1904-06-21

NEW BRUNSWICK SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

Mr. ALEXANDER GIBSON moved :: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 19th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for receiving petitions for private Bills he suspended in reference to the petition of the New Brunswick Southern Railway Company, presented this day, praying for an Act to declare their railway to be for the general advantage of Canada, and that the said petition be read and received forthwith.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to understand the reason why this particular measure demands a suspension of the rules of the House'. I have not heard any reasons given thus far. The hon. gentleman who is making the motion will no doubt be able to inform the House.


Alexander Gibson: The petition was handed to me by the Southern Railway Company of New Brunswick. The reason they come here is that the Hon. Mr. Blair, the chairman of the Railway Commission, told the'm that the legislation which they had obtained from the provincial legislature of New Brunswick was not sufficient, and that they should obtain legislation from the Dominion parliament. I only received the petition the day before yesterday.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not been able to gather from the hon. gentleman's statement why the rules of the House should be suspended in favour of this petition. If he is not able to give any reason, perhaps he would give us an opportunity to examine the petition. The mere fact that somebody has written a letter to the railway company does not seem to afford a sufficient reason why the rules of the House should be suspended.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I understand that the reason given by my hon. friend is this, that this legislation was passed by the legislature of New Brunswick, but that in order that it should have the effect intended, it is necessary for the company to have a Dominion charter. I understand that the company were informed only recently that their charter was insufficient for their purposes, and that they would have to obtain the necessary powers from this parliament. That is the only reason.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is the reason, it is not set forth in the petition, and I do not understand on what principle this petition has received the favourable report of the committee to which it was referred.

The petition sets out that legislation is desired from this parliament for two purposes. One is to confirm two Acts of the legislature of the province of New Brunswick relating to the company, passed in 1901 and in 1902. Therefore, so far as they are concerned, there has been abundant opportunity to have this Bill introduced within the proper time. That portion of the petition affords not the slightest ground for a suspension of the rules of this House, if they mean anything. If they mean nothing, but if we can set them aside on the most trivial pretexts, as we have been doing during the last six weeks, let us abolish them altogether. If they do mean something, let us require, both in this House and in the committees of this House, some better reason than that stated in this petition. If the suspension of the rules of this House is to be a mere form, let us understand it at once. The second purpose stated in the petition is to construct a bridge over the St. Croix river, in the province of New Brunswick, at the terminus of the company's railway. The petition recites :
That the company was incorporated under the said chapter 74 of the statutes of 1901 of New Brunswick, with power to acquire the Shore Line Railway, and the deed of transfer was confirmed by the said chapter 102 of the statutes of 1903.
That is all that there is in this petition, which I understand has been reported favourably by a committee of this House. What the committee found in that petition to report favourably upon I do not know. If the rules of the House are to be observed, I think this Bill ought not to be received under the facts set forth in the petition. I am not for one moment stating that this will not be desirable legislation. It may be legislation that I myself would support. All I am calling attention to is that we are deliberately, day after day, and week after week, violating the rules of this House on the flimsiest possible pretexts, and in this case without any pretext at all. All I am suggesting is that we should adopt some course that would be reasonable

either abolish the rules of the House or, if they require to be suspended, let that suspension be based on some reason that is worthy of the name.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that this is not the preliminary petition. This petition does not state the reasons for delay. The other petition probably would.


Robert Laird Borden: I asked if the petition sets forth the reason and I asked it because my hon. friend did not give any. Perhaps my right hon. friend knows what are the reasons.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know nothing more than I have said, but I understood the reason simply was that the chairman
of the Railway Commission had stated that their charter was insufficient and would have to be ratified by this parliament.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I have just had a few words from the hou. gentleman who introduced the Bill, and I have learned from him that it was only within a week that they became informed of the construction placed upon their charter by the Railway Commission. There can be no question of taking the public by surprise because another legislature had granted certain powers, and it is now discovered that these powers are not sufficient and will have to emanate from this House.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not suggested that the company were taking the public by surprise, but what I say is that we have a rule requiring that these Bills shall come before parliament within a certain time, and for a very good reason. The reason is that if they are not brought before parliament within proper time, they may not receive the consideration they should. I would like this to stand until I observe whether or not the preliminary petition sets forth any sufficient reasons why we should set aside the rules.


Alexander Gibson: I only received the petition on Friday after the House had voted and have taken the first occasion to present it.


Mr. EMMERSON.: If there even was an occasion when the rule should be suspended it seems to me this is one. The company obtained legislation from the New Brunswick legislature. Then very recently they made application to the Railway Commission for power to construct a bridge in order to make connection at the Boundary river between Maine and New Brunswick with the Washington County Railway. They were told that their charter did not give them the right to make such an application and that it would be necessary for them to seek power from the Dominion parliament. They only learned this within the last week.
. It seems to me we ought not to enforce too rigidly our rules. Parliament is here for the purpose of serving the people, and here is a great public interest to be served.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the New Brunswick legislature had granted this company the right to build a bridge across the inter, national boundary or river which separates Canada from the United States ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. But the legisla-' ture gave power to connect with the Washington County Railway at the boundary. * Under that legislation, the company applied c to the Railway Commission, under the impression that the powers granted them by - the New Brunswick legislature were suffi-1 eient. The Railway Commission decided l against that view.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: And rightly too.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, very properly. Now they seek a remedy. They want to make the connection. It is in the public interest that connection should be made. Why should we hesitate to give the power ?


Robert Laird Borden: Surely the hou. gentleman is not so obtuse as to understand that we are objecting to the legislation. I distinctly said that I might very probably support the legislation, but I object to suspend the rules of parliament without any reason being stated. Parliament is, of course, the servant of the people, but it has to be governed by certain rules, and these rules should not be suspended without some plausible reasons being given. My hon. friend the Postmaster General says that this was only discovered recently. Assuming that to be the case, it ought to have been stated by the hon. gentleman who makes the motion.


William Mulock: So long as the House is informed of the reason, that ought to be sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: It had not been stated to the House when I made my objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, it was.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear it. When was this discovered ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend stated, when he introduced this petition, that this legislation was asked for because of the information given by the chairman of the Railway Commission that the powers vested in the company by the local legislature were inadequate.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. Minister of Railways says that the Railway Commission very properly gave its information that the company had not the power to do what it was seeking to do. Then there must have been gross negligence on the part of the company. The company should have known that it had not that power.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 141) for the relief of Eliza Robertson.-Mr. Holmes.
Bill (No. 142) respecting the Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Rio de Janeiro Tramway, Light and Power Company, Limited.'-Mr. Calvert.

Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON moved :: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 19th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, the time for posting private Bills under rule 64 be reduced to three days.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: There may not be any objection to this, but it is a rather unusual motion. I do not suppose that the session is coming to an end so very suddenly that there may not be an opportunity to post Bills in the usual time. There might be reason to apply this proposed change to one Bill, but the motion is put in general form and would apply to all. In that case I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alexander Johnston) should give some reason for the motion.


Alexander Johnston: The matter came before the committee. It was pointed out that there were few Bills pending. It was thought desirable to expedite the business and so it was unanimously decided to present a motion to this effect. I merely present the decision unanimously reached by the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA.: I would call the attention of the government, and especially of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) to an incident related in the Montreal newspapers. I refer particularly to ' Le Canada, ' but I think the same facts are stated in the other newspapers of Saturday last. If the statement of the facts is accurate, it would appear that the captain of a merchantman from Nova Scotia, Captain Taylor, while calling at a port in the Argentine Republic, was ordered by the British Consul to haul down the flag, the red ensign bearing the coat of arms of Canada. On his coming to Canada he has made public the fact. I would like to know since when a Canadian merchantman is not entitled to fly the Canadian flag. I do not call upon the minister to give an answer now, but I would be glad if he would ascertain the facts. I may remind the House that a number of years ago-in the seventies, I think-an Order in Council was adopted by the British government, upon the recommendation of the Lords of the Admiralty, allowing all vessels registered in Canada, belonging to the Canadian fleet, to use the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms. And this was subsequently ratified by an Order in Council in Canada. So, if the facts of the case to which I have called attention are accurately given, it would appear that this British consul has not only insulted the loyal colony of Canada, but he has violated a direct order of the King adopted in England and in Canada. I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see to it that justice is done In the matter.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I have had no official complaint or notification concerning the case referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa). I will make inquiries

and, if it is necessary to apply any remedy,
I will see to it that the remedy is applied.


Hr. C. E. KAULBACH.: I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. I're-l'ontaine) to allow this matter to rest for a day. I have some papers in my possession which will afford some information in this connection, and which I can bring to-morrow. It will be remembered that some time ago-I think it was in May, 1901-I brought the matter up in connection with a vessel named the * Canada,' belonging to the port of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. I looked up some material then, but have not it at hand at this moment. If the hon. minister will let the matter rest until to-morrow I shall be able, I think, to give some information that will be valuable to the public generally, and to the mercantile marine in particular, so that all may know exactly the position in which the mercantile and marine stand in this connection as respects the flag.
CANADIAN FISniNG REGULATIONS.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) to a letter I have just received which reads as follows
The Inn,
Gananoque, Ontario, June 20, 1904.
Mr. George Taylor, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Taylor.-I am mailing you under separate cover, a notice I found posted in the Hubbard House, at Clayton, to-day. There was also one posted at the Walton, Windsor, the post office and Hungerford hardware store, and I understood from very good authority that they had been posted in all the hotels throughout the islands.
Undoubtedly, this means ' Permits or Licenses for Fishing in Canadian * Inland waters/ instead of that he has said ' Permits or Licenses for Fishing in Canadian' waters.' Personally I met a party of four New Yorkers who could not get across the river Saturday on account of trains being late, and on seeing this notice at the Hubbard House decided not to come to the Inn. I met them personally today, and guaranteed almost everything, but it was impossible to move them.
Is there not some way that we can have this notice changed so that it will not be misleading ? It is certainly hard eneugh to do business in a Canadian resort, without having notices posted in all the hotels that are detrimental to our business.
If you will kindly advise me what course to pursue, using your name as authority, I will do so at my own expense ; although I think Mr. Goodwin should call in his notices and print new ones, but at the same time, as the season is on us, if it is possible to allow me to print notices. I will do so.
Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
I am, yours very truly,
(Sgd.) W. L. DAY.


Diet.   W.L.D.@: The motion referred to by Mr. Day in his letter is as follows :-



TO ANGLERS.

[Stage Direction]
Permits or licenses for fishing in Canadian waters for 1904 can be procured from the undersigned at his office, Market Square, Kingston (one block from Folger's wharf). Office hours, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Ontario fishery overseer. Kingston, May, 1904.
This notice, it is evident, has been distributed all along the American frontier. It is taken by Americans to mean : You cannot drop a hook in Canadian waters unless you first go to Kingston and on one of the three special days in the week, between the hours of ten and four, attend a certain office and apply and pay for a license. Yet, it has been understood that the waters between Kingston and Ogdensburg were free to American anglers. And now Americans will not come over to our side, owing to the bungling with regard to fishing licenses between this government and the Ontario government.
I will send the notice and the letter to the minister, so that he may see definitely what is complained of and may issue some statement that can be given to our American friends to assure them that they are safe in coming to the Canadian side to spend their money, and fish in the river St. Lawrence.
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is clear to me that this notice was issued by the Ontario government, because we have no official of that name in our employ. I will communicate with the fishery commissioner of Ontario and see what I can do.


George Taylor: That does not apply to Canadian inland waters.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Surely the hon. gentleman will not hold me responsible for the action of others. I have enough to be responsible for in my own department.
Mr. TAYLOR, But Mr. Bastedo and his officials are under certain rules and regulations, and in face of them they go to work and put out these notices and drive people from Canada.



STEAMSHIP LINE BETWEEN FRANCE AND CANADA.

Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would call the attention of the leader of the government to the fact that about a week ago I obtained an order from the House for the production of copies of all papers and documents in relation to the establishment of a line of steamers between France and Canada. I would like the hon. gentleman to have the papers brought down as soon as possible. They cannot be very voluminous. It is more than a week since the order was made.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad my, lion, friend has called my attention to it. In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) the return may have been delayed, but I will see about it.



THE FISHING BOUNTIES.

Mr. HACKETT.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prfifontaine) told me a few days ago that he would bring down the report of the commission that he had appointed to investigate into the frauds with regard to fishing bounties as well as all information on that subject. Will the hon. gentleman say when he will bring down the papers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will lay on the table of the House the papers connected with this matter as soon as I take up my estimates again. I have got the papers before me.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Wilfrid Laurier: On Friday last I made a statement to the House with regard to the legislation which was still to be introduced. I stated that the government would perhaps bring in some amendments to the Election Law, that there was a question as to what would be the nature of the Bill, and I could not give much information on that occasion in the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). I am informed by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that the legislation he will propose will be of a very light character. It will refer, first, to the Representation Act so far as it concerns the province of New Brunswick, and is intended to remove a doubt which I understand has been created from the imperfect drafting of the Act. As it stands at present, it is not quite clear how many members the province-of New Brunswick is entitled to, whereas it is well known that it is entitled to only thirteen members. Then an amendment is necessitated with regard to clause 27 of the Dominion Elections Act which reads as follows :
27. The Governor General shall, except as hereinafter mentioned, fix the day for nomination of candidates at the election.
2. At every general election he shall fix one and the same day for the nomination of candidates in all the electoral districts, except in the electoral districts of Algoma, in the province of Ontario, of Gaspg and Chicoutimi and Saguenay, in the province of Quebec, and of Burrard and Yale and Cariboo, in the province of British Columbia.
These constituencfes were carried by the Representation Act of last year, and other constituencies were subdivided, and some legislation is therefore required which will be in the spirit of this Act, and nothing else. That is all.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 


Mr. CLARKE.: Will there be any legislation respecting the voters' lists in any of the provinces ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then that has been dropped ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No ; it ntlvor was intended.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hopse in committee on Bill (No. 37) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Hon.   CHAS@: FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) I have an amendment to propose .to give the right of appeal to the Crown and not take it away from the subject. The question arises as to whether it would not be proper to let both parties have an equal right to appeal, subject to the limitation with respect to cost and securities. At present that right does not lie except in cases where the sum exceeds $500.
I have come to the conclusion that as this amendment is an important one so far as the Crown is concerned, that it is important that we should have the right to appeal, I am willing, in order to meet the objections made by the leader of the opposition, to broaden the right of appeal so as to give it to both parties. I therefore move to amend clause 1 by striking out the words in the 10th line ' on behalf of the Crown,'


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Does that mean that in any case, however small, the amount may be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: That is what it means.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Surely that is going very far, it will subject private litigants to enormous cost. Now does that mean, for instance, that where a party has obtained an order for a commission to examine witnesses in another country, there shall lie an appeal on that order from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This will not apply to my hon. friend's case.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am not speaking about a case in which I am interested. At the same time, it seems to me this is going very far, and it is against the spirit of our legislation, at all events, in the province of Quebec, where judgments, interlocutory in their nature, are not appealable except to certain specified cases. Let me put this case to my hon. friend ; here is a litigant who gets a decree for a commission to examine witnesses say in England, and the Crown wishes to appeal from this judgment or decree to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Everybody knows what it costs for such an appeal and I do not think it is fair or just that a litigant should be subjected to such a large amount of costs on a question which could be remedied by a final judgment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think the matter could be remedied by a final judgment. It is in the interest of the Crown as well as of the individual that we should have an opportunity of settling as far as possible the jurisprudence and practice of tbe Exchequer Court. Cases are constantly rising in which it is important in the public interest that the Crown should have the right to have a principle settled, as for instance, in a small case, but on which a large amount may ultimately depend. For example, there was recently a case near Cornwall. on the judgment in which 40 or 50 cases depended, and it is important in the interest of the litigants that the principles applicable should be finally settled by the Supreme Court, and I do not think it is fair to assume, no matter who the Minister of Justice may be. whether it be my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) or any person else, that the Crown would undertake to advise appeals in eases where they would not be required in the public interest. But there may be exceptional cases in which such an appeal ought to be taken. Speaking from my own experience recently, I do not think of a single case in which there was a possibility of such an appeal as my hon. friend now says might arise.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Does my hon. friend think it would be well to limit the cases in which such an appeal could be taken to certain specified cases, as for instance cases which are enumerated in the code of civil procedure of Quebec. I do not know the practice in other provinces or whether in other provinces there lies an appeal to courts of appeal from any interlocutory or preparatory judgment in the lower court, but it seems to me it would be a hardship to litigants to have the law say that there would be an appeal from any interlocutory judgment rendered in a case. It might happen that in years to come the Minister of Justice might not be such a fair minded and judicial gentleman as the gentleman who occupies the position to-day and that under these circumstances probably litigants would not get such fair treatment as under other circumstances. I suggest that the law as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure of the province of Quebec be followed in this instance.
Section as amended, agreed to, and Bill as amended reported.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: This is a matter of (procedure. I think that if my hon. friend does not specify in the Act that this law shall not apply to pending cases it will apply to them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When the Bill was drafted and was presented to me by the deputy minister I brought the question to his attention as to whether it would be applicable to present cases. His answer was that it would not be applicable to pending cases. I am not quite sure that it is a mere question of procedure. I think it goes beyond that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that if it is not otherwise stated it would apply to pending cases, and be regarded as procedure. I know that in our courts they have gone pretty far in defining procedure.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to have the views of my hon. friends opposite on this question, and we might have It amended in the Senate. I attach great importance to the opinion of Mr. Newcombe. I have his expressed opinion on the subject. but if my hon. friends think that we ought not to have come to that conclusion, we can arrange for an amendment in the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I have an equally great regard for the opinion of Mr. Newcombe. I simply said, looking at it offhand, that I thought it would have thac effect. We will look into the matter, and discuss it with the minister and then as he says, it can be amended in the Senate if necessary.
Bill read a third time, and passed.



YUKON TERRITORY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill 39, to amend the Yukon Territory Act. He said : When this Bill was up before, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) put this question to me.
Robert Laird Borden: Has there not been some question in reference to the elected and the appointed members, and did not the Minister of Justice give some opinion as to what would be the proper course to pursue under such circumstances ?
Since the matter was up before I consulted the officers of the department, because occasionally these opinions are given without my knowledge when they refer to matters of routine. They tell me that no question has been submitted to the department such as the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has suggested.
On motion for the third reading of the Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It did not occur to Bill.	me that the Bill was coming up to-day but
i65j	.

my information was derived from newspapers in the Yukon, where what purported to he a telegram from the Minister of Justice to the Commissioner of the Yukon was published. The question as I recollect it, arose in this way: It was proposed to submit to Council a resolution criticising some features of the administration of the Yukon for which the commissioner held that the government at Ottawa would be responsible. He ruled the motion out of order and at the request of some members of the council he sent a telegram to the Minister of Justice, or the government asking whether or not he was right in holding that opinion ; and what purported to be a telegram from the Minister of Justice, if I remember correctly, was published in this newspaper which had the effect of sustaining the opinion of the commissioner. It was simply with regard to that that I inquired.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) attaches importance to the matter we will allow it to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it should stand for that. If there is anything in it, I can bring the matter to the attention of the government on some of the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 101) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act.- Mr. Prdfontaine.	*
On section 1,
Mr. CLANCY.: What is the scope of this section ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONT AIN  E@Minister of Marine and Fisheries: Under the existing law the boats described in the Bill are not subject to inspection, but when this Bill passes they will be examined and a certificate issued.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the inspection confined to boats that carry passengers for hire ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Even those which are not for hire may be examined by the steamboat inspector, if their owners make application.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there a fee charged ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The inspection .fee for passenger steamers was abolished last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is right.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The department may consider whether we will render that service for steamers not engaged in commercial pursuits, but which their owners want to have examined for their own satis-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
faction. It may be that a small fee would be charged.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is not the intention to make it compulsory to have private launches and yachts examined.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is permissible.


Mr. OSLER.: Did the minister say that the government has done away with the inspection fee on all boats ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


James Clancy: Many boats are now running contrary to law, and I wish to know if there will be an early inspection made of these boats.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As soon as the law is passed the regulations will be made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Marine Engineers Association of Canada have made representations to the department asking for a more rigid examination as to the qualifications of engineers. Is it the intention to provide for a more rigid examination of the engineers who are to have charge of these boats ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We will try to comply with the demands of the Marine Association if we can.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Petitions have been sent to the minister and I think a Bill was introduced respecting the qualifications of marine engineers.-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Such a Bill was introduced by the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and I am awaiting his return in order to have an understanding with him. It has been agreed that the Bill should be referred to a special committee in order that we may look into the question thoroughly and consult the interested parties. There is a difference of opinion between the Marine Association and the Association of Marine Engineers, and by getting them together before a special committee we will try to reach an agreement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That conference will be before the session is over so as to expedite the passage of Mr. McCarthy's Bill ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, that is understood.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman intend to make the same regulations for these small boats as for the larger passenger boats ? The hon. gentleman knows that some of these small boats very often perform a passenger service. If they -were required to carry certified engineers and to comply with what is necessary in the case of the larger class of boats, it would be impossible to run those boats by reason of the heavy expense.
I would ask the hon. gentleman, in making the regulation, to keep that in view.

i


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In framing the regulation, circumstances will have to be taken into consideration, and it stands to reason that we could not exact from engineers or mates in charge of these small crafts, the same qualifications that we exact from engineers in charge of large steamers carrying a large number of passengers.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SHIPPING CASUALTIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved second reading of Bill (No. 102) to amend the Shipping Casualties Act, 1901.
Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman propose to explain this ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This Bill is rather important. If it passes, the Act respecting inquiries and investigations into shipping casualties, assented to on the 23rd of May, 1901, and giving authority to an officer appointed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries "to examine into the case of a boat or ship which is stranded, will authorize him to investigate the case of the pilot. By section 4 of the Shipping Casualties Act the minister may direct the principal officer of customs residing at or near the place where the shipping casualty occurred, to hold an investigation ; but that investigation at present applies only to mates and engineers ; it does not apply to pilots. Sometimes, in order to satisfy the shipping interest, it would be necessai-y at the same time to examine into the case of the pilot, and it is proposed by this Bill to give the commisr sioner that power. I should think there would be no objection to the Bill. The Shipping Casualties Act was passed at the instance of the shipping interest some years ago, and on the special recommendation of the shipping interest on the other side of the water ; and anything that is done to satisfy the shipping people and the insurance companies that we are taking every precaution to protect the shipping interest is I think in the proper direction. That is why this Bill is introduced. There are other features in the Bill. For instance, the old by-laws of the Montreal Harbour Commissioners provided that the pilot's license should be suspended if an accident occurred to any vessel while in charge of a pilot until the cause has been investigated by the commissioners. This was manifestly unfair, because the pilots may not necessarily have been to blame, and was repealed. New subsection 2 of section 4 provides that if the officer holding the formal inquiry finds the pilot guilty of any of the offences enumerated, such officer may suspend the pilot's license until the minister decides whether a formal investigation is necessary. It is provided in the new Bill that the pilot must be
notified within three days that such formal investigation is to take place, otherwise his license could not be suspended. New section 27 provides that pilots may be dealt with under the Shipping Casualties Act in the same manner that masters, mates and engineers are, with the addition that pilots may be fined in lieu of suspension at the discretion of the court. This latter provision is extremely necessary, since, if a pilot) has caused the stranding, damage, collision, &c., of or to any vessel, it is generally through insufficient knowledge of the channel, and, by suspending such pilot, he is rendered more incompetent than before, whereas if a fine is instituted equivalent to his loss through suspension, the pilot s means of living are not taken away, and he has every opportunity to make himself more proficient in the knowledge of his pilotage duties.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Did the hon. gentleman say by whom that document was prepared ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is a report from the chairman of the examiners specially charged with this part of the business in my department. New section 28 provides against a pilot being tried by the harbour commissioners, Montreal Pilotage Court or pilotage authority of any district, after the case has been taken up under the Shipping Casualties Act. That means that he will not be tried twice for the same offence.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Will the hon. gentleman tell me whether this Act is to precede the pilotage Act, in the sense that the tribunal which is created here will take the place of the pilotage authorities in any district for the trial of pilots ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the case of a formal investigation, it would, because it says that if a formal investigation has taken place, and the case of the pilot has been tried, he cannot be tried a second time for the same offence.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Like my hon. friend opposite, I am somewhat interested in this Bill, and I think it means this, that in the case of a shipping casualty, an investigation may be ordered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in which case it is not held by the pilotage authorities, but by an authority appointed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In that case the investigating officer may inquire into the responsibility for the casualty of any person connected with the boat, except the pilot. He has no authority to interfere with the pilot. The object of the Bill is to extend the power of that investigating officer to every person connected with the vessel, including the pilot ; and where the pilot's conduct may be part of the investigation, it is provided that no investigation may afterwards be made by the pilotage authorities. That is

the object of the last section. So that on the whole the only change is with respect to the authority that makes the investigation. Under the Pilotage Act the pilot would be subject to investigation by the pilotage authorities ; but this investigation, is held under the Shipping Casualties Act, and it seems perfectly fair that all persons responsible for the management of a vessel during the time the accident happened, should be subject to the same investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Maintenance and repairs to government steamers, $250,000.
["May we expect to have the government Bills, including one with reference to the voters' list, which we were promised on Monday would be brought down on Tuesday or Wednesday ?"]
Mr. INGRAM.: Would the hon. minister explain what are the matters which have been transferred from the Public Worksi Department to the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No part of this item applies to any of the services* which will be transferred to the Department of Public Works. The Order in Council concerning the changes was laid on the table some time ago. I had a copy the last time we took up the estimates and can give it to the hon. gentleman after six o'clock, but I have not got it here now.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How many government steamers are there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is a dimunition of $27,000 from last year and it is thought that the amount asked for will be sufficient. The estimated expenditure for 1904-5 is as follows :
Steamer ' Quadra '	$31,000
'Lady Laurler '	 30,000
'Aberdeen'	 45,000
'Druid'	 38,000
' Lansdowne '	 30,000
'Stanley'	 25,000
' Minto '	 44,000
Miscellaneous	 7,000
Of the amount of $278,628, the following was expended in repairs :
' Druid ' engine	$ 3,602
"	  4,800
'Druid,' repairs to hull	 2,706
'Aberdeen' engine	 7,114
hull	 '9O8
' Lansdowne ' engine	 2,093
hull	 4,717
'Quadra' engine	 1,299
" hull	 '943
'Stanley' engine	 12,176
" hull	 1,569
' Minto ' engine	 2,488
" hull	 670
Total	$45,986


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How old is the ' Druid '?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think she was built three years ago.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I thought only a year ago, but $28,000 is a great deal to spend on repairs even if she is three years old.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The $28,000 are not for repairs. That is the whole estimated expenditure. I have just given the details of the repairs. The expenditure on the ' Druid ' is as follows :
Wages	$8,000
Fuel	 7,000
Provisions	 4,000
Painting, &c	 1,000
Engine and	deck supplies	 2,500
Uniforms	 500
Engine and	hull	 4,000


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Will the hon. gentleman explain the difference between the two items :	Engine and deck supplies $2,500,
and engine and hull repairs $4,000 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Engine and deck supplies, I am informed, consist of tools which may be necessary for working about the engine, oils and other similar supplies, while deck supplies include things which would be necessary for the deck, as for instance new cranes. Engine and hull repairs would include repairs to the engine itself, replacing tubes or other parts that are worn out or broken, and also any repairs that may be neccessary to the hull itself.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: In the items which make up the total ainount for engine and deck supplies what amount is allowed for oils ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This estimate is made upon the basis of what has been spent in former years. The amount is not always the same, and, so far as repairs are concerned as the boat grows older the amount required for repairs may be expected to be lai'ger. For instance, the amount allowed for repairs to the 'Lady Laurier ' is small, because she is a new vessel put in commission only last year.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. The item of oil,
I understand, is an important one, not only for this steamer, but for all the steamers. It seems to me that the minister should be able, from the documents he has before him, and with the able assistance I see around him, to tell me what quantity of oil was used last year on the ' Druid ' and upon what he bases his estimate for the quantity of oil to be used this year ? I would ask from whom the oil is purchased ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will send for the information, and, as soon as possible will furnish it to the hon. gentleman.
t


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are purchases made by tender ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Here are seven ships, and, of course, the item of oil is an important one in the amount of money involved. It seems to me the hon. minister should have under his hand, now that his estimates are before the committee any items upon which he bases those estimates. He is asking us for an expenditure of $277,000. He should be able to tell the House how it comes he has reached the conclusion that that amount will be necessary. I have had some experience in passing estimates, and I was always able to tell, from the records before me, what had been spent the yeHr before, in reasonable detail.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Were you ever asked ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, and I think by my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick).


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentle-mants wants a statement of the expenditure of last year, that, of course, appears in the public accounts. The amount spent on the ' Druid ' was $40,850.29. This year we are asking only $28,000, which includes wages, fuel, provisions, engine and deck supplies, engine and hull repairs and so on. I have this information, but I cannot be expected to have under my tongue minute details of expenditure. I could not tell the hon. gentleman, for instance, how many pounds of nails were bought.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: But I am asking information with regard to an item involving a large amount of money. What amount was spent for these seven steamers in the item of oil ? Surely the hon. gentleman could tell me that, approximately at least.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: 
George Taylor: It was only for a month or two while the hon. gentleman was in office that this amount of $53 for cab-hire was spent. And the hon. gentleman has been advised that it was spent illegally. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the supplies referred to were purchased by tender. Can he give us the form of notice used in calling for tenders ?
Mr. PREFONT AINE I will get that information also.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall the item be adopted ?


James Clancy: We all know the desire of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to
furnish information. As the chairman shows some anxiety to call the item carried,
I would suggest that we might take up some other matter, of the facts concerning which the minister has some knowledge, and allow this to stand until the information required is in his possession.


Edward Frederick Clarke: While we are waiting for the information that has been promised, can the hon minister tell us where the ' Druid ' was built ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: She was built by Fleming & Ferguson, Paisley, Scotland.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not the sum asked for repairs an unusually large one ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: It is a good dea1 less than last year. Last year the steamer cost for maintenance and repairs, and so forth, $40,854.97. This year we are asking for only $28,000, because not as many repairs are required. Last year some repairs were made to the steamer itself in order to give more accommodation.


Edward Hackett: The minister promised me on going into supply that he would give me information with regard to the commis sioner he appointed to investigate frauds in the payment of bounties.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Mr. Matheson, inspector of fisheries, has been appointed for that purpose, and instructed to hold an investigation.


Edward Hackett: Now, with regard to the steamer ' Minto,' I find in the Auditor General's Report that a certain Mr. Ratten-1 bury, of Charlottetown, has been paid a commission of 5 per cent on freights delivered at Charlottetown, though the government has an agent there to look after the business, not only with regard to the 1 Minto,' but every other steamer owned by the government. I would ask the minister if Mr. Lord is not capable of looking after that business ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that Mr. Rattenbury is engaged every winter as freight agent to look after the freight in the interest of the government. The department is accustomed to employ him.


Edward Hackett: But the boat does not go to Charlottetown in the winter.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It goes to Charlottetown after a certain date, and then I suppose freight has to be gathered and looked after, as is done by every other transportation company.


Edward Hackett: Is it the intention to place the ' Stanley ' on the route between Summerside and Cape Traverse for the next season ? Last year she was taken off suddenly to Georgetown and Pictou, after having been only a few days on the route.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The ' Stanley ' was taken off the route between Summerside and Cape Tormentine when the season became too dangerous. There was so much ice that it would have been dangerous to leave the boat on that route. Instructions had been given to Captain Brown and Captain Far-quharson to use their own judgment in the matter, to join forces and put the two steamers on the same route as soon as the ice formed between Summerside and Cape Tormentine, and also between Pictou and Charlottetown. They were left to use their own judgment in the matter. Although this last winter was the most severe we have had for the last thirty or forty years, I think the ferry was kept in better shape than it ever was before. These two captains knew the route perfectly well, and when they saw there was danger they put on the two steamers between Georgetown and Pictou, and the result .was that navigation was suspended only for seven or eight days, instead of for weeks and months as in former winters.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. gentleman depend entirely on the judgment of Captain Brown in this matter ? The ' Stanley ' was brought there last autumn for the purpose of keeping up communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Now, it appears that the minister is entirely dependent on the judgment of Captain Brown. I would ask the minister if he is not aware that Captain Brown, within the last year, collided with a ship near the coast of Nova Scotia, as a result of which the government had to pay a large amount of damages ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware that any such accident happened to Captain Brown. But the matter was not left to Captain Brown alone, it was left to him and to Captain Farqubarson together, and they decided to put the two boats on the same route. I think the result shows that they did not misjudge the situation, because the communication has been better this last season than it was before.


Edward Hackett: I am remarking that the minister appears to be placing too much confidence on the judgment of Captain Brown. Did he not collide with a steamer, in consequence of which the government has been obliged to pay a large amount of damages ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In order to answer the hon. gentleman I would have to pick out all the details from the Auditor General's Report and the books of the department. I am informed by the officials of the department that there has never been any occasion to make a detailed statement of the expenditures for each boat.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this ship was purchased about three years ago. I should think my hon. friend, the High Admiral of the Canadian fleet, ought to be very well posted1 Mr. HACKETT.
as to the time when his ships went into commission. We are asked this year for $28,000 for the 'Druid,' and of this $28,000. a considerable sum is down in the estimates for repairs. In the Auditor General's Report I see some items which lead me to believe that the ship was built in Scotland during the financial year 1903, and was only brought into Canada last year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She has had two full seasons, and is on her third season.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not for a moment begrudge anything but I am glad to find it is not the policy of my hon. friend to feed his crew on pfite-de-foie-gras, and to give the Schlitz by the barrel. I suppose it is when the High Admiral visits the fleet the cigars are brought out.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My hon. frieud knows that I do not smoke, so the cigars do not affect me. I do not want to mention the name of the hon. gentleman for whom these delicacies were purchased. It is not a member of parliament, and not a minister who has used these things, and I think the investigation has gone far enough.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The investigation has not gone far enough, and the minister cannot by any covert threat of that kind prevent us from asking legitimate questions.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman informed the hon. member for Toronto that these supplies were purchased by tender. Now I find in the Auditor General's Report-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Will my hon. friend permit me ? I want him to understand that the general supplies are bought by tender, but very frequently small things are purchased as occasion requires at market prices. But the greater part of the expenditure is incurred by asking prices from different people who are in the line.


George Taylor: I find at page P-7, that Mr. E. D. Belanger, Que., sold goods amounting to $926.22. I find for instance flannel suits 21 at $21 each. Then I find 9 uniforms at $23 each and 10 at $19 each, dickeys, 21 at 25 cents each, and vests and pants for officers, 2 each, $26, and white duck suits, 21 at $2. I want to ask the minister if these goods are purchased. I want to ask the minister what the dickeys are for ? Are they a fraud for a shirt as this government is for being economical ? What are the 21 dickeys needed for ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does the hon. gentleman not know what a dickey is ? They are used for the uniform of the crew, as is customary. The dickey sits under the collar.


George Taylor: And does the hon. gentleman furnish all the clothing for the crew on the ' Aberdeen ? '


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: On every steamer.


George Taylor: Were these 21 dickeys furnished by tender ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot say if the 21 dickeys were bought by tender.


George Taylor: My hon. friend said that all these supplies were purchased by tender. Now I would ask him if these goods were bought by tender. He will find the list on P-8, under M. W. Coleman. Among the items are 200 pounds rice at 5 cents a pounds soap, 4 boxes at $3 a box and split pease, 142 pounds at 5 cents a pound, white beans, 7i bushels, at $2.60 a bushel. Did the hon. gentleman purchase these goods by tender ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All the standard articles which are in general use are purchased by tender.


George Taylor: Are these not standard articles ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I should think the beans were a standard article.


George Taylor: Is $2.60 a fair price for white beans in Quebec ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It must be a fair and reasonable price and a low price.


George Taylor: ___Will my hon. friend furnish the tenders and the names of the parties giving the lowest tenders for all the supplies ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. I gave them last year, and I will do the same this year.


George Taylor: We did not get them last year. I find that Mr. J. B. M. Dion, of Quebec, furnished 100 pounds of beans at five cents a pound, and 50 pounds of evaporated apples at 15 cents a pound, that you could buy any where at ten cents a pound retail. Then a man in Halifax got $5.75 for a barrel of apples and he sold $146 of goods. Were all these goods purchased by tender and were the lowest tenders accepted? If this government administered the affairs of the country as they should, they would have these supplies of their own in a central store to furnish steamers at ports of call, instead of allowing their officers to buy these goods at retail prices. They should either have a warehouse or else allow, the merchants of Quebec and Halifax and othef places, tender to supply standard goods at standard prices. The Auditor General's Report shows that we are paying two an|d three prices for supplies of hardware, groceries and provisions. Instead of being an economical government, it is the most extravagant government there has been.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Was there a store or warehouse under the Conservative administration ? Was it not done in exactly the same way as it is now ? Tenders are asked for at different ports of call, and goods bought from those who specify the cheapest prices from the different traders.!


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Who are the grocers in Quebec who are asked to tender for such supplies ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Our own friends of course, and who have enough responsibility and respectability to be dealt with.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman need not get impatient because he is only at the threshold of his estimates. He tells us that prices were asked from a certain, number of gentlemen in Quebec whom he calls ' our friends.' I want to know who are the grocers in Quebec to whom the government applied to supply this merchandise. The minister has his able officers beside him and he can answer that question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Tlie Auditor General's Report gives a list of all those with whom we have been dealing, and were sent forms of tender and were obliged to deposit a cheque, and after the contract was awarded to the lowest tender the cheque was returned to the others.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The minister has not answered my question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am sorry I cannot answer it better.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman knows he has not answered my question. The Auditor General's Report merely gives the names of persons who sold goods to the department, but what I asked for was the names of the grocers who were asked to tender.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will send for it and get it; I cannot furnish it now.


Mr.   BRAIN@: What was the revenue from the ' Minto ' and ' Stanley ' last year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $18,500. Prom the ' Minto '$11,285.38 ; from the ' Stanley,' $4 -192.72 ; mail service, $608.75.


Mr. BLAIN.: How much for freight and how much for passengers ?


Edward Hackett: I do not wish to delay the passing of this item, but I see here an item of $126.95 commission on freight at five per cent paid to Mr. Rattenbury, of Charlottetown. Is this a new departure ? You have a very efficient staff of officers at Charlottetown ; you have Mr. Lord who is a very able man and he has a clerk and a messenger, and they are quite able to attend to the business in Charlottetown without your paying commission to an outsider.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that Mr. Rattenbury has been retained as freight agent since 1896.


Edward Hackett: That shows you how a Liberal comes in for a job.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Nearly time.


Edward Hackett: Mr. Rattenbury has an account of $2,262 against the government in connection with steamships, and I find here aoharge against the ' Stanley ' for 'whisky short.' Will the minister tell us how that whisky came to be short.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is easily explained. It was a box of whisky that was missing and had to be replaced.


Edward Hackett: How do you happen to charge up against the 'Minto' a box of whisky short on the ' Stanley ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose the box of whisky was taken on at Pictou for Charlottetown. It disappeared in transit, Mr. CASGRAIN.
and had to be replaced. I do not know who was on board at the time.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman inquired into the habits of the men employed there ? He might be able to trace where the whisky went.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It was at the opening of the session of parliament.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: As we are dealing with expenditure, I would like to ask the hon. minister what is the cause of the increased expenditure from 1896 to 1903 of $877,860.28. I notice that in the year 1896 the expenditure of the Marine and Fisheries Department wasi $793,634.49, and in the year 1903 it was $1,671,494.77. I believe it is due to the House and the country that the hon. minister should give! some explanation of this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The explanation is clear from the blue-book. More steamers have been put in the service of both the Fisheries Department and the Marine Department ; the expenditure on aids to navigation is being increased year by year as the country develops ; and in the coming years it will have to be increased still further to satisfy the demands of the shipping interest and those interested in the fisheries. It is a well known fact that at the present time we cannot give to the shipping interests all they ask, in the way of permanent lights, improved fog alarms,, gas buoys, and other modern improvements. If the hon. gentleman looks at the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 1903, he will see that from 1867 to the present date the expenditure has been increasing year by year on account of the development of the country.


James Clancy: What the hon. gentleman is quoting now, I suppose, forms part of the material that will in future years be considered part of the history of his administration-I mean his pamphlet. This pamphlet, to which we had occasion to refer the other evening, bears the signature of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and it is of very recent date-the 1st of February, 1904. The other evening the question came up why the hon. gentleman had selected the year 1896. This is the reason ho gave on that occasion :
It is alter 1896 that the most important work was done. In 1894-5-6, there were great complaints against the St. Lawrence route and we had any amount ol difficulty in dispelling the wrong impression that had been formed regarding it. We all know the efforts that were made by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and the shipping interests of Quebec and Montreal in 1896 to convince the government that it was a question of life or death for the St. Lawrence route that certain improvements should be made ; and it has been since that time that large sums were voted

in order to improve the route and remove the bad impression which had been formed concerning it.
When the hon. gentleman made that explanation, he had not borne in mind what appears on page 16 of his pamphlet. It is by a stretch of great courtesy that we call this a pamphlet; on the previous occasion it was called a campaign sheet. Here is what it says, under the heading ' Investigation into Causes of Casualties in the St. Lawrence ' :
Owing to misrepresentations , concerning this great waterway, to and from the sea, and ignorance of the causes which led to several casualties of ocean-going steamers, investigations have been held. The result shows that the casualties were not due to lack of effective aids to navigation, nor dangers existing in the river, but in nearly every instance, to some oversight or neglect on the part of those in charge for the time being. Several investigations have been held by the Imperial Board of Trade, and the confirmation of the above statement is found in the fact that several masters holding imperial certificates have been suspended.
The pilotage system of the past has been defective, and this question is now receiving attention with a view of introducing a more complete and effective system.
The other evening the hon. gentleman told us that it was because of complaints of a very serious character that large sums of money had to be spent ; and he tells us in his own pamphlet, prepared in his own department, and dated no longer ago than the 1st of February of the present year, that this was practically all a fiction-that it was not due to the want of aid, but to misrepresentation of the facts. I would like the hon. gentleman to reconcile these two statements if he can. They have both gone out to the public.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think they agree perfectly.


James Clancy: The result shows that the casualties were not due to the lack of effective aids to navigation. The hon. gentleman declared the other night that the reason he selected 1896 to date the the improvements from, was because of the lack of effective aids to navigation, but he certainly has no ground on which to base any such argument.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In 1881 the expenditure in the Marine Department was $761,730.62. In 1896 it was-$793,,632.49, and in 1893 it reached $1,671,494.70, considerable over double. I would also draw attention to the fact that the cost of running the government steamers in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia in 1888 amounted to $150,659.16. In 1896 it was only ?$145,315.29 and in, 1903 it amounted to
$363,813.97. I think .the hon. minister should explain this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is very easy to explain. In some years we buy boats and in others we do not.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many boats were bought in 1903 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In that year we paid the balance due on the ' Lady Laurier.'


George Taylor: That does not appear in the Auditor General's Report.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How many boats were bought this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None.
Mr.-CASGRAIN. What about this steamer ' Gauss ' just come over ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was not a regular expenditure of the department, but for a special expedition to Hudson Bay. It was a special expenditure for the general account of three departments.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Department of the Interior, the Mounted Police and the Marine Departments. It is a special vote which was granted last year for this expedition, and we had to provide for a relief boat to remain in Hudson Bay. That is why we bought the ' Gauss.'


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I understand that this expenditure is to be borne by the Department of the Interior, the Privy Council, which has the control of the Northwest Mounted Police, and the Marine Department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A special vote was asked and an amount of money was put at the disposal of the Marine Department to organize the expedition. The expedition is not for the benefit of the Marine Department particularly. We were only asked to carry out the preliminaries.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is the expedition under the direct supervision of the Marine Department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Part of it is. The organization of the crew is, but not the whole of it. because a certain number of officials were furnished by the two other departments.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What price was paid for the ' Gauss ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $70,000. The price was $75,000 if the boat went seven knots an hour and $70,000 if it did not. It did not go the seven knots an hour, so we paid $70,000. It is a new boat which was built for the German government three years ago for an exploration and it cost $155,000.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Has the difficulty between the late owners and the government been settled? We read in the papers that the boat was held at the port of departure foil the sum of $5,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware of the difficulty between the late owners and the government. I communicated with Mr. Bopp, the German consul at Montreal, and there was no difficulty.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Who chose the crew?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was chosen by Captain Bernier himself and Captain Spain was authorized to examine the men with Captain Bernier before engaging them. Those who were found fit to go as sailors or officers were accepted.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Had Captain Bernier a free hand ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I left him perfectly free to choose the best men, and for greater security Captain Spain was present at the choice.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I understand that there was a gunner who was sent over as one of the members of the crew. Had this boat any guns?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This man was not shipped as a gunner. The newspapers were evidently making fun. The name of the man was LaferriSre.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What occupation did he follow before he became a master gunner ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is it true he was a reporter on one of the newspapers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Would that disqualify him ? If his physique was good and he fulfilled the conditions, I do not see where the disqualification would come in.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There is no disqualification, but it is a little strange that a newspaper reporter should be taken aboard the steamer [DOT] Gauss, ' not only as a member of the crew, but as a master gunner. There were no guns on the ship. It was not said jestingly that this was why this man,was taken aboard and paid by the government, but it was said in all truth and seriousness- he was taken on as a master gunner. There were no guns aboard, but even had there been, the man was absolutely unfit for the work he was appointed to do. He was there simply as a reporter for a certain newspaper in Montreal, but was shipped nominally as a master gunner in order that he might have a trip to Germany and back. If there is any truth in this I would like to know it. If the minister can deny it let him do so.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I read the report in the newspaper. It was all news to me, and I know nothing about it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is Captain Bernier still in the employ of the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, he is in charge of the ship.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Where ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In Quebec.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is the crew that brought the ship across still with the ship ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, they have all been discharged except those that are absolutely necessary while the boat is being repaired.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I suppose this crew was sent over for the special purpose of bringing the ' Gauss '[DOT] to Canada and not to take her to any special waters, as, for instance, to Hudson Bay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is correct. And the whole crew was not sent from this side. There were only a few of the men, because we took some of the special officers, such as engineers from Germany.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How many were sent from this side ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Sixteen.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: And how many were taken from the other side ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Six.


Mr. BENNETT.: There seems to have been a great difference of opinion between the minister and Captain Bernier about the hiring of these men. I do not wish to misunderstand the minister. Do I understand him to say that these men were wholly and solely hired by Captain Bernier and that there was no interference with his choice ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If I were to say 1 yes, ' in answer to that it would not be right. The master of the ship is under control of the department that hires him. In this case Captain Bernier was offered a list of a certain number of men and was called upon to make his choice from that list. And he was assisted by Captain Spain in making his choice. If he wanted to refuse any of the men, he could say so, and that man would be passed by.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find in the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' of 15th June, the following interview with Captain Bernier -


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have positive information from Captain Bernier over his own signature that he never gave any interview to any newspaper. Any interview that may be published as having come from him is made out of whole cloth.


William Humphrey Bennett: This interview was published on June 15. It seems rather odd that

Captain Bernier has not contradicted it public-ally in the press. Perhaps the minister has not seen it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Captain Bernier has had no time to contradict all that is said about him.


William Humphrey Bennett: He has had a whole week. This interview is dated Quebec, and says
Capt. Bernier, who arrived here yesterday with his Arctic vessel, the ' Gauss,' after a thirty-six days' cruising, is far from satisfied with the personnel of his crew.
The ship does not seem over-speedy when she takes thirty-six days to cross the Atlantic.
He claims that with the exception of four men, including his first and second officers, the crew of twenty-four was foisted upon him by the Dominion government.
They were not of my choice, and, with the exception of a few good men, all land-lubbers or fresh water sailors who never went aloft in their lives or knew how to read a compass.
Some, no doubt, thought that because the [DOT] Gauss ' was a government vessel they were going on a pic-nic, but the moment we started from Bremerhaven I gave them to understand that I was master of the vessel. Nevertheless, they were unfit to work.
I stipulated with the government before leaving Canada that I required six men for each watch, but I found when we set sail that I could only have three ; the others were of no use. Consequently my officers and myself had to do double duty, and I was on the bridge the whole of every day until we came to anchor in the port of Quebec.
Among the crew as gunner was a young man named Laferri6re, who X have since learned is connected with a Montreal French paper. I do not know why he was given to me because the ' GaUss ' has no guns on board and in consequence was not in want of a gunner ;- but I presume influence was responsible for his appointment. X also had a steward who was forced on me, though I objected to him and who had the furnishing of the meat to the crew.
With regard to the complaints made about the quality of the provisions, Captain Bernier said :
Lord Dundonald completely in the shade. I am surprised that the minister allows his dignity to be offended by his subordinate in this fashion. Surely he is going to have Captain Bernier walk the carpet after this statement of his. I ask him again if any of the statements contained in the interview are correct ? .


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have no statement except the one I have just referred to.
I have, over the signature of Capt. Bernier a full denial of what has been put in the paper. And the report to me is perfectly satisfactory. I am not going to run to all the newspaper offices to tell them that Captain Bernier did not give an interview when I have his formal denial over his own signature. If I had the least doubt about the matter I would investigate. But I have no doubt. Captain Bernier knows his duty too well to have forgotten himself to the extent that has been mentioned. I believe that the report he has made to me is a faithful, a loyal and an honest report, and I have no other report to be guided by. If the newspapers take it upon themselves to make interviews, that is their own affair, I am not going to answer and I am not going to ask Captain Bernier to engage in correspondence. He is not a newspaper man. He has a fair education, but it is not his business to answer newspaper reports.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it would be only fair to Captain Bernier to have his report or letter go side by side with this intervfew. Will the minister lay it before the House ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The report of Captain Bernier I can place before the House if it is required. It is an official l'eport, regularly filed. I will lay it before the House.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it a full denial of what is in the ' Mail and Empire ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He says he never gave an interview to any newspaper.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. minister first said it was a letter, and now he says it is a report. Which is it, a letter or a report ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We will not. quarrel about the word, it is a report in the form of a letter if you like.
The provisions consisted of salt pork, hams, salt beef, sea-biscuit and flour. They wanted fresh bread, and you can judge for yourself what kind of sailors they were when they refused biscuits. I have sailed the ocean for thirty-five years as a master and in all my experience never heard of such a crew, and in future I will have the shipping of my own men or know the reason why.
Now, that interview was published on June 15, and it appears incredible that it should be wholly inaccurate in view of the fact that Captain Bernier has never denied it. Why, Captain Bernier has put


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is not the question at all. When we brought this matter up my hon. friend said it was a letter. Now a letter is supposed to be a public document, especially where it concerns an interview in a paper where the man denies ever having given the interview. Now the hon. gentleman is asked to produce this letter, which could be produced immediately before this committee. He says that it is part of a report which he will lay upon the table of the House. I ask the hon. gentleman to produce this document. I call his attention also to this fact which he has just

stated. He has just stated that Captain Bernier is not going to answer newspaper reports. But I may point out that when this interview was given in the ' Mail,' Captain Bernier was answering a report that bad appeared in the papers, and was also answering reports which had been given to the newspapers by some of the crew who complained bitterly of the treatment they had received on board that ship. So it was he that was answering these reports in the newspapers. When my hon. friend says that he is not going to ask Captain Bernier to answer in his report, he is beside the book, because this was given in answer to a report in a newspaper. Has my hon. friend read the reports in the ' Mail and Empire ? ' Has he not seen these interviews which were given by some members of the crew ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the other reports given to the newspapers are as truthful as the one which was put into the mouth of Captain Bernier, I do not think we need spend much time over them.
Mr. CASGRAlN. That may be my hon. friend's opinion, it is not ours. This is an important subject, it has been engaging the attention of newspapers in the city of Quebec and the city of Montreal ever since the ' Gauss ' arrived. Now I think it is due to Captain Bernier that whatever reproaches have been heaped upon him by the crew and other interested parties, should be cleared up. and got rid of. I know Captain Bernier well, and have known him for a long time. I formerly appointed him to a very important post, in which he gave the most complete satisfaction. From this post he was dismissed without any cause or reason whatever. The witnesses who were called against him testified that there never was such a good officer in the position he occupied as Captain Bernier. Now he has been accused publicly by these people, and amongst others, I believe, by this man La-ferri&re, of having brutally treated his crew, of having given them rations that could not be eaten, of having in other ways conducted himself not as a mariner, not as a master of a ship, but as a savage. I say it is in the interest of Captain Bernier, and it is only fair to him that these accusations should be cleared up, that these two accusations which have been brought against him should be disproved, and the proof should be given to this committee now in this discussion, so that the newspapers of the country which contained these reports may also contain the justification of Captain Bernier. This is the reason why I ask my hon. friend to produce this report, or his letter from Captain Bernier, so that we may get to the bottom of this matter which has attracted so much attention by the public ever since the 'Gauss arrived at Quebec.


Edward Hackett: What is the gross tonnage of the ' Gauss ? '


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 780 tons.


Edward Hackett: How is she propelled, by steam or by sail ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By both.


Edward Hackett: What was her rate of speed across the Atlantic ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not got the exact report yet, because Captain Spain has been away. Besides that, Captain Bernier was not in a hurry, and the weather was very bad during the passage.


Edward Hackett: Who was the officer who purchased the ship on behalf of the government 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The details of the purchase are all contained in the department here at Ottawa. Captain Bernier himself was acquainted with the ship and recommended her strongly. Before closing the bargain we had her examined in Bremer-haven by Captain Mooney, who was superintending the construction of the ' Canada ' which was launched on the 14th of this month. He was commissioned to proceed to Bremerhaven and examine this boat thoroughly and make a report. It was he who informed us that the boat was not very fast and it was with that knowledge that we made a bargain with the Consul General at Montreal to be completed by Lord Strath-cona in London directly with the German government.


Edward Hackett: Would the minister state what is the horse-power of the boat ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I could not tell that from memory. The vessel is not supposed to be altogether a steam vessel.


James Clancy: I understood the minister to state that Captain Bernier was presented with a list of persons from whom he was to choose his crew. Was the exact number of men on the list presented to the captain or was there a larger number ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He was given a list of those who had made application for positions on the vessel, Some of them were chosen in Quebec and some in Montreal.


James Clancy: Were they all recommended ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Captain Spain was instructed not to engage any man unless he was approved by Captain Bernier.


James Clancy: Was Captain Bernier at liberty to reject any of the men ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At perfect liberty.


James Clancy: Did he have instructions to that effect ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Captain Spain had instructions and I gave instructions personally to Captain Bernier.


James Clancy: That he might select whom he pleased ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That he might select whom he pleased provided they had passed the necessary examination to which they were subjected by Captain Spain.


James Clancy: Now we are getting new light. Capt. Bernier was instructed to select from those who were recommended to him. I am endeavouring to find out whether he was perfectly free to ignore the list that was sent to him by the hon. gentleman. I would like to have a statement from the hon. gentleman whether Capt. Bernier was confined to those persons who were recommended to him by the department, I care not how good, if he had a free hand. If he was presented with a list and told that he might select from that list whom he pleased, that is not giving him a free hand. That is tying his hands entirely. I would like an explicit statement whether a list was submitted to Capt. Bernier from which he might alone select or if he was given permission to select outside of that list.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have stated that twice already. A list of applicants was given to Capt. Spain and Capt Bernier and then there were a number of others who had applied to Capt Bernier directly and a certain number of students-I will call them students, although some of them were forty or fifty years of age-who frequented the naval school at Montreal, who were recommended to Capt. Bernier, by the director of the school at Montreal. Capt. Spain and Capt. Bernier went to Montreal and chose those whom they thought best qualified, but they were free to reject the whole list if they saw fit. They did the same thing at Quebec. The men with whom Capt. Bernier started were his own choice, and to me, the day he left for New York to take the steamer, he declared himself perfectly satisfied and made no complaint whatever. He makes no complaint at the present time and whatever the newspapers have published does not concern him because he has not thought proper to answer and it does not concern me at all. I have his report and am guided by that.


James Clancy: The explanation seems fair. The minister gave instructions to Capt. Spain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Capt. Spain is responsible for the choice of the crew of any vessel under the department.


James Clancy: Were the instructions written ?
Mr. PREFONTAINE They might be, it was done in the department in the ordinary way. Some of the instructions were given verbally by myself.


Edward Hackett: We have at least the information that the ' Gauss ' has been
purchased in Germany and brought across the Atlantic and is now in Quebec. The result of her exploration we will know later. I would like to ask for information in regard to the ' Stanley.' I see an item here :
Baker, Ely & Co., Yarmouth, damage to wharf, caused by the ' Stanley ' colliding with the ' Prince Edward,' tearing her away from her moorings, $66.
How did that occur, who was in charge and why should she collide with the ' Prince Edward ' or tear away the wharf ?
Mr. PREFONTAINE I am informed it was a small matter, a mere accident, but I will furnish the details.


Edward Hackett: It may be small in the opinion of the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed it is a small item and I will give the information.


Edward Hackett: I myself have further information. The hon. gentleman may think that when he pays a captain $100 a month to take charge of a steamship and then in addition to that the captain causes damage to the amount of $2,000 it is a very small matter to the people of this country. I assert in the interests of the people of this country that any damage in this way by a captain should cause his dismissal from the service. Has an investigation been held in this matter ?
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Hackett: Has the minister got the information as to the accident that happened at Yarmouth between the ' Stanley ' and the ' Prince Edward ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have received this statement from my officers : the ' Stanley ' when going into Yarmouth harbour fouled the ' Prince Edward ' which was lying at the wharf. The tide was running out very strongly and the channel being very narrow, the 1 Stanley ' lost steerage way and in consequence came in contact with the ' Prince Edward ' and damaged her upper works. Mr. Stevens went to Yarmouth to assess the damages. The repairs were done by the Dominion Atlantic Company who own the ' Prince Edward,' and Mr. Stevens reported that the charges were reasonable. At Yarmouth the channel is so narrow, that with the strong current running the captain of the ' Stanley ' had a great difficulty in preventing his ship grounding. This happened about a year ago last May.


Edward Hackett: What was the total amount paid on account of this damage.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $1,500.


Edward Hackett: Is the captain of the ' Stanley ' the man who is supposed to keep up communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


James Clancy: I suppose it is understood that if this item passes now it does not prevent general discussion again if it is necessary.


Peter Macdonald: Oh, no.
, Examination of masters and mates, $7,000.


James Clancy: In view of the minister refusing assent to the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln, what is going to be the policy of the department with regard to the examination of masters and mates ? It was stated last evening that the examiners were not in all cases qualified, and had not passed the necessary examination themselves ; it was also said that the examiners were paid by fees which the hon. gentleman knows is hardly the proper way to remunerate such officers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As I stated last night, it is the intention to consolidate the laws concerning masters and mates, and also to amend the regulations as regards the examination and, the status of the examiners. I have been in the department for only eighteen months, and I cannot be expected to do everything at once. I think no one will reproach me with not attending to my duty, because I am at my office every morning at nine or half past nine, and I am trying to do the best I can. If there are many things to be remedied I do not blame my predecessors in office whether they belong to my own party or not; I suppose they did their best. There is no doubt that the demands on the department at present are very great, and I am trying to do everything which I believe to be in the interests of the department and the country generally. Of course, I am open to the charge that I belong to a party which is not in sympathy with gentlemen opposite, but my department is a department into which party politics does not enter a very great deal.


James Clancy: Of course not.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: And party politics should not enter into my department a very great deal either, because it is a department which is charged with, developing important interests in this country, and especially the national route of the St. Lawrence. Any suggestion which comes from any part of the country or-from men of any shade of politics, will be considered by me and put into execution if I think it wise to do so, and if I have the means. I cannot say more than that.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


James Clancy: I do not remonstrate with the hon. gentleman because he is at his office from an early hour in the morning to a late hour at night, but I think I can find fault that his splendid professions are not carried into practice.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman's best is not very encouraging. I do not say that everything asked from the department should be granted, but certain things have been asked which appeal so strongly to common sense, that it puzzles one to know why the minister can waive them aside after his own light hearted fashion.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is my natural disposition; I am born that wp.y.


James Clancy: I have not the least fear that the hon. gentleman will over power us by his virtue. If the hon. gentleman were less amiable and more businesslike he would serve the country better than he does. He tells us that we must wait for him to takei his office out of a state of chaos ; but he will have to afford some better reason why he did not this session consolidate the law, relating to masters and mates. I believe the minister is capable of acting vigorously, if he wants to, and I hardly think he is too short a time in his office not to have opinions of his own.
I think, without having any personal knowledge of these matters, that the hon. gentleman must be advised very much by his staff. But to receive the advice of a very good staff and to be utterly without any policy of how the department should be carried on are two very different things. I should like to know what is to be done this year-whether it is the hon. gentleman's intention to compel those making applications for certificates to conform to some healthy rules, namely, that an affidavit should be made as to their service and who they were ; that examiners should be persons who are qualified by reason of having passed the examinations themselves ; and that no inducement should be held out to any one to open the spout and turn out a batch of certificates on commission or something else. The hon. gentleman says that he hopes for a better state of things at some time ; that is all the information I have received from him.


Edward Hackett: We are aware that the hon. minister is new to the department, but he has a very able staff. At the same time, we must look after the business of the country, and I think we might allow these items to" pass without very much discussion.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to produce that letter or report from Captain Bernier.

Mr. PRE-FONTAINE. The hon. gentleman is unreasonable. Does he imagine that I am going to walk to the department and look up papers, and bring documents here of which I have had no notice whatever ?
I think it is a most unreasonable request to make of a minister and I do not intend to submit to it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not think it is unreasonable at all. The hon. gentleman said it was a letter, and afterwards he called it a report ; and he said he would produce it. I do not mean that the hon. gentleman should walk to his department and get this document ; but it seems to me that he has plenty of means for getting it. This report must have been filed in his department not more than two or three days ago, so that it must be very easily obtained. Unless there is something in the report which my hon. friend does not want to show, or unless it contradicts what he said this afternoon, I cannot see any reason why he should refuse to produce it before the House. My hon. friend said this afternoon that he did not know that the papers in Quebec and Montreal had spoken about this thing.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1 never said anything of the sort. I said I did not mind the reports of the newspapers. I did not say that I did not read or take cognizance of them. I said I did not care for the reports, garbled reports mostly, and interviews made up of whole cloth. They did not concern me in any shape or form, and 1 thought Captain Bernier had taken the same view of them. The hon. gentleman has no right to put in my mouth words which I did not use.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Perhaps my understanding is at fault; but I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he had not seen what the papers said. I have in my hand ' La Presse ' of the 14tli of June, the day the ' Gauss ' arrived in Quebec. This paper is full of reports from the different members of the crew. Here is a complaint signed by almost all the crew, with an affidavit about certain matters that happened while this ship was crossing from Germany. There ds an interview with Captain Bernier, which I will read to the House :
(Translation.) He will defend himself before the competent authorities.
The following interview, by telephone, with Captain Bernier, who is in Quebec, explains the other side of the medal.
I am aware, said the captain, of the complaints made against me by my crew, but you do not expect that I will discuss them in public. I leave to those young people the responsibility for their strange course, which consists in having addressed collectively a complaint to the marine authorities, which is founded on deceptions, and in having submitted, at the same -time, that complaint to the public. Such is a discourteous proceeding that will scarcely give them any sympathy.
All that I can tell you is that the vast majority of the young men who formed my crew, had never done any navigation, and that a large number of them had never seen the sea.
It was by dint of persistent requests and the setting up of claims more or less worthless that the greater portion of my crew obtained enrolment, while I was not given the liberty to make selections.	For those
young people it was a question of a pleasure excursion, of a delightful and free trip, that would enable them, on -their return, to tell their parents, their friends and1 even those uninterested, imaginary stories of adventure
Once at work, they had- to settle down. They had been engaged to work the vessel, to labour, and that obligation entirely disillusioned them.
They say that they belong to good families; it is quite possible, I do not dispute the fact; but, then, they could have remained at home and not have taken the places of good sailors, both experienced and disciplined, whom I might have selected, and who, certainly, on their return would not have complained-seeing that life on board the ' Gauss ' would not have differed from any other voyage they might have made upon no matter what vessel.
The ' Gauss ' is not a pleasure-boat, and the voyage from Germany to Canada is not a recreation trip.
Life on board a sailing vessel, even for sailors is rough, and I can understand that these young people of good family, accustomed to the sweets of the paternal home, experienced a great disappointment on finding themselves bound to do the painful work of sailors, when they had dreamed of a tourist crossing, sheltered by a tent, or rocking themselves, cigar in mouth, in the rocking-chairs of the captain's cabin, and sipping hot or cold drinks according to taste.
The complaints of those young men are possibly sincere, but they are evidently dictated by the vexation, the disillusion, and the disappointment of not being able to parade a pompous title, all the more glorious in the fact that it would make known the ease and importance they enjoyed on board.
I am not an atom inferior to those young people, and yet, even though my employment and my title should have dispensed me therefrom, had I on board assistants of experience and broken in to the work, instead of having those accustomed to the parlour, I performed each day the ordinary work of a sailor and 'never slept more than four hours per day.
I confine my remarks on the subject to this, reserving to myself the right to give a vigorous reply to the minister, as I believe that such a discussion interests him alone, at least until such time as he passes thereon. I and that from being the accused I may before the minister, the roles will be changed, and that from being the accused I may bel come the accuser, by my complaint of a plot formed against me, as- the facts themselves establish.
Now my point is this :	My hon. friend
says that Captain Bernier has stated in a letter or report made to him that lxe never gave this interview. At first he said a letter, then he corrected that by saying a report. That may be true. It may happen



that Captain Bernier, at the time he was speaking, did not know that he was being interviewed. From personal experience 1 can say that I have conversed with a reporter sometimes not knowing that he was a reporter and I was surprised to read next day in a paper almost exactly what (I had said. I did not know that I was giving an interview, in fact I was not giving an interview, but my opinions were there all the same expressed in the newspaper. That is what may have happened to Captain 'Bernier. But in the ' Mail and Empire ' he makes these statements, he says that he was obliged to take certain men that were not fit for the job for which they were engaged, that they were not sailors, that they had never seen the sea and did not know anything about navigation ; and the consequence was that he and his chief officers were obliged to be on the bridge almost all the time, and were obliged to do the ordinary work of seamen on that ship. Now we want to know whether it is true that Captain Bernier was forced to take this crew with him as he repeats in this interview. It is published in the press, and remember it is alleged that this man Laferri&re was taken on board as a master gunner when there were no guns on the ship at all. We have this fact, at all events, stated by Captain Bernier that he was forced to take these men who were not lit for the service for which they had been engaged. Now if my hon. friend has a report or a letter, while we are on this question, it seems to me the easiest thing in the world for him to produce it. That is the request I make, . a perfectly reasonable and just request. Let him produce before this committee that letter, or dhat report. I do not ask him to read it all. There may be things in it that do not interest the public or interest this committee. But Captain Bernier has been accused by the crew before the whole community of the most inhuman treatment possible. He has been accused for instance, of having knowingly taken on board that ship provisions which were absolutely unfit for use, and the greater part of which had to be thrown overboard. He is accused in these reports, which are signed by the members of the crew of keeping these men on biscuits and butter almost the whole trip across. He is accused of ill treating his crew, and I say that it is only common justice to Captain Bernier, who is an employee of the government, who has been entrusted by the government with the command of this ship in taking it over from Germany to Canada, to let him state his case before the public so that he can vim dicate himself from these grave and serious charges. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman should, I respectfully submit, defend his officer, his employee against Mr. CASGRAIN.
these accusations. Now my hon. friend says that he is not obliged to walk over to his department and get this letter. But he has a lot of employees, and he could easily send one of them over for this letter. I say again that he ought to produce it now while the discussion is going on. If he does not produce it we shall conclude that there is something in the report which he does not want to lay before the committee, or something which contradicts the statement which he made to the House.


Mr. GALVRBAU.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word upon this question. When the crew was engaged, I asked the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he would take on board of the * Gauss,' a person whom I was ready to recommend. The answer was : telegraph to your man to come and meet Captain Bernier at Quebec, and if he is judged competent by Captain Bernier and Captain Spain, he will be engaged.


Mr. A. LAVERGNE.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I must say for the information of the hon. member for Montmorency, that I have myself asked Joseph Couillard, of Montmagny, as second mate on board of the ' Gauss.' The minister told me to go and see Captain Bernier, and Captain Bernier told me that he was entrusted with the selection of the crew and that if Couillard was found competent he would take him on board.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I understand that the men whom the hon. member for Temis-cuouata (Mr. Gauvreau) and the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) recommended to Captain Bernier, were refused.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The man I recommended was accepted.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Well, if Captain Bernier corroborates that statement, it justifies my hon. friend. But there is another feature to this matter to which I alluded just now. The accusation that these men brought against Captain Bernier in the public press has been published throughout the country in all the papers, and it is only fair to him that he should be cleared of itlte accusation brought against him. There is no reason' in the world why my hon. friend should not produce that report. I say that after the promise he has given to the committee it is time he should produce it. It is no justification for him to say that he cannot walk over to his department and get it. This report was handed in within the last two or three days, it must be easily obtained.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Let me say in two words that what my hon. friend from Montmorency has read from ' La Presse '

bears its own condemnation. How could Captain Bernier state what is mentioned in this interview ? It would be the most stupid thing on the part of a master of a ship to say that he left Quebec to go to Germany and bring back a ship on his own responsibility, and that, like a fool, he accepted the men that were offered to him that he was ordered to take, and now, when complaints are made, to say that he was forced to do so. I say it is so ridiculous, it is so childish, that I am" surprised that my hon. friend from Montmorency, who has had a good deal of political experience, should pay so much attention to a trifling matter of this kind. I stated before recess that Captain Bernier denied ever having given an interview to the newspapers, denied it over his own signature. Whether he did it by report, or letter, or telegram does not matter, the fact is he denied it.
The hon. gentleman would like me to take notice of what has been stated in the newspapers. As head of the department, I take no notice of these things, unless they are brought to my attention in an official way. These pretended complaints were made on the part of a few hot-headed fellows who did not know what they were about when they were engaged. These fellows have not dared, up to the present moment to lay their complaints before the department ; they have not dared lay them before Capt. Bernier. But they have gone to the newspapers. What do I care about that ? What difference does it make to the department. If these gentlemen had been sincere, if they had been serious, if they had not been playing a childish game, they would at least have taken the trouble to send me a copy of the paper in which they printed these pretended complaints. But I have nothing in the department about the matter. Under these circumstances, it seems to me childish to treat the question in this way and to try to make political capital out of it. If political capital is to be made out of it who is going to suffer ? Capt. Bernier is going to suffer, because he has declared- and he cannot deny it-that he has been left free to choose his crew. If he misjudged the men he engaged, that is his own affair. If there are serious complaints against the conduct of any officer they will be treated seriously. But there is nothing of that kind in the department. I know that it has been stated in the newspapers that unwholesome meat was served in the ship. Well, as to that we have the report of two German members of the crew, officers-the engineer and the assistant engineer-who state that on one occasion by mere accident, some preserved beef was served that was not in proper condition. To whom was it served ? It was served to the captain himself the officers and the crew. And, if these fellows, who were sea sick were particularly offended by this kind of meat, 1664
surely the captain is not to be held responsible for their feelings. The meat was bought, with other meat, from a responsible firm in Germany. It was meat that had been put up in Germany. And if it happened that some of this meat was not what it was thought to be, that is no more than might happen in any household. You may buy some meat that you think perfectly good, only to find, when it is on the table, that it is not fit to be eaten. Surely, the whole department is not to be held to blame for a thing of that kind. In a lumber camp, the same thing sometimes happens. Twenty-five barrels of beef may be provided, of which twenty-four are found to be of first-class quality, but the other one is wrong. Is that any reason why the boss of the shanty should be threatened with death, accused of attempting to poison his men and denounced ,as one who ought to be hanged ? These things are too ridiculous. It is not a serious treatment of a public question to occupy the time of the committee with such nonsensical things.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am sorry I have excited the ire of my hon. friend (Mr. Pre-fontaine).


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not at all.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: But I have attained my object to a certain extent. I have been wanting to get from my hon. friend the statement that he does not believe the accusations brought against Capt. Bernier by his crew in the press. I have sought for an hour to get from my hon. friend a vindication of the character of this man whose reputation, until now, has been of the very best. I have succeeded so far.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) will allow me-he was not in the House for a quarter of an hour or so when this question was first threshed out. What I have just stated, I stated then- that there was no official information in the department from the crew or from anybody else, and that I relied on what the captain had stated to me.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman (Mr. PrSfontaine) is mistaken. I was here, and have been here during the whole of this discussion. I have not missed a single one of the eloquent words which my hon. friend has vouchsafed to utter to the committee. He started with the argument that it is perfectly ridiculous to say that Capt. Bernier should have stated anything of the kind as that he had been called upon to sail this ship with a crew that were unfit for the work for which they had been engaged. That is not the question. We have here two newspapers giving two interviews with Capt. Bernier at two different times, in which he states positively that a certain crew were foisted upon him, that he had to take them and that they were unfit for the job for which they were hired-that

they were anything but seamen. On the other hand, the minister says he has a letter, or it may be a report, or, he says now that it may be a telegram, from Capt. Bernier, denying that he gave these interviews. At first he described it as a letter over Capt. Bernier's signature. This implies a short document which could easily be produced before the House. After that, under the fire of the questions to which he was subjected, he changed his base and said that it was a report. Why ? Because a report would be a long document which it would be more difficult to bring before the House. He says now that it may be a telegram. We have a right to know what it is. We have had a suspension of the sitting of the committee for two hours and the bon. minister has had time to get this report, or letter or telegram-whichever it may be-and bring it before this committee. I state again that the reason that he does not produce it is that he is afraid that the statement contained in the letter will contradict what he has said in this committee. Is this going to be another suppression of a document ? Is this document marked ' private ' or ' confidential ' ? Is this a private document that will be brought down only if and when it helps the case of hon. gentlemen opposite ? Are we to have the suppression of a document which is asked for and which should be here when the estimates of the department are under discussion, especially after my hon. friend has said that he will produce it ? He knows very well that even if I put a notice of motion on the paper for the production of the document I should have no opportunity to move that motion this session, because yesterday was the last private members' day ? My hon. friend will not produce the document which will probably contradict his statements in this committee ; he will not produce the document which will probably be his condemnation. This is not a trifling matter, it is not a trivial matter ; it is not a matter which this committee should not discuss. I say again that the attention of the people of the province of Quebec has been called to this matter and. that ever since the ' Gauss ' arrived the press has been full of these reports and accusations. This is a matter in which the press and the public in the province of Quebec are taking a deep interest. This is not a trifling matter. When an hon. gentleman tells the House that he has a letter or a telegram, he is bound to produce it. What does the hon. gentleman mean by my experience ? Does he want me to talk about his ? I think he had better leave the question of experience alone.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are not discussing the item of the ' Gauss ' at present. When that item comes before the House will be the proper time to produce all the documents in connection with it, and I invite the hon. gentleman then to be present. He will then see that none of the documents Mr. CASGRAIN.
which will be filed by me will contradict anything I have said. But we are not discussing that item now.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend is wrong again. We are discussing item 191, the first sub-item of which iS maintenance and repairs' of government steamers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That does not ap ply to the ' Gauss ' at 'all. It is not mentioned.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is the ' Aberdeen,' or the ' Minto,' or the ' Lord Stanley ' mentioned ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes ; in explaining the item I said it related to them.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The ' Gauss ' is a government steamer, and I have the right to know all about it on this item.


Peter Macdonald: Just before the hon. gentleman came in we passed the item.


Andrew B. Ingram: On the understanding that it could be discussed again.


Peter Macdonald: I have no objection to its being discussed, but when the point of order is raised I have to rule.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister must know that before the item passed I rose to speak, when he consented, in reply to my hon. friend from Both well (Mr. Clancy )r that the general discussion might take place on any of the sub-items.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. When the item of $250,000 came before the committee, I enumerated every steamer to which it applied, and the ' Gauss ' was not mentioned' at all. When the item concerning the * Gauss ' comes up ail the documents will be produced, but I should not be asked now to produce any part of the documents. There is an investigation to be made by Capta in-Spain, and Captain Spain's report will be-submitted. The,proper time to submit every document will be when the item is submitted, and that can only be in the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I arise more particularly to vindicate our rights as an opposition. On this item of repairs to government steamers I claim that we have the right to discuss the ' Gauss ' or any other steamer owned by the government. Last year on this same item we discussed the maintenance and repairs and sale of government steamers, which had gone out of the possession of the government. This may not be the most opportune time to discuss matters connected with the ' Gauss,' but we have the right to do It.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, I do not think it is right to ask me to produce a part of the documents and bring down an incomplete return on an Item that does not affect this particular steamer, the ' Gauss," at all.
Jilts E 21. 1904


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: We are here discussing the repairs to government steamers, anti are not to be silenced. There is a very easy way of settling this matter, and that is by moving that the committee rise. The hon. gentleman is in a corner and is. trying to get out of it. I have had him in a corner before in other eases. He is simply raising the point of order so as to prevent discussion. He is bound to produce this letter and refuses to do so, probably either because it contradicts his statement or does not exist. I have made the charge and the country can judge between us.


Mr. T. I. THOMSON.: Supposing there was no expenditure on the ' Stanley,' have we not the right to discuss anything relating to that vessel on this item 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not said that you have not.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Does the hon. gentleman say that Captain Bernier was given a free hand in selecting his crew ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.	[DOT]


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: At Owen Sound, where there are two government vessels, it was the custom up to 1896 to leave the selection of the crew to the captains. In 1896 the president of the Liberal Association practically dictated to the captains of these vessels the men they should employ, and what was the result ? Why, take the crew of the ' Petrel,' and if it landed at any town in Canada it was a pleasure to see that crew go ashore. There was uniformity in size and there was discipline.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I mean before 1896. To-day you have no unifomity in size, and if it was ever intended for a small navy it has deteriorated under the present system. The captains do not select the crews, but are dictated to, not by the minister or by any official of the department, but by the president of the Liberal Association in that riding.


William Humphrey Bennett: I wish to refer again to the sale of the steamer ' Bayfield,' which was discussed last year. On page P-164 of the Auditor General's Report will be found some very severe strictures by the Auditor General upon this transaction, by which this boat was sold for half her value to a friend, not a personal friend of the minister, but to a firm who are strong political friends and allies of hon. gentlemen opposite. The letter to which I refer is as follows :
Audit Office, Ottawa, June 10, 1903.
Sir,-I have received your letter of the 6th instant, inclosing a report of Wffl. J. Stewart of your department, dated February 17, 1903, in which he values the steamer ' Bayfield ' at $7,000. With that letter is inclosed also the
offer of $3,250 hy John Harrison & Sons Co. for the vessel, dated March 12, and on this letter is a note signed by Wm. J. Stewart recommending the acceptance of the offer. No explanation is furnished why Mr. Stewart valued the vessel at $t,000 on February 17 and recommended her sale in March for $3,250.
Was the vessel valued by any other officer or builder-the captain in charge, for instance ?
Was there any reason to fear that the country might have suffered by calling for tenders in this case.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
J. L. McDOUGALL, A.G. The Deputy Minister, Marine and Fisheries.
In the last few lines of this letter I think there is 'a certain amount of sarcasm-
Was there any reason to fear that the country might have suffered hy calling for tenders in this case ?
Here is an official of the department in February stating that the vessel in his opinion is worth $7,000 and within a month, in the fulness of his heart and his great liberality, he hands her over to party friends for $3,250. No excuse as to the uuseaworthiness of the vessel will serve, because her new owners have employed her on the Georgian bay waters in all kinds of weather towing logs, not only risking the vessel, but valuable rafts of logs behind her. Thus the vessel was in a seaworthy condition when She was sold, and the minister, without any authority or any right from parliament, or even from his colleagues in the cabinet, because there was no Order in Council, turned around and makes a present of the vessel to party friends for half its value.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year I gave all explanations in connection with this, and I have nothing to add to what I then stated, which can be read in ' Hansard.' I stand by the bargain of last year, which I think was the best that could be made under the circumstances. If the hon. gentleman wants to use it as campaign literature, as he said last year he did, he is welcome to it. I have read the Conservative papers since then, but I do not see that it was contained in any of the pamphlets since published. In order to put the thing as clearly as possible before the House, I shall read a letter which I have here from John Harrison & Sons Company, Limited, the present owners of the vessel, which bears out what I said last year. I said that the disposal of the boat at $3,250 was a good sale, because the boat was a charge to the department and could not be used satisfactorily for the work to J>e done ; the officers would not risk their lives on her on Georgian bay waters, and she had to be sold. We took offers, and the offer of John Harrison & Sons Company, Limited, was considered the best, and a reasonable offer.


Commander W.   J.@: Stewart, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, an oid employee of the department, appointed under the old government before 1896, a man not likely to be suspected of any leanings towards our party, took upon himself to make the recommendation. I myself knew nothing of the boat, and the other officers of the department here did not know anything of her value or of the opportunity of selling her. We relied entirely on the recommendation of Commander Stewart and on the opinion of other officers who have technical knowledge. The letter of Messrs. Harrison & Sons Company, Limited, is as follows :
Owen Sound, Ont., Canada,
March 25th, 1904.


Commander W.   J.@: Stewart,
Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Dear sir,-With reference to the old steamer ' Bayfield,' now the * Harrison,' which we purchased from the department about a year ago, owing to some unfair remarks made by some of the members last session, we feel it our duty to advise your department that as we expected at the time we purchased this boat, we now have to put in a new engine. Though the old engine is still as good as when we bought the boat, on account of it being weak at the .main bearing and a high pressure engine that would consume a larger quantity of coal than could be paid for out of her earnings, we are unable to sell the old engine for more than scrap iron price and have already disposed of it for this purpose. We have not yet received the weights, but expect to realize about $190 out of the engine.
We have to put in a new' engine, shaft and propellor this winter, as well as other necessary repairs and when we get through we will have a boat that is in her .forty-second year.
However, we happen to have a lot of timber to move on the Georgian bay and hope to use her to advantage in our own work.
Thinking it possible there might be something further said regarding this during the present session, we wish you would be good enough to give the department these particulars.
Thanking you for your favour.
We remain, &c.,
'Sgd.) JOHN HARRISON & SONS Co., LTD.
These are the facts in a nut shell. I knew nothing of the boat myself, I acted entirely on the opinion of my officers especially that of Mr. Stewart who had used the boat on the Georgian bay for surveys, and who considered her unsafe. Mr. Stewart declared that neither his assistants nor himself would risk their lives in it, and that is borne out by the letter of the purchaser who said that they could not use the boat without renewing the engine, because she would consume more coal than she could earn.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister should have read to the House the letter written by the department asking the Harrison people to write that letter.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no such letter in the department. I did not know of the existence of the letter until just now and I am informed that it was addressed to Mr. Stewart voluntarily.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems odd that Mr. Harrison should go to the trouble of writing this letter. The defence of the minister now is that he acted exclusively on the opinion of Mr. Stewart.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not exclusively. I consulted Mr. McElhinney our technical nautical adviser and he concurred in the opinion of Mr. Stewart.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is nothing in Mr. Stewart's letter saying that the boat was unsafe. He writes : To-day I think she is worth $7,000. Yet in the face of that report the minister deliberately makes her a present to one of his party friends for. $3,250. I admit that they put a new engine in her, but this only goes to prove that the hull was sound. The minister has also a report from the captain that a party in Owen Sound was willing to give $5,000 for the boat.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Where is that offer ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Stewart's letter of the 9th of February says :
I telegraphed Captain McGregor and Mr. Nisbit, the engineer, for valuations. The former answered $7,000, that is as to her value. I could get $5,000 cash for her in Goderich.
That	offer	was on	record in	the department,	'and	yet the	minister	spurns the$5,000	and	sells her	to party	friends for$3,250.	Last	year the	excuse of the minister
was that the cost of advertising would amount to a couple of thousand dollars, but we had not those letters before us to show that he could get $5,000 for her in the town of Goderich.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does the hon. gentleman know that when this offer was accepted the man backed out of it ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister produce the statement from the Harrisons that they backed out of that bargain for $5,000 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They never made an offer of $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly they did not, because they had the minister's assurance that he was going to make a present of it for $3,250.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is pure fabrication ; that is invention.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is fabrication on the part of the minister who said that the Har-' risons endeavoured to get out of that Bargain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never said anything of the kind. I said with regard to the pretended offer of $5,000, that the parties did not come up to the scratch.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who made the offer of $5,000 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I don't know.


William Humphrey Bennett: There was the report of Captain Stewart that a man in Goderich would pay $5,000 cash for her.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Instructions were given to Captain McGregor to close the bargain for $5,000, and the result was that the man did not come up with the money.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is curious that all the documents the minister can get on record are those which implicate him, and that he did not send Any of these exculpating documents to the Auditor General when that official wrote to him asking if he were afraid that at an open sale the boat would bring a higher price. The fact is that the minister in the fulness of his good nature- and I am willing to attribute to the minister a large fund of that quality when he is dealihg with the public property and when at the same time he is endeavouring to ingratiate himself with his supporters; particularly in the province of Ontario-in the fulness of his good nature, notwithstanding that his officers valued the boat at $7,000, he sells her to the Harrison people, who are very important Liberals in the town of Owen Sound, for $3,250. I admire the good nature of the Minister of Marine, but it is unfortunate that he practices it at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. I have another example of that in my own riding. A few weeks ago in the fulness of his heart, he made a party friend a present of $4,000 or $5,000 worth of timber for $100. The Minister of Marine wants to make a reputation for himself as a good fellow, at the public expense and particularly with his supporters in Ontario, and here he gives a large tract of valuable timber in the riding of Hast Simcoe for a paltry $100, which if it had been put on the open market would have sold at from $3,000 to $5,000. The minister must know that while he may defy public opinion by giving away that which is not his without open competition, so far as I am concerned I will discuss these matters.


Mr. WILSON.: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a promise which he made to me on Friday last. We were discussing the placing of buoys in the Napanee river, and I asked him for the correspondence that had taken place between Mr. Mowers and those who represent him and the department. He promised to send me the information last Saturday by mail. I do not know whether he mailed it or not, but I know that it has not reached me.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not remember that the hon. gentleman asked for the correspondence. I remember that the question was brought up, and I said I would give the information, and I am ready with the information at the present moment. In 1903 the department made a contract with Mr. Blakely Mowers, of Napanee, to perform the buoy service on the Napanee river at $60 per annum. The contract was made for one year instead of three, because the department expected to take up this buoy service with the steamer ' Scout ' some time during 1904. The contract of Mr. Mowers was dated 1st June, 1903, to terminate one year from the date of it. Mr. Mowers was paid $60 for the work of 1903. It was expected that he would place the buoys in the spring of 1904, and he was instructed to do so on the 10th May last, and informed that his contract did not terminate until 1st June, 1904. A letter was received from Mr. R. A. Leonard on the 7th May last, on behalf of Mr. Mowers and another from Mr. W. S. Herrington. Copies of the answers to these letters are attached. They show that Mr. Mowers was instructed to place the buoys, and also informed that the department would pay for placing them this spring in addition to what had been paid before. It has been found that the ' Scout ' could not attend to the. buoy service this year, but it was expected that Mr. Mowers would place the buoys in accordance with the terms of his contract and furnish his account for payment. On the 2Gth of May, Mr. Herrington stated that if the department would make clear that Mr. Mowers was to be paid for placing the buoys this spring, he would go on with the work. He was a second time assured, through Mr. Herrington who wrote his letters, that he would be paid for putting out the buoys. The department has no harbour master or other officer at Napanee to superintend the work. Tenders have been invited for placing the buoys for the next three years.


Uriah Wilson: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no objection to giving the bon. gentleman a copy of all the correspondence.


Uriah Wilson: When shall I get it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As soon as it can be copied.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. minister promised me before dinner a list of the grocers in Quebec who asked leave to tender for supplies.	,


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman will get it within the next twenty-four hours.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Now is the time to have it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman does not suppose that I am going to send for all the books of the department and have them laid on the table of the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Not at all. The hon. minister does not need to go through all the books of the department to get the names of these grocers. There are not more than three or four of them. I never before saw a minister refuse such information when his estimates were up.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman has no right to say that I refused information when I tell him that it will be before the House in the next twenty-four hours.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What the hon. gentleman says amounts to a refusal, because he knows that within twenty-four hours we shall be probably off this item.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Whether we are off this item or not, the list will be on the table of the House to-morrow.,


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: But I have some remarks to make, and I cannot make them until I have the names. Now is the time to have them. We cannot get information from this department, because the fact is that the hon. gentleman does not know anything about his department. We have got no information about any of the items brought before the committee, although we have tried to get it. We have used a corkscrew to get the information from the hon. gentleman, but the corkscrew does not work.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am beginning to think that the reputation of the minister for good nature is so well known that people take advantage of it. I think that was the case with the Harrison firm of Owen Sound. I thought, after the disclosures that had been made, that the minister would have come here in a penitent frame of mind, and would have assured the House if any sales of timber or anything else were to be made la future, the wholesome rule of open tender would be followed. But the minister is hard-hearted. He is asking this com-Mr. WILSON.
mittee to vote him large sums of money as a minister of the Crown. It is not only in reference to the moneys entrusted to him, but also in reference to any part of the public domain in his charge tiiat we have a perfect right to discuss his actions ; and in that connection I propose to discuss the question of giving away a large quantity of very valuable timber on a lighthouse reserve on the Georgian bay. Among other islands on which lighthouses are situated is the Hope island, one of the group called the Christian Islands. This island has for a long time been regarded as a very rich timber reserve. Of course, it was under the Department of Indian Affairs, and a few years ago, on representations made by the Marine Department, the Indian Department gave a hundred acres of timber land on that island to the Marine Department. It was never expected that this was going to be exploited by party friends, but it was given with a view of affording eordwood for the lighthouse-keeper on that island. To the surprise of the Indians, who had given it up for nothing, and a number of Liberals in that part of the country who for years have cast longing eyes on that reserve, last winter a party friend made application to the hon. minister through a member of this House, and without any competition that one hundred acres of valuable timber was handed over to him for a pittance of $100. I am going to read the correspondence in connection with this matter.
First, let me state that it was no vile Tory who got this property. It will be fair to assume that it was a close personal ally of hon. gentlemen opposite, and that close'personal ally was not my opponent in the last campaign and my prospective opponent in the next, but his son and business partner. Here was the timber on this 100 acres of land-certain parts of it referred to in the correspondence-sold without competition to the partners of the ex-Liberal candidate in that riding for the sum of $100. Had that timber been sold by public auction it would have brought considerably over $3,000 The correspondence started in 1903, and.the following letter was written on the 19th of August :
House of Commons,
Ottawa, August 19th, 1903.
Dear Mr. Prefontaine,-A constituent of mine is desirous of purchasing the cedar and basswood timber on the lot owned by your department on Hope Island in Georgian hay. Your department bought the tract to supply fuel for lighthouse and require only hardwood.
Col. Anderson, whom I saw to-day, informs me that it is the practice to sell the soft wood and that he recommends the sale provided I arrange price with you.
My correspondent tells me that cedar and basswood is sprinkling only and much of it blown down. It rots quickly thus. He offers $100 for the cedar and basswood, asking that he

523&
be allowed two or three years to remove 'it, at the same time not to damage your hardwood.
Duck island, Col. Anderson tel IS me, was so disposed of. My own acquaintance with the Hope island convinces me that the price is fair, as in the 100 acres. When the beech and maple is so thick there cannot be a great deal of cedar or basswood and hemlock.
Perhaps you would be good enough to intimate to me what further assurance, if any, is required, that I may write my friend, and to note for the meantime his formal application.
Very sincerely yours,



[Stage Direction]
In the first place, my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Grant) makes the statement that Mr. Chew is a .constituent of his, but as a matter of fact he is not. He is a resident of East Simcoe and not of North Ontario. I admit that the hon. minister might have obtained the idea from that letter of handing over the property for the sum of $100, because the hon. member for North Ontario assures him that he knows Hope island and that the price is a fan-one. This island is some thirty miles from Midland. I have been on it once, and I know it is heavily wooded. I do not know how many times the hon. gentleman was over that island or what knowledge he has of the value of timber, but even if, in the face of his personal assurance, the minister might have been somewhat misled, it was the duty of the minister to have put that timber up at public auction. I am going to give all the facts, because I grant that the minister did do something in the premises which perhaps may buttress the position he took afterwards. A letter was written by the department to the lighthouse keeper asking him to report on the value of the timber. Perhaps I had better read that letter :
Ottawa, 25th August, 1903.
Sir,-Hr. Grant, M.P., writes the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that a constituent of his is desirous of purchasing the cedar and basswood timber on the lot owned by this department on Hope island, the tract of land upon which the timber grows having been bought by the department to supply fuel for the lighthouse, but that hardwood is only required for that purpose. Mr. Grant further states that the practice has been to sell the soft wood, much of which is blown down as it rots quickly, and the purchaser is allowed two or three years to remove it, precautions being taken that he does not damage the hardwood.	<
I have to request you to report to the department as to the quantity of basswood and cedar you suppose Is on the land In question, and to state what you consider would be a fair price therefor.
X want to call attention particularly to this fact, that when the deputy minister writes to the lighthouse keeper he only asks a report on the basswood and cedar, and makes no mention of any other kind of timber. This lighthouse keeper has his lighthouse some twenty miles away from the
post office, and it has been suggested to me that intimation was given certain parties that the letter would be waiting the lighthouse keeper at the post office. Be that as it may, the letter did reach the lighthouse keeper, and I want the House to listen carefully to his report:
I think it is a wise idea to sell all the soft wood, because there is a good deal of it going to waste every year.
As to 'the quantity of basswood and cedar in feet, there is between fifty and sixty thousand feet to the best I can judge.
Is it not very likely that the interested parties took the letter out to the lighthouse keeper and suggested to him his report, because, although he was only asked to report on the cedar and basswood, he goes on to report on the hemlock and elm 7 The fact is that Mr. Chew wanted to get, not only the cedar and the basswood, but the hem-iock and elm, and persuaded the lighthouse keeper to give a favourable report. I tell the hon. minister now what he ought to know, because an official of his department lias been out there of late. In order to get a favourable report from the lighthouse keeper, they gave him a contract for taking off the timber. Here you have this man acting in a double capacity. You find him acting as agent for the department and at the same time as contractor for the party applying to the department. Is the hon. minister aware that his lighthouse keeper was busy some months with three or four men taking off part of the timber 7
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I knew nothing about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman know now 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman's official must have known about it, because he was out there a few weeks ago. Here is the whole plan laid bare. First they endeavoured to get in touch with the lighthouse keeper so as to secure a favourable report. How did they do that 7 They pointed out to him that he could put in his days taking off the timber, and that would not interfere with his attending to the lights at night. After the deal was carried out, the $100 were handed over to the department by the hon. member for North Ontario. Mr. Chew was then given the timber. Forthwith Mr. Chew put in a large complement of men. I am informed that there were some fifteen men there two and a half months, with three teams of horses, getting out timber during the past winter from that island.
I am informed that there were some fifteen men and three teams there for two months and a half. And I have information_and information that I believe to be
correct-tiiat not less than 150.000 feet of

lumber were taken off the island. It is all right for the hon. gentleman to try to shelter himself behind the statement that this was fallen timber. But any one who knows anything of the nature of basswood knows that basswood that had fallen would be utterly useless, because it is a kind of timber that rots quickly. And any one who knows anything of the value of timber, knows that basswood in the form of boards is worth at least $30 a thousand feet. It is a desirable class of wood and hard to get. Well, the minister, on the report of the hon. member for North Ontario who pledges his word that, from his acquainj tauce with the island the timber is worth $100 and of the lighthouse keeper who says that itf is worth $200 the hon. gentleman passes it over to the party's nominee in the riding for $100. I called his attention to it and I moved for the correspondence, and I am informed that he allowed the party to take the timber that, despite what the hon. gentleman has said, I am informed is worth over $1,000. Then, where is the minister with respect to the balance ? These parties are allowed to take off the balance. And the Indians on the reserve are protesting most vigorously against this timber being handed over to the hon. minister's party friends. In his zeal to please his party friends he has done in this case what he did in the case of the 1 Bayfield.' The hon. gentleman seems to take the position that, no matter what it costs the country, the party's friends must be provided for in order that the minister may get the reputation of being a good fellow, even at the public expense. The hon. gentleman must learn-at least-we must endeavour to teach him-that the public domain and vessels owned by the Dominion are not his personal property ; and, if they are to be sold, they must be sold in the honest, wholesome manner of public competition, so that the people may get a fair return for what they sell.
1 I had occasion to visit home a couplq of weeks ago. Mr. Chew came to me and said :	What are you doing about that
timber ? Why don't you let me take it away ? I said:	I have nothing to do
with it ; I am only making a protest against the department giving away the public property without competition. It is not proper and it is not fair. Instead of giving you this timber for $100, it should have been offered by public competition and let everybody have a chance at it. In the course of conversation Mr. Chew told me some fiu'ther circumstances of the case. And when I said he was getting a big thing in having this timber sold to him for $100, he said he had to pav $50 more. I said: Why in the name of all that iys good, had you to pay $50 more ? He answered :	I had to enter into communi-


William Humphrey Bennett: cation with the brother of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) and had to pay him $50 for his services. So, what do we find the proposition to come to ? A gentleman outside makes a representation to a member of the House, and the member of the House makes a personal representation to the minister. I do not know whether my hon. friend from North Ontario will say that he has been on the island and has a knowledge of the value of the timber, or that what he represented in the matter was based on his acquaintance with the locality and knowledge of the value of timber, buc there is the statement of Mr. Chew, made before half a dozen people and quite openly, that he had to pay $50 to a gentleman on the outside to get the timber. Mr. Chew naturally asks why, if the department want to sell the timber to him for $100 he should not have it. If Mr. Chew or anybody else can get $3,000 or $4,000 worth of property for $100, that is not his fault. The fault lies with the department in allowing it to be done. This kind of thing will incite others to make raids on the treasury. True, it is not a big raid. It does not bear the same proportions as the Grand Trunk Pacific or the purchase of the Canada Eastern Railway. But it seems to be the policy of this government, in small matters as in great, and in every department, to have men on the outside who can use influence to bring about such results as we see here. The brother of the hon. member for North Ontario gets $50 out of the transaction, Mr. Chew gets $3,000 or $4,000 worth of timber, and the long-suffering country gets $100. I think it is only fair to this committee and to the country that some explanation of the matter should be given by the hon. gentleman who presides over the department.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The contract which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) holds in his hand speaks for itself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not see anything to laugh at. I say the contract speaks for itself. The timber on the island was sold for $100 on the representation that it was worth $100. Some people say it was worth more. Well, when it is cut down and transported and sawn into boards I suppose it is worth more. But I suppose also that the man who does all this work expects to get something for it.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will allow me, there is one matter that I forgot. I find-and I am confident that the minister will not deny it-that instead of restricting himself to the cutting of cedar and basswood, this gentleman has trespassed and cut other timber as well.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) prepared to say that this party is relieved from paying for what he has cut ? If he says that, on what authority does he say it ? How can the department, here in Ottawa having made a bargain, infallibly prevent people at a distance from going beyond the terms of that bargain ? The contract as I said, speaks for itself. The man had a right to take a certain quantity of timber which was recommended to be sold as being of scarcely any value, the sale being to the advantage of the department. If the timber is said to be worth a good deal more, surely some proof of that should be offered. But it is said that other timber was cut by Mr. Chew. It was because information of that fact came to the department that an official was sent up to investigate. He found that more timber had been cut than was contracted for, and so a stumpage of $2 a thousand feet was charged Mr. Chew before he could take away the timber that was not included in his contract. Where, then, is the blame to the department ? It is said that $50 was paid to some gentleman outside. I do not know on what ground that allegation was made. But, in any case, in what way can it affect the department when the department have taken all the necessary precautions to secure the public interest ? If Mr. Chew has chosen to cut more timber than he had a right to cut under his contract, he will be called upon to pay for it-that is all.


William Humphrey Bennett: On the 10th of May last I wrote to the minister a letter in the course of which I asked whether any officer of his department had been cutting under contract for Mr. Chew, and was still doing so. I do not know whether any of the logs have been removed or not. But, on the 10th of May he had an intimation that either the lighthouse keeper or some one else in his department-and it could hardly be any one else-had been doing the cutting for Mr. Chew. He had then an opportunity to find out whether the department had been overreached or not. He had had an opportunity to find out since. I do not know what this report is, but I am going to ask the minister if he has an official report of the quantity of timber that was cut and lying on the shore, and what was the quantity ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister admits a stumpage of 140,000 feet, in addition to basswood and cedar cut under contract.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: How could it be
proven ? It is a fact that has come to my knowledge only lately. But I am investigating the whole matter, and if the lightkeeper has been at fault he will suffer for it. I could not look after things of that kind before they are all over. There is a lightkeeper on Wallace island, who is defended by hon. members opposite, and who pretends that he owns Wallace island and he has sold $300 worth of property off the island to Mr. Morris, of Ottawa, and has collected the money. And now, because we are installing an automatic light at that place, he complains of all sorts of things, says that he is being despoiled, and has been deprived of what belongs to him, whereas the property belongs really to the government. These things will happen, and if this lightkeeper is at fault he will be dealt with accordingly. But until the government loses a cent, it is no use making such an outcry about it. We have acted in good faith, and on the information furnished to the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: I know nothing about the Morris case. But I do know this, that here the minister had a valuable lot of timber on that island for the sale of which he admits to-day he has made a contract, and made it without competition, which he should not have done, and that after the party goes in there and cuts without leave or license from the department 140,000 feet of timber the minister instead as he should have done, saying to these parties: You have broken faith with the department and I will not permit you to have anything to do with this timber,-tarns round and gives it to him at a stumpage of $2 a thousand. I want to tell the minister that hemlock timber today is worth $14 to $16 a thousand.


Mr. TOBIN.: Where does the hon. gentleman get that information ? Does he get it from any lumberman in the country ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know what came out of that bubble ; I never saw much come out of that bubble.


Edmund William Tobin: If the hon. gentleman gets the information that hemlock is worth $15 a thousand he gets it from some one who knows nothing about the business.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of soft wood, about 1,500 sticks.


William Humphrey Bennett: And in thousand feet, how much ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In thousand feet of lumber which Mr. Chew is being charged for and for which he has consented to pay, there is 140,000 feet, for which he pays a stumpage of $2 per thousand.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have paid more than than for it myself last year. Now here is the opinion of the minister. He had no right at all to act on this assurance of the member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) as to the value of the timber. He knew that the member for North Ontario was not a practical lumberman. I do not know whether the minister had any conversation or not with that hon. gentleman, and whether the latter told him how many times he had been

on that island in order to ascertain the value of the timber. But I do know that when this timber was there for sale the minister should have made himself acquainted with its value, and when he found that he had been overreached by these parties, when he had fair notice that grave suspicion existed, that his own lighthouse keeper had not made a proper report on the value, he should at once have escheated ojr taken over the whole timber and sold it to the highest bidder, instead of handling it over to these people at $2 a thousand. In that part of the country where the deal is known the minister's conduct is not thought highly of.


Mr. GRANT.: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) regarding myself to pass unchallenged. My whole connection with this matter is set forth in the correspondence brought down on motion of the hon. gentleman. It shows conclusively that I acted in the matter simply out of courtesy to the gentleman who is a constituent of the hon. member for Bast Simcoe. It is quite true, as has been pointed out, that in the first part of my letter I made a lapsus pennae when I used the ordinary term, which is customary in such a letter, in saying that he was a constituent of mine, and the hon! gentleman has seen fit to take exception to that remark. As a matter of fact. Mr. Chew is not a constituent of mine, but he has the distinguished honour of being a constituent of the hon. member for East Simcoe. He sent me an application in regard to Hope island, asking to purchase the soft wood on that island which is the property of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I considered myself in duty bound to file that application with the department, as I shall always consider myself in duty bound, while 1 am a member of this House, to file the application of any gentleman, Reform or Conservative, in my part of the country, who wishes to do business with the department.
I considered it an act of courtesy due to the applicant. Now the hon. member for East Simcoe has seen fit to go further in reference to my connection with this matter than my letter goes, and he says that I urged the sale of this timber upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. My letter will speak for itself on that subject. It is a portion of the return brought down, and a reference to that letter will show that I said that so far as my opinion went I thought $100 was a fair price for the soft wood, seeing that it was blown down.


Mr. AVERY.: Had you gone over this land to see the timber before you made that report ?


George Davidson Grant: I wish to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Bast Simcoe has seen fit entirely to exclude from his speech the letter which I wrote on the 25th of August, in which I said that I believed, from the information given me, that the Mr. BENNETT.
offer was a fair one, and furthermore I said : ' Of course, I cannot speak from personal knowledge, but I have reason to believe that the estimate is a fair one.' That was my statement, and by that statement I will stand. A number of persons told me, whose veracity I had no reason then to doubt, and that I have no reason now to doubt, that timber of the description mentioned was worth that sum of money, or thereabouts. The papers containing my application to the department show my whole and sole connection with the matter, as will be seen by the letters filed and brought down in the return. The hon. gentleman makes a reference to supposed conversations which he thinks must have taken place between the minister- and myself. So far as my memory serves me, I think I am within the mark in saying that there was no conversation between the minister and myself regarding the matter. My connection with is is wholly disclosed in the correspondence, showing that I acted simply out of courtesy in passing on to the department the application of Mr. Chew. More than that, the hon. gentleman makes a comment upon the purchase price, if I did not mistake his remarks.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is so endorsed on the original papers. There is a memorandum endorsed which says : ' Memo, $100 was paid in by Mr. Grant, M.P.'


George Davidson Grant: My recollection of the matter is that the letter received by me from Mr. Chew inclosed the sum of money mentioned in the letter, $100 which I forwarded on to the department. I simply did on that occasion as any other hon. gentleman in this House would do. I did not keep the money, as we have heard of some other hon. gentlemen doing on a previous occasion in this House. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the hon. gentleman's reference or insituation means.
I have only this to say and to say it most emphatically, that so far as this transaction is concerned, I acted simply as a matter of courtesy to a gentleman who lives in the same county as myself. I undertook nothing as to values, except to say that as far as I knew the island, and as far as I had been informed in reference to the timber on it, the price seemed to be a fair one. Now, as to the question of the hon. member for Addington (Mr. Avery) I have not traversed this island, I have passed it in the Georgian bay and have seen it. and from my observation and from the fact that it was bought for lighthouse supply purposes, for which hardwood only is required, I am convinced that it is not-apt to be very heavily timbered with soft w'ood, particularly as there is only 100 acres in all involved. The hon. gentleman has not only not been fair, but has not disclosed all that the return brought down will disclose. As a matter of fact the lighthouse keeper to whom the question of values

was referred, reports to 1,he department that there are four kinds of soft wood on the island. He says :
I consider that the cedar, the basswood, the hemlock and the elm are worth about $200.
Now the department concluded to sell to Hr. Chew not all these four kinds of timber but simply all the cedar and basswood, .iust half the timber, and it requires little mathematical skill to prove that if the four lands of timber are not worth more than $200 [DOT]the cedar and the basswood are not worth a very large amount of money. I do not know whether or not some hemlock or wood other than that specified in the agreement has been cut by Mr. Chew. With that I am not concerned, for I am sure that if that has been done the minister will see that it is paid for at a fair market price.
I desire to call attention to the fact that the conditions under which Manley Chew bought the timber from the Marine Department are extremely onerous. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) quoted from the agreement but did not quote the onerous conditions which must necessarily result in a considerable reduction in the value of the timber bought under these conditions, ft is an agreement dated September 4, 1903, whereby Manley Chew agrees to purchase from the department, &c., &c.
The timber cut under this agreement shall consist oi cedar and basswood only.
Which endorses my statement of a moment ago that the hemlock was not included in the agreement for sale, but was included in the estimate of the value made by Mr. Vallee. As I understand the purpose oif the Marine Department in acquiring this and other lighthouse plots is to have hardwood available for lighthouses "and lighthouse keepers. It is part of the policy of the department to part with the soft wood which is not necessary and which is a source of danger as it is apt to fall down and ignite. In most cases of course the lighthouses are remote from any habitation and it is very necessary that the greatest possible precaution be taken against fire. For that reason the department is frequently anxious to get rid of soft wood. More than that, as the agreement sets forth, they .require the person taking the soft wood to carefully underbrush the places where he cuts the wood, and where roads are made, and to cord the wood taken from the roadways for the lighthouse keeper. I leave it to any practical lumberman if the appending of such onerous conditions as those in the contract will not considerably reduce the value of the timber taken under these circumstances. More than that the hon. gentleman has not stated that this timber is situated on an island which is, if I am not mistaken, some thirty or forty miles from the nearest available sawmili. I have been informed by Mr. Chew that as a matter of fact, owing to the
expense involved in establishing a camp on the island and getting out the timber, he has not made a copper out of this transaction. I do not know how much timber Mr. Chew has taken from the 100 acres, and of course if he has taken timber not covered by the agreement he should pay the department and the country for it, and I have no doubt he will do so. That of course is a matter for the Minister of Marine. The question as to how much standing timber there is even on as small an area as 100 acres is always more or less open to speculation. I do not know how much Mr. Chew has taken out and it is not a matter of particular moment to me. I know however the estimate that the Department of Marine, acting on the advice of their officer living on the spot, placed upon it. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has seen fit to insinuate that the lighthouse keeper who made this report has been tampered with in some way.
I understood him to say that the report should not be relied upon owing to the fact that the lighthouse keeper has been employed by Mr. Chew at a daily wage for cutting down some of this timber.
I do not know particularly what the character of the lighthouse keeper is ; but I understand that he has been there for some years and, so far as my information goes, he is not the sort of man who would be turned aside from doing his duty in the public service by the offer of a day's pay for a day's work. It is not creditable to the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) to make such insinuations in this House against a man in humble circumstances, a man who lives on a remote island, and who is in no way capable of defending himself against such attacks. I am here to say that so far as I know Charles Vallee is an honest man, and a man who could not be bribed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has seen fit to refer to a brother of mine, who is a practising solicitor in the town of Midland. I would not expect the hon. member for East Simcoe to rise to speak on any matter in this House without making some personal and, perhaps, offensive allusion to one of ins fellow-members, no matter how remote the subject he is discussing may be from such a personal reference. The hon. gentleman has seen fit to say that when the sale of the timber on Hope island went through, as a coincidence, or as a complement, or, he almost said, as a condition of its going through, the sum of $50 was paid to the brother of the member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). I do not know whether that money was paid to my brother or not; I do not know whether or not he got that money for his services, but I know he is a prac tising solicitor in the town of Midland, and if he is like some of the other solicitors practising in that town, I expect he wii! collect his fees. It is not so very long since we had it disclosed in this House that the

hon. member for East Simcoe, in a transaction which occurred between him and this same Mr. Chew, or a relative of his, in relation to a dock site in Midland involving $400, tolled Mr. Chew to the extent of $30 or $40 for solicitor's fees. The record will show that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett), or his firm, benefited to that extent. As I understand it, my 'brother has been acting of late as Mr. Chew's solicitor. I do not know that the hon. member for Eas! Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) quarrels with Mr. Frederick Grant because he is acting as solicitor for Mr. Chew, but I suppose Mr. Chew is at liberty to make any choice he wishes. If Mr. Chew employs the firm or Storey & Grant to send an application down here, to transact the necessary correspondence, to see to the conditions of the agreement, and to do all that is necessary for the closing up of this transaction with the Marine Department, I have nothing to do with that. Neither have I to do with the further fact that Mr. Chew paid that law firm their fees. Mr. Chew is free, I suppose, to deal with the firm of Storey & Grant in Midland, with which I have no connection in the world, and it may be that he was charged a fee for the legal business in connection with this transaction. The hon gentleman (Mr. Bennett) did not find the generosity in his nature to state fully to the House the fact, which he knew very well, that Mr. Frederick Grant was rt practising solicitor in Midland. The hon. gentleman knew very well that if Mr. Frederick Grant got $40 or $50, he got that as a fee for acting as a solicitor in the case. The hon. member tells us that Mr. George Chew himself told him that he paid the fee. But still the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) would leave the House under the impression that Mr. Frederick Grant was rewarded in some degree for procuring for Mr. Chew the purchase of this timber. As a matter of fact,
1 do not suppose that the Minister of Marine is at all acquainted with the firm of Storey & Grant practising in the town of Midland. At all events, they had a perfect right to collect their professional fees. We have the word of the hon. member (Mr. Bennett), which I am prepared to take, that Mr. Chew told him he paid a firm of lawyers in Midland $50 for attending to the business in connection with this matter. Weil, that law firm has as much right to charge for their services as the hon. member's firm has to be paid for their services in connection with the transaction which was ventilated on the floor of this House within the last few weeks. But perhaps this whole matter, as between the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) and Mr. Chew, is explicable by the fact that Mr. Chew is the prospective Liberal candidate in East Simcoe. No doubt the hon. member for East Simcoe takes this chance in the House, as he takes very many other chances, to discount in advance the gentleman who, it is


George Davidson Grant: rumoured, will be his opponent in the next election. As a matter of fact, I understand that Mr. George Chew has personally absolutely no interest in this matter, but that Mr. Manley Chew, who is a relative of Mr. George Chew, the Liberal candidate in East Simcoe, is the person concerned. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) will not succeed in his tactics to discount Mr. Chew before the electorate of 'Simcoe. I know Mr. George Chew personally ; with Mr. Manley Chew, so far as I am aware, I am not acquainted. Mr. George Chew is a man of honour, a man of sterling worth, a man who stands high in the business community of north central Ontario ; and I can vouch for it, Mr. Chairman, that When Mr. George Chew gets an opportunity he will be able to settle to his own satisfaction the differences which occur between him and the hon. member for East Simcoe.


William Humphrey Bennett: This is the old case of too much excuse. I am not complaining that the brother of the hon. member (Mr. Grant* got $50 from Mr. Chew ; Mr. Chew is doing the complaining. He is the gentleman who made the complaint of having been tolled for $50. I do not care whether the hon. gentleman's brother got $100 or not, but I want to know what his brother did for the $50. His name does not appear in the correspondence at all. It is a fortunate thing for Mr. Chew that this gentleman did not write a letter, because if he charges $50 without writing a letter, he would charge $100 if he did write. Some person seems to have done the necessary work, and to have done it with very good results, too.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. That was for examining the timber.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) states his personal acquaintance with the island, and says that the result of his examination of it was that the timber was worth $200. I care not what the hon. gentleman says personal to myself. I have been in the House some twelve or thirteen years ; I do not know whether I shall be in it any longer or not; but I can say that when I represented East Simcoe and had the patronage of that riding there were never any tolls of $50 taken out of the! pockets of the people. Mr. Chew can cheerfully testify that while I had the patronage of that riding I did many favours for him in the Department of Public Works in reference to the dredging which he required at his mills, and in reference to timber limits in which he was concerned ; but he never had a toll tapper tapping at his pocket for $50. That was unknown in those days. No wonder Mr. Chew bitterly complains that in view of the fact that he was the Liberal candidate in the riding, there is to be a go-between to extract from his pocket $50 before anything could be done. So far as discounting Mr. Chew is concerned. I have only to reiterate that Mr. Chew would
(5249

be very foolish not to accept if any intermediary on behalf of this government should come to him and show him where he could get for $100 $3,000 to $4,000 worth of timber, even if it did cost him $50 for the till-tapper. That is the condition of it. My complaint is not with Mr. Chew or the hon. member for North Ontario.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Or his brother ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Or his brother either ; he is welcome to the $50 or whatever he got. However that may be, I do complain that the hon. member (Mr. Grant) should have assured the department of his own knowledge of the value of the timber, when he never had been on the island, as he now frankly admits. He had no warrant to state that the timber was only worth $100, and that statement could only have been made with the one idea of deliberately misleading the minister. The inference can be drawn by hon. gentlemen as they please. But the man I am dealing with is this prodigal minister ; this gentleman who is so unsparing with the public domain ; who gives away a steamboat to one party friend and a timber limit to another party friend. I can tell the minister that when it was shown to him that his own official had been cutting the timber he ought to have intervened. No minister will contend that it is right to have this lighthouse keeper acting for the department on the one side and for the contractor on the other. I have nothing to say against Mr. Charles Vallee ; he is a hard working man ; but X will say that l have no doubt that when he was assured that he was to have the contract for cutting the timber, it had some effect on his opinion as to how his report on the value should be. Here is the fact-that while Mr. Vallee was only asked to report as to the cedar and the basswood, he went out of his way to report as to the hemlock and the elm. There was an evident desire on their part to possess themselves of all the timber on this island, while, by the contract, they were confined to the cedar and the basswood. The hon. member for North Ontario says, in his letter of the 13th :
I assure you that great care will be exercised in taking off the soft wood so that no damage will be done to the hard.
Why did he not say that in taking off the cedar and the basswood no harm would be done ? There was a design from the first, and it is shown by the letter of the hon. member for North Ontario, to do, not what was contracted, but to take everything possible, and then to exert the party puli with a pliable minister. The minister would be laughed at around there if he said that he was selling hemlock at $2 a thousand. because it is worth on the stump $6 or $7.


Edmund William Tobin: Hemlock to be worth $2 a thousand stumpage must be situated very
close to a sawmill. If I understand the hon. member for North Ontario, this was twenty miles from a sawmill.' I say as a lumberman that hemlock twenty miles from a sawmill is not worth $2 a thousand, and if the Minister of Marine sold it at that price, he sold it for more than it was worth.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am going, out of the fulness of my heart, to tell the hon. gentleman something. He does not know all about timber.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He knows-


William Humphrey Bennett: That is my friend who was brought up on cigarettes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I know what I am talking about when I am talking about cigarettes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am going to talk with my timber friend from Richmond and Wolfe. My hon. friend does not know that in our part of the country we take the bark off hemlock trees, and the bark alone is worth $6 a cord. Now, the Minister of Marine knows that it was his duty to expose that lumber for sale and to get the proper price for it. Had those men not been Liberals but Conservatives, they would not have got a foot of that timber. It was a case of a design carefully laid from the beginning to possess themselves of all the timber, and they did so at a very cheap rate. There is not a 'Liberal in the neighbourhood who approves of the transaction. The minister was in fault in this, that when he learned that he had been overreached, that these men were trespassers, and bad taken timber to which they were not entitled under their contract, he should have dealt with them with an iron hand. I congratulate the minister on the way in which he has handled this matter and the sale of the ' Bayfield,' and trust that he will do a little more of the same kind of business in the interest of the Conservative party, though not in the interest of the country.


George Davidson Grant: Agaip I cannot let the statement of the hon. member for East Simcoe pass without a remark from myself. He has not said so in so many words, but be has insinuated, that I myself acted to use a common term, as a till-tapper in approaching the department for Mr. Chew and made some profit. I am therefore under the necessity of stating that during the two years that I have been in Ottawa I have performed services at the various departments, both for Reformers and Conservatives in various parts of the country, and that up to this moment I have never asked, received, nor been promised one cent for my services.


Samuel Hughes: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Did the township of Eldon communicate with him as the Liberal member for North Ontario, and did he not charge them $35 for a little job that

lie had done for them long before he represented that constituency ?


George Davidson Grant: The kon. gentleman refers to an action that I was connected with before I was a member of this House.


Samuel Hughes: I deny that statement emphatically.


George Davidson Grant: The firm that I was connected with in Beaverton, Ontario, Roach & Grant, had to do with an action against the government for damages done by the construction of the Trent Valley Canal; and even if I myself had charged fees, which I did not, I fancy that a solicitor practising in a matter against the government would have every right to charge his clients fees.: However, it did not happen in the case the hon. gentleman has referred to.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: I would not have cornered the hon. gentleman, only he was boasting that he had not done so.


George Davidson Grant: I fail to see how I have been cornered. Mr. Chairman, it is a little unpleasant to have to make a personal statement of this sort ; but the hon. member for East Simcoe spoke in a way to make it necessary for me to do so. I do not know what particular advantage a man gets for doing all sorts of work around the departments for people in all parts of the country ; but perhaps I have some of that good nature with which the hon. member for East Simcoe credits the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I may say this, too, that for many of the hon. gentleman's political friends in the east riding of Simcoe I have performed services at the departments and they have written me, apparently not writing to the hon. member for East Simcoe. As my time is fully taken up, I would be very much delighted if they would correspond in regard to such matters with their own member. However, I deem it my simple duty and an act of courtesy which I owe to my fellow citizens, to attend to such departmental matters for them, as may be necessary, and I have done so without expense to them, but with considerable trouble to myself.


George Taylor: There is a much more serious aspect to this question than has yet been discussed, from my point of view. Not only the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but the entire government, have been entrusted with the care of the property of the people of this country. To-night we have discussed two cases. One case is that of property which belonged to the people of this country in the shape of the steamer ' Bayfield ' which the hon. gentleman made up his mind to dispose of. Did he proceed as an honest man should have done, dealing with property belonging to another-put it up for sale, and have it sold at a fair market value, either by tender or by public auction ? He gets reports from his officers. One Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
report says that the vessel is worth $7,000 ; another says he can get $5,000 cash for her in Goderich ; and yet in the face of that the hon. gentleman hands it over to a political friend for $3,200. Is that the way the country and the people should deal with their property ? Here again we have another case of the timber on 100 acres of land, which formerly belonged to the Indians, but to which these wards of the government relinquished their claims, being sold for a song. The government wanted the timber for lighthouse purposes, but we find the hon. member for North Ontario stepping in and making application for a portion of it. Here is the hon. gentleman's letter :
House of Commons,
Ottawa, August 19th, 1903.
Dear Mr. Prbfontaine,

A constituent of mine is desirous of purchasing the cedar and basswood timber on the lot owned by your department on Hope island in Georgian bay. Your department bought the tract to supply fuel for lighthouse and require only hardwood.
Col. Anderson whom X saw to-day informs me that it is the practice to sell the soft wood and that he recommends the sale provided I arrange price with you.
But if Colonel Anderson, an official of the department, thought it advisable to dispose of part of the wood, why was it not sold at auction ?
My correspondent tells me that the cedar and basswood is sprinkling only and much of it blown down. It rots quickly thus.
Does the hon. gentleman know anything about cedar ? If he does, he would not say that cedar is a timber which quickly rots, On the contrary it is a timber that will hardly ever rot either above or under ground.
He offers $100 for the cedar and basswood, asking that he be allowed two or three years to remove it, at the same time not to damage your hardwood.
Duck island, Col. Anderson tells me, was so disposed of. My own acquaintance with the Hope island convinces me that the price is fair


Melzar Avery: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What is the stumpage under the Ontario government regulations ?


Melzar Avery: $2 a thousand feet as a rule.


George Taylor: But they sold the limit without calling for tenders.


Edmund William Tobin: Mr. Speaker, when the honi member for North Ontario said that basswood would rot, he spoke of basswood! which was blown down, and we are well aware that basswood after it has been blown down and laid on the ground one year, is useless for lumber. Cedar may lie years on the ground without damage; but as regards hemlock being worth $15 a thousand feet, the hon. gentleman knows that he can get at Midland, Ontario, any amount of hemlock at less than $15 a thousand feet. A few weeks ago the Grand Trunk advertised for a lot of hemlock in the Midland* division. The firm with which I am connected tendered at the rate of $12 a thousand feet. The dimension of timber was eight by ten, ten by twelve, twelve by twelve. And we put in a price of $12 a thousand feet. But they li'ad another offer I understood of $11.25 a thousand feet, f. o. b. cars. This timber, I understand, is twenty miles from any saw mill, and it has to be cut down and hauled. I venture to say that hemlock timber at $2 a thousand stumpage is charged all that it is worth. In no place in the province of Quebec, could you get $1 per thousand stumpage at a point twenty miles from n mill. When the hon. gentleman says that there are other hon. gentlemen on the other side who know about the value of fimber and that the member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) knows nothing about it, I take issue with him at once. I do net pretend to know anything about professional matters, but when he says that basswood is worth $30 a thousand feet he has to refer to the hon. member for Addington (Mr. Avery), who tells him that it is worth $25 a thousand. And what percentage of basswood is-worth even $25 a thousand.


Melzar Avery: Basswood lumber, log run is worth $25 a thousand feet.


Edmund William Tobin: The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) said $30.


Melzar Avery: It is worth more than $30 if you cull it.


Edmund William Tobin: But it will not be contended that this timber would average over $25 a thousand. You have only 100 acres of land, twenty miles from a sawmill. If the hon. minister got $100 for the cut basswood and, for the hemlock and elm stumpage charged $2 a thousand, he got a very good price indeed.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tobin) think of the prices that the department is paying ?


Edmund William Tobin: My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) is aware that there are times in the



year when, if you must have a certain class of timber you must pay the price. The hou. member for Addington (Mr. Avery) is aware that we sell timber at $25 sometimes; that at other times we can get only $10 for. But this is not such a case.


Mr. FOWLER.: If the lumber expert of bon. gentlemen opposite had desired to be quite fair to the committee he would have told ns-as the fact is-that timber situated as this timber is, on an island in a lake is more easily got to a mill than timber that is only two miles from a mill if you had to haul it over a logging road. And he knows, if he knows anything about timber, that 25 cents a thousand feet would be a large charge for transporting a raft of timber of 200 or 300 thousand, feet to a mill twenty miles away on the shores of a lake.


Edmund William Tobin: Oh, oh 1


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tobin) may laugh, but by so doing he betrays either his ignorance of the subject or else a continued effort to deceive the eonw mittee. Every practical lumberman, everyone who has had anything to do with the rafting of timber, knows that conveying timber by water is the very cheapest way. The value of this stumpage would depend entirely upon the situation of the timber. The stumpage would not be worth 25 cents a thousand if the lumber was situated very remote from a place where it could be floated to the mill. If you hauled it ten miles, it might cost so much as to reduce the stumpage to nothing. But, here is timber on an island in the lake, and close to water. Probably it would not have to be put upon a sleigh at all, but simply dragged to the water. In that case $2 or $2.50 a thousand would cut it and haul it to the water. [DOT]


Edmund William Tobin: Of course, this timber is located just as the hon. gentleman described it ?


George William Fowler: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tobin) undertake to say that it is not ? If it is situated as I have said, it need not be put upon a sleigh


Edmund William Tobin: And does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) say that it could be cut and put in the water for $2 a thousand ?


George William Fowler: I say $2 a thousand.


Edmund William Tobin: Then, he is as much out of the way as my hon. friend from East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett).


George William Fowler: I want to tell my hon. friend that I have some acquaintance with the lumber business, that I am interested in lumbering operations quite as large as those in which he is interested. And I know whereof I speak when I say that timber situated as I have suggested can be put into the water at $2 or $2.30 a thousand feet. Of course, as I say, If you have to haul it Mr. TOBIN.
four or five miles before it reaches the water it will cost very much more. It is the hauling by team that is the great expense.


Edmund William Tobin: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) a question ? Do I understand him to say that he can take a raft of logs and tow it across a lake at 25 cents a thousand feet ?


Samuel Hughes: Fifteen cents.


George William Fowler: I said that the timber could be conveyed across the water twenty miles to a mill at 25 cents a thousand feet. If the distance were twenty miles, it could be towed in five or six hours.


Edmund William Tobin: I suppose that depends on the wind.


George William Fowler: If there is a gale blowing against you, you could not get it out at all. My hon. friend from Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) shows a desire to mislead the committee when he uses such an argument.


Edmund William Tobin: I have had experience.


George William Fowler: You could not tow a raft at all against a gale of wind. But then you would not attempt it, but would wait until the wind went down. A tow of twenty miles with a raft of 300 thousand feet, which would not require a very big tug to handle, could be made in five or six hours ; and at 25 cents a thousand feet, you would get $75 for the five or six hours work of your tug. I would be glad to be in the tug business if I could get that much for every six hours that my tug worked.
While I am on this subject, I would like to say a word or two with respect to the conduct of the minister and of the department in this matter. We should have been surprised at the conduct of the minister if we had not had an experience with him last session and had never heard of the ' Bayfield ' and the transaction in connection with the sale of, .that steamer. Sale ! I must withdraw that word ; it was not a sale, but a presentation. People have a superstition about a gift of, an edged tool to a friend. So, when one gives a valuable pocket knife costing $5 or $6 to a friend, the friepd gives back a copper cent to take away the harm. So, the hon. minister gave the ' Bayfield ' as a present to his political friends and, to take away the harm they gave him a little sum of money a sum bearing about the same proportion to the value of the ' Bayfield ' as the copper cent does to the five-dollar pocket knife. I say that we should have been surprised at this transaction if we had not had experience of the minister. Let us see how far his conduct is consistent with that of a man who wishes to do his duty to the department. An application was made by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant)-whom, it seems, does not confine his services to his own constituency but extends them all over

his province-for a timber limit on Hope island. And did the minister do as a man would who wished to administer honestly, fairly and properly the department placed in his charge ?
Did he get some expert who knew something about lumber to go over this property and give an estimate of it ? Oh, no, that is not the course the jninister pursued, because that would be the proper course, and it is inconsistent with the hon. gentleman's ideas of public duty to pursue the proper course. So the hon. gentleman takes the letter which he receives from the member for North Ontario, a gentleman who has certainly no expert knowledge of timber, the hon. gentleman who, on a pleasure excursion, sailed by this Oak island, and ventured on the strength of that passing acquaintance to give an estimate, an expert estimate, as to the value of the. timber growing on that island; and he gives the minister to understand that he is thoroughly acquainted with that island, with the conditions and with the timber, and he thinks that $100 is a fair price for the timber to be sold on that application. On the strength of that opinion the minister makes a contract with Mr. Chew for the sale of this timber, which is worth thousands of dollars-basswood and cedar are both very valuable timber, and he has nothing but the opinion of my hon. friend from North Ontario, and an estimate which it seems he has received from the lighthouse keeper. Now this gentleman who may be a very good lighthouse keeper, estimates at $200, as I understand, the value of all the timber on that island, hardwood and softwood. But what do we find as a matter of fact ? We find that after he has taken off the cedar and, the basswood, he has stolen-that is the word, that is the only word to use-what is the use of mincing words in connection with this matter ? Here is a man who makes a hard and fast business contract, a written contract with the department whereby he is to get two certain kinds of timber, basswood and cedar. With that written contract in his hands this mifh goes into the woods and cuts down hemlock to the extent of 140,000 feet, according to the statement of the minister. Now, Sir, if that is not stealing I do not know what stealing means. I say that ' stealing ' is the oniy word you can use in connection with this matter. After this timber thief has stolen 140,000 feet of timber belonging to this country what punishment does the minister inflict upon him ? He charges him a very moderate stumpage; considering the circumstances, considering the situation of this timber, he charges this light fingered gentleman a very moderate stumpage for the timber which he has stolen from the public domain. Now what sort of a position does this minister occupy ? Is this a man who should be entrusted .with the public affairs of this country ? Is this a man who has so slight a regard-the hon. minister laughs

 167J


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


George William Fowler: That shows, Mr. Chairman, how slight a regard the minister has for the duties that devolve upon him as the supposedly responsible head of a very important department. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman imposes on this man the slight tax of $2 per thousand as a punishment. And what does he do with the lighthouse keeper who made this wrong estimate, this lighthouse keeper who, as my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has pointed out, cuts this timber, participates in this fraud, stands up and uses the axe, helps his friend to steal 140,000 feet of timber from the public domain of this country ? He is a man apparently after the minister's own heart, he gets a promotion, no doubt, because he has assisted in defrauding the people of this country out of their rights in connection with this timber. Now this is the man who has induced the department, by the wrongful estimate which he gave, to fall into this error ; and I say, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, if he would even at this late hour recognize his duty, would at once dismiss this man.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He is a good Tory. I will investigate the matter and see what to do.


George William Fowler: If he had been a Tory he would have been dismissed long ago. If he had been a Tory he would never have got a chance to participate in this steal. It is only the friends of the hon. gentleman who get a chance to participate in these fat things. Now, Sir, I do think that the minister should have this matter thoroughly investigated and see that the department gets its rights, and if he does that, I am sure the. country will be enriched by a considerable sum.
Rewards for saving life, including life-saving stations, $12,000.


George William Fowler: Where are the life-saving stations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: One at Grand Ma-nan in New Brunswick, and one at Cape Tormentine.


George William Fowler: Grand Manan is a large island and there are a good many harbours on it. I would like to know on what part of the island this life-saving station is situated.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will lay on the table to-morrow a plan of the island and show where the' station is situated.
Investigations into wrecks, $4,000.


George William Fowler: How was that expended last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The following investigation took place last year :
' Carrigan Head,' British, stranded six miles from Three Rivers, in April.

' Iberian,' British, stranded near Isle aux Raisins in June.
' Stord,' British, stranded at Ste. Anne des Monts in June, slightly damaged.
' Protector,' Norwegian, Saguenay river, total loss.
' Sardhana,' barque 1,119 tons, British, in July, Point des Monts badly damaged.
' Loughrig Holme,' British, Matane, damage slight.
* Bergenhus,' Norway, St. Charles river, slight damage.
' Monterey,' British, St. Pierre, total loss, two lives.
' Holmlea,' ' Manchester Trader,' ' Mount Royal, 'Rake Manitoba' and ' Topaze.'


George William Fowler: While this is very interesting it is not quite the point I want to get at. We want to know how the $4,000 was spent and what officers are employed by the department.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The amount was expended in travelling expenses, fees of witnesses and the holding of the investigations generally. I may state that $4,000 has proved insufficient and I have a further sum of $2,000 in the Supplementary Estimates.


George William Fowler: We must have fuller information than that. What officers were employed and what were their salaries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Captain Salmon is the officer in charge. He holds the investigations in company with two assessors appointed from time to time by the department from the different localities where the investigations took place. If the hon. gentleman wants the details of the expenditure he will have to give me time to have the books of the department, copied.


George William Fowler: In any department the minister should come prepared with all the details in making up the estimates.
Mr. PREFpNTAINE. It may require the copying of a book of 100 pages.


George William Fowler: The expenditure of $4,000 could not do that, if you spent it in 5 cent pieces.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the report of the Auditor General for 1902 we have:
Wrecks reported at $2 each, :-


George William Fowler: That is for 1902. We want it for 1903.


Mri PREFONTAINE.: 
George William Fowler: The minister 'should have it here.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman shows that he knows very little how a department is run or even of Mr. PREFONTAINE.
how an office is run. If some one should come to him, if he is a lawyer of any practice, and ask him :	How much do I
owe you ? I have been doing business with you for a year, give me the details at once. He would give the details at once I suppose ?


George William Fowler: When the minister asks for $4,000 he has a right to explain to this committee what he did with the money last year, where he expended it, in order that this committee may know whether ic is right for him to have the $4,000 now or not. The minister has been here longer than I and has been a minister for a year and yet does not seem to know che ordinary practice in this House.


Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: Louder.


George William Fowler: I want my hon. friend to hear what I have to say. My excitable friend from Victoria generally butts in where he should not. He has worn the hair off his head, butting in.


William Ross: I want to listen to what the man is saying.


George William Fowler: The minister has shown utter ignorance of parliamentary procedure, ignorance which might be excusable in an ordinary member, but which is very inexcusable in a responsible minister. It is the right and duty of the minister to give to the members of this committee the very information for which we are asking, extended up to the end of the last fiscal year and he starts to read to us the expenditure for 1902 instead of 1903.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is the only one published.


George William Fowler: It is not a question of publication. If it were published I would not ask for the information, but the minister has the information in his department and yet the minister says we are not entitled to the information.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never said anything of the kind. The man puts in my mouth words which I never uttered. He cannot' keep to the truth at all.


George William Fowler: I do not know how much more emphatically the minister could say it than by coming here without that information. Why should he come here without the information if he thinks we are entitled to it. If he does not know the procedure he should ask some minister who has been through the mill before. Let him ask the Minister of Fi-nace. The minister is not content with filling the position of his predecessors. He wants' to grab everything in sight and to get the portfolio of public works, and I believe that of canals too. in addition to his own department. Joking aside, the

minister should not ask that this item be passed until he gives us the information we have asked for.
Mr. CASG-RAIN. The Auditor General's Report shows that last year $1,364.45 was expended on this service. The minister now asks $4,000 and promises that he will ask $2,000 more in the supplementary estimates. The committee has a right to know the reason for this increase. The officers of the department do not make out these estimates on mere guess work. They furnish a detailed statement so that more than is required for the public service shall not be asked, and the minister should be in possesion of that detailed statement. We have tried to get explanations from the minister, but the only result is that he insults gentlemen on this side and gets into a passion. What a spectacle it is, and how proud his supporters must feel of this extraordinarily clever minister who has been taken into the cabinet as Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with a large slice of the Public Works Department.


George Taylor: I submit to the Minister of Finance, if it is not the duty of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to give this information which to my knowledge every minister has given during the last twenty years.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have given a list of the investigations which have taken place and the detailed information has never been asked for before as I am informed by the officers of my department-you may laugh as you please. These officials had the confidence of gentlemen opposite for several years ; they have our confidence now and they are not to be laughed at.


George Taylor: I rise to a point of order. The minister has no business saying that. We have not said a word against any of the officials that are on the floor of the House.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I referred to the officials of the department, and stated that they had informed me that this information was never asked for before, when somebody laughed. Some of these gentlemen have been employed in the department for thirty years, and they have given me the formal official information which is usually given in connection with this vote. They state that other information has never been asked for in connection with it. Practically what my hon. friends want is that I shall produce a copy of the ledger with reference to each investigation and I will do that if I get time.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: You do not know anything about it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman says that I do not know what I am talking about.


Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: I rise to a point of order. The minister is putting words into my mouth which I never used.


Mr. FIELDING.: Even so, it is not a point of order, it is merely a correction.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman can show me from ' Hansard ' ever since it has existed that this detailed information with regard to this particular item has been asked for, I stand corrected.


George Taylor: The minister has not shown how one dollar has been expended out of this $4,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
George William Fowler: The minister has not given one iota of information as to whether these fifteen investigations cost $20 or $200 a piece. We should have that information before this money is voted. The committee desires to be perfectly fair. The minister shakes his head.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not dispute it. It is the first time it has been asked.


George William Fowler: The minister is entirely out in that statement. Every minister who comes down with his estimates has these details, and I do not see why there should be any exception in the case of the hon. gentleman. We have a right to a detailed statement showing what each investigation cost, how long it lasted, what officials were engaged in it, and what assessors acted in each case. It would take very little time to make up a statement of that sort.	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Whatever time it will take, the information shall be given. You cannot find that a statement as regards this item has been asked, and the reason I have not got it now is that my officials inform me that it has never been given. But I say I will produce it. What else do hon. gentlemen want ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If it has not been done heretofore, it has been a great oversight. The idea of voting an item without a word as to how the money has been spent. The information should be here.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is like many other expenditures which are not given in detail.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But surely the minister ought to have it if it is asked.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If I had expected that it would be asked for, and if I had been informed that it was the practice of the department, I would have had it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The item should stand
until the information is down.


George Taylor: We asked how much of the $4,000 has been spent last year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have said twice -that the total $4,000 has been spent.


George Taylor: We want to know how it has been spent. The Auditor General's Report says that $1,367 was spent last year on investigations into wrecks. How was it spent ? I find the following items : Lucien Bance, clerk in department, travel in connection with investigations at Quebec, $75 ; W. C. Gordon, clerk in department, travelling expenses, $16.40 ; paid for typewriting, $15.75 ; O. G. Y. Spain, travel and disbursements, transport, telephone messages, telegrams, witness fees and expenses, messenger boy and incidental expenses, making a total of $524.85 ; James Swanson, North Sydney, two days, $20 ; Miss Helen Holland, typewriting evidence, $5 ; assessors- R. S. Clift, 11 days, $110 ; expenses, $13.45 ; John Temple,. 11 days, $110; expenses, $15.70 less advance by Mr. Gordon, $25. Now the hon. gentleman comes down and asks for $4,000, and we ask him for infor-' tion, and he refuses to give us the information.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman should not say I refuse.


George Taylor: Yes, he absolutely refused to state how he spent the money.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have stated that I spent more than $4,000 to hold fifteen investigations.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The question is this. M e ask the hon. gentleman for an explanation why this amount is increased, and he says he cannot give the information, and he goes on to state that it is not the practice for any minister to give this information.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I deny it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: When the hon. gentleman gets into a hole, he denies what he said before. I state that in every other department this is not simply a matter of chance or hazard. The deputy minister or those employed in preparing the estimates, when they go to the minister with them, have to explain every item that makes up the total sum, and if there is an increase, they will have to explain why that increase is made ; and when the minister comes to the House with his estimates, he should be prepared, if he knows what is going on in the department, to state how the money is spent and for what it is needed. Fo!r instance, I see in the 1 Hansard ' reports of last year that the then Minister of Inland Revenue, Mr. Bernier, had all the details at his fingers ends. He knew his business and what he was talking about. Then if we look to the discussions on the estimates of public works, we find the then minister, Mr. Tarte, was never at a loss to give the committee all the information required. Why cannot the hon. gentleman do the same ? Is it possible that he does not know what is going on in his department or can he have lost his memory ? He must have been told what the expenditures were


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: and what the increases were for, but he will not vouchsafe to take us into his confidence.


George William Fowler: I would suggest to the hon. minister that he should let this item stand until he can bring down the details. Let us go on with the next item.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There will be the
same objections.
Mr. FOY/LER. Are we to understand that the hon. minister is not provided with the details of the next item ? Let us then take up some item of which he has'the details.


Mr. BICKERHIKE.: I know something about the extra costs last year, and I would suggest that as the hon. minister has frankly stated that if you will allow that item to pass, he will bring down the information asked for, you should accede to his request. The iarg; increase over 1902 was made at the. request of the Montreal Board of Trade and the marine underwriters.


George Taylor: Why did not the minister say so V


Robert Bickerdike: On account of the wrecks in the St. Lawrence, we felt that something had to be done to find out the cause, and appointed men to investigate it. My hon. friend knows some of the men who were appointed. One of them was appointed at my own request, Captain Clift, at $10 a day. No man of his experience would do the work for less money. These gentlemen have sat time and again in the city of Quebec and have gone down to the gulf to make inquiries, and the minister has promised to give us all the details.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: If the committee wil! allow me, I would like to make a motion.
I do not know whether it will be in order, and probably I shall be called down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I* move that the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) be appointed Minister of Marine apd Fisheries in place of the present occupant of the position.


Robert Bickerdike: Carried.


Mr. DANIEL.: I think the remarks of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) are very much called for. The increase in this item from 1902, taken in connection with the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that he intends to come down with a supplementary estimate for $2,000. would lead one to suppose that the minister expects more wrecks during the coming season, and requires more money for their investigation. But the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) lias told us that the object is to investigate the cause of these wrecks, so that the department may know what improvements should be made in the aids to navigation with a view to preventing such disasters in the future. But the minister refused all information, and so we had to wait until the hon. member for St. Lawrence spoke. I hope that -the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see the necessity of making reasonable explanations when they are asked for in the committee.


George William Fowler: Before the item passes, 1 wish to join with my hon. friends on this side in the praise offered to the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) for the full information he has given us, information that was denied by the minister (Mr. Prefoiltaine). At the same time, I think my hon. friends on this side have been scarcely fair to the minister. It is my desire to be fair to every member of the House, no matter how unfair that member may be to me. And, notwithstanding the fact that the minister has on several occasions to-night spoken in a somewhat testy manner toward myself, yet I wish to offer an explanation of his ignorance on the subject under discussion that, I think, will be satisfactory to the committee. The minister has been very busy of late. There is a gentleman by the name of Oarbonneau who has been having some transactions with the government.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that the member of the House ?


George William Fowler: No ; but a promoter, of somewhat unsavoury reputation. Mr. Car-bonneau has had negotiations with the government. and these negotiations have been carried on through the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. There was also the timber
limit transaction on Hope island, the ' Bayfield ' matter and others of that kind. The minister has been devoting his attention to these things, and matters of detail as to the mere working of his department have escaped his attention. But we are grateful to the understudy of the minister, the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal. We trust that, in the interest of harmony in this House, it will not be long before the coadjutbr of the minister will become minister ; and then, no doubt, we shall be given full details on all subjects.
Expenses and inquiry into the subject of a naval militia and school of navigation, $7,500.


George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I think we have done a good day's work


William Stevens Fielding: I think that, before we adjourn, we ought to do some business.


George Taylor: We have already done some. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) must admit that the opposition have done no more than discharge their duty by trying to extract a gleam of information from the minister, even though the result has been to gain that information from the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal. By his experience the hon. minister, no doubt, wil! have learned his duty, to give reasonable explanations of expenditures of last year. We want the minister to understand that we must have a little information. I think that, now that all is harmony, now that the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal, has come to the rescue and has given the minister a lesson that, no doubt, he will profit by to the extent of not again attempting to bulldoze the committee, we might close our day's work. We were up late last night, and I think twelve o'clock is late enough for tonight.


Mr. GALLERY.: I would like to ask the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) if, in his opinion, the hon. member for St. Lawrence division gave a detailed account ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Does the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Gallery) object ?


Daniel Gallery: No, I only asked the question.


George Taylor: The hon. ynember for St Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) gave the information in quite sufficient detail. He said that the board of trade had recommended a large expenditure for an investigation into the cause of wrecks, and we are ready to accept that.


Daniel Gallery: What had that to do with the statement of the minister ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is there to be a scrap between the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Gallery) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) ? Or is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gallery) jealous ?


Daniel Gallery: I am in no way jealous -of tiie lion, member for St. Lawrence. But I thought it fair to say to hon. members, who have so greatly prolonged this debate, that, so far as X could make out, the hon member for St. Lawrence did not give a detailed account. He may have given an account that was accepted as satisfactory by hon. members opposite, but, so far as I could'make out, that account was not given in any detail.


George William Fowler: I am sorry if my suggestion that the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Biekerdike) might become a minister has aroused the jealousy of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Gallery). I dill not know that the hon. member for St. Anne was an aspirant for cabinet honours. I understood that it was a senatorship he was looking for, not a portfolio.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We voted last year $7,500 for this purpose mentioned in this estimate, of which only a certain amount has been expended in preparing diagrams and collecting information for the establishment of a marine school.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Who has charge of this investigation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Capt. Salmon.


George William Fowler: If I am not mistaken the hon. gentleman told us the same thing last year. Why has nothing more been done 1 What is holding the matter up ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $1,800 has been spent in preparing these diagrams.


George William Fowler: We were told last year that something was going to be done. I am particularly interested in this matter, because my part of the country is especially Interested in the establishment of a naval school. This is a matter that should be pushed along more rapidly than the minister is pushing it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If it is the policy of the government to establish a naval militia, I would like to know to what extent the minister has gone, to what extent he has succeeded in establishing a naval militia.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have just stated that nothing has been done except the preparation of the diagrams, books and so on to organize the department. This sum of $7,500 is a revote, with the exception of $1,800 which has been spent.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I cannot understand what the diagrams have to do with the naval militia.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Diagrams, books and charts have to be prepared to be distributed among the different schools.


William Stevens Fielding: The item includes schools of navigation.
Mr. CASG'RAIN.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Nothing has been done about a naval militia except to gather information. After we have inquired into the facts and formed some plan of the organization we propose to make, it will then be time to say what we intend to do. For IJie present we have not made up our minds one way or the other. .


Edmund Boyd Osler: Who is making this preliminary investigation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Capt. Salmon. The first thing to do is to prepare for the organization of the schools, and that has been begun. As regards the naval militia, it is a big subject which will entail quite a large expenditure of money, perhaps $500,000 to begin with. Of course, before submitting any plans involving so large an expenditure, we have got to procure all the necessary information, and to do that will take some time.


Andrew B. Ingram: At whose recommendation has this branch of the service been made ? At whose recommendation has this item of $7,500 for naval militia been put in the estimates ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The same item was put in last year, and preliminary work was begun. We expect to continue this year, and to come down next year with some plan for establishing the schools, and for the organization of a naval militia.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am asking at whose recommendation was the item put in here ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This question has been discussed in the public press for the last two years, and strong representations have been made to the government on the subject. As it is a matter that pertains to the Marine and Fisheries Department, it has been left in my hands and the hands of my officers. Of course we have to go slow, because it will entail so large an expenditure.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend has not answered my question yet. At whose recommendation was this item put in, who is the official ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are two officials, Capt. Salmon and Capt. Spain.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was it at their recommendation that this item was put in ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, it came from outside, from the Navy League.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was this item put in by the recommendation of any official in the Marine Department, or is it purely on the initiative of the hon. gentleman himself ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No. There is in existence a public body called the Navy League, who have made representations to the government on this subject, and we thought proper to put a certain amount in

the estimates to enable us to study the question, first, of naval schools, and then of a naval militia.


Mr. KEMP.: The hon. gentleman said there was a discussion in the press. I suppose he referred to the proposition for a Canadian navy. Do I understand that the government have no policy with regard to-that particular matter at the present time ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have a policy, that is to say, we have adopted the principle as regards the organization. It is quite a new thing for this country, and we must study it with care before launching it. It is proposed, for instance, that the men employed on the government vessels should form the nucleus of this naval reserve, and that, instead of their being engaged for the season, they should be enrolled for two or three years. As regards the principle of the organization I think the government has entirely made up its mind.
'Mr. KEMP. Then the minister admits that in a country of this size having such a great sea-board we should have a navy of some kind and not be dependent altogether on the navy of Great Britain. We have an immense commerce to protect and should not have to depend oil Great Britain for its protection. It would of course require a large expenditure, but in my opinion the time has come when the government should spend some money on the nucleus of a Canadian navy. The government have been considering this for a numr ber of years and the minister should be able to give us something more definite than he has given.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The item of $7,500 was first put in the estimates last year, and the hon. gentleman remembers how long the session lasted. This might require the despatch of some of my officers to England to get information as to organi-ation, &c., and that has not yet been done, but the first things to provide, I submit, are the schools, and I think that before the end of the session we will be in a position to apnounce that we propose to establish schools in the principal cities of the Dominion.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is one of the subjects which the ministers discussed in England and this is putting in the thin edge of the wedge some time after they have come back. They do not seem to have any policy except putting in the thin edge of the wedge. $7,500 is a very thin end indeed,' and it is put in to appease some of the gentlemen who have a strong feeling in this matter.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I understand'the minister to say that the government adopt the principle of a naval militia for Canada ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When this naval militia is established and grows to a considerable size will the hon. minister in addition to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Canals and a large share of the Department of Public Wlorks also take over and command this naval militia ? Will that be the intention of the department?'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not think the hon. gentleman need worry about that at present.
Some resolutions reported.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Might I ask the hon. the minister what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed with Supply, and the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or of the Postmaster General will be taken up.


George Taylor: May we expect to have the government Bills, including one with reference to the voters' list, which we were promised on Monday would be brought down on Tuesday or Wednesday ?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.02 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 22, 1904.