had to get his supply. That letter therefore, instead of reflecting on the conduct of the minister, shows that he had a practical knowledge of the locality and of the quality of wood required and which could be had there.
In answer to complaints a second inspection was ordered, and according to hon. gentlemen opposite that made a bad showing. Well, I claim that the ties which were supplied by these contractors and received by the inspector were fully equal in quality to those that were always received on the Intercolonial Railway during the administration of the late government. It has been shown also by the evidence of Mr. Pottinger and the inspector of ties that section foremen or traekmasters or roadmasters are often employed as inspectors themselves or as assisting the inspector, and it is well known that sectionmen, as a rule, are fully competent to judge the quality of ties which they are handling. In our district we have seven or eight section foremen. The county of Gloucester is an extensive county, and we have seven or eight sections running through it, and every one of the foremen employed-and who have been employed on the road fifteen or twenty years in most cases-declared over their own signature, and are ready to declare the same under oath if the opposition members want to call them as witnesses, that the ties received are just as good as those which had been received in previous years ever since they have been employed on the railway, and are even perhaps superior, if any discrimination is to be made. I now hold their signed statement in my hand. But these hon. gentlemen do not want to call these men. They only want the evidence of Mr. P. S. Archibald, and failing to get him they want none at all. We can conclude therefore that they must have a motive in refusing every other evidence except that of Mr. Archibald, who they called an engineer of the road. But Mr. Archibald has not been on the road during the last five years and as the reasons which brought about his dismissal have been referred to at length, I need not discuss them now. The inspector has declared himself that, according to his judgment, he was not accustomed to follow strictly the specifications but used his discretion in that respect, and he is a competent man who has been engaged in the lumber and tie business all his life. It is admitted by members on the other side, and it lias been proved, as well, that Mr. Chas. McManus is an honest man and that his family is one of the most honoured and respectable and well known perhaps in Nova Scotia as well as in New * Brunswick.
I do not think I need extend my remarks any further. All I intended was to sub-

stantiate the evidence of Mr. Pottinger and also the evidence of the inspector, as far as I could from my personal knowledge, and especially commend to this House the sound judgment of the present Minister of Railways when, travelling over the road and inspecting its work, in company with the officials, he took the action he did in the interests of the road and acting on the advice of most competent men.


Mr. TAYLOR.: As the minister is not here, I think it would toe well to let the item stand over. There has been no proper explanation given.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Which item is it ?


George Taylor: The item of $140,000 for rental of the Grand Trunk.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I thought it had been pretty well threshed out, but if hon. gentlemen opposite wish the item to stand, I will not object.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose, if there is anything we wish to say further about it, the hon. minister will have no objection to having it understood that we shall be free to say it on another item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will agree, then, that the item is carried with the understanding that the subject may be referred to on another item.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to collection of revenue-Prince Edward Island Railway, $275,000.


Mr. WILSON.: What is the explanation of this V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I thought we had gone over the whole railway service so thoroughly that it would not be deemed necessary to give any explanation of these items. If, however, any hon. gentleman desires it, we will suspend the vote on this department, in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, who has been obliged to leave, and take up the estimates of the Minister of Justice.


Robert Laird Borden: I think, perhaps, that would toe better. Last night, we did not go on quite as long as we might have done. And my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) and my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) have been obliged to take the train.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All the railway experts have left us, so we will proceed withi the estimates of the Minister of Justice.
Administration of Justice-Yukon territory- additional salary of judge, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This item appears here rather out of its order. If hou. gentlemen will look at page 26, they will see provision made for salary of judge in the Territorial Court, $4,000. This vote of $1,-Mr. TURGEON.
000 is intended to supplement the other, so as to pay a salary to the Yukon Territory1 judges of $5,000 each.


Uriah Wilson: What are the names of the judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Messrs. Craig and Dugas.
Salary of additional judge, S5.000.


Robert Laird Borden: These two judges form a sort of additional court, now, do they not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With the third judge it is proposed to appoint, they will. We are taking authority this session to appoint an additional judge. It is proposed that these three judges shall sit as a Court of Appeal from the judgment of a trial judge instead of carrying appeals to British Columbia. And, when the amount involved exceeds $2,000 there will be an appeal from the Territorial Court to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Yukon Territory-Living allowances of judges,


Robert Laird Borden: This is the same amount as was voted last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It is really an additional salary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. It is given in order to make the position of a judge in the Yukon the same as would be the position of a Superior Court judge in one of the older provinces.	The theory
is that they have to spend so much more for their maintenance, that a salary of $5,000 in that country would not put a judge there in the same position at all as a judge in any other part of Canada with that salary. I took the precaution to' get figures to show what the cost of living out there is. I have been told, for instance, that a house of a very modest character cannot be had in that country for less than $150 a month, that a house servant cannot be engaged for less than $100 a month; that the amount of fuel required is at least 30 cords of wood % year at $16 a cord, $480


George Taylor: And the government gave all its wood away.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Anyhow, we do not expect the judges to be obliged to go out and chop their own wood. Water there costs $20 a month, $240 a year. And so on. In view of these figures the allowance is not at all exorbitant. The item of house rent and service takes up the whole allowance.


Uriah Wilson: Is this $6,000 for the three judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, for two only.


Uriah Wilson: But you are going to appoint a third, you are making no provision for him.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, in the supplementary estimates. I may add that we propose in the supplementary estimates to provide a living allowance of $5,000 for each judge. I take this opportunity to let that fact be known that I may not be said to have taken the House by surprise when the item comes down.


Uriah Wilson: And there are travelling expenses also.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The vote of $1,500 for travelling expenses is merely tentative. It covers only travelling within the territory. The item was voted last year, but we have not been called upon to spend any of the money. But it may be found necessary for the convenience of suitors to sit at White Horse or Tagish, and this is to provide for such cases should they arise.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any particular object in dividing it up in this way, calling part salary and part living allowances ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have thought we should consider the propriety of giving the judges a round sum as a salary. But there is this objection, which I speak of not from personal experience, but from information I have received, that the country is not one in which a man can be expected to live for more than five or six years and be able to perform his duties. If we fixed the salary at $10,000 or $8,000, and then found it necessary to move a judge say, to the North-west and make an exchange, the question would arise whether, having appointed him at a fixed salary, we had any right to reduce it. It is suggested to me also by the Minister of Finance that the cost of living there may decrease, as we hope it will, and then we can decrease the living allowance, though we could hardly, in that case, decrease a salary.


Robert Laird Borden: It is also an advantage in respect to superannuation, from the country's standpoint.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, I had not thought of that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like, when the hon. gentleman does bring down his proposal with respect to $5,000 for living allowance, that he would furnish us with some data, because it seems to me a pretty large allowance in view of what the judges get in other parts of Canada. For instance, a great many items are comprised in this living allowance, and must necessarily be, in the salary which the judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia receives, $4,000 a year, or the judges of other provinces, with salaries somewhat higher in some cases. I do not know that 113
what you would call a living allowance in this case, would amount to in the salary of a judge in the other provinces. But whatever it may be, it seems to me that the cost of living in the Yukon must be very excessive indeed if a sum of $5,000 is a fair allow* ance. I am not disposed to be too particular about it, because it is right that the judges there should be adequately paid, but it seems to me, taking all things into consideration, it is a large allowance for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When it was suggested that the living allowance of the judges should be increased from $3,000 to $5,000, I asked the commissioner of the Yukon Territory, who is here, to give me some figures which would enable me to justify this increase to the House, and he gave me the figures I gave a moment ago. For instance, he says that a very modest house there will cost $1,S00 a year, one servant, $1,200, and other figures that I mentioned a moment ago. In addition, he says, speaking generally, that the cost of living in the Yukon Territory is at least four times greater than in eastern Canada. For instance, meat costs 75 cents a pound, potatoes 18 to 25 cents a pound; during the month of August last, potatoes sold as high as 30 cents a pound; apples and perishable goods of all kinds, 25 to 50 cents a pound. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his statement, and in view if it, $5,000 is really not an exorbitant amount for living allowance.
Salary of sheriff of Territorial Court, in addition to such fees of office as may be allowed by the Governor in Council, $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would ask, when did Sheriff Eilbeck return to the Yukon, and if he had leave of absence last winter, and for how long ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 1 think he had leave for three or four mouths, the first leave of absence, I understand, he had since being in that country.


George Taylor: What salary does he get 1


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The present salary is $3,000, and he has been receiving at the same time one-half the fees coming to his office. I think myself that it is a mistake to give any share of the fees to a public officer. I think it is better to pay them a fitting salary, and oblige them to render an account of the fees they receive in connection with their office. The fees paid out there were sufficient to enable the sheriff this year to have a salary of $5,000 or $6,000. When the supplementary estimates are brought down there will be a provision fixing the salary of the sheriff at $4,000 a year, and hereafter he will have no share of the fees.


George Taylor: I saw in the Auditor General's report that Sheriff Eilbeck received a commission of 3 per cent on $53,669, and 2



per cent on $57,065, making $2,751 for commissions lie made in selling government lands out there, besides $4,800. Then he spent four months of his time electioneering for hon. gentlemen opposite in West Durham. The figures I have given are found in the Auditor General's report, page L-46.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was not in connection with his office as sheriff. I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. Sheriff Eilbeck may have received that sum in some other capacity, but it was not in connection with his office as sheriff. But whatever his fees may have been in the past, I do not think he will be in receipt of any more. With respect to the statement that he was electioneering in West Durham, I made inquiry as to that-of course I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman-but my information is that he was not in West Durham, although I believe he lived somewhere in that locality. But I could get no information to the effect that he had been electioneering in that place.


George Taylor: I can furnish the information. I was up there, and I know something about it. I think that probably these commissions he got in selling this land he distributed, or a portion of them, in West Durham.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think that is likely.


George Taylor: That is the information 1 got.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the hon. gentleman's information must be wrong, because I do not think this gentleman would improperly use such money.


George Taylor: I know the gentleman very well, and I think he must have been supplied from other sources.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think that is quite right, because in the part of the riding that Sheriff Eilbeck was operating in, and he was canvassing closely, the election went very badly for the government. .


Robert Laird Borden: I think perhaps a very critical person might object to his salary going on while he was electioneering in West Durham, though I would not be inclined to say much about that. But does not the Minister of Justice think it is rather rubbing it in to ask us to pay for his living allowance while canvassing in West Durham ?


Uriah Wilson: When his salary is raised to $4,000, will he have to furnish his own living allowance ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He gets $1,800 in addition for living allowance.
Salary of clerk of Territorial Court in addition to such fees of office as may be allowed by the Governor in Council, $3,000.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: His salary also will be $4,000 a year, with a living allowance of $1,800. Under the present arrangement he makes considerably more than that, and we do not see why he should be in receipt of the emoluments of his office in addition to his salary.


Robert Laird Borden: It is far better to give him a fixed salary. What does the judiciary of the Yukon consist of ? There are three judges and two police magistrates.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are two judges in the High Court and two police magistrates, and the intention is to have three judges and confer upon these three judges the jurisdiction which these police magistrates have now, in the expectation that we will be able to dispense with one of the police magistrates.


George William Fowler: Where are these police magistrates located ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: One is at White Horse and one at Dawson.


Robert Laird Borden: These police magistrates are barristers, are they not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, Mr. Taylor, from Ontario somewhere, is a barrister. He is at White Horse. The other police magistrate is Mr. Macaulay, formerly of Belleville. He is at Dawson.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they allowed to practice as barristers ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the one at White Horse, I fancy, is not very much occupied with business. There is not a great deal of business to be done there, but at Dawson the police magistrate has a very great deal to do.


George William Fowler: Does the police magistrate at White Horse practice his profession?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, as far as I can gather from the return there does not appear to be very much to do either for the police magistrate or for the bar. However, it is necessary to have a man there.
To supplement the salary of the surgeon of the North-west Mounted Police at Dawson, on account of his attendance upon long term pi isomers, confined at the police guard-room, $400.


George William Fowler: Is that $400 in addition to his salary as surgeon of the police ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He receives as surgeon of the police a salary, and in addition to that he attends to the prisoners who are confined in the jail at Dawson. For the services he renders at the jail he receives $400.


Uriah Wilson: How much is his salary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that the salary of a surgeon of police in the territories, speaking from memory,

varies from $800 to $1,000. And tlien there are certain allowances in addition, but I am not prepared to say whether, in the Yukon, there is any additional salary or not. That is the salary in the territories.
Maintenance of prisoners, $40,000.


George William Fowler: Has the hon. minister any statement as to the number of prisoners there ?


Robert Laird Borden: And the expense of keeping them last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We spent last year $22,812, and the daily average of prisoners was 45. The arrangement is to pay $2 per day to the North-west Mounted Police. We account to them at the rate of $2 a day for each prisoner maintained by them, and of the amount of $22,812 there was $20,000 paid for the Dawson jail, and $1,900 at White Horse. Up to the present time this year the expenditure has been in the vicinity of $19,000.
Transport of prisoners, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What does that mean ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have not received from the mounted police the account, but I inquired at the mounted police office here to-day, and I was told that there will be about $3,000 due up to the present time for the services which have been rendered in that connection.


Robert Laird Borden: Where do they transport them to and from ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: From wherever they may happen to be arrested, from different portions of the territory. Some are brought to Dawson, some to White Horse, and a few to Tagish. They are chiefly brought to Dawson.


Robert Laird Borden: Where are those prisoners convicted and sentenced to penitentiary sent ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We keep
them in Dawson as far as possible. There are two convicts in Dawson who are hardened criminals and we thought that perhaps it would be better, as they are life prisoners, that we should move them to the penitentiary in British Columbia, as it would not be safe to keep them in Dawson. My hon. friend must bear in mind that there is a very considerable inconvenience caused by the movement of prisoners by reason of the fact that it is necessary to pass through American territory, and whenever we want to move a prisoner to British Columbia we are obliged to go through the formality of applying to the home authorities, and of having them apply to the Secretary of State at Washington, for the purpose of obtaining permission to take the prisoners through American territory. There are two whom we intend to move, and we have permission to do that.
113i
Witness and jury fees in criminal trials, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We spent $12,000 last year. It appears very large, but my hon. friend will remember that we pay $5 a day to a witness and $5 a day to a juryman. There were last year over eighty criminal trials in the territory, which resulted in this large expenditure.


Uriah Wilson: It appears that in almost every estimate you are asking considerably more than you spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, we are taking the same amount that we had last year, but we had more than we actually expended. I am speaking about what we have expended up to the present time.


Uriah Wilson: In some of these estimates you are asking nearly double the amount ?


William Humphrey Bennett: How often are trials by jury held in the year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I really cannot answer that question. My information is that courts are sitting almost continuously.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: All the time ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: An Order in Council has been passed enabling the commissioner of the Yukon Territory to fix the sittings of the court. Up to the present time the sittings have been regulated largely by the judges themselves. I really cannot say how many sittings they have in a year, but I know they profess to be very busy, and, judging from the returns, they must have a good deal to do.
Law books, &c., and freight thereon for the use of the bench and bar, and stationery and freight thereon for Territorial Court. $2,500.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is somewhat misleading. As a matter of fact, we have paid so far this year $1,817.04 in connection with that item-stationery, $1,318.06; freight on stationery, $345 and freight on some law books, $153.10, making in all, $1,817.04.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a law library for the use of the court provided by the government ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, we have provided a law library for the use of the court, and that includes, also, barristers in that portion of the country.
Miscellaneous expenses, including fees and expenses of Crown prosecutor, salaries and living allowances of stenographers for territorial and police courts, and other officials or employees connected with the administration of justice, coroner's inquests, &c., &c., $30,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is the Crown prosecutor and what is he paid ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Wade is the Crown prosecutor. He is now on

leave of absence and he has been replaced by Mr. Congdon, formerly a barrister of Nova Scotia. He is paid by fees which last year amounted to $7,768.91, but that included the services he rendered in connection with the celebrated O'Brien case which occupied thirty days in the trial.


George William Fowler: Is he paid any living allowance.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. Of course he has a large practice in addition to this.	/


George Taylor: He is doing well.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there not a barrister who holds the position of legal adviser to the Yukon council or something like that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think there is one, but the Minister of the Interior has the appointment of that officer. I really do not know who he is, or if there is one at present.


Robert Laird Borden: What I am considering is, why the legal adviser to the Yukon council should not attend to the duties of Crown prosecutor and save the country $7,000 a year. I do not know how much of his time would be occupied in advising the council of the Yukon, but I should not suppose there can be legal questions continually arising sufficient to take the time of a capable man. The minister might very well consider as to whether the legal adviser must not perform those other duties.


George William Fowler: As the minister expressed the opinion that payment by fees is not a very good principle, it might be a good idea to pay the Crown prosecutor by salary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think that you can apply that rule to the Crown prosecutor. He ought to be one of the leaders of the Bar in any part of the country where he performs his duty, and if he is to be of any use at all he ought to be in active practice. In my own province the Crown prosecutor is paid by fees, except in the city of Montreal.


George William Fowler: He could be allowed to practice outside, and receive a salary at the same time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When I speak of fees, I mean that he gets a per diem allowance. He is paid by the Crown and I presume he considers the Crown as an ordinary client. His services are permanently retained by the Crown in all criminal matters.


George William Fowler: By whom are these fees taxed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They are taxed by the Department of Justice, here the same as the fees of any other counsel who have a claim against us.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Robert Laird Borden: It occurred to me that a gentleman capable of filling the position of legal adviser to the council of the Yukon ought to be capable of conducting these prosecutions, and I would think he would have sufficient time at his disposal to do so. I know that the late Sir John Thompson when he was Attorney General of Nova Scotia performed the duties of legal adviser such as are incident to the filling of that position, and he conducted all criminal prosecutions at Halifax as well. Of course at the same time he was engaged in an extensive legal practice outside. If there is no objection on the ground of public policy-and none occurs to me at this moment-I would be inclined to think that the legal adviser might very well do this work which Mr. Wade is paid for doing. I think the minister should look into that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That seems to be a very reasonable suggestion, and if my bon. friend will renew the question when the supplementary estimates come down, I will in the meantime make inquiries as to whether there is a legal adviser at the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is. If I remember aright Mr. Congdon went from the Bar of Nova Scotia to fill that office.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And he was replaced by Mr. Frank Newlands from the North-west Territories, formerly of Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, Mr. Newlands also came from Halifax many years ago. Mr. Congdon, I believe, resigned to enter into partnership with Mr. Wade, and I think Mr. Newlands took his place. I would suggest that Mr. Newlands might have sufficient time at his disposal to discharge the duties of Crown prosecutor along with his other duties.


William Humphrey Bennett: What leave of absence did Mr. Wade get, and is he paid anything during his absence ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He has four months leave of absence which I understand is the first leave he got since he has been in the Yukon. Mr. Congdon, his business partner acts as Crown prosecutor in his absence.


George William Fowler: What are the fees paid per day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In connection with the O'Brien case which was a very serious case, Mr. Wade was allowed $100 a day.


Mr. LANCASTER.: What are the duties of the legal adviser.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I really do not know what he does. He is under

the Department of the Interior, and we have no control over him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do I understand the minister to say that he knows nothing about this legal adviser.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I know nothing about it. He is controlled by the Department of the Interior, but of course the Crown prosecutor comes under the Department of Justice. I believe the legal adviser is a semi-judicial officer who is a member of the council and acts as legal adviser, and I would suppose performs to some extent the duties of the Attorney General of a province.


George William Fowler: How many stenographers are there, and what are their salaries ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Two ; and their salaries, under the new Order in Council, will be $2,000 a year, which will be in lieu of all fees and other emoluments.
I may say that last year the stenographers fees amounted to $5,833.86 ; but that is going to stop.


George William Fowler: What is the living allowance ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: $1,800 a year.


George William Fowler: Do they do duty in the police court ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The two stenographers are supposed to be sufficient to perform all the duties in both the high court and the police court.
Penitentiaries-general, ft.290.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the increase ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The increase is $2,730. It is made up by an additional inspector at $2,600, a statutory increase of $30 to the stenographer, and $100 increase to the office contingencies.
Kingston penitentiary, $187,500.


George Taylor: Are they manufacturing binder twine at Kingston Penitentiary now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, not now. We got face to face with a difficulty which has to be dealt with. I am glad my attention has been called to that, because I wish to refer to it. Last year this House passed the following resolution :
That so long as the government continues to manufacture twine, the same shall be offered for sale directly to farmers up to July the 1st of each year at cost of material and manufacture, calculating wages on the basis of fair wages for free labour ; and that the twine unsold and on hand on July 1st of each year be sold by tender to the highest bidder, after advertisement.
We consider now that we are bound by this resolution of the House, and the result has
been as follows. The annual output of the penitentiary was 500 tons. Acting on this resolution, the farmers were called on to come and purchase binder twine. As a result, up to the 1st of July we had applications from 850 farmers. Of these 220 were from Prince Edward Island, 17 from New Brunswick, 130 from Quebec, 85 from Manitoba, 24 from the North-west Territories, 1 from British Columbia, and 359 from Ontario. The average of these orders was 120 pounds, and the total amount purchased was 45 tons ; so that on the 1st of July we found ourselves in possession of something over 300 tons of binder twine out of the total production of 500 tons. We had to keep it until the 1st of July for the farmers, and then we sold it at public auction. We called for tenders, and there were three tenders put in, and the binder twine was awarded to a man named Henderson Black, of St. John's in the province of Quebec. Of course, we sold the twine at a sacrifice, because at that time the farmers had all made their purchases, and the people in the trade had obtained their stock. It is absolutely impossible for us to do business there if we are going to conform to this resolution, and the loss on the business of last year is in the vicinity of $10,000. We are in the hands of the House if the House maintains this resolution ; but while I am at the head of the department, I will not take the responsibility of carrying on business on any such conditions.


Mr. BLAIN.: Will the minister explain what kind of twine they have been manufacturing there-the different qualities ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand that the quality was the very best. After the 1st of July we had 586.973 pounds of mixed grades,"ana (10.000 pound's of sisal. That was disposed of, as I said a moment ago, to Mr. Henderson Black.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. minister to give to the committee a statement of the quantities of the different kinds that were manufactured there last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot give it off hand.


Richard Blain: I wish to read this letter to the House. It is somewhat startling, after the statement of the minister. It appears that they have been making a kind of binder twine which the farmers do not want and are therefore unable to sell it. I wrote a letter to the warden of the penitentiary and here is his reply dated 17th June last:
Your esteemed favour of 15th instant, came to hand this morning and I have sent Mr. Hare samples as requested. I also mail you to-day, under particular cover, half a dozen of the samples and some circulars. You will notice that our 'pure manllla' and 'standard' stocks are exhausted and consequently I am not sending you the samples of these brands.

Therefore on the 17th June every particle of pure manilla which was manufactured was exhausted, and every particle of the standard, so that it is hardly fair to say that the farmers did not take advantage of their opportunities. But if the penitentiary is going to manufacture a kind of twine which is not used, it must expect to have it left on hand.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend has the advantage of me in this, that he speaks as an expert. I would ask him to tell us what kind of twine we ought to manufacture in order to get a market, and comply with the terms of this resolution. In past years we had no difficulty whatever in selling our twine.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman said last year and there was nothing new in the resolution moved, because they had been operating that very system of selling twine in the past to the farmers.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like the hon. gentleman to quote me the statement I made and I am prepared to repeat it now.


Richard Blain: I will get it before the discussion is through. But I would repeat that if the minister expects a market for his twine, he must manufacture -the kind that the farmers require. It is well known that the kind of twine more used than any other, particularly in the province of Ontario, is pure manilla twine. But the minister has not been giving attention to the demands of the farmers. He has been manufactu-ing a kind of twine which the farmers do not require. The kind of twine which the farmers do require was all sold on the 17th June under the new resolution. The minister asks if I will be good enough to state the kind of twine that the penitentiary ought to manufacture. That is an easy statement for any man to make.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If he is capable of doing it.


Richard Blain: All I have to say is that if the minister is going to conduct the business he ought to know or find some man who does. He complains that there is a stagnation in the business, because the farmers do not take advantage of the terms offered in the resolution. But it is the duty of the government to find out the kind of twine the farmers want, and to make that kind of twine. What the farmers want is pure manilla twine and the second grade, which is a mixed manilla and sisal twine, and the total quantity of the two kinds mentioned which the hon. gentleman manufactured last year was sold out before the 17th June. I know that orders were in from my county that could not be filled, and therefore it is hardly fair to say that the farmers will not take advantage of the twine manufactured.


Richard Blain: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I believe in the old adage that a cobbler should stick to his last. I am not a manufacturer of binder twine, but there are men at the head of the penitentiary, not chosen by myself but appointed previous to 1890, to carry on the business, and they have carried it on up to the present, and I did not think I could do better than allow them to carry it on as they understand it. I made no statement as to what occurred as the result of that resolution other than to quote the statement of the inspector, Mr. Stewart, who inaugurated the business, which will be found on page 9 of the report of the penitentiary, and which is confirmed by the warden of the penitentiary, to be found on page 30 of the same report. I accept the responsibility of what these men do, as I do not believe I can do better than follow their advice.


Richard Blain: Do they advise the hon. gentleman to make a poorer grade of twine than the farmers want to purchase.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I deny that statement, and I deny it on the authority of men, who are not there by my choice but by that of hon. gentlemen opposite. I take the responsibility for what they have done, and it is for the House to choose between the statement of my hon. friend and that of competent officials.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to make a statement.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But you did make it.


Richard Blain: I did not make it. I did not say that the twine manufactured is an inferior grade or that it is not properly made, or that the material used is not up to the standard claimed, but what I do say is that if the minister will continue to make a grade of twine which is not in demand in this country, he cannot expect the farmers to buy it, and I repeat that twine which he manufactured last year of pure manilla and the second grade twine was all purchased, under the resolution passed by this House the 17th June last.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The statement I made was this. The practice previous to the introduction of this resolution was to dispose of the twine to the farmers as they applied for it, but that did not prevent our disposal of the twine by tender previous to the 1st July. We disposed of it to the farmers as they came, and disposed of the balance to the traders.


Richard Blain: So far as the clause in the resolution is concerned, providing that the twine should be sold after 1st July by public tender, I had no connection with the resolution which was proposed by an hon. member on that side.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I hope my hon. friend does not imagine that I hold

him responsible for everything said in connection with binder twine.


George Taylor: But the minister inferred that the resolution of last year was moved by a member of the opposition.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, it was passed with one dissenting voice, and was suggested by the hon. member for Alberta (Air. Oliver). All I said was that it was a resolution which had been passed by the House.


George Taylor: I took it as a resolution approved by the government and introduced by the hon. member for Alberta. The hon. gentleman said that Air. Stewart was the gentleman who had inaugurated the system. He had nothing to do with the inauguration of the system of manufacturing binder twine at Kingston. He was Sir John Thompson's secretary up to the time Sir John Thompson left the government, and was then appointed as inspector of the penitentiary, but the penitentiary had been manufacturing binder twine for a year or two before his appointment.


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: For what Air. Stewart has done in connection with binder twine I accept all responsibility and consider him a very competent man.


George Taylor: He was not the man who inaugurated the manufacture.
The A1INISTER OF JUSTICE. I think he was. It began in January, 1894.


George Taylor: Air. Stewart was not inspector at that time.


George Taylor: Then, the present warden, Air. Platt, the gentleman who wrote that letter was not appointed by friends of hon. gentlemen on this side, but by the hon. minister himself ? He is the head of the institution.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not mean to give the impression that anybody is responsible for what is done except myself. I did not wish to shirk the responsibility and put it upon an official. As long as an official is with me I am responsible for what he does.


George Taylor: But the hon. gentleman says that the man who directs this industry was appointed by hon. gentlemen on this side. Now, Air. Platt was appointed by himself.


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But Air. Connor was not.


George Taylor: But the gentleman who wrote that letter on June last was appointed by the hon. minister, and the manufacture of binder twine is carried on in an institution of which he is the head. Now, with reference to the price, the price obtained in July last was as good as any obtained for the last two or three years.


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am told not.


George Taylor: In one or two years, perhaps it was sold at a less price than that named by my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman has told us that only three tenders were received. Who were they from and what were they ? I never saw a notice of the twine on hand being sold by tender last July. Was it publicly advertised or were only a few friends of the government asked to put in bids ?


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was advertised in the Toronto * Globe,' the Hamilton ' Times.' the London ' Advertiser," the Montreal ' Herald,' the Alontreal ' La Patrie,' the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' the London ' Record,' the Brandon ' Sun,' and the Windsor 1 Record.' In addition, the two dealers who had purchased the previous article and other dealers were asked to put in tenders.


William Humphrey Bennett: What Toronto papers were there ?


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Toronto ' Globe ' is the only one I see mentioned in this list. Tenders were received from Henderson Black, the Hobbs Hardware Company, the Ontario Binder Twine Company and S. S. Dickinson. The question is whether we should continue this industry, and I do not see any reason why we should not, particularly in view of the large amount of plant we have on hand. I do not see why we should not keep that plant running and why we should not change the product we put on the market so as to make it more attractive. With that in view, I am ready to take the advice of anybody who is competent to express an opinion on the matter. I have absolute confidence in the two men who have charge of the administration of this industry. At the same time the industry has not been as profitable as it ought to have been-I have to admit that. There is no reason why we should not change and make it profitable. I do not pretend to know anything about the manufacture of binder twine. Why should I ? But I have two experts to advise me. Air. Platt, I do! not consider an expert on this subject. But Air. Connor is an expert. He was put there to carry on this business, and gets a large salary for doing so. Air. Stewart who has been in the service from the inception of this industry is also there to advise me. I will take their advice. But I will likewise take the advice of any others who are competent to speak upon the subject. My desire is to carry on this industry profitably for the benefit of the country, not for the benefit of the farmer only, but for the benefit of the country as a whole.


Uriah Wilson: Is the plant now running ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At the present time It would not be profitable to carry on the business, because the price of manilla has gone so high.


Uriah Wilson: But the hon. minister is paying help ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: None except Mr. Connor.


Uriah Wilson: He is keeping the expensive men V


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I gave the minister advice last year, and I wish to repeat it now- and that is to sell out everything you have got in this line, if you cannot get better than scrap-iron prices for it, and get out of the business. This is not a business for the government to go into, I 'have said before, and I say now, it was started as a sort of bait to catch the farmers, to convince them that we were going to give them assistance. The farmers can look after themselves better than we can look after them, and the manufacturers of binder twine will attend to that business. Let us not be hedging and trying to make ourselves and others believe that we are generously trying to help the farmers. Sell out the whole thing and give Mr. Connor something else to do.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In view of the great stress laid this afternoon on the fact that the Intercolonial Railway was such a good means of holding up the other railways, I should think that it would have occurred to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) that this manufacture of binder twine would help us to keep down the prices charged by manufacturers. and I should have thought that that would appeal to so good a free trader as the hon. gentleman.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There is this difference- there is no other 'line where the Intercolonial Railway is. Besides, this railway is the bond which unites the provinces, and the construction of it was the reason why we became part of the Dominion. But in the manufacture of binder twine there is competition. There is no duty. The business is open to those who care to engage in it.


Mr. BOYD.: Has the hon. minister any suggestion from his officials in regard to the future manufacture and disposal of binder1 twine ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The suggestion is that we should continue. It is true that we produce but 500 tons of binder twine a year, while the quantity sold in Canada in 1901 was 5,837 tons. Therefore, the quantity we produce is-


George Taylor: A drop in the bucket.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Just about a drop in the bucket. But we must look at it in this way also-by this industry we give employment to from forty to fifty-five inmates of the prison. If we can carry on this business so as not to


Uriah Wilson: lose anything and give this employment, and also, to some extent control the market -I cannot say that it affects the prices much, but has something to do with it-it is a good thing. If, with the plant we have and with the experience we have gained we can carry on this business, we ought to do it. We have forty odd thousand dollars invested there.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: And you lost ten thousand last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: For one reason or another the business has not been profitable from the beginning. But it seems to me we ought to be able to do something with it. If we cannot make binder twine we ought to be able to make rope. But, in the first place, we must get rid of this resolution and have a free hand to manage this business as we understand it, having of course, the responsibility of coming here and explaining what we are doing in that industry. But, so long as you tie us down by the terms of this resolution we cannot carry on that business profitably. I prefer to have a free hand, subject to the duty of coming here and rendering an account of my stewardship.
Hon. Mr. IiOSS (Victoria, N.S.). I know a little about binder twine and a good deal about cordage. The same rule applies to both. If you want a first-class binder twine, you must make it of pure manilla* The second-class is a mixture with sisal, and the third is almost altogether sisal. The farmers will buy the best quality of binder twine just as the fisherman will buy the best quality of rope. The mistake that has been made should be avoided in the future, and nothing but the best quality of twine Should be made. That will be sold readily.


Richard Blain: Can the minister tell us what the twine cost last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot tell what the cost of manufacturing it was. If my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) will look at the report of the Minister of Justice, page 32, he will find a statement prepared by the warden of the Kingston penitentiary-the binder twine account. I can give no further Information than is contained in that account.


Richard Blain: When the minister makes a statement that he sold twine and lost a great deal of money, he should be able to tell the committee the cost of the article he was selling.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I ask the hon. gentleman to take page 32, he will there find that the hemp purchased cost $31,830.81, that is the total amount of hemp purchased. The oil purchased cost $1,022. Advertising, bags, paper and things of that kind have got to be charged up against the twine. In addition, the labour has got to be charged up. If the hon. gentleman

will look at tliat page of the account lie will find all the information I can possibly give him.


Richard Blain: How does the resolution tie him down, and why does he ask for the resolution to be discontinued ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It ties us down in this respect, that the proper time to dispose of binder twine in the market to the traders and the farmers, is previous to the 1st of July, that is the time the trader puts in his stock. And as the farmer wants his binder twine from July onward, if you keep the twine in your possession until July, and then advertise for tenders, you would put it in the market at the time the traders are stocked.


Mr. HOLMES.: There is another difficulty in connection with the sale of binder twine to the farmers that has not been mentioned. If I remember rightly, the resolution last year was a sort of a compromise, and if you sell twine to the farmers and thus prevent a combination among the manufacturers, I think you will find as a result that you will have to sell binder twine to the manufacturers, for this reason, that the farmer is required to pay cash to the government for twine, while lie can buy it from all the dealers, or from their agents, and pay for it in the fall. Consequently he will not buy it, as a rule, from the government.


Richard Blain: I think there is something in that. But the farmers in the main are paying cash for their binder twine at this moment in the province of Ontario. I made the statement that the minister made, saying that the resolution did not change very much the former practice of the government I now refer to. I wish to read his remarks on page 569 of the ' Hansard ' of last year :
I will now proceed to deal with the motion, and in speaking to that motion I will state iimnediateily that we have no quarrel with that portion of it, and we cannot have a quarrel, because, since August, 1899, we have been doing what that motion says we ought to do.
I would like to ask the minister how the resolutions has affected him this year, when he made a statement last year that they were doing the very same thing and had been since 1899 ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I repeat the statement I made, that it hampers us in this respect, that we are obliged to keep twine on hand up to the 1st of July so as to dispose of it to the farmer. The twine remains in our possession until the 1st of July, and if we put it on the market then we have practically no purchasers for it, and that is what I meant to say last year.


Richard Blain: According to this letter, pure manilla twine, and the second grade was all sold on the 17th day of June, and sold at the price set down by the minister
himself, therefore there could be no loss upon that porton of the manufacture. Would the minister now state how much the twine cost that was sold after the 1st of July, and let us find out how much the government really did lose ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I can not tell what that portion of the twine, that is to say, the 300 tons sold out to the 1st of June-I cannjt tell what that portion cost, it is absolutely impossible. All I can say is that according to the accounts furnished by those who were in charge of that branch of the industry, there was a loss of over $10,000 on that portion.


Richard Blain: If the minister is selling this twine at a loss, it is the fault of his department-I do not wish to charge it to the minister personally. But this penitentiary having been manufacturing twine for so many years, it would be their duty to watch the market, and if they had manufactured the proper kind of twine last year, made of pure manilla, or second grade twine, they could have sold every dollar's worth of it, because many orders came in that the penitentiary was unable to fill. I have a statement here which, however, I will not read, and which perhaps I had better turn over to the hon. minister. I have no hesitation in saying that if the government manufacture the proper kind of twine and in the proper way, they would have no trouble whatever in finding an output for the small amount they manufacture. I have here the answer to my question this session, where I am told that Henderson and Black bought twine at $4.80 per hundred weight for sisal, and $1.10 per 100 weight for mixed twine. I wish to make the statement that if that is a correct answer to my question, it is utterly impossible for this government to lose any such an amount of money as the minister has stated.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course the hon. gentleman knows something about binder twine, and in that respect he has an advantage over myself. Would he be good enough to tell us, now or later on, the quality of the twine, or the character of the twine, that we ought to manufacture, so as to obtain a ready sale.


Richard Blain: I read the letter saying that their pure manilla and standard stocks were exhausted on the 17th day of June. I was asking for samples of pure manilla to be sent to our own county. In response to my letter, I got a statement from one of your own officers that they were sold out of pure manilla and standard twine. That will answer the minister's question. I state again that pure manilla twine is the kind which ought to be manufactured in the Kingston penitentiary. If the department will manufacture that kind of twine, according to their own evidence in this letter, they would have no trouble in selling it.
3C03


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is, we ought to manufacture pure manilla and standard in order to have a market in this country ?


Richard Blain: That is my opinion.


George Taylor: The minister asked for a free discussion as to how to conduct this business. My suggestion would be to go back to first principles. This industry was started by the present Justice Ouimet, who was then Minister of Public Works. He purchased and put in the plant, and started that industry long before Mr. Stewart's time. The policy he adopted was the policy any other manufacturing concern would adopt. If this government want to go into manufacturing they must conduct their business the same as any other business man, they must put an agent on the road and sell it to the retail dealers. That is the way it was done before.


Mr. SCOTT.: Did they lose money by it ?


George Taylor: They did not lose money by it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have not been paid yet for the product of 1895.


George Taylor: I discussed that a long time ago with the hon. gentleman, and he answered the question by saying tnat these accounts had all been secured. He has security from Mr. Connor which is good for a portion of it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It will be secured now.


Mr. DAYIS.: What about Rogers in Manitoba ?	,	,


George Taylor: Rogers paid for his. The only man who is behind is Connor and the government have had some dealings with Connor in twine since.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not to my knowledge.


George Taylor: The government sold to merchants all over the country, but because the whole of the twine was not paid for on the first of July, when the Auditor General's report was brought down, these customers were shown as owing at that time. But, these accounts were all paid. The hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) as a manufacturer, has to sell his goods on credit, to the retail merchants of this country. and he gives thirty days, or four months as the case may be. That is what every manufacturer does, and if this government will start this industry and conduct it on business principles, manufacture the twine, put an agent on the road and sell to the trade generally they will control the market against the monopoly. Merchants will buy twine and sell at a small advance, and whether they want to sell for cash or credit, the farmers are in a position to buy from them.


Richard Blain: There are just two ways of doing it. The hon. gentleman for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) suggested to the government that they should smash up and sell for scrap iron $40,000 worth of machinery for the manufacture of binder twine and cordage. He says we do not require to have this industry in the country now because we get twine free from the United States. It is duty free but we cannot manufacture in Canada and send the twine to the United States free of duty.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What is the duty ?


George Taylor: The customs regulations of the United States are such that manilla brought into this country, manufactured and sent back there has to pay duty. Twine made of manilla or partly manilla in Canada cannot go back to the United States free.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How does that affect the consumers here ?


George Taylor: The hon. Minister of Justice gave the figures of the consumption in Canada last year. How much of it was made in the country ? Why can we not manufacture binder twine in this country instead of bringing it from the United States ? The government can start that machinery running and make a success of It because the country requires manilla and standard twines. If you look at the Auditor General's report, page M-50, you will find that the sales were as follows :
Pure manilla (Maple Leaf) 66,088 pounds, average i rice, 11J cents to 12 cents per pound.
Sisal, 13,051i pounds, average price, 9 cents per pound.
Mixed manilla (Monarch), 4,360 pounds, average price, 81 cents per pound.
Standard, 26,430 pounds, average price, 71 cents per pound.
Beaver, 71,5151 pounds, average price, 9 cents per pound.
New Zealand (Red Tape), 60 pounds, average price 8 cents.
These are the prices the government asked the farmers to pay and they are high prices. If you will turn to the statement of raw material in the Auditor General's report you will find that they did not buy a pound of pure manilla. They bought New Zealand fibre, something that they ought uot. to have bought at all because It will only make third or fourth rate binder twine. They bought of New Zealand fibre 90,306 pounds, sisal 439,985 pounds, and manilla fibre 135,540 pounds. But, the great bulk of the raw material was New Zealand fibre which we purchased to make twine out of. So that, they made a very inferior article. Whether this was due to the fact of manilla being too dear or not I do not know, but, I maintain that the government can manufacture binder twine the same as any other manufacturing industry in the country would do. Or. if they do not wish to do that, let them rent the machinery to some person

who will carry on the industry and the convict labour with it. Let them rent this industry to somebody who will start the machinery humming and make money out of it. In this way the government will be able to control the American ring and Canadian combination. These people have kept the price of binder twine up ever since this government took control of the industry, This government cancelled the policy of the late government in regard to the binder twine Industry. The late government had engaged a man to go out as a travelling agent and sell the output of the industry for five years. Since hon. gentlemen opposite have come into power they have cancelled the appointment of thp travelling agent and they have sold to the Hobbs Hardware Company, and to some others of their friends without asking for tenders at all, simply sending a letter out to one of two of their friends. Moreover, they sold the twine at a loss. I do not think the government were justified in selling it at 4 or 5 cents a pound to this firm in St. John. If they could not get a satisfactory price they should have held it over until next season and got 10, 12 or 15 cents a pound for it as I presume the farmers would be willing to pay this in view of the fact that the American and Canadian combinations have joined hands for the purpose of squeezing them. If the hon. minister asks his hon. friend the member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) to introduce a resolution similar to that which he moved last year, I am satisfied that all hands will vote for it. Let the hon. minister either establish this industry on a business footing, or let him rent the machinery, together with the convict labour, to a private individual.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I think it would be very unfortunate to have that industry closed up. It may not pay but I think there are two sides to this question. If it does not pay as a financial concern from a government point of view, perhaps it will pay from the point of view of the farmers interests. Perhaps I do not make myself quite clear. If by running it as a government institution we lose a little money perhaps this would be more than compensated for by the saving which it would enable the farmers to make in the purchase of their binder twine. It may be that the officials in control of this industry are in need of ideas and do not keep pace with the times, and perhaps, though the person in control may be a skilled artisan, his ideas are not up to date. I do* not agree with the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). I generally agree with him. But. we have now free coal oil and we have one of the biggest combinations that exists in Canada, I fancy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) means free wire, not free coal oil.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Well it is nearly free anyway, and we have combinations that are running that institution and controlling it in their own Interest. I think we might talk about this matter as a business proposition that is going to benefit the great bulk of the farmers in Canada. I do not think that because we are from Ontario we should monopolize all the opinions in reference to binder twine. There is the great North-west, and the maritime provinces which require a large amount of binder twine and for that reason I feel concern for the interests of the farmers throughout the Dominion of Canada generally. If that institution has the effect of preventing a combination in binder twine, we will reap beneficial results from it just as we reap beneficial results from our canal system which keeps down the transportation rates. I agree that it would be well now to start that machinery to produce a certain amount of binder twine. Now that the transaction has passed. I would respectfully ask the Minister of Justice if he does not think that it would have been better to have kept that twine, and not to have sold it at all.


Nathaniel Boyd: We instructed him to do so.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Well, to that extent the resolution was a mistake. We could have held that twine just as well as anybody else, and if the public knew it was there, there would be no attempt to start a combination against the farmers this coming harvest. It appears to me that although the government may not run this industry as a paying concern, yet it is useful to the country in as much as it tends to regulate the price of binder twine to the farmers of the country.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I believe with the member for Guysborough, that it would be better for the country if the government went out of the business of binder twine making. 1 do not think that it js the function of government to enter into that business at all. However, if we are going to manufacture binder twine then the government should not be hedged around with such a resolution as that but should be allowed to have a free hand to dispose of the twine in the best interests of the people. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) no doubt knows a good deal about binder twine, but when he says that the government should manufacture only two kinds, I would ask him is he not aware of the fact that other manufacturers are making several kinds of twine and disposing of it successfully.


Nathaniel Boyd: Since the Inauguration of this industry in the Kingston penitentiary I have been watching its career with some interest. I was in this House when it was established and I favoured it then. Sir John Thompson took a very deep Interest in this question at the time. His expectation was that it would have the effect of

controlling the price of binder twine to some extent. I am free to confess that under the Conservative regime the disposal of the twine was not as successful as we had hoped, but there was the excuse for that that it was our first attempt in undertaking a new industry, and we had to do it in face of the most bitter opposition from the other manufacturers of binder twine. X do not hesitate to say that such opposition still exists. Let me point out that au increased charge for binder twine is a far greater tax on the farmers than the duty on agricultural implements, because a farmer will use every year from 500 to
1.000	pounds, and a difference of four or five cents a pound in the price-and they seem to charge whatever price for it .that they can get from the farmers-means yearly a tax of $40 or $50 on each farmer which is rather a serious matter. The minister stated that something like 850 pounds had been bought in Manitoba previous to July. There was nearly a car load of this twine sold in Carberry last year, and I used
1.000	pounds myself. I think the grade was inferior to that mentioned by the hon. member for Peel, but nevertheless it gave satisfaction. This was the first year the penitentiary managed the business under the new system, and in many cases the farmers knew nothing about the sale of the twine until near the expiry of the time allowed. We may imagine that information given in this House spreads rapidly, but frequently it does not. From listening to the minister to-night I would judge that officials in the penitentiary are like other officials ; they do not like innovations. They do not like people from the outside to tell them how they should do their business and I expect that the officials in charge of the manufacture of this twine are like all others in that respect. They do not care to be dictated to, and they have no doubt very little confidence in the members of this House who might be considered by others as experts in the binder twine business. In all probability the minister may ascertain later on that something of that spirit of personal pride accounts for the failure of the twine industry at the penitentiary. If the minister of Justice, active and energetic as he is, had himself been in charge of the binder twine, there would be a different story to tell. Now, as to what the member for Guys-borough said. It is all very well for a gentleman like him to treat this question lightly but if he represented a constituency as we from the west do, where this is a very important question, he would possibly be one of the loudest in support of this industry which he wishes to have wiped out. I would remind the hon. gentleman that there are certain government enterprises in the east which do not pay their way, but nevertheless we in the west have to grin and bear it. I think that possibly this item had better stand until the minister comes
down at some future day with a proposal. He is young and energetic and if he will only take the interest in the matter that the late Sir John Thompson did, he will make a success of the business. There is no reason why the convicts should be idle. They might as well be employed at that work as anything else, and I have learned from some of the officials that the manufacture of the binder twine is a most desirable employment for them, and especially for the long term prisoners. At all events it would be very unfortunate if we should act on the hasty and ill considered suggestion of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser).


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The fixed opinion of the officials is that we should continue to manufacture this binder twine. They believe that by making - certain reductions in salaries and so forth, we will be able to carry it on without any great loss if not at a profit. We have always to bear in mind the very serious question of finding employment for the convicts, and it was in order to meet that difficulty that this business was inaugurated. If I take what has been said to-night and especially the opinion of the experts who have spoken, the conclusion I am driven to is that the officials more immediately in charge of the binder twine industry have not kept up to date, and are not equal to the position they occupy ; and I am going to say here now, that while I give my loyal assistance to any man so long as he is with me, no man is going to remain long with me who is not equal to the position he occupies. With respect to the system of disposing of the twine, my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said a moment ago that there ought to be agents on the road. Let us deal with our experience. That system was inaugurated, and what was the result ? In 1S95 over $30,000 -worth of twine was sold by an agent and delivered. Previous to the month of November he was actually paid for the greater part of it. When the change of government took place in 1896 we had not received a dollar of the money that had been paid to the agent. Up to within a few days ago there was over $9,000 still due on the twine sold by that agent at that time. I am not making this statement for the purpose of recrimination at all. The product of the year 1895-6 had not been disposed of when the change of government took place in July, 1896, because of the difficulty in connection with the agent. There is our experience which I am stating simply to show the difficulties attendant on the management of this industry. After that I conceive that it was justifiable on the part of the government to endeavour to dispose of this twine by public auction. Tiie result has not been satisfactory in the highest degree ; but at all events, we have been paid for our output ; we have


Nathaniel Boyd: got our money in exchange for our twine, which has been disposed of at a fairly reasonable price. I do not think there is much to be said as to the disposal of the twine. Any complaint that I have heard has brought me to the conclusion that the reason we have not been able to dispose of this twine up to the present time is, in the first place, that we have not manufactured the particular quality which appeals to the farmer, and, secondly, that we have been hampered by this resolution of the House. What ought we to do ? We ought to take account of what has been said to-night, make inquiries of those familiar with the situation, make the kind of twine that is suitable to the market, and then dispose of it in the right way. The question is, ought we to sell it through an agent or by public auction ? Our experience with an agent has not been satisfactory.


George Taylor: You did not do it right.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not stated that we did not, but that those who went before us did not. I have asked for advice on this question from men who are perfectly competent, and they advised me to put one or two agents on the road, and not deal with them as we did before, but authorize them to simply take orders and then execute these orders at the penitentiary. We may possibly in that way improve on the system that has existed hitherto and get a better price for our twine after we have improved the quality of the twine itself.


George Taylor: We will admit that one year the late government sold through an agent, and allowed the agent to collect. But surely the government can carry on the business on the lines followed by every manufacturer in this country. He puts an agent on the road who takes an order from a retail man. That order is submitted; the manufacturer looks at the commercial agency report to see if the man has a good standing, and if he has, he will fill the order and send the twine to him, and the agent is paid either by per diem allowance or by commission. I find that my hon. friend has been dealing with Connor all along.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: For all cash.


George Taylor: He purchased $3,592 worth from the government last year,. Every business man in this country who manufactures goods either sells them by circular or puts men on the road to dispose of them. I do not fancy it will be necessary for the government to put a man on the road to sell. They have twine for sale and the merchants of the country will know their prices and order it, and either pay cash or buy it on four months time. Surely the government can do business on these lines. They can control the market and manufacture in Canada what the hon. member for Guysborougli wants manufactured in the United States.
Mr. F'RASER. I want it manufactured wherever it can be done the cheapest and best.


Mr. LENNOX.: Peel has said, that the policy of the government was not departed from by virtue of what was done last year, in anything essential, but that this resolution secured an additional advantage to the farmers. I do not agree to the suggestion that we should go back to the state of things which we had a year ago. I am strongly of the opinion that whether all we should have accomplished has been accomplished or not, the movement inaugurated a year ago was in the right direction, and I am entirely of the opinion that we should have even more stringent regulations regarding giving the first chance to the farmers to buy this twine. As to giving up the industry, the argument of the hon. member for Guysborough, if he put it as an argument in that regard, is one most easily answered, and I do not think that I will weary the committee with answering it, because I think it has already been answered by almost every member of the committee in his own mind, and could be effectually disposed of in words if necessary. I do not agree with the hon. member for Guysborough, nor have I yet had any occasion so far in the session to agree with him, but would be happy to do so if he would give me any reasonable opportunity. But I am very happy in this instance-and I believe it is the first opportunity I have yet had-to be able to refer to a minister of the Crown as having met this side of the House from the point of view that we are representatives of the people, anxious to do our duty and assist the government in bringing about what is most advantageous in the best interests of the country.


Mr. STEWART.: Representing, as I do, one of the greatest wheat producing electoral districts in the Dominion, one which produced a crop of 12,000,000 bushels of wheat last year, and in which therefore this binder twine question is of considerable importance, I wish to express my entire dissent from the view that the manufacture of binder twine in the Kingston penitentiary should be closed. If the idea should prevail that it does not pay to manufacture it in the penitentiary in the east, let that industry be moved to the penitentiary at Winnipeg, where it would be in close proximity to the wheat fields where most of its product is used. In 1900 binder twine was quoted very high in the west. In the towns of southern Manitoba, it was quoted in the spring of that year as high as 18 cents a pound. A number of our farmers refused to give orders at that price, and communicated with Mr. Platt, the manager of the Kingston penitentiary works, and got quotations from him. They were not able to get the first quality of twine but used the second which proved very satisfactory. It costs us a shade over ten cents, when the regular dealers were quoting the first quality at 15 cents and the second at 14 cents. We claim that the introduction of the penitentiary twine reduced the price 2 cents.


Haughton Lennox: That was one reason why I would not like to see that industry closed. It has been said that in the east only pure manilla would obtain a sale, but we have always been told that there is no such thing as standard pure manilla twine, and that it is all mixed, that a certain percentage of cheaper material No. 1 is composed of a percentage of filling, and that there is a little more filling in the second quality. My advice is that there should not be more than two standards made-a finer twine for the new binders and a coarser for the old, because when a binder is getting old it will probably do better work with the coarser twine.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I agree with my hon. friend from Lisgar that they made too many grades in the penitentiary last year. If there were but two or three grades at the most, that would be much more advantageous to the farmers.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: What grades does my hon. friend suggest ?


John McGowan: I think the best would be manilla twine, as every farmer knows what manilla twine is. I agree in the opinion expressed that it would be a mistake to close up the concern at Kingston, because these large factories are liable to get into the hands of a combine, which would be a lamentable affair for the farmers. Even if the penitentiary industry does not pay, it would still be an advantage to the country to keep it up. As to the mode of selling the twine, I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice will find some trouble in that regard. Some of our farmers in my constituency complain of the great expense of sending the twine by express. Many who ordered twine from the penitentiary have had to pay very large express charges, and some did not get the twine they ordered, but perhaps that was their own fault in possibly not having ordered it soon enough. One of the farmers in my county was very wrothy about this. He said that he had ordered a certain amount of first quality manilla twine, and got word back that his order was put in and would be filled as soon as he sent word to have the twine forwarded. He sent the money down and they sent him an inferior brand of twine, and he said he would not order from Kingston again. Our farmers complain very much about the heavy express charges. Perhaps if the hon. minister would have stations in certain parts of the country, to whicn he could send carloads of twine, he would thereby get rid of this difficulty. He could choose points in all the different provinces to which carloads could be sent, and to which the farmers could drive for what they wanted. That would be different from appointing a number of agents to travel about.


George Taylor: Let him put it in the hands of the retail merchants.


John McGowan: I do not know that that would do. But if he would send it to the county town or some such places, he would better suit the convenience of the farmers. And even if it had to be sold at the end of the season, it would sell much more easily than in Kingston. I am glad the hon. minister is open to suggestions, and I hope that these I have offered will be of use.


Mr. McCREARY.: I am glad to hear the hon. member (Mr. McGowan) speak on this subject. The question of binder twine is one of the most important that we have in the west. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) has told us that he represents a county whose product of wheat last year amounted to 12,000,000 bushels. My county adjoins his on one side. Though it did not raise 12,000,000 bushels it raised almost as much. This will give some idea of how important this question of binder twine is to us. The Minister of Justice should take into consideration the question whether it is well to have all the binder twine manufactured at Kingston. In the Stony Mountain penitentiary, Which is in my county, there are, I think, about 120 prisoners, and these prisoners hardly know what to do with their time. 1 understand that sometimes they are engaged in making roads, but there is not enough work for them. I do not see why the raw material should not to be sent to Stony Mountain as well as to Kingston and the twine that is required on the prairies of Manitoba and the North-west manufactured at Stony Mountain. But, until that is done, I do not see why the twine could not be sent up in car lots, not through agents, but sent to different points, such as Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Prince Albert, Edmonton, and other points throughout the west, where the farmers can buy it and pay spot cash. If the farmers could get binder twine at 9 cents or 10 cents, instead of paying 18 cents, it would be a great help. The present Minister of Justice, who is an energetic and progressive man, should look into this question. I hope he will do something this year to bring the twine to the west and put it into the hands of farmers at the most advantageous prices.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Following out the suggestion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), I would point out that there are jails at Regina, Prince Albert and Edmonton. Why not send the twine out to the jailers, who are officers of the hon. minister's department, and let them dispose of it. I am sure they would be willing to take the responsibility and do the work. The farmers would be able to get the binder twine and get it at a reduced price. At present this manufacture of binder twine is of very little use to us. The farmers came to me last year and wished me to get twine for them. But the freight is high; it was out of the question to get it by express, and nobody cared to take the responsibility of ordering a carload. But I am sure that the burser or jailer in these different institutions in the west would be willing to take charge of consignments and sell them for spot cash to the farmers.


Richard Blain: As I was the mover of the original motion of last year, there may be some responsibility attaching to my suggestion to change the system of selling the twine. I wish to draw the committee's attention to the fact that the original motion I moved contained no clause to the effect that the binder twine on hand after the 1st of July should be sold to the highest bidder. That is the portion of the resolution as carried that I objected to. The resolution as I moved it, was as follows :
That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that all binder twine now held by the government, together with all twine that may hereafter be manufactured by them, shall be sold direct to the farmer at a price to cover the actual cost of raw material and manufacture only, with one cent per pound added, and that no twine manufactured or paid for out of the Dominion treasury shall be sold or disposed of in any other way.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) added the provision about selling the twine on hand after the first of July. I venture to say that if that clause had not been added to the motion, all the twine would have been sold last year to the farmers, for, at the close of the season there was a great scarcity of twine both in Ontario and in the west. I venture to say, also, that, with the omission of that clause the motion as I presented it covers the best system for the sale of the small quantity of binder twine-for it is a small quantity in comparison to the quantity consumed throughout the country-that the government manufactures. As to what the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. McGowan) has said, I think the government system of filling orders is as up-to-date as that of any manufacturing establishment in Canada. The farmer sends in his order at any time after the beginning of the year. He can order a small quantity if he chooses. His order is booked. He can send his money down as the season approaches and the twine is sent direct to his address. The reason why some farmers did not get their twine exactly at the time they wanted it and why it was sent forward by express was that, instead of sending their money a month or two weeks before they wanted the twine, they waited until the eleventh hour. I am sure that the reason why it was sent forward by express was that the managers of the institution knew that it was needed in the wheat fields at the time. I think the government should continue the manufacture of binder twine as they are now manufacturing it. but that they should change to the extent of manufacturing what is understood as pure maniila only.

This they should sell direct to the farmers as they are now doing, omitting that clause of the resolution which was added, for the reason that the harvest in the wheat fields in the west, about which we hear so much, does not come on until our harvest in Ontario is about finished. If there is any twine in the Kingston establishment that the farmers in Ontario do not buy before the 1st of July, it can be sent to the west and there find a ready market, at prices that will pay the government well. I hope the hon. minister will continue this industry. 1 do not wish to unreasonably criticise the government with respect to the manufacture of binder twine. It need not be manufactured at a loss; the government can make money, even though manufacturing the small quantity that the capacity of the works will permit. If they continue the manufacture of the proper twine and put it on the market in the early season they will have no trouble in selling every pound they are able to manufacture.


Mr. CLARE.: I believe that one reason why the twine was not disposed of is likely to have been that it was offered to the farmers at too high a price. I would like to know whether the spirit of the resolution passed by the House last year was carried out. I know that the farmers of this country are reading people; I know that they want to get a bargain when they can, and I know that they have the money to pay for it. They certainly would have bought the twine manufactured by the government at Kingston if they could have got it at a lower price than other manufacturers were selling it for. We are told that the binder twine was put in at cost, but it may have been that the raw stock that the government used was bought at too high a price. I believe that last year the government could have sold all their twine if they had put it in at cost to the farmers.


Thomas Walter Scott: The only thing that seems to be lacking in the way of a suggestion for the solution of this problem is to turn the other way around the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) last year, and pass not only a resolution but a law declaring that the farmers shall buy the twine manufactured in Kingston penitentiary. By this means the problem would be solved and the department relieved of all difficulty in the way of disposing of the product. But speaking seriously. I wish to join in the expression of opinion of a number of my hon. friends from the west. Last year when the matter was discussed, I stated that, under present conditions, the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories were not in a position to reap as much advantage as the farmers of Ontario, who were near the point of manufacture. As a matter of fact, while the business of wheat-growing in the west is a great one. it is yet in some degree a lottery. There is no guarantee of the extent Mr. BLAIN.
of a wTheat crop until a short time before harvest. It is, therefore, impossible for a wheat-grower in Manitoba or the territories to place an absolute order for his binder twine until late in July, too late to admit of his sending on order and having it filled all the way from Kingston by ordinary freight transportation. I suggested then to the government that it would be a good policy to ship a few carloads of twine to centres in Manitoba and the territories. There might be some risk, doubtless there would be some risk of the shipments remaining unsold, but not more than is incurred by holding all the output at Kingston, and I am confident that a considerable quantity could thus be disposed of to the advantage of the business from the departmental point of view and of the western wheat-growers.


William Forsythe McCreary: I would like to ask the minister whether binder twine could not be manufactured in the Stony Mountain penitentiary in Manitoba ? No doubt carload rates on raw material would be almost as cheap to Winnipeg as to Kingston. I think if the minister will look into this question he will find that the prisoners in the Stony Mountain penitentiary could manufacture just as cheaply us they do at Kingston, and I do not see why the binder twine required for the western prairies should not be manufactured on the ground.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will be quite willing to consider that suggestion. But my hon. friend must bear in mind that this industry is already established at Kingston. We have there the advantage of a larger population to draw from to get the labour we require, and we have also a certain number of men who are fairly well trained.


William Forsythe McCreary: I don't think you have as large a purchasing population.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think we can do better work where the men are already trained, and where we have a larger population to draw from to find workmen. There have been many suggestions made to-night as to the disposition of the twine. The discussion has been pretty full, and I will endeavour to get the warden and superintendent of the Kingston penitentiary down here and have a consultation with them early next week, along with the inspector, and see what can be done towards starting the industry again, because we have a provision for the raw material that we may require.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be as well to let the item stand.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I suggest that we let the item go through, with the understanding that on supplementaries we will have the matter up again, and 1 will then be able to make a statement as to the results of my conference with the officials. I will say to the hon. member for

Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) that there is very-little prospect of being able to establish a binder twine industry at Stony Mountain this year.


Richard Blain: Can the officials appear before some special committee ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They are at the disposal of any committee you choose to select, and at arg'- time. I would suggest Wednesday.


William Forsythe McCreary: If the minister cannot promise to start the manufacture of binder twine at Stony Mountain .this year, will he promise that next year machinery will be installed and raw material shipped there? Perhaps he can also promise to-night that a large quantity of the binder twine manufactured at Kingston will be shipped in car lots to various points in the west so that the farmers can get it at actual cost.
St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, $118,600.
Dorchester penitentiary, $55,900.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The increase with respect to St. Vincent de Paul is caused by the fact that we have increased the reservation by 208 acres which will cost us $10,620. The penitentiary reserve contained 170 acres. To this was added the Gagnon farm, 38 acres, purchased from John Loftus, in March this year, at $75 per acre, making $2,850. This is especially valuable, because of a quantity of building-sand it contains. It is proposed to add three parcels aggregating 145 arpents (1224 acres) making about 350 acres In the reserve. Of this, 300 will be available for farming purposes. The farm will toe worked by convict labour. For some years farm products to the value of $3,500 a year, have been purchased for consumption in the penitentiary.
A vote is asked to pay for these parcels :
1.	Maxime Archambault, about fifty arpents at $89 per arpent, $4,450.
This land adjoins the penitentiary quarry farm. The soil is of excellent quality throughout, thoroughly cultivated, clean and well kept. Stone of like quality and dimension to that in the penitentiary quarries underlies eight or ten acres close to the quarries. The possession of this addition to the quarry will ensure an ample supply of exceptionally fine building stone for future requirements.
2.	Hector Lussier, about forty-five arpents at $76 per arpent, $3,420.
This land lies east of the St. Frangois road between the railway station grounds and the road of the quarries. Soil rich and deep. It is conveniently situated near the penitentiary and in full view of the guards on the towers.
3.	Joliceour, about 30 arpents at $55 per arpent, $2,750.
Four acres of south end is rocky, next is a strip of three acres of sandy loam. The balance is clay. The soil is good, tout its cultivation has been neglected.
At Dorchester the increase is caused by the fact that we are making provisions for the salary of a chief keeper, $800, for an instructor, $700, and for a fireman, $500. Under the new schedule which was adopted in 1895, provision is made for the appointment of these gentlemen, and of course we all understand that when the statute provides for the appointment of officials it is pretty hard to prevent them from being appointed.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that supposed to toe necessary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it appears so.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean under the statute.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it is justifiable at all events.
Manitoba penitentiary, $51,600.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a decrease of $7,600. That is because last year we took a vote of $8,000 with which we intended to purchase a piece of land, but after the vote was taken we found that the property was not suitable and we allowed vote to lapse.


Richard Blain: How many inmates are there V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: On the 30th June last year, there were 117 prisoners. The average number of prisoners at Stony Mountain is from 100 to 120.


Richard Blain: Is it a fact, as stated by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), that these men have nothing to do ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perhaps they are not kept very busy, but as far as possible they are kept employed doing work on the farm, and in connection with the building, and also in the making of roads. That is the only occupation we can get for them. As hon. gentlemen know, one of the great unsolved problems of our penitentiary system to-day is to find profitable employment for the inmates of the penitentiaries, and if we are deprived of the benefit of the binder twine industry at Kingston we are going to be embarrassed to know what to do with the convicts.


William Forsythe McCreary: Before this item passes I would like to say a word. I will not object to the passage of this item but when the supplementary estimates come down I will ask to have $5,000 or $10,000 put in to buy more ground in connection with Stony Mountain penitentiary. If we could get a binder twine plant put in, or have some other line of business established, the prisoners would have something to do, but as it is at present they have nothing to do. That penitentiary is situated on the wide prairie. There are practically no roads to construct. They will not allow the prison-



ers to go outside the penitentiary grounds. If they could make a road to Winnipeg or Stonewall, or some other point, then, I could understand the question. But there are, within a certain prescribed limit, 120 people for whom there is nothing to do. I submit to the hon. minister that if he will take this question up he will find that there is something that might be done with these people. They could either be employed in manufacturing binder twine or making a road to Winnipeg, a distance of 16 miles. I think the hon. minister ought to put into the estimates for this penitentiary a sum to be expended in buying more land. Land can be bought, not for $55 an acre, the price that the minister quoted as being charged in Ontario, but for $7 or $8 per acre-land which will yield 30 or 40 bushels of wheat to the acre. These prisoners might better be employed cultivating that land and producing some revenue than being allowed to remain idle. I think the hon. minister should look into the question and suggest something that will improve the condition of this penitentiary.


Richard Blain: What are the prisoners doing now 7


Mr.   McCBEARY@: I do not know that they are doing anything except building a wall 5 feet through and 14 feet high all around the penitentiary. That has been going on for five or six years. What it is going to be used for I do not know. They have been building that wall for the last five or six years and it is going on now-just putting in time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The suggestion as to the purchase of more land is one that we are willing to agree to at once if we can get desirable lamd in a proper location and at a proper price. If we can do that and get the land on business principles we are prepared to do it. In respect to making a road to Winnipeg, of course, that is not possible. A prisoner cannot be taken beyond the prison reserve because if he is he is at large. This is a question of the number of guards to he employed. We have been overburdened with guards there in proportion to population because we have no wall to keep the convicts confined, and if we were to send them out to build roads to Winnipeg I am afraid we would have to consider the propriety of increasing our allowance for guards in that district.
British Columbia penitentiary, $52,SCO.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase for that also.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have a considerable amount of work going on at the British Columbia penitentiary. There is a very considerable amount required for the purchase of materials for a new wing. We are endeavouring to have a new wing which will contain 100 additional cells. There is
Mr. McCreary.
also a considerable increase in the cost of the maintenance of convicts on account of the increased prices of all that is required there compared with former years.
Prince Albert jail, $8,200.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In connection with Prince Albert jail the reserve only contains 16 acres and that cost $50 per acre. The intention is to add 20 acres to the reserve,'and we will purchase these 20 acres for $25 per acre. The land belongs to the Presbyterian Church.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not delayed the passing of these items although I think there are some hon. gentlemen who are not here to-night who may have a few words to say upon some of them. I take it for granted that anything can be said on the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The whole question is at large.
Expenses of litigated matters which may be paid for services in connection with the litigation conducted within the Department of Justice, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was the expenditure last year 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 


Robert Laird Borden: That is really for the work that is done in the Department of Justice outside of the duties of the officers 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice what arrangement he has for doing this work. Does the hon. minister have an agent in every county in Ontario 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has he agents that are appointed 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, we have agents that are appointed in any place Where we have business to be done. We appoint an agent in the locality for the purpose of doing the business required.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are these agents authorized to hold themselves out to the public as such 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. Of course, they are authorized to do the business of the department.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have a letter here which I have no objection to show the hon. minister if he requires to see it in which a solicitor in St. Catharines states as an advertisement at the heading-that he is the :

Agent for the Minister of Justice for the county of Lincoln.
I would like to know if that is done with the approval of the department ? Those of the legal profession in St. Catharines do not think that it is right according to the ethics of the profession.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 1 never heard of that. I suppose it is a matter of taste which should be dealt with by the Barristers' Society, as to the question of advertising. I am afraid that the profession has departed from the old rules.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I should think that now that the minister knows about it, he would be able to deal with the matter. It must be done for some purpose, and if the minister knows that it is done and does not take means to stop it, the inference is that he approves of it. I call his attention to it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have seen cards issued by different firms in which they say they are solicitors for such and such a bank, and I apprehend that no great distinction can be drawn between a case of that sort and the case mentioned by the hon. gentleman. I suppose a gentleman may think it is rather to his credit to say that he has been appointed solicitor for the Department of Justice. It does not go beyond that. He does not say that he is appointed special solicitor for the purpose of doing business with the government; he does business for the government. I cannot see that there is much distinction between one man mentioning that he is solicitor for the Department of Justice, and another man saying that he is solicitor for a bank or for some great corporation. I do not want the name, but might I ask, is this gentleman as a matter of fact a solicitor for the Department of Justice ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know. 1 was going to ask the Minister of Justice if he has a newly-appointed agent for the county of Lincoln.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot remember.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not object to the minister seeing the name privately, and I will hand it over to him.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not remember the name now that I have seen it, but I am quite willing to inquire.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And let us know later on.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to point out that the gentleman who does that sort of thing is in a different position from a solicitor for a bank. He holds himself out as representing the Crown by delegation of 114*
the Minister of Justice, and when a man assumes to represent the Crown, he is in a different position entirely in any county in Ontario, from a man representing a private corporation such as a bank. I thought it was my duty to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that that sort of thing was going on with the view of seeing whether the minister will permit it or not.
Consolidation of the statutes, $20,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Have the commissioners been appointed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, but they will be between this and the end of the session.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister any expectation as to when the consolidation will be completed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My intention is to appoint a greater number of commissioners than we have had heretofore, both with the intention of getting the work done expeditiously and of endeavouring to cut down the expense. I have been looking over the accounts in connection with the last revision of the statutes, and I find that the great bulk of the expenditure was caused by work being given outside, such as translation; and special parts of the statutes were given to special persons, who were charged with their preparation. My idea is to make the commission a little more numerous than the last one, and to endeavour to have the work done entirely by the commissioners. I hope the work will be done within two years.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Saturday.

Monday, April 28, 1902.