1904-07-06

OF THE DEBATES OF THE

[Stage Direction]
* [DOT]

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Bebates


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 6, 1904.

Rt.   H@: With the indulgence of the House, as I have to be away in a minute or two, I would like to call the attention of the House to a matter in regard to which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) asked for information yesterday, that is in regard to the report of the Tread-gold commission. The House was advised some time ago that the concessionaries had withdrawn and asked to be relieved of their contract and that the application had been granted by the government. Thereupon my colleague, the Secretary of State, advised Mr. Justice Britton of the fact and intimated there was no necessity of a report. Mr. Scott acting without consulting Council, and when the matter was brought to the attention of Council his action was not approved of. Mr. Justice Britton was advised immediately to consider the letter of Mr. Scott as unwritten and withdrawn, and therefore we expect a report from Mr. Justice Britton on the matter.


Mr.   I@: Has the right hon. Prime Minister any information to give the House as to the date when we may expect the report ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Judge Britton is being communicated with at the present time, and I will perhaps be able to tell my hon. friend to-morrow.



RESIGNATION OF LT.-COL. GREGORY- INQUIRY FOR PAPERS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the day are called, I would like to know when we may expect to have brought down the papers relating to the resignation of Lt.-Col. Gregory ? These were spoken of in the debate which took place last week in the House and it was then announced by the hon. minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) that there was no objection to bringing the papers 192-
down, and that they would be brought down at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia to this matter and have the hon. gentleman's question answered to-morrow.



PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know whether or not it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation founded upon the resolution of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) which passed this House unanimously about ten days ago ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I will call the attention of the government to the hon. gentleman's question, and will be able to give an answer to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: But the hon. gentleman is the government. I expected an answer from him.


William Mulock: I am a very humble member of the government.



SUPPLY-LETTER OF MR. W. T. R.

[Stage Direction]
PRESTON RE LORD DUNDONALD'S DISMISSAL. /
['With the consent of the House, I beg to move that Bill (No; 80) rest-pecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited, be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.']
Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into'Committee of Supply.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I would like to bring to the attention of the government a communi- _ cation which appears in the London 1 Times ' ' of June 18, over the signature of Mr. W. T. R. Preston. I presume the gentleman is the Canadian Emigration agent at London. I would like to get some information from the government respecting this communication, whether the government approve of it, if their attention has been called to it, or whether they disapprove of it, and whether they think' Mr. Preston is in the line of his duty as emigration agent of this country in the old country in addressing an ex parte, inaccurate, and therefore misleading statement to the English people through the columns of the London ' Times ' respecting a matter upon which there is a wide divergence of opinion in this country. Mr. Preston is the servant of the people



of Canada, and I would like to ascertain if the government think it is consistent with the discharge of his duty to the people of this country that he should be permitted to rush into print when he feels disposed to do so, and to make statements that are not in accordance with the facts as we understand them on this side of the House, and that will, in the light that this is the case, mislead the public as to the situation. Mr. Preston has made a statement respecting the differences between the government and Lord Dundonald, late General Officer Commanding, and in order that the House may be apprised of the nature of the communication I will read it with permission. It is found at page 8 of the London ' Times,' of Saturday, June 18, and is as follows :



[Stage Direction]
To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,-So long as the discussion upon the recent difficulty between Lord Dundonald and the Canadian government was confined simply to newspaper editorials however unfair they may have been-
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: Will my hon. friend say what paper he is reading from.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The London ' Times,' of Saturday, June 18. I will send it over to the hon. gentleman.



[Stage Direction]
Is the heading.
To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,-So long as the discussion upon the recent difficulty between Lord Dundonald and the Canadian government was confined simply to newspaper editorials, however unfair they may have been, I do not know that the circumstances altogether called for a reply.
But when I find correspondents in the columns of your journal, of a recent date, accepting as absolutely true various inferences which have been drawn by the public press respecting the administration of the Canadian militia, it . occurred to me that a few lines from a Canadian might not be out of place. .
I do not propose discussing at length the Dundonald affair, but desire to point out that the charges which are being made as to politics entering into the militia administration in Canada are based upon the refusal of the acting minister to accept Lord Dundonald's recommendation in one particular. And it now transpires that the gentleman whom Lord Dundonald recommended as major of the force was not even connected with the Canadian Militia. I am not going to suggest reasons which might have actuated Lord Dundonald in making this recommendation. Anything of that kind would be uncalled for. But in dealing with the facts of the case that circumstance stands out clear and distinct. I wonder how long the War Office in this country would hesitate about striking the name of a civilian off the list of recommendations by one of its officials under similar circumstances. I Mi*.- CLARKE.
think I am safe in saying that it would be done in less time than it was done at Ottawa, and that writers to the press here would have waited for all the circumstances to be made known before charging the minister of the day with being actuated by political reasons. * However, that is outside of the case to which I desire to reply, i.e., Mr. Herbert's allegations in a letter to the ' Times' of the 17th last., where he bewails with much grief the presence of political prejudice in connection with Canadian militia appointments. As a Canadian I have much pleasure in assuring him that his grief is expended upon a myth. He first builds up a case to suit himself and then proceeds to demolish it without first finding a case established and then arguing from that standpoint. The absolute truth is that the militia is one of the phases of life in Canada which both political parties have kept free from either political partiality or political prejudice. The administration of the militia forces in Canada by both political parties proves from time immemorial the truth of my statement. The discussions in parliament the criticisms which naturally take place under responsible government from time to time all go to prove that both political parties have refrained from introducing politics into the militia. The order of promotions is provided for by legislation and by regulations accepted by parliament, so that politics cannot fairly enter. And if further evidence was wanted of the general non-political character of the Canadian militia it is found in the fact that both political parties are represented in every phase of the citizen military life of Canada.
But the seriousness of the charge which is now made is that the present government are the principal sinners in this particular. To prove how unfair this allegation is one has only to refer to distribution of responsibilities in connection with the late war in South Africa and the Coronation ceremonies two years ago. The principal positions upon both of these occasions were in point of fact given by the government to political opponents. Apart from these particular cases instances without number can be given of a purely provincial or local aspect proving that the opponents of the government of the day have been the 'recipients of official preferment to as marked degree as government supporters.
But because government opponents in Canada choose to make charges at the present juncture of a broad general character, as is done also in this country, therefore the British public are asked to believe, without hearing the other side of the case, that these charges are absolutely true.
Your correspondent fears that this trouble between an imperial officer and the Canadian government is going to prove detrimental to the entire military system of Canada and that, because Lord Dundonald has taken a course which could only result in his dismissal, therefore the citizen militia of Canada is going to become utterly demoralized. Mr. Bron. Herbert may as well dispel his fears first as last. Canadians have a strong sense of the need of an efficient militia, and they will undoubtedly be able to bring the citizen soldiery of Canada to a high state of efficiency even if there is no imperial officer to give the government of the day the benefit of his experience.
The people of Canada upon this, as upon other

found that the genius of government has not altogether departed from the country. And it will also be revealed to ultra-loyal pessimists of the character of your correspondent that the British interests have not been imperilled, and that this incident has not dissolved a valuable link between the two countries. All Canadians ask is that Mr. Bron. Herbert, and those like him, will be fair to the statesmen of the Dominion, and not allow the ex parte statements of political opponents or allegations founded upon imperfect knowledge of the circumstances to prejudice their interest.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) W. T. R. PRESTON.
11 and 12 Charing Cross, S.W., June 17.
I take it that there can be no doubt at all that the writer of this communication is the Canadian emigration agent at London. I would like to ascertain if the government think that this gentleman is in the line of his duty in sending communications of this kind to the public press ? Has any remonstrance been sent to Sir. Preston regarding this communication 7 I would also like to know, Mr. Speaker, if Canada has a high commissioner in London, whether it would not be more in accord with the fitness of things -if any injustice has been done to any interest in Canada by the publication of imperfect reports in the English newspapers- that it should devolve on the High Commissioner, rather than on the Canadian emigration agent, to set the English publid right. I recognize Mr. Preston's right to entertain opinions on all these subjects; but in view of all circumstances X challenge his right as a servant of the people of Canada to rush into print with a statement of this kind. Mr. Preston was probably not more fully informed when he wrote this communication than was the gentleman whose communication he took exception to. We should have some declaration from the government as to the policy it intends to pursue respecting matters of this kind. Is it within the line of Mr. Preston's duty to write such communications and have them published? Do the government approve of his action? If they do not apjfrove of it, have they disapproved of it ; and what means have they taken to express their disapproval ? Has any communication passed between the government and Lord Stratlicona about this matter ? These are questions which the government may fairly be required to answer. We ought to know what their policy is. If an official in the employment of the government writes anything to the public press derogatory to the policy of the government, his official head is immediately taken off. Are we to understand that officials, paid servants of the people, have immunity from official frowns if they fawn upon the government, their masters or paymasters for the time being ? Are. they at liberty to address communications to the press here or in the old land eulogizing the action of the government, and are other officials debarred from expressing opinions 192i
contrary to those entertained by the government ? I do not desire to take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to have an expression of opinion from the government as to what they think of Mr. Preston's communication and 'what they intend to do about it ?
Clifford Sifton: I was not aware until yesterday that the official in question had written a letter to the London ' Times,' and I only became aware of it then through a reference which I noticed in one of the Ottawa papers. I gave instructions to one of my officials to look up the authentic report of the letter and to bring it to me yesterday, but I did not have time to examipe it, and have not had time to examine it yet. Therefore, neither myself nor any member of the government has any definite knowledge of the contents of the letter, except such as we received this morning through hearing the hon. gentleman read it. All I can say is : that subject is one that we will have to give our consideration to, and at the present time I am not prepared to express any opinion about it or to say anything further. So soon as the government has been able to give the subject consideration we will be able to announce the conclusion at which we have arrived.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Under the circumstances, I presume I will be at liberty to bring this matter again before the attention of the government within the next two or three days ?


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria).: I presume that this matter is in the Department of the Minister of the Interior, and in order that it may be still further considered by him and by the government, I may state that it is a well known fact that not only Mr. Preston but others of the officers of this government in the old country are in the habit of writing articles to the English press condemning the policy of the opposition here, and tooting and palavering the policy and the members of the administration. This country voted the sum of $15,000 last year to help what was termed the Canadian Associated Press Bureau, or some such institution. Then these same gentlemen had these manufactured toots of their own chiefs for the time being telegraphed all over the world as the expressions of the British public, quoting from some remote north of England, or Scotch or Welsh journal the opinion of the editor upon the magnificence and grandeur of some of these gentlemen. I shall give you a sample of it.
Mi-. SIFTON. Will my hon. friend permit me ? Is he referring to anything written by an official of the government, or is he referring to the reports prepared by the agents of the Associated Press ?


Samuel Hughes: I am referring first to the editorials or comments published in

the English papers as coming from the English editors themselves, but in reality written for them by these tooters. I am going to give the House a sample of these editorials. These comments, so-oalled original editorial comments, in the papers are telegraphed back to Canada and all over this country as the opinions of the great English public. Perhaps the bon. minister (Mr. Sifton) does not know how the thing is run and is a stranger to the way the thing is managed. We will give him details of it, and perhaps, if he will consult the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), he will get a pointer or two.
Now, Sir, I have here one of this class or' articles undoubtedly written by an official of this government. I am not saying that he does it during his office hours, or he has not a perfect right to express his views' if he can get paid for it. and there may be no great harm in that. This editorial is undoubtedly written by one of the agents of the Minister of Agriculture and published all over as the opinion of the great British public, of that hon. gentleman. Here it is. I may say that it is headed * The World's Greatest Farmer.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: He might have added ' The New Minister of Militia.' The editorial reads :
Canada confidently looks forward to being at no distant date the granary of the empire, and even now the man who is her Minister of Agriculture may be described with scarcely any exaggeration as the greatest farmer of the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. HENDERSON, pid I understand the hon. gentleman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I was going to ask hon. gentleman if he said the greatest farmer or the greatest failure ?


Samuel Hughes: I am not expressing my own views, I am simply reading from the extract.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Do not work off these minstrel jokes.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-(reading) :
This is especially the case with regard to the present Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, whose name is prominently before the public in connection with Lord Dundonald and the Dominion militia.


Mr. BENNETT.: The best advertisement he ever had. [DOT]


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-(reading) :
He is a practical farmer himself.
I do not see my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) here, or he would query that assertion.


Samuel Hughes: On a considerable scale, his fine property, Alva Farm, which is situated in the eastern townships of the province of Quebec, being one of the best in the 'Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: It is a little early in the morning for the hon. gentlemen to be so filled with enthusiasm.


Mr. GALLIHER.: We cannot help it, you
are so nice and genial.


Samuel Hughes: If it occurred at the usual hour in the evening, we would not be surprised. But at this early hour of the morning


Robert George Macpherson: You would be able to make your speech.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Note how -well-posted these English editors are on this great genius who occupies the position of Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada. They even know of his most beautiful farm ' Alva,' in the eastern townships.
But as Minister of Agriculture he has a unique opportunity. The government maintains in several parts of Canada large experimental farms for the purpose of exploiting the latest ideas with respect to agriculture. New methods and theories, ranging over the whole area of farming operations are carefully considered, tried and adopted, if successful, while the results arrived at are given the widest publicity. How important all this is to a nation of farmers like the Canadians is easily understood.
It is a fortunate thing for Canada, now developing enormously on her agricultural side in Manitoba and the Northwest, that Mr. Fisher is not only a thoroughly competent farmer himself, but also that he brings to his work a highly-trained intelligence and an inspiring enthusiasm.
And this is tbe gentleman who opposed the establishment of experimental farms in this country with all bis might and main tor many a long year until be happened, through the influence of bis paper and his position, to again become a member of this House, when this aggregation came into power, and, forsooth, they had to put him in some place, and tbe place where he could do tbe least damage was in the portfolio of Minister of Agriculture.
Though he is an excellent farmer, it will not do to think of him as a ' horny-handed son of the soil.' He is a man who has been educated at McGill University, Montreal, and Trinity College, Cambridge. His father , a Scotchman, Was a well known Montreal physician.
Note, Sir, bow accurately this poor, deluded British editor is posted on this great genius from Canada.
His superb


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: And, Sir. it is told of him that on one occasion he went out tp interview his foreman, and, going over to the bull pen, he asked him which was the Jersey that gave the best cream.
He has also travelled far and wide with a view to the opening up of new markets, or the development of those already existing.
Especially in regard to the Geisha girls in Japan.
He has founded several flourishing organizations for the furtherance of agriculture.
He is in the prime of life. His political career began in 1880, and in the famous electoral campaign of 1896, which resulted in the [DOT]overthrow of the Conservative party

Remark that it does not say in the triumph of the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I notice that all the gentlemen who are slated for offices are leading vigorously in the applause.


Mr. WADE.: Russell is not here.


Samuel Hughes: Otherwise he would [DOT]have been at the top of the list, if the hon. gentlemen would be good enough to take the lead right along from our good friend.
Mr. Fisher took a very prominent part, and in the Laurier cabinet was included as Minister of Agriculture, with the unanimous approval of all Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: The unanimous approval of all Canada-a plebiscite.
The Canadian Department of Agriculture includes in its range some matters not exactly of an agricultural nature, such as public health, patents, copyright; and census statistics, and Mr. Fisher has introduced several beneficial changes with regard to these subjects.
Now Sir, there is an important addition here. Under the new Orders in Council we find that this gentleman is charged with the administration of militia affairs also. The Minister of Militia, being thoroughly incompetent to attend to his business, the cabinet appointed the Minister of Agriculture to deal with militia matters in this special district. Would the Minister of the
Interior or the Minister of Agriculture or the minister of whatever department this was sent from, be good enough to have that corrected ?
One of the things he has done is to amend the copyright law of Canada with a view to the protection of English authors.
Yet the general view taken in this country is that he endeavoured to amend the Copyright Law in order to shut out English authors.
He is a strong temperance worker.


William Humphrey Bennett: What about the dozen bottles of whisky ?


Samuel Hughes: Let us draw a mantle over that.
He carried in 1896 a government measure providing for a popular vote on the question of total prohibition.
The writer might have adijed that he carried around with him on his trip to England several bottles of good Canadian rye whisky.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


Samuel Hughes: I was not referring to these hon. gentlemen. There was no danger of their carrying whisky around in their cases. It would have been carried elsewhere by them.


Clifford Sifton: What paper is this published in ?


Samuel Hughes: It is published in the London ' Daily Mail.' I do not know how much it cost a line.


Clifford Sifton: Who is the writer ?


Samuel Hughes: There is no name, but undoubtedly it was inspired by the Minister of Agriculture. Of course he would not have his own name signed to it.


Clifford Sifton: Would the hon. gentleman give the reference so that we may look it up ?


Samuel Hughes: I will give you the extract.


Clifford Sifton: What date ?


Samuel Hughes: Thursday, June 16th, 1904.


An hon. MEMBER.: Did he surrender ?


Samuel Hughes: These hon. gentlemen seem to forget the fix they were in the other evening, or they would not say anything about surrendering. But I want to tell them that when I get hold of anybody who surrenders, he never escapes.
Som hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: This sort of thing is rampant throughout the English press. We find extracts from obscure country papers in England cabled out here at the expense of Canada, tooting gentlemen of no

greater capacity than the lion. Minister of Agriculture and others of his colleagues. Emboldened by impurity, we find these paid servants of the Dominion, not content with anonymous contributions, not content with misinforming the editors of English newspapers, as they have been doing a long time, under cover of anonymity, are coming out brazenly, writing over their own signatures, and deliberately falsifying the record. It is about time that these people were brought to a sense of their duty and this sort of thing stopped.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: I just wish to refer for a moment to the fact that this practice, to which my hon. friend who has just spoken has alluded, was indulged in to a considerable extent some years ago by the immigration officer we then had in Ireland. We had him not only dealing with matters which were not by any means relevant to the duties he had to perform, but actually improperly and insolently discussing the acts of members of parliament. One instance after another of this was brought to the attention of the government and we had the assurance of the Minister of the Interior that it would be stopped. The following year however we had a repetition of the offence.


Clifford Sifton: Does the hon. gentleman say I did not stop it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I said was that when it was brought to the hon. minister's attention he said it would be stopped, but the next year we had a repetition of it.


Clifford Sifton: It was stopped.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was afterwards, but only after it had gone on two or three years. Forbearance ceases to be a virtue when the servants of the people are allowed to abuse it as they have been doing. Our immigration agent in Ireland left of his own accord the service of the government, but just as soon as he- dropped out, another started in on the same lines. There is no doubt that this article on the Minister of Agriculture was inspired from Ottawa and written no doubt by some one who was expecting promotion or perhaps by some member of the government. I venture to say that there is not one of a thousand readers in Canada who will not reach the same conclusion. It is highly improper that an enployee of this government should be allowed to indulge in that kind of work. Whether that employee be W. T. R. Preston or any other notorious character, makes no difference.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I understand that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, inquired about certain papers having reference to the extension of time of Lieutenant Colonel Gregory's command and the refusal 'to further extend it. I have given an order to have these papers prepared.


Samuel Hughes: They are somewhat voluminous, but will be ready in a day or two.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. minister also bring down his orders and regulations regarding the new examinations ?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly.


Mr. CLANCY.: Would the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce have the papers which I asked him about yesterday brought down ?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: All the papers in the hands of my department were sent to the Secretary of State, but there was some information from the Department of Justice which is being put in shape and will be furnished this afternoon or to-morrow.


Mr. BELL.: The Postmaster General promised me some information regarding the mail contract on the River John. I was to have got it in the course of a day or two.


William Mulock: During that debate on the estimates, I promised to bring down the following day information asked for by a number of gentlemen, and I told my deputy to bring me everything promised. If my hon. friend had put his question during that discussion. I would have been in a position then to give him the information, and therefore I am not in default. I shall have great pleasure however in bringing it down.


John William Bell: I understood the hon. minister was going to send me a memo.


William Mulock: I am sure that my deputy had the information and it would have been given had my hon. friend asked for it. I am not finding fault, and will see that my hon. friend's wishes are complied with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to collection o( reveihie-Intercolonial Railway-working expenses, $6,500,000.	.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: This is the usual vote.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the minister was making his statement the other day, he alluded to increased expenditures in the operation of the Intercolonial caused by increased wages paid to employees, and he promised to bring down a statement of the number of employees on the Intercolonial in 1890 and in 1903, the years for which his comparison was made. Has he that information now under his hand ? I would ask also for a return showing the train mileage served by the employees of the different grades-engineer-, fireman, brakeman. conductor and so on. If the hon. gentleman proposes to make comparisons, he must sup-

ply the House with Information to enable members to judge of the correctness of those comparisons. He has promised to bring down this information, but he has not yet done so. I would like him to implement that promise now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I telegraphed the general superintendent at Moncton and asked him to prepare such a return and send it at once. But the return has not yet reached me. I shall have the information, however, before the consideration of the railway estimates by the committee is finished.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But how could the hon. minister have made a comparison unless he had this information ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: [DOT] As to the number of men ? I based that upon the actual figures.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But where are those figures ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want not only the actual number of men but the number of days. I made the statement generally, and now I propose to verify it. I propose to show, not merely the increase in the sum total, but the increase per diem paid to the several employees. That information will be forthcoming-my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) need not be at all alarmed. The information is accessible, and I will have it here so as to demonstrate to a mathematical certainty the correctness of my general statement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But where is the material upon which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) based his statement in the committee the other day. Has he not that now under his hand ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My statement was a statement of totals, and.I showed, from the actual expenditures on these items in the different years, what increase had taken place. My hon. friend asked me at that time for a statement for the number of men and the actual wage per diem ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: And as to the duties performed by these men.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It>
is the same duty performed year by year. The enginemen, for instance, perform the same duties as before.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But how about the train mileage they run ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Even as to that a schedule will be furnished.


Mr. INGRAM.: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) will bring down a statement of the mileage in 1903 and 1904 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is contained in the report.


Andrew B. Ingram: That can hardly be, because we have not the report for 1904.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) to mean for the year 1903. I understand that he means for that year and for the ten months of 1904 for which we have returns.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will get that.


Mr. DANIEL.: Who is the master car builder now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Samuel King.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What position does Mr. King's predecessor, Mr. David White, occupy now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is chief car inspector.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is his present salary?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The general manager informs me that it is $100 a month.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is Mr. King a Canadian or an alien ?
Mr. EMMERSON- A Canadian.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What salary is Mr. King receiving ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed it is $150 a month.	.


John William Bell: I would call the attention of the minister (Mr. Emmerson) to the fact that it is reported that some of his staff have been taking an active part in politics. I am informed that Alphonse T. Leblanc, canvassing agent for the Intercolonial, with salary and allowances of $1,531.28, took active charge of the government campaign in a portion of the county of Guysborough In a recent election. Has the minister any information as to that, and was it with his consent that this official engaged in that work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not had the matter called to my attention. But, within a few days, I have heard some joking about it.


John William Bell: Has the minister made any inquiry ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the matter was not brought to my attention. I was not aware that Mr. Leblanc at any time, had any connection with an election.


John William Bell: In what way has the information reached the minister ?
ilr. EMMERSON. I heard some joking about it among the members. But I have not had any complaint with respect to the matter.	[DOT]
I wish to correct the statement that I made a moment ago with respect to the pay of Mr. King, master car builder. He gets

$200 a month. Mr. White gets $100 a month.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where was Mr. King previously employed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the Grand Trunk?


Andrew B. Ingram: Whereabouts ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The general manager tells me he thinks it was at London.


Samuel Hughes: He used to be in Montreal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was for a long time in the employ of the Grand Trunk.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it true that the present master ear builder receives the assistance in his duties of the gentleman who previously held that position, Mr. White ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. White's employment is very largely outside of the works at Moncton. He is engaged in inspecting the cars that are built at the different points in the Dominion for the Intercolonial Railway.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what are the duties of Mr. White, who was formerly the master car builder ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. White's duties are largely outside the works at Moncton. He is engaged in inspecting the cars that are built at different points in the Dominion for the Intercolonial.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What salary did Mr. White get as master car builder ?
Mr). EMMERSON, The general manager tells me he received $125 or $150 a month.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does not this gentleman come into the class of those whose salaries have been increased ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know whether my hon. friend wants to enter into a discussion as to the merits or demerits of that matter. I can give him the facts. In the position which Mr. White now holds he gets a salary of $100. When he held the position of master car builder he commanded a salary of either $125 or $150. The master car builder's position now commands a salary of $200. It is some years since Mr. White occupied the position.	.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How long ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Speaking from personal recollection, four or five years.


Andrew B. Ingram: We understand that Mr. White occupied the position of master car builder up to some four or five years ago, and for some reason he has been displaced and a Mr. King has been put in that position. Now, it appears that the department has employed another man and gives him an ad-Mr. EMMERSON.
vance in wages of $50 per month over that received by Mr. White. The hon. gentleman does not state whether Mr. White was competent for the position of master car builder. What is the reason for the change ? Why should this country pay $50 additional to Mr. King if Mr. White has given satisfaction and is a thoroughly competent man ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) apparently desires to go into that question. When a mechanical superintendent was secured -for the Intercolonial some five years ago, Mr. White was master car builder, and the mechanical superintendent reported that in his judgment Mr. White was not satisfactory for the ppsition.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, there was a question of competency and fitness. The superintendent made a report and requested a man of more experience, and Mr. White wras placed in a position of car inspector and the services of Mr. King were secured. This was some four or five years ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: How long has Mr. White filled the position of master ear builder ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About ten years, I am told.


Andrew B. Ingram: And this government employed for ten years a man who was incompetent to be a master car builder, and it took the government ten years to find it out. I doubt whether he was incompetent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not say that in my opinion he was incompetent, I only gave that as the reason assigned by the mechanical superintendent. I have no personal knowledge as to his fitness or competency. I am only giving ihe reason assigned by the mechanical superintendent for desiring to change the official.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the reason why I doubt the statement that has been given that he was incompetent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman does not doubt my statement ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not doubt that the hon. gentleman was told so. but I question the statement itself being accurate. The idea of the Intercolonial having a master car builder for ten years, and only then they diseovered that he was incompetent. On the very face of it that statement does not appear to be true. Then you make an incompetent man a car inspector. That is very inconsistent, I am sure. Is that' the system the general manager is following ? I think probably there is some other reason that has not been stated for this change. I think the reason was probably a political reason.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am only giving the reason assigned. We might speculate on a whole lot of other reasons, but this is not a matter for speculation. I do not know who is more competent to determine as to the fitness of a man for the position of master car builder than the mechanical superintendent of the railway.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was he ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At that time it was Mr. Joughins, and he is still the mechanical superintendent.


Andrew B. Ingram: And after seven years he discovered that this man is incompetent, though he is considered competent for the important position of inspector.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When the mechanical superintendent came upon the road, he made a number of changes in the men employed on the Intercolonial and one of them was with respect to Mr. White. A man may be very competent in one department and not in another. Mr. White may be a very competent inspector of cars, but he might not have that executive ability which would qualify him to control a large number of men.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that the reason ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is one of the reasons assigned.


Andrew B. Ingram: And Mr. White was in charge. over these men for ten years and only then it was discovered that he was incompetent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And during that period we got a new man, Mr. Joughins, as mechanical superintendent. He was the best judge of the requirements of the situation, and he made a number of other changes in the personnel of the mechanical department. Certainly he was the most competent to judge of the fitness of the men employed in his department, neither the general manager nor the Minister of Railways were in a position to exercise a proper judgment in the matter.


Andrew B. Ingram: We will leave the hon. gentleman's explanation at that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they had not got that man they would never have found out that ho was incompetent.


John William Bell: I will ask the hon. gentleman's attention to some facts in reference to the manner 'in which this staff have been conducting themselves in political campaigns.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is very interesting.


John William Bell: I observe my hon. friend is very much disposed to treat this matter as a joke.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not at all. My hon. friend must not think that because I am smiling I regard this as a mere matter of joke. It is only my good nature.


Samuel Hughes: It does not mean anything.


John William Bell: I do not think I misunderstood the hon. member a few moments ago when he said he heard of this thing as a joke and that he did not think it necessary to make any further inquiries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I said that I had heard it from a number of members who were joking amongst themselves. I said that I had had no complaint made to me, that the matter had never been brought to my notice in any form and that therefore I know nothing of it.


John William Bell: Officially ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Officially or personally.


John William Bell: I am going to have the pleasure of bringing the matter to the hon. gentleman's notice very definitely. In the first place a gentleman who occupies the place of canvassing agent on the Intercolonial Railway with a salary of $1,531, with allowances had actually charge, according to my information, of the campaign in the interest of the government in a very important district of Guvsborongli county called Larry s river and in other French districts, spoke at public meetings and took an active part in the elections. That is supported by declarations. My information is that at public meetings he addressed the electors in the interest of the government candidate. Not onlv that officer, whose name is Mr. Alphonse T. LeBlanc. but others as well, were active in the interest of the government candidate. Mr. Pushie, a conductor on the Intercolonial Railway, is another. I hart his name given me as having taken an active part in this contest. I know Mr. Pushie to be a gentleman of very strong political leanings. He actively canvassed in Mui-grave and on the trains between Mulgrave and Truro. Mr. George W. Peeples, engine cleaner at Mulgrave, was an active canvasser and on election day drove Ins own team to carry voters to the poll. Mr. Harrv A. Peeples, locomotive fireman, canvassed in Milford district in that county for the government candidate and. I am told that he was so far recreant to the Presbyterian ideas of the province of Nova Scotia' generally that he occupied part of Sunday in that work. For the government, that may not be so bad because possibly it mav be said that on Sunday he was not in the' emplov of the government. John McDonald. mate on the government ferry ' Scotia,' at Mulgrave canvassed in Mel-ford district for the government candidate

and he also used up part of his Sabbath Day's rest for that purpose.


Samuel Hughes: Was this in the Guysborough election ?


John William Bell: In the election which occurred quite recently.


Samuel Hughes: That was the election that was a redeeming feature in the maritime provinces.


John William Bell: The election which occurred quite recently in Guysborough and which has given a new member to the House of Commons.


Mr EMMERSON.: 
John William Bell: feet that their action would not be looked upon with disapproval by the government What was the attitude assumed by the present government in reference to Conservatives ? It was laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and other members of the government that while an official of the government might exercise his right to vote he might do so, but that if he went further and took any active part in a political fight he would be allowed to devote his whole attention to politics, which practically meant that he would be dismissed from the service. That has been the law which has been applied to Conservatives everywhere. In my own county a postmaster was dismissed for the reason that at a public meeting he had asked a question of a gentleman who was speaking in the interest of the government. That was an offence and he was dismissed promptly. The law laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister and acted upon by members of his government has been carried out, and that is that if a man who is not content simply with exercising his right to vote takes an active part as a canvasser or takes any active part in any other way in carrying on political warfare he takes his political life in his hand and will be dismissed. I ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to inquire into these facts and to appoint a commission and that if proof is brought to his knowledge that the statements made in reference to the acts of his officials in the matter are correct he dismiss them and that he apply to them .ffhe rule which has been applied to Conservatives throughout Canada and which has been laid down as the policy of his party. Now, the hon. minister can no longer say that this matter has not been brought to his notice. I have brought it to his notice very definitely and I am satisfied that if he appoints a commission to make an inquiry into these statements they will be proved absolutely and to the hilt. In the recent campaign in Guysborough the government turned into that county not only one but many of their officials. The gentleman who occupies the very honourable position of warden of Dorchester penitentiary went all the way from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia and spent the whole day at the Forks polling place. His name is Mr. John A. Kirk, the noisiest and most demonstrative gentleman who ever occupied a position on this side of the House.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Does the hon. gentleman say that Sir. Kirk canvassed in the election ?


John William Bell: I make the statement that he spent the whole day at the polling place.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to know if the hon. gentleman charges Sir. Kirk with canvassing ?


John William Bell: I make the statement that he w<hit to the Forks with a gentleman named Mr. Robert Kirk of Antigonish who was supposed to take certain supplies to the polling place and that . he remained tlie whole day at the Forks polling place. What was he doing there ? I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) to account for his presence. Mr. Kirk has not taken the trouble to tell me what he was doing, but if we get the commission which we suggest we will make it interesting for him. I make tlie statement that this gentleman spent the whole day at the poll. It being a winter day he did not stay there for pleasure.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose the hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that the Forks polling district is Mr. Kirk's native place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John William Bell: I am quite aware of it.


John Howard Sinclair: And that it is not an extraordinary thing for Mr. Kirk to spend one day in his native place, which as a matter of fact he frequently visists.


John William Bell: I am perfectly aware that Mr. Kirk had his residence in the Forks and was a very influential man in that section, and that is the reason he was there.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to know if the hon. gentleman is going to make a definite charge. If he has a definite charge to make against Mr. Kirk let it be made.


John William Bell: I make the statement that he was there in company with Mr. Robert Kirk, of Antigonish, who I believe had no vote there and had not ostensible reason for being there. He was there and spent the whole day in the vicinity of the polling place. I see the premier is in his seat now, and I may recall to his recollection the language which he used in this House with reference to officials who are not satisfied with voting, but who take an active part in political work either in canvassing or in any other way. In 1897 the Prime Minister laid down the principle, that when an official went outside his duties to take any part in political work, he would be allowed to devote his whole attention to politics ; meaning that such an official would be dismissed from the service. That is the principle which has been acted upon pretty thoroughly by this administration.


Samuel Hughes: As against Conservatives.


John William Bell: Yes, of course. If that be the policy of the government, it should be applied to officials of both political parties. I assert that the Minister of Railways should make inquiry into this matter, and if it can be shown that these men have done more than simply deposited their ballot, then I ask in the interests of fair-play and good government, that these oflicials should be
dismissed in accordance with the rule which the minister has laid down. The Minister of Railways can no longer say that he takes this matter merely as a rumour or a joke. The conduct of Mr. LeBlanc was notorious ; he was delighted with the position he occupied ; he boasted about it on the train ; he grew exhilarated about it and on his way out of the county on the Intercolonial Railway train after the election, he was inclined to take a great deal of credit to himself for the result. A man who flaunts his insubordination in the face of the government should not go unpunished ; a man who deliberately boasts that he has defied the rule laid down by the Prime Minister in such matters, ought not be able to rely for security on the fact that he belongs to the same poiitical party as the government in power. The same measure of justice should be meted out to all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can now say that the matter has been definitely brought to my notice with respect to certain officials of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not understand my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) to read any sworn declaration, but would rather gather that he is indulging in rumour.


John William Bell: I have declarations with respect to LeBlanc's couduct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And with respect to ail the others ?


John William Bell: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend will admit that around election times there are always a good many rumours about men indulging in political partisanship, and especially are these rumours rife among those who have been unfortunate enough to lose the election.


William Humphrey Bennett: In St. John.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, I was about to refer to the election in St. John. Just after that election and since that time I have had not merely rumours but stated charges against gentlemen in the railway service, that they took a very active part in the election against the government candidate. Only this morning I received a letter making a distinct charge against one of the officials, and indeed against a number of officials in the railway service in Moncton, who are charged with writing political editorials against the government and against the management of the Intercolonial Railway. I will say to my hon. friend that I shall go into all these matters, I trust in a judicial way, and consider not merely what he has said, but also what my correspondents have stated with respect to others in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway. After the session is over I hope to have an opportunity of inquiring into what is alleged with respect to the St. John election as well as the Guysborough election, and I trust that I

may be able to reach a conclusion that will be satisfactory all around. Let me say a word with respect to a fellow townsman of mine, Mr. Kirk, the warden of the Dorchester penitentiary. When it was intimated that he had gone to Guysborough to take part in the election, he wrote a letter to the press in which he stated distinctly that he went to Guysborough, but that he took part in no way in that election, nor did he canvass a single man. He unqualifiedly denies that he took any part in that election, and he challenges any one in the maritime provinces to prove the contrary. I have known Mr. Kirk since he came to Dorchester and from my knowledge of the gentleman I cannot believe that he is in any sense a political partisan. Mr. Kirk is a very high minded man, and a man who is true to his convictions. I am prepared to accept his statement, and until something more than mere rumour is brought to contradict him I shall rely on what Mr. Kirk says.


Samuel Hughes: Does he say what he went to Guysborough for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He says he voted ; do hon. gentleman opposite say that he had not the right to exercise the franchise ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: The friends of the Minister of Railways held that Ontario Conservatives who voted in 1890 should be sacked.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, I can give vou the names.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am obliged to accept the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) but from my knowledge of the Liberal party, I believe they have in no sense dealt with officials for such a thing as exercising their franchise. However, the matter will be investigated.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Now that the Minister of Railways has referred to the St. John election, I may recall to his mind that shortly after the opening of parliament I put a question on the order paper with regard to the dismissal of two employees of the Intercolonial Railway, and the only7 answer given by the government was that they were considered to be undesirable employees. It was stated at the time in the public press that one of these persons was dismissed because he was unable to .be present on election day, being away attending the funeral of a near relative. What truth there may be in that, of course I do not know. I would like the minister to give a little more definite information if he has it as to the reason why these two parties were dismissed at that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I remember the question which my hon. friend asked shortly af-Mr. EMMERSON.
| ter the opening of parliament. I might say that these two men are not included in the list of employees whom I have in my mind as having been charged. I informed him at that time that they were not considered desirable employees. I have not seen the references in the press to these cases, but if there was any statement in the press that one of the men was dismissed because he was absent from the city and did not take part in the election, that statement was certainly absolutely untrue, because such a circumstance wa s not brought to my notice nor was my attention called to the subsequent report of it in the newspapers. The men whose action I have promised the House will be investigated, are not the employees mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel). There were very substantial reasons why these men should not be continued in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway. The position taken by the management of the Intercolonial Railway with respect to the engagement and dismissal of men is that when it is necessary in the interest of the service that we should relieve ourselves of a man's services we do not feel that it should be either a matter of investigation in individual cases or that the management should be called upon to give in individual oases the reasons for their action.


Mr. DANIEL. .: I might remind the minister that one of these men has been in the service of the Intercolonial Railway for a great many years. What his political affiliations were I do not know, but I have always understood that he belonged to the same political party as the hon. gentleman. Although this man had been in the service of the Intercolonial for between twenty and thirty ye'ars he was dismissed without notice. It was a sudden and summary dismissal for which no reason was given. Treatment of that kind towards any official, no matter how humble, is nothing less than eruei. People in that position of life have not the chance to accumulate money, they do not get such salaries as, for instance, the minister himself enjoys. They receive simply a wage of a dollar or a dollar and a half a day, and it is hard that these two men should be summarily dismissed and thrown on the charity of the public in the middle of winter or early spring, at a time when they are very unlikely to get employment elsewhere. A large private employer of labour or a corporation, in case the necessity arose of dispensing with the services of an employee, would certainly find some more charitable and kindly way of doing so than has been adopted in this case. Every member will consider that treatment of that kind except in the most extreme cases is unwarranted and cruel, and I cannot conceive why this course should be adopted unless it was intended by the hon. gentleman to give a black eye to government ownership. It will certainly render a

great service to those who are opposed to government ownership.


Mr EMMERSON.: These men must have received the usual notice because I received a telegram asking me to stay their dismissal which was to take place at a date some time after I received the telegram.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What length of notice ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A fortnight, I think.


John Waterhouse Daniel: These men received no notice.


Henry Robert Emmerson: "They must have received notice or I could not have received that telegram. My hon. friend intimated that these dismissals arose out of the St. John election and were political in their character, but in his next utterance he says that one of these men had been long in the service and was a political friend of the party to which I owe allegiance. That surely would prove that the dismissal was not for political reasons.


Samuel Hughes: The man might have seen fit to .support the late Minister of Railways, but could not screw himself up to supporting the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I understand he was absent from the city and could not have taken part in the election, and the mere absence of a man would certainly not show that he was taking part in an election. The other man, it was represented to me, was appointed two or three years ago by the party in power. These were not matters for consideration in determining the advisability of retaining a man in a certain position. The Intercolonial Railway officials are be-seiged by a great many applicants for employment in different sections and many of these men finally succeed in getting employment as opportunity presents itself. If the management were to undertake in the case of each individual man all over the 1,500 miles of railway to investigate or if we were to say that the management cannot remove men from their positions without investigation it would lead to endless trouble. That rule is not applied in private corporations, it is not applied in the industrial corporations of this country. They reserve the right to employ and to dismiss as they please, and it seems to me that it is in the interests of the railway that there should be given to the management the right to continue to follow that practice.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Neither of these men has had any communication with me either directly or indirectly, by themselves or their friends. All I know about the case is what I have .seen in the press and certainly the general impression among the people is that the government through the Minister of Railways has excercised its power in an arbitrary and cruel manner in this case.
No reasons have yet been given why these men were dismissed. Even yet the minister has not told us why these parties were considered undesirable employees, so that evidently he takes the position that having the power he shall exercise it and refuse to give any reason why. Having arbitrary power, he intends to use it in an arbitrary manner, but I do not think that such conduct will conduce to his reputation as a fair man, to say the least of it. This thing is a matter of common discussion among people of the same walk of life and they certainly are not sparing in their criticisms of the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are dispensing with the services of employees every week, and the management do not see that they should, be called upon to give reasons. The usual course has been not to give reasons. My hon. .friend has sought to leave the impression that these men were unjustly dismissed on political grounds. Well, the case on behalf of these two men was put to the government by the strongest government supporters in the city of St. John, one of whom had taken an active part against my hon. friend ; but I felt that, while I would have been very glad to accede to their request, I could not allow my personal opinions to interfere.


Mr. PUTTEE.: When a man is discharged from the Intercolonial and applies for a discharge sheet, is he not given one, stating the cause of dismissal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has never been done.


Arthur W. Puttee: In what position then would that man be on applying for employment on another railway ? He would be asked for his discharge sheet. The hon. minister has given us the impression that when a man is discharged from the Intercolonial no reason is given, and that on other roads and in other industrial establishments the same course is pursued. The hon. gentleman is wrong. On all railways, except the Intercolonial, when a man is discharged, he is given a discharge sheet setting forth the reasons. That is the invariable practice in tile case of an employee of any length of service. Any industrial establishment, which treats its employees as people having some interest in their employment, will give a discharged cmployee the reasons for his dismissal, and I am surprised to hear the Minister of Railways say that that practice is not followed on the government road. I was not aware until this spring that the Intercolonial was run differently from other reads as regards its employees. Suppose a man in the telegraph service or an engineer is discharged, is he not given the reasons if he applies for them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a special agreement with the Telegrapher's Union covering their case. We deal with the body
j6039

and not with the individual. In the case of an employee whose services are not required. the management do not consider it necessary to give the reasons for his dismissal. Of course it would be very easy to do it.


Arthur W. Puttee: The only ground on which the government would discharge an employee would be for good and sufficient reasons. If so, wiry should not those reasons be stated? If they are damaging to the man discharged, he will keep the information to himself. If it be a question of unjust discrimination, the organization will see that justice is done him. If he belongs to no organization, he can only appeal to men's sense of fairness and justice. The minister has said that in the case of telegraphers who are discharged, the reasons are given, but in the case of men who do not belong to any organization, they are discharged without any reason being given. Well, a man who gets $1.50 a day is just as much interested in keeping his place as a man who gets $3.50 a day. And after a man has been a number of years on the Intercolonial, his usefulness is gone for other labour. No man who has been in continual service should be discharged except for good and sufficient reasons, and there can be no honest objection to telling him what those good and sufficient reasons are. The hon. member has brought up the case of two men. I am referring to two other men whose cases have been 'brought up before the House. They were employed at Moncton and were discharged at the beginning of this year-Fabien Leger and F. B. Wood. Now it is said by these men and by others on their behalf that they were discharged really for activity in connection with unions.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) knows that that was denied. The hon. gentleman himself had an interview with me with respect to that matter, and it is fair for him to state that fact, I think.


Arthur W. Puttee: I was going on to say, Mr. Chairman, in the very next sentence, that this was denied by the minister. But with this denial should be given information as to what was the reason for their dismissal. One of these men had been for twenty-three years on the Intercolonial. As a matter of fact, he has been active recently in trades union matters. It must be remembered that, as we have seen this morning, the fact that the trades union is strong and some of its members are employed under the department leads to this-that if one of those men is discharged it becomes necessary, under the agreement under which he was"employed, that the reason for his discharge shall be given. One of these two men I have referred to, I believe, was the correspondent of the government's ' Labour


Henry Robert Emmerson: Gazette ' and was soliciting subscriptions among the employees of the Intercolonial Railway for that publication. Not only on his representation, but on the representation of his fellow-workers and fellow-townsmen, the impression has been given and certainly exists that activity in trades union matters was disagreeable to some prominent men in the city of Moncton and dismissal followed. At page 3437 of ' Hansard ' there is a long series of questions put by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith) and answered by the Minister of Railways. It seems from what the minister says that the men are absolutely denied the advantage of having put before them reasons for their dismissal other than simply that it is ' for the benefit of the service.' On behalf of every labour organization I want to say that that is no satisfactory answer to any man who has been discharged after being employed in any service for a number of years. The reason given should be a specific reason. It is stated-and on this I would refer to the hon. member for Vancouver-that the dismissal was ordered from Ottawa, that it did not come from these men's superior officers nor from any one actively engaged in the operation of the railway. I believe that men thus employed should be given, not only in this case but in every case reason, for their dismissal. That is a point that is always put forward by trades unions and it is always conceded in each case. And surely the weak man, the man who has not the support of his coworkers is entitled to the same treatment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is almost a pity that this incident was brought up, for it has, in a sense, the effect of drawing a red herring across the trail, and preventing us from getting information which we desire with respect to political partisanship on the part of officials. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) that it is a great injustice that men should be dismissed without reason given. It might be that if a man knew the reason, he might set the matter right and so avoid dismissal. It may be a case of double injustice. A man may be dismissed upon allegations which, if examined into would be found to be incorrect; and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg says, when he applies for employment elsewhere and is asked the reason for leaving his .former employment, he is unable to give any reason, and so must rest under suspicion that he is not worthy. But it appears from what the minister says that if he belongs to the telegraphers' union reason must be given if he is dismissed. And why ? Because there is a force behind him


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a subject of agreement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man who is unable to bring any force to fight his battles can-

not claim' such treatment, but may be dismissed without any reason given.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the one case the man is employed without any such understanding, but in the case of the telegrapher there is a written agreement that this shall be one of the conditions of employment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But why is that done in' one case and not in another ? We have a Minister of Labour to see to it that every employee gets fair-play. Was he invited to interfere in these cases or make any inquiries ? Not at all, so far as any information has been given to the House. We are told that reason is given in the case of dismissal of a member of the' telegraphers' union, but not in the case of one who has not such a powerful union at his back. Does not that of itself indicate that where a man has power behind him lie can get his rights, but where Jie has none but_himself to light his battles his rights will not be recognized ? It seems to me that that is the meaning that Is to be taken from what the minister has told us. But the question which started this discussion was the question of employees taking part in elections-was that principle right or was it wrong ? We have it on the authority of a number of hon. gentlemen opposite, including ministers, that it was an Improper thing for employees in the public service to take an undue part in an election, and that any who did so would be dismissed. As a matter of fact a number of men have been dismissed on this plea. We are told that we must not accept these cases oif mere rumour, and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) was asked if he had affidavits to establish the facts he alleged. I would ask in return where were the affidavits to establish the charges against any members of the Conservative party who were dismissed in 1896 ? Did it require affidavits for the dismissal of these men ? Not at all. The government were quite ready to act on mere rumour ; on the mere charge being brought to the department the men were ruthlessly and barbarously dismissed, with no opportunity given them to disprove the allegation made against them. On the other hand, the hon. member for Pictou mentioned nine or ten different cases of officials of the Intercolonial taking an active part in one byelection in support of the government candidate. But nothing is done to these men. If this kind of thing were confined to the Intercolonial it might not be so bad. But I have information here that men in the Department of Marine and Fisheries took an active part in that Guysborough election, men w ho were servants of the country, and servants not of one political party but the people of all political parties. But they are in the service of the party in power for the time being. They did not take their political lives in their hands because they knew they would be shielded, therefore they come
from the Fisheries Department to take part in that election. I have here two cases : Mr. John Davis, fishery .overseer, goes down and takes part in that election ; Mr. Havelock Torrey, another fishery officer, takes part in that election.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to say what he is reading from ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am reading information given to me with regard to certain parties who took part in that election.


John Howard Sinclair: By whom is that statement signed ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It being one o'clock I now leave the chair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully submit that when a member is on his feet it is hardly courteous, either to the committee or to the member, for the chairman abruptly to close the debate.
Mr. DEPUTY^ SPEAKER. It is always the rule for the speaker or the chairman to leave the chair when the hour arrives for adjournment. But if the hon. gentlemen wishes to finish his statement he can do so. If that is the sense of the committee, then the chairman will take his seat and give an opportunity to the hon. member to finish his statement. But it is not the business of the hon. gentleman to censure the chairman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is my business to draw attention to any irregularity in his conduct, and I refuse to abandon my right'.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will please sit down. The irregularity is not on the part of the chairman, the irregularity is on the part of the gentleman holding the floor after the hour has arrived for adjournment. It being one o'clock I now leave the chair.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
Mi'. SPROULE. At one o'clock I was treating the question of the interference of civil servants in elections. I wish now to continue, by saying that in this particular instance, the election at Guysborough the offence, if offence it is, and we have the authority of hon. members of the government to say it is an offence-was widespread and not confined to one branch of the service, because we have instances brought to our notice from several branches. We have first the warden of the penitentiary who belongs to the Justice Department. Now it is rather a strange coincidence that penitentiary officials are so frequently put in constituencies where there is an election going on. Some of them, I think, ought to be inside the walls instead of outside, but they happen for the time being to have their liberty, and they make use of it in

doing very improper work. I have noticed up in Ontario over and over again that the inspector of prisons, whenever there is a local election going on, is always sure to be there, and if you ask him : Why do you happen to be here ? It is a strange coincidence that he just accidently happens to be in that riding.


Mr. COWAN.: He went there to see how many Conservatives ought to be in jail.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he would attend to his own crowd first and put a few of them behind the bars, they would not be so troublesome at these particular times-I mean those who ought to be there, and whom the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted me (Mr. Cowan) has so frequently defended. It is a strange coincidence that the official always happens to be there at the time of an election, and according to his own statement, it is the merest accident in the world. So we are told it was in this particular case, Mr. Kirk, the warden of the penitentiary happened to be there because it was his old home. Now that may be an excuse and it may not be. I think if the honest and real reason was given we would find out that he went there for the purpose of assisting and voting in that election. Now I would not object to his voting, if he had a *\ote in that particular place, because I regard that as a right which every man should exercise. But if the Ontario law prevailed there he could not vote there because he does not reside there; as an elector can only vote in the polling subdivision in which he resides, 'and therefore this man could not possibly have voted there legally. I do not know what the law of that province is, or whether he was voting illegally or not ; but if the same franchise law exists there as we have in Ontario, if he voted at all he voted illegally, and we are told that he did vote.
But the circumstances -which strikes me is the fact that these officials always happen to be there when there is an election going on, and the excuse given is that it was a mere coincidence. I say it is very improper, and condign jmnishment should be meted out to any civil servant who is found taking a part in an election. Now the government have dealt with such cases, they have dealt with officials who have taken part in elections, dealt with them summarily, not upon affidavits, as the minister requires to-day, but upon the mere statement of a member of this House. I think it was the hon. the Postmaster General' (Sir Wiliam Mulock) who stated that when any member of this House gets up and says that a person took part in an election, that he acted as an offensive partisan, he, the minister, would regard that as sufficient evidence and would ask nothing more. Why does not the Minister of Railways and Canals make the same rule apply to his side of the House that he applies to members Mr. SPROULE.
on this side ? It is because they apply one rule to this side and another to their own side that we complain. It is because he metes out punishment to his opponents that he does not mete out to his own friends that we have a right to complain. Now, as I said before, this offence is not confined to one particular branch of the service, nor was it an isolated offence. We find that there were some nine or ten names read over of employees of the Intercolonial, employees of the government, who went down to Guysborough and took part in that elec-iton. I have no doubt that many of ttiem were offensive partisans and took an improper part in that election, and yet the Minister of Railways says : Oh, I have heard my friends laughing and joking about it. It was rather an amusing matter in his view, because he got the benefit of the joke and his candidate got the benefit of the votes.
Did the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), did the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) treat it as a joke ?-not by any means. They treated it as a serious reality and meted out punishment to the parties who were the guilty offenders. Then I say the same rule should be applied to both sides of politics. We had two employees from the Fisheries Department, one, Havelock Torrey, fishery officer, who is getting a salary from the country and another, John Davis, a fishery overseer, who is getting a salary from the country as -well. These men and others, some getting large salaries, some moderate ones, but it does not matter whether their salaries be large*or small, were employees of the country and had not any right to take part in the election. Then, we had another party named Geo. N. Grant, who was said to be chief constructor of cold storage plants. I suppose he is under the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). He appears to be capable of running more branches than one and I suppose he had this election on his hands as well. I have cited these cases to show that there was evidently an understanding in the various departments that it was not only the right but the duty of civil servants to go down and help in the Guysborough election. There is the agricultural branch, the Marine and Fisheries branch and the railway branch and if we were aware of all the facts I have no doubt that there would be found to be several others as well so that it would be quite clear that there were a number of sinners in the election. Yet, we are told that this is only a joke, the hon. minister says : I heard some joking about it ; I did not pay any attention to it. Is that the way they treated the Conservatives when they,found them doing the same thing ? Why do they not treat the Reformers the same as Conservatives ? If the rule isl good for one side it is good for the other and if they think it worth while to mete out punishment to one side

let them mete out punishment to both sides impartially. If they mete out the same, punishment to the members of their own party as they do to members of the Conservative party we will have no ground for complaint whatever. As long as it is the case that these offences are winked at, if they occur on the part of their own friends, and severe punishment is meted out to the friends of the Conservative party we will hold it to be an improper course and we will have the right to adversely criticise any minister of the Crown who evidently allows it and does not bring the parties to book for it and mete out to them the punishment which they justly deserve. The day is past when we should have such discrimination as this. We have! had it all over the province of Ontario in a most disgraceful and scandalous way. It has been going on for over thirty years and yet there is no effort being made to stop it. We have penitentiary birds, we have every class and char* acter of the worst type that the country affords and because they are useful at elections we find supporters of the government shielding these men and manipulating the course until it has become a public and notorious fact to-day that you cannot get one of those criminals before a magistrate api pointed by the government of Ontario and secure a conviction. It is utterly impossible to do it because in one way or another the case is put over or hushed up or the indict-i ment is quashed on a technicality, or some: thing is done to shield the criminal. We hope that this is not coming down into this parliament. We have always had reason to hope that we would have a better code of morals in this House than in Ontario in regard to political offences, but I am afraid they are apt scholars down here and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals seems to be as apt as any of them because he seems disposed to treat this as a joke so long as the benefits accrue to his own friends.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am perfectly fair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perfectly fair, the hon. gentleman says. I will not criticise his sense of fairness or the spirit he displays in saying so, but I may be permitted to say that so long as this is done the governmenft are bound to take notice of it according to the rule they laid down in the House and if they do not do so there can only be one construction put upon their conduct and it it that they are not willing to mete out the same punishment to their friends as they mete out to their opponents.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister has already promised to investigate the charges preferred against these men by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). Taking that view of it I assume the hon. gentleman is 193
not in favour of employees taking part in elections. Am I correct in that statement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If anybody went into an election in a county and showed himself to be a violent partisan I do not think it would be correct or proper.


Andrew B. Ingram: So there are certain degrees of partisanship ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the mere fact of a man going into a county, being there and exercising his franchise is not a reprehensible act.


Andrew B. Ingram: But if he takes any part in the election by speaking or canvassing then he is a partisan ? That is what I take the position of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to mean. We would like to get a proper definition of what partisanship is.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What is an act of partisanship-is that what the hon. gentleman wants to know ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think if a man went into a county and acted as the agent of a candidate and put himself in that position it would be a very partisan act.


Andrew B. Ingram: I quite agree with the hon. minister in that and I think it is a very fair definition of what partisanship is. What steps is the hon. minister taking to prevent employees of the Intercolonial Railway taking such a part in elections ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The employees of the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton, throughout the county of Westmoreland, throughout New Brunswick, and as far as I know throughout the several provinces are at liberty to exercise the franchise as they please. There are no restrictions upon them in that regard. They have been told that in every election that I am aware of since this government came into power. They have been told that distinctly by the late Minister of Railways and Canals and I shall follow in the footsteps of my predecessor (Mr. Blair) and the acting minister in that respect.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. minister be good enough to tell us in what way that was communicated to the employees ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Publicly.


Andrew B. Ingram: In what way ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the public platform. I have heard the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals convey that on more than one occasion and in more than one election.


Andrew B. Ingram: So that is really the only way in which it has been communicated to them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: What more do you want ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Did it ever occur to the management of the Intercolonial Railway to issue a notice and have it posted up in the shops ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have changed all that.


Andrew B. Ingram: You have changed all that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In former days men who were suspected of any leanings against the government of that day were sent out on trains so that they could not exercise their franchise. That has all been changed. If men who wish to exercise their franchise will, by going out on their regular runs, be deprived of that privilege they have always been /notified that if they wish it arrangements will be made whereby they will have the privilege of voting regardless of whether they are Liberal or Conservative.


Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. gentleman makes a pretty bold statement as to what the state of affairs was before he and his friends were in power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: By whose authority does he make any such statement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will answer the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to know because when I was in power-


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was when you were in power.


John Graham Haggart: When I managed the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway as minister, if the officials did anything of that kind, they did it without my authority.


An hon. MEMBER.: They did it all the same.	.


John Graham Haggart: If it were done they had no hint or direction from me to do it. The hon. Minister of Railways tells us that there is a change ; that there is purity of administration on the Intercolonial Railway now, and that there is no coercion on the employees. It is refreshing to hear these gentlemen opposite talk about purity of administration after the experience we have had of their tactics in every province of this Dominion. It reminds me of the statement of a friend of mine, once a member of this House, that the chances were that those persons who are always talking of purity are themselves the most corrupt, and that one should beware of them. The present officials managing the Intercolonial Railway were managing the Intercolonial Railway when I was in power, and I defy the minister to obtain from them any instructions that I ever gave which would tend to interfere with the exercise of the franchise by any of these employees.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Railways has told us that when he goes to Moncton in a political campaign, he tells the employees of the Intercolonial Railway that they have a perfect right to do as they please in the election. If the hon. gentleman desired to conduct the government railways from a purely non-partisan standpoint, he would take a leaf out of the book of some of the railway companies who post up a notice stating that no foreman, or other petty officer of the company, shall be allowed to interfere, and that every employee is at perfect liberty to east his ballot as he sees proper. That is the non-partisan method of conducting a railway. The Minister of Railways says that he proposes to investigate these matters, but he has not told us how he will investigate them. If he wants to conduct his investigation in a non-partisan manner he will issue instructions to his general manager to delegate' the proper officer, who very likely is the superintendent, to find out whether any of these employees have taken a partisan part in the elections. Let him instruct his general manager that it will be a reason for dismissal whether the employee took an active part on the Liberal or Conservative side, and if the minister does that he will have a non-partisan administration in the Railway Department. The minister has spoken of the applications for positions on the government railways which come in from all quarters. If the general manager of the government railways were sitting in the House now, I would tell him that on account of the interference of members and supporters of the government, he is not allowed to conduct the government railways on business lines, but, by reason of the influence brought to bear on him by government supporters he is forced to employ men who are unnecessary and who are unsuited for the positions they occupy. That is the great fault with the administration of the Intercolonial Railway to-day ; that has been the fault with the Intercolonial Railway since I have been a member of this House, and I care not what party be in power. The trouble is that you have a partisan head ; that you are administering your railway from a partisan standpoint and that you have done ever since I have been in the House. I make that statement boldly. When political partisans try to use their influence in the administration of the affairs of that railway, no general manager can conduct it on purely business lines. If a politician wants to have a friend employed on the government railways, let him submit his name to the general manager if he chooses, just as any other private citizen would, and if the candidate be competent to fill a vacant and necessary position, let him be appointed upon his merit. Until the day comes that this is done on the government railways, the government railways will never be a success. I shall not discuss the question of government railway ownership now ; but I do say that it is idle

folly for the Minister of Railways to state in this House that he is administering the Intercolonial Railway in a non-partisan way. He has not taken the primary step to do so, and judging from his conduct to-day he has no idea of doing so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the case of Geo. N. Grant, chief inspector of cold storage, who draws salary and expenses amounting to $2,167 a year, is a most glaring flagrant case of political partisanship. This man who took an active part in the Guysborough election is not only an active partisan, but he is actually the president of the Reform Association in Guysborough and he evidently regards that position as not inconsistent with his position as a civil servant. Is that fair or proper ?


John Howard Sinclair: What evidence has the hon. gentleman that Mr. Grant took an active part in the election ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have been telling the House what evidence I have. The hon. gentleman is better at asking than at answering questions. I am not here to be cross-questioned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not even by an eminent lawyer on that side of the House who seems always to interrupt for the sake of interrupting more than for the sake of information.
Is that statement correct ? Is George N. Grant not the president of the Reform Association in Guysborough ? Does not the president of an association take an active part in elections ? Generally the most active and influential politicians in constituencies are made presidents of these associations and the very fact that Mr. Grant is a president and at the same time an employee of the country should be sufficient evidence to the minister that he was not doing his duty. He could not properly serve the country and hold that position because he was acting the part of a partisan.


Mr. BLAIN.: I am sure the members will be surprised at the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals and the flippant manner in which he passes over the serious charge brought to his attention by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). The hon. member for Pictou pointed out that no less than 10 or 12 of the officials of the railway, receiving large salaries from the government of this country, had taken an active part in a certain election. The minister pays no attention to it but says the matter was brought to his attention by some supporters on his own side who were laughing about it at some former time. My hon. friend was not sufficiently interested to inquire whether it was correct or not. *But he dismisses Conservatives in the employ of this government without the shadow of investigation. This was also done by his ' 193J
predecessor. This matter was discussed in the House in 1897. This is not the first time that the opposition has charged the present government with having acted in a partisan way in the dismissal of officials since they came into power. In 1897 this question was asked by Sir Charles Hibbert Tup-per :
_ (a). Have the following, or any of them, and which of them, if any, been dismissed from the service of the Intercolonial :
1.	Alexander Stewart, section foreman at Ltn-wood, Antigonish ?
2.	John Chisholm, section man at Heatherton, Antigonish ?
3.	Finlay Chisholm, section foreman, James River, Antigonish ?
(b)	. If dismissed, was any investigation made prior to dismissal, and what was its nature ?
(c)	. How long were these men in the service of the government, and what was the record of each for efficiency and conduct ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Mr. Blair).: The services of Alexander Stewart, section foreman at Linwood, Antigonish, were dispensed with on the 7th of January last, (b.) No investigation was considered necessary as it was explicitly and positively affirmed by Mr. Mclsaac, M.P., that Alex. Stewart had infringed the rule laid down in respect to government employees. (c.) He had been in .the service since September, 1880. Nothing recorded against him.
2. The services of John Chisholm, section man at Heatherton, Antigonish, were dispensed with on the 12th of November last on the personal statement and representation of Mr. Mclsaac, M.P., that Chisholm had been guilty of active and offensive partisanship in the last general elections. There was no investigation. He had been in the service since August, 1884. Nothing recorded against him. 3. The services of Finlay Chisholm, section foreman at James River, Antigonish, were dispensed with on the 18th November last, on the statement and representation of Mr. Mclsaac, M.P., that he had been guilty of active and offensive partisanship in the last general elections. There was no investigation. He had been in the service since June, 1879.
The bou. gentleman who was then Minister of Railways regarded it as sufficient evidence when a supporter in the House stood up in his place and charged a government official with having taken an active part in politics. The minister then thought that was sufficient evidence and dismissed Conservatives without any investigation whatever. Now, when an hon. gentleman on this side of the House brings to the attention of the government the case of a government employee having taken an active part in politics the minister laughs at the idea. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Beil) not only made the statement in the House but made the further statement that he had an affidavit that a certain government employee named LeBIanc, holding a very important position on the Intercolonial Railway, that of travelling agent, and receiving a large salary, had not only taken an active part in politics but had arranged for and spoken at political meetings, and was an active partisan while holding this important position.

My hon. friend (Mr. Beil) said he was prepared to support that by evidence, and yet the hon. the minister laughs at the idea and does not seem to think it is worthy of any investigation whatever.
In 1897 Mr. Ganong asked this question :
1.	Is it true that Michael Behan, storeman on Lachine Canal at Montreal, was dismissed on 30th April without any previous notice ?
2.	Was he so dismissed by order of the Minister of Railways and Canals ?
3.	On whose recommendation was he so dismissed ?
4.	Why was he so dismissed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I.: The services of Michael Behan, storeman on the Lachine Canal, were dispensed with on the 30th -of April last. 2. Yes. 3. At the request and upon the representation of the members of parliament for Montreal districts. 4. No written complaint was lodged in the department.
On the statement of members of parliament that this gentleman had taken an active part in politics, a statement unsupported by an affidavit, the Minister of Railways dismissed this Conservative employee, and I am sure the present minister will not think it strange that members of the opposition should bring to his attention cases of this kind. I have here pages of matters of this kind but I shall not weary the committee with them. It seems that the government have one set of rules which they apply to Liberal-Conservative civil servants and another set of rules which they apply to Reform civil servants. I am surprised that the hon. minister who has newly come into office, a gentleman from whom we expected better things, a gentleman who had made great pretensions in his own province of purity and morality, a gentleman who held himself up as a moralist and who we expected would discharge his duties without fear or favour, on these things being brought to his attention should laugh at them, making no answer to the question and not even going so far as to show what the policy of his department is with respect to the officials of that department who take part in politics. Sir, it is no wonder that the civil service in this country is going down.


Mr. WM. ROSS (Victoria).: No ; it is going up.


Richard Blain: I am sure my hon. friend is good authority because he is superannuated from the civil service himself and receives almost as much from his superannuation as he does from this House.


William Ross: There have been increases of salary all around, you know.


Richard Blain: I am surprised and the people of this country will be surprised when they hear the hon. gentleman deal with this matter in this way. It is the right of every man in this country holding a civil service position to go to the polls and vote, hut when the government makes a bold state-Mr. BLAIN.
ment that their policy is that an official who enters into partisanship and takes part in political meetings shall be dismissed then I think the government officials of this country, whether Liberal-Conservatives or not, have a right to expect that the rules laid down for officials belonging to one party shall be applied to those who belong to the other party.


Robert Laird Borden: The rule laid down by the hon. minister's leader .in 1897, as I recollect-and it is a rule upon which action was taken in a great many cases-was this : There was no objection to any public servant exercising the right of the franchise, but when any public servant went beyond that and took an active open part in any election, the policy of the government would be that that public servant would be relieved from his public duties so that he might devote the whole of his time to the political affairs in which he took so much interest.
A great many men were dismissed by this government on that account, many without investigation. One man in my own constituency was dismissed simply because he asked a civil question of a Liberal candidate at a public meeting, and he was dismissed without investigation or inquiry whatever. I have under my hand a list of about twenty officers of this government, with salaries ranging from $2,000 down, who took an open and active part in this election. Not only did they take an open and active part, but one of them at least boasted, after the election was over, of the corrupt acts to which he had been a party. Evidence of that can be given. Under these circumstances, I do not think it will do for the Minister of Railways and Canals to dismiss this matter with a mere shrug of the shoulders, unless he is prepared to announce a new policy for his party and absolutely depart from that proclaimed by the Prime Minister only four or five years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is uot necessary, 1 presume, to get into a discussion of ail these matters. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has been answered very fully by the statement of my bon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) as to the management of the railway during his regime.


Andrew B. Ingram: And you, too.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I, of course, understand that my hon. friend included me. The hon. member for South Lanark referred to what transpired during his administration. Of course, I do not know whether the particular matter I am about to refer to came within his knowledge at the moment, hut I am sure he has heard that just previous to the elections of 1896 there was a list made out of the train hands of the Intercolonial who go out of Moncton. That list was put in the hands of the train despatc-hers, with

tiie letter ' O ' marked opposite the names of those in favour of the opposition and the letter ' X ' opposite the names of those who favoured the government. And the men who favoured the Liberal party then in opposition were sent out of the city on new runs so as to prevent their voting, while those favourable to the late government were kept at home. That list was a matter of public record, produced as evidence in an investigation at Moncton. The evidence is there, the list is there in the records of the court.


Robert Laird Borden: As the minister has spoken of this list, he had better lay it on the table of the House. [DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say it was produced in court.


Robert Laird Borden: It was a public document produced on investigation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that it is in the records of the department. I have not seen it there.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is in Moncton, the minister can easily get hold of it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking of a document which was produced before an investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman said it is a matter of public record. If it is, we should have it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not in the department to my knowledge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it an investigation by a commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was an investigation held at Moncton in connection with some railway employee.


Robert Laird Borden: It was an investigation taken under the authority of the government ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the government has control of the document ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that it has. I have seen the record, but not in the department, and I am not aware that it is died in the department. The investigation was held before Judge Wilson of the county court of New Brunswick. It is a matter of public notoriety. Every one in the maritime provinces is familiar with the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: Every one is not, because the gentleman more particularly interested absolutely contradicted the statement to me personally, and told me further that the evidence was given behind his back and he had no opportunity to crossexamine the witness who made the statement. I have heard a good deal of that document. It is acknowledged to be a
public document, and the minister should place it on the table.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the statement I make can be borne out by the facts. I know that the document was in existence and was marked as I have described it. We know that it has been referred to time and time again in this parliament, and this is the first time the statement of facts has been challenged at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not challenging the statement of facts, but asking for the document which the minister quotes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have the right to refer to a document which was used in court. If it were a document in my hands or in the department, I could not quote from it without producing it. There is no use bringing its existence into question, because it did exist and its contents have been stated over and over again. Every one in Moncton is familiar with the fact that these men were deprived of their right to vote, if there was any suspicion as to the way in which they would vote. That was publicly stated in the city of St. John. It has been stated elsewhere in the province. Now the men have enjoyed that right, and they will continue to enjoy that right if I have anything to say with respect to the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have enjoyed a good deal more than that right.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, they have enjoyed the advantage of drawing more pay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And of taking an active -part in the elections on the government side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statement has been made by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that the management of the Intercolonial was much embarrassed by the appointment of men who were not wanted. I wish to take issue with my hon. friend on that point. I am sure he is not familiar with the facts. *


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister will find that out in a few minutes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the hon. gentleman has the evidence, let him produce it. As to men who are not wanted being employed on the Intercolonial, I desire to say that there is not a man appointed to-day on the Intercolonial except on the request from the management for such a man.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has that been so from the
time tiiis government came into power up to this moment ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I speak of it under the present administration. And the ex-minister is making a statement with respect to his administration. I cannot speak personally with respect to the past-I would not be expected to do so. But this complaint is made against the Intercolonial to-day, and

if it were a matter of importance, I could show evidence directly to the contrary of what my hon. friend states. The rule laid down by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) with respect to the conduct of officials is one that I do not feel called upon to take exception to. I have -told the committee that the cases to which reference has been made by my hon. friend from Pic-tou, (Mr. Bell) and the other cases concerning which complaint has arisen, will be inquired into. I will satisfy myself as to their correctness and I will deal with them. Now the question is raised whether the declaration of a member should be accepted. We must take such declarations as correct when made in this House. But X think I am not uncharitable when I say that these matters brought to the attention of the House by my hon. -friend from Pictou are brought forward not with a view so much to correcting the conduct of employees of the Intercolonial as with a view to making political capital against the administration. And I think there is a great point of distinction there. I believe that in the management of the Intercolonial the -minister should be surrounded by men in whom he has confidence. The employees all along the line should be -men who, at least, are not disposed to put obstructions in the way of proper management of the railway. But I have known cases on the Intercolonial Railway-I speak, now, be it remembered from personal knowledge-I have known cases, for instance, of despatehers who have delayed -trains and have boasted afterwards that they did it with a view to showing that the administration of the Intercolonial under this government was a failure in that the trains did not run on time. Now, that is not the kind of men we want. I am perfectly willing that the employees of the Intercolonial shall vote as they please. But I do not wish tfiem to be animated by the desire to make the administration of the railway under the present regime a failure. If they attend to their duties without regard to politics, if they do not allow their feelings to interfere with their work in connection with the railway, -then, so far as I am concerned, they shall be retained as employees of the Intercolonial. But if they are animated with a desire to make unsatisfactory the management of the road, to cause the people to be dissatisfied with that management, then, if I find evidence of that, I care not what the consequences to myself politically or otherwise, I will strike the official head off every such man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, he-a-r.


Andrew B. Ingram: If -hon. gentlemen opposite are cheering the sentiment that, if a despatcher takes advantage of his position to delay trains in order to bring discredit on the management he should be discharged, I fully agree with them. There is no man on this side of the House who will take Mr. EMMERSON.
exception to that. It would be a remarkable state of affairs indeed if such an employee were to find any man who would endorse his acts.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a condition of things that existed on the Intercolonial within three years.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: Hear, bear.


Andrew B. Ingram: I bring forward tbe bon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) as a witness. Does be dispute his own statement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not say that no one should be there. The point I was making was that these men should not be there, conveying the idea that other men should be in their places.


Andrew B. Ingram: And that the wrong men were there, and too many of them were there, and that is what the hon. gentleman was objecting to. And the right class of men, I fancy, were not there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There should be men there who were not traitors to the minister. My point was that the minister was surrounded at that time by men who were traitors to him and traitors to the railway. They are not there now.


Andrew B. Ingram: My bon. friend is getting on to dangerous ground. I think he took a trip once to Moncton himself, and that was not the act of a loyal man.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What does the minister mean by traitor ?


Andrew B. Ingram: What the hon. gentleman means by a traitor is a man who leaves the city of Ottawa and goes down to Moncton and induces another man to steal a memorandum which he gives to the hon. gentleman. So the hon. gentleman can come back to Ottawa and pretend to be in sympathy with the Minister of Railways and yet be able to hold a club over his head in the shape of this memorandum Is that the class of men he wants to surround the Minister of Railways and Canals ? Then there was the question of the ties. It is a well known fact that the hon. gentleman cannot take credit to himself for being overloyal to the late Minister of Railways. I am simply giving that instance. Knowing what it is to be disloyal himself, he is now taking particular care that he will not be surrounded himself by disloyal railway employees. I fully agree with the hon. gentleman, and so long as he confines himself to taking off the heads of the disloyal employees I am willing to support him. If he find any employee of the Intercolonial wrho will use his position in order to make it difficult for the management of that road to conduct it in the public interest, I for one will support the hon. gentleman in cutting off his head. But if he means that because a man entertains different political views from himself he will cut his head off, I will oppose him in that contention. It is for that reason we complain. The hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell), who was in the county of Guys-borough at the time of that by-election, has made a statement in this House with regard to certain government employees taking part in that election. When he mentions certain names such as Mr. Kirk, we find the member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) very much exercised, and he rises up and disputes it. But the member for Guysborough has not said a single word about these other nine men. What has he got to say about Mr. Leblanc ? What about these two men by the name of Peoples ? What about Crittenden,what about the two McGuires, Reeves, Marr and Grant 1 Does the member for Guysborough deny that these men did not take part in that election ? The hon. gentleman dare not deny it, he dare not put himself on record in this House as denying it. But when he thinks there is a good chance of making a denial in some particular case he is ready to do so. The hon. gentleman has put himself in an awkward position. He has not given the Minister of Railways an opportunity of knowing whether there is anything in his statement or not; therefore we have a right to assume that these nine men, government employees did take part in the Guysborough election.


John William Bell: That is only one department.


Andrew B. Ingram: This government is getting into a peculiar strait. We first find the Department of Agriculture trying to administer the Department of Militia. Then we find the Minister of Railways in nearly the same difficulty. Instead of trusting his manager, issuing circulars from the head office to his management in Moncton and allowing his manager to act unfettered and freely, to administer the goverment railways without any partisan interference, and holding him responsible for their management, he himself is putting every obstacle in the way of their management by allowing political interference, placing his manager in a false light. That is the position of the manager to-day, and that will be the position of the manager. I care not how capable a man he may be. You may take the ablest railway manager in America, place Mr. Hays of the Grand Trunk at the head of the government railways of this country, and what will be the result ? The result will be exactly what it is to day, a large deficit on the government railways. The only way you can avoid that is by giving the manager of the railroad a free hand and holding him responsible for its proper administration. When you do that, instead of having a deficit you will have a surplus, and that is what the people will appreciate. I make this statement boldly to-day, that it is owing to the political administration of that road that we have these deficits from year to year. It is not owing so much to incompetent management, but it is owing to the fact that the manager's hands are tied so that he cannot administer the road as it ought to be administered. I am sorry that any official should be placed in that awkward position. The officials of that road are interfered with from one end of it to the other, they are subjected to political interference, they have not a free hand.


Mr. KENDALL.: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ingram) says that the Intercolonial is interfered with from end to end on political grounds. Now I represent rather an important end of that railway. For forty miles tliat road runs through my constituency. I think we have at least 150 men employed on the Intercolonial living within the bounds of my constituency-my colleague says 250. Now I want the House to accept this statement: Since 1896 my colleague and myself together have had the right of recommendation to employment, the right of patronage on that road, and up to this moment I am unaware that a single man has been foisted upon that road, that a single recommendation made by my colleague or myself to the management for employment, has been accepted unless the man was required, and I challenge contradiction of that statement. Now I wish to make another statement. In 1896 the manager of that road called up a number of men and said : You, you, you, are in the black books of the Conservative party ; go to Mr. So-and-so, or to Mr. So-and-so, and place yourselves right with the Conservative party.


John Graham Haggart: What was the name of the manager of the road who did that ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: His head was taken off. It was Mr. McLennan, station agent, who had cfiiarge of the employment of labour at that point. The for-:mer Conservative member for Richmond was returned by a small majority made up mostly by Intercolonial Railway employees who had a right to vote only in Sydney but who, after voting there, went on and voted in Inverness, and after voting there, went on and voted in Richmond county. We might have dealt severely with these men, but my colleague and I


Andrew B. Ingram: 'We ' ? I understood the hon. gentleman to say that they did not interfere with the management of this road.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I will answer that.


Robert Laird Borden: Why had they not a right to vote in Richmond county ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Their names were on the list, but they were not paid in Richmond county. Their names were wrongfully on the list, they were also wrongfully on the list in Inverness county and they voted not only in two counties but in three counties on the same day.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. That was perfectly legal.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: It may have been legal, but it was evidence of partisanship. I may say that these very persons admitted that it was not their desire to so act but they said they were compelled to do so by the management of the road. We might have dealt with these men severely but we did not do Mr. INGRAM.
so. We recognized that they were almost compelled to act as they did and those who remained still enjoy their positions on the road and many of them have been promoted under the present administration. When the 1900 election came on no such undue political pressure was brought to bear. I took it upon myself, and I think my colleague did the same, to have it published to the men on the Intercolonial Railway that they were at liberty to vote as they wished and some voted for us and some against us. Some of those who have voted against us have been preferred in their lines. I wish further to accentuate what I said to the hon. member for East Elgin when he challenged contradiction of the statement that [DOT]the Cape Breton end of the Intercolonial Railway was overmanned by political interference.


Andrew B. Ingram: If I were making such a statement as that which the hon. gentleman has made, I could not prove my case more conclusively. I live alongside of several railways. Imagine my going to the management and saying : You must put this man on, or this man must be dismissed. It should be no part of the patronage of a government member living alongside of a government railway to recommend and force the employment of any men on the line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How long have you held that view ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Always.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And your friends alongside of you ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, Sir ; and I also held that view when I was on that side of the House. I am one of those who entertained that view on that side of the House as well as on this side of the House, and I had the courage of my convictions.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think you were very much in the minority then.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am in a happy minority now, but I am glad to know I am right, and l have proved out of the mouth of hon. gentlemen opposite, by means of the statements they have been making this afternoon, that it should be no part of the patronage of government members to say who shall be on the railway and who shall not be on the railway. That should not constitute a part of the patronage of the government, but the management of the government railway should have a free hand. If hon. gentlemen opposite do not like that, let them create a commission and hand in their recommendations to that commission, and if the commission think they require the services of any of these applicants let them employ them. Then you will have a better system than you have to-day. But so long as you have the system that you have today, you will have the same interference

that my hon. friend has spoken of, namely, political interference. "The very moment that men come forward with applications to hon. gentlemen opposite what do they do ? They say : We are Liberals ; we will support you, and we want employment on the government road. Of course, if you get these men's votes you are willing to support their applications, and you do your best to get them employment on the road. You do not consider whether the road requires them or not, you are interested in getting the men employment on the road, because by getting them employment you get their support. I know what government supporters do ; I have been there. I have been on the government side of the House, and I know that government members did the same thing as you are doing now in that regard. I found fault with it there, and I find fault with it here. I am willing to go so far as to say that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals does not know all these little things. Some of them he no doubt does know, but he knows what the system is, and the system is that which I am condemning, because it is wrong.
tleman a letter, and to ask him whether he holds the same views now that he did in 1874, when he was Minister of Militia in Mr. Mackenzie's government ?


William Ross: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) that that letter was a forgery, and that I never wrote it.


Richard Blain: Here is the letter :
Balls Creek,
February 5, 1874.
Mr. Dennis Egan,
North Sydney.	.
Dear Sir,-I must Inform you that the government expects every man in its employ to vote for its supporters. This being the case I wish you to proceed to Sydney mines and poll your vote for Mr. M. Maekay.
Yours, &c.,
(Sgd.) WM. ROSS,
Minister of Militia.


William Ross: Mr. Chairman, I was returned by acclamation at the general election in 1874, I was returned by acclamation in the general election in 1872, I was returned in the general election in 1867, a record that no man who was ever in this House has had before.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Did the hon. gentleman ever bring to the notice of the House that his friends were exercising undue influence, or did he express the ideas which he now holds and favours ? I call his attention also to the fact that the hon. member for South Lanark said that ithe system which he has been depicting now did not prevail under his regime, although my hon. friend says that it did prevail then in the same way as it does to-day.


Andrew B. Ingram: I said that government patronage was exercised then on the same lines as it is to-day. [DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: Did you move a re solution to have it changed ?
Mr, COCHRANE. That has nothing to do with this letter.


William Ross: Just excuse me. After I won my election I went to the county of Cape Breton to assist Newton M. McKay, now deceased, in his election, and I stayed at Ball's Creek. A sleigh drove up, and I was asked to write a letter to Dennis Egan. I said that in my election in my own county officials of the government were allowed to vote against me, and that I would not do there what I was asked to do. The sleigh drove back, and a man from North Sydney, W. Exrnore, now dead, wrote that letter and signed my name to it-forged that letter.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, Sir ; I got up in the House and condemned it, and I propose to do so as long as I am a member of this House, because in doing that I am doing my duty. It is not necessary to move a resolution. If the hon. gentleman will read 'Hansard' for several years back, he will find my views recorded against that system, and if the people understood to what extent the government railways are administered in that way, they would rise up in their might and condemn it.


William Ross: I thought the object of our meeting here to-day was to pass these supplementary estimates for the Department of Railways and Canals, and it is time that all this trash and nonsense were dispensed with.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Victoria, Nova Scotia (Mr. Ross) is always correcting the House upon these small questions. I would like to read to the hon. gen-


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Certainly, it is a matter of history.


William Ross: It is a matter of history. When that letter was brought up at the time I was Minister of Militia and Defence, I asked to have It produced and placed on the table of the House, but it was never done. They dared not produce It, and I say, before my Maker in heaven, that I never wrote that letter. I have said that publicly many times before this, and it is most disgraceful to bring that trash up now in this House. If there is any trash to be brought up in this House, that hon. gentleman is capable of doing It. It is scandalous.


Richard Blain: It is quite evident that the hon. gentleman was pretty close when the letter was written.


William Ross: I was not within five miles of where the letter was written.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Samuel Hughes: No ; he will not take it back.


Mr. RBAIN.: I am reading from the report of session 1874.
Mr. McDonald (Cape Breton) said that when they made the charge a few evenings ago, the gentleman did not give the statement a denial, and therefore he considered he stood convicted of the charge. He might say in reference to the letter, that he attained possession of it the second day after the election. He knew the handwriting of the hon. Minister of Militia, and was satisfied that it was written by him. He had since shown the letter to several gentlemen who also said it was written by the Minister of Militia. He handed the letter to the right hon. member for Kingson and had not seen it since.


William Ross: X asked at that time that the letter should be produced and laid on the table of the House, and if it had been written by me I should have acknowledged it before the whole House What was the reply ? The reply was that it was in the possession of Doctor Tupper, then in Montreal ; and they dared not bring it before the House, because they knew I never wrote it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why did'nt the hon. member deny it then ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member (Mr. Ross) did not deny it then and he has never prosecuted any one for being charged with writing it.


William Ross: I never had an opportunity to prosecute.


Andrew B. Ingram: He waited until the gentleman was dead and now he gets brave. I am surprised at my canny friend (Hon Mr Ross) getting angry.


William Ross: Does my hon friend (Mr. Ingram) mean to say that I wrote that letter ? I deny it before this House and before my Father in Heaven.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have not missed my hon. friend on his long journey.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Alexander Johnston: Cowardly.


Andrew B. Ingram: Cowardly ! The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) did not denv it then, and he never prosecuted the man


Some hon. MEMBERS: He denies it now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He never had the letter on which to prosecute.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend said


William Alfred Galliher: Why don't you apologize frankly when you are wrong ?


William Ross: I will make another explanation. The editor of the Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
North Sydney ' Herald ' who at that time was as prominent a partisan and supporter of the Conservative party as there existed in Cape Breton, denied it in an editorial at that time and I have that editorial in my possession among my private papers. The editor of that paper said that he could see the man who wrote that letter every day. I found out afterwards who wrote it, and I challenged the government and the man who made the charge against me to prove it. It was not a man from the province of Nova Scotia, but they got a man from the province of New Brunswick to do it. I challenged them to produce the letter and put it on the table of the House and it was never done. They knew better.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the man who made the charge is alive to-day, and if the hon. gentleman wants to prosecute him ; I suppose he can.


William Ross: That man knew better than to make the charge, but he gave it to a man in New Brunswick who is not living, and who was afterwards elevated to be a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) has denied writing the letter himself ; he has not said that he had not any knowledge of it.


William Ross: I had no knowledge of it at all until I heard it was produced in this House.


William Alfred Galliher: Oh, take it back.


Andrew B. Ingram: Take what back ? Better save your time because I don't have to take it back.


William Alfred Galliher: Don't you think it would be a manly thing to take it back ?


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) is addressing his remarks to me, I can tell him that I have nothing to take back. It is for the man who made the statement to take it back.
MrT BUREAU. And you are endorsing that statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a matter of record.


Mr. BUREAU.: False record.


William Mulock: It does appear to me that after the statement of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross) it is not fair ; it is not worthy the position of any member of this House to suggest that such a fraud has taken place. Out of respect to the dignity of parliament it is not proper to suggest that what my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Ross) has said, is not true. The hon. gentleman has given this a most unqualified denial. Surely there is something due from one gentleman to another in this House, especially when you consider

that my hon. friend (Mr. Ross) is a veteran of this House ; one of the oldest parliamentarians in Canada ; a gentleman approaching four score years. I do think that something is due to the occasion, and to a respected and venerable member of this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have nothing to take back.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross) states to the House that he did not write the letter or authorize it, we are bound to accept his statement. Pehaps it was a little unfortunate that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) undertook to lecture the House about the manner of conducting business; We are entitled to our own opinions as to the criticism which we are disposed to offer. While there is not one of us who has not the utmost respect and esteem for' the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross) still, possibly his remarks just ' now were a little uncalled for and they very likely led to the incident which has just taken place. In view of his denial that he wrote or authorized the letter, I think we should at once accept his statement, and I would ask my hon. friends on this side of the House to let the incident drop.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was discussing the question under debate in this House


Robert Laird Borden: You were perfectly right.


Andrew B. Ingram: And I shall further discuss that question notwithstanding the hon. member from Victoria (Mr. Ross). Personally I have nothing to retract, and I don't propose to retract. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) thinks that we are discussing rot in connection with this item, let me draw his attention to what the item is, and probably he may .change his mind. We are discussing a vote of $6,500,000 for working expenses on the Intercolonial Railway. If that is rot to the member for Victoria, it is not rot to me. In this vote is included the employment of unnecessary men on the Intercolonial Railway and in this vote is included a lot of money which will be wasted on political friends and political management. I am perfectly within my rights when I am discussing that, and I do not propose to take any lectures from the member for Victoria (Mr. Ross).


William Ross: You have been discussing the Guysborough election for the better part of the day.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and that is perfectly in order. No body has heard my friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) find fault with the govern-, ment, and if we waited until he rose in his place and discussed this and other items, there would be very little discussion and a very short session indeed.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: So much the better.


Andrew B. Ingram: Here is another fresh one who has just come in.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Better be too fresh than too rusty.


Andrew B. Ingram: When my young friend is a few years in the House he will learn to hang his hat on a peg. He will know less in the next five or six years than he thinks he knows to-day. Let me give him a piece of advice : don't be quite so fresh my young friend and you will get along better. I have no desire to prolong the discussion on this item ; I have said all I want to say on it, and what I have said, I believe to be correct.


John Graham Haggart: I wish to get the information which the minister promised with reference to the expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island railways.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will get the information. The general manager has retired.


Robert Laird Borden: Not permanently retired.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; voluntarily retired for the moment.


John Howard Sinclair: 1 do not intend to prolong the discussion, but I suppose it will be expected that something should be heard from me as the question of the Guysborough election has been so long under discussion this afternoon. I think, Sir, it is unfortunate that we should have to waste the time of the House at this late hour of the session in fighting over our petty election contests, but there does not seem to be anything too petty to engage the attention of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. For a number of weeks I have noticed a great deal of anonymous correspondence in the Conservative press throughout the country, with reference to the Guysborough election.
In this correspondence all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours are charged against the good people of the county which I have the honour to represent. Not only has there been anonymous correspondence of this character, but there have been similar editorials in some of these journals. Theses charges have been reiterated so often that it appeared to me that an attempt was being made to repeat these false statements so often that some credulous persons would accept them. I have made it a rule in the short time I have been in public life to take very little notice of the statements made by anonymous correspondents in newspapers, and I think I might apply the same rulef to the editorial attacks of some of those journals. At the same time I do not wish it to be understood by hon. gentlemen opposite or by any one that I would like to

avoid discussion in regard to the Guysbor-ough election. I am quite willing that every transaction, so far as I know them, in regard to the Guysborough election should have the fullest and the widest publicity throughout the Dominion of Canada. The Liberals of Guysborough on that occasion fought a clean and an honest fight and won a very signal victory in the face of the most determined and persistent campaign of slander and misrepresentation and open and flagrant bribery on the part of the Conservative party. In this election we had some new experiences, such as we have never before had in the province of Nova Scotia. For the first time in the history of political warfare in Nova Scotia we had men introduced into the county from outside whom I shall describe as professional bribers, men whose faces we had never seen before, and whose names, post office addresses or places of residence, we could not discover. Two of these suspicious characters operated in the polling booth where I happened to be on election day. They did not belong to the polling district of Whitehead. They did not belong to the county of Guysborough and I feel confident that they did not belong to the province of Nova Scotia. They dropped down there at that polling booth at eight o'clock on the morning of election day and at five o'clock they disappeared ; they folded their tents like the Arabs and as silently stole away.
The question arises : Where did they come from, and who supplied the funds they were paying out so lavishly on election day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Montreal ' Star.'


John Howard Sinclair: In that particular booth where I was, I saw these men. I did not see them carrying on- their operations, I did not see them pay out money, but I knobv they occupied a room close to the polling booth, and also carried on their operations in an adjoining shed, from which the fumes of whisky-bad whisky, I was told-emanated. The question arises who sent them there and who supplied the funds they were spending on that occasion. They could not have been sent by my opponent, Mr. Giffin. because he is a very pious and respectable gentleman.. who would have nothing to do with anything of the kind. The organizer of the Conservative party, Charles E. Tanner, of Pictou, was in the county for a few day's ; he seemed to be taking a very active interest in the campaign although I believe he only' addressed one meeting. But Mr. Tanner could not have had anything to do with these outside people because he has always condemned anything of that kind. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) was also in the county for ten or twelve days during the election. I understood that he was in charge of the campaign in the western end of the county, not in the district Mr. SINCLAIR.
where I wras myself. I presume he does not know anything about where these men came from or what they were doing in the constituency. The agent of the Montreal 'Star' was in the province at the time and appeared to be directing the campaign.
iMr. KENDALL. Surely that must be a mistake, because I can assure the hon. gentleman that I saw the representative of the Montreal ' Star ' during the famous Tupper-Murray campaign in 1896, and he seemed to be rather favouring the Liberals in Cape Breton county.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not want to hint that the Montreal ' Star ' had anything to do with this, because every one knows that the Montreal ' Star ' is an independent journal. I do not know that any one can say where they came from or who sent them or who supplied the money so lavishly. They may have come of their own accord and may have been using their own money for anything I know.
After all the abuse that has been heapetd on our devoted heads by the Conservative papers during the last three months about this; Guysborough election and about the part taken in it by Dominion officials, it seems to have come down to one ease. I take very little account of the names read here, by hon. gentlemen opposite. They have secured the names of certain men in the public service in Guysborough and have said that they were told by some one that these men took an active part in the election. I do not know that they took an active part. Some gentlemen in discussing this question wanted me to deny that they did. I am not aware that those gentlemen did take an active part and there is not the slightest proof that they did. It appears that it comes down to the name of one man, a Mr. LeBlanc, and that they have secured some evidence that that man took some part in that election. They scoured Guysborough from end to end, for evidence in respect to this matter and we are told by the Truro ' Sun ' an organ of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia that a representative of the Montreal ' Star ' came to the province for that special purpose and spent about a week in the province looking up information, and yet they have only been able to discover one man against whom they can make a definite charge. Counting all thb Dominon officials there, postmasters, and fishery officers and custom house officers and railway employees, I suppose there are between two hundred and three hundred men in that constituency alone, and if they are only able to find one who has actually overstepped the bounds and done something that he should not have done in this election, I think that is not a very bad showing for the Liberal party. In the case of this solitary official I am told that he

was not then in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway ; that he obtained three months leave of absence owing to some accident that had happened to him and was not fitted for work. It was during his vacation that he took his little trip down to Guysborough. I am informed that is a fact and I believe it to be true. Do you imagine, if the position was reversed and lion, gentlemen opposite were in power, that we would only have to complain of the interference of one official in Guysborough ? Under the system that prevailed prior to 1890 nearly every single official was an election agent of the Conservative party and they were expected to be election agents. The bounty cheques, for example, were used as a sort' of campaign fund in Guysborough in those days and I am informed that the time for the distribution of these cheques was arranged so that they were handed out to the fishermen at the time that the Conservative candidate was making his canvass along the shore. Another scheme was to levy tines against the fishermen for political purposes, fines that were never attempted to be collected. A fisherman was selected and was charged with having small lobsters in his possession or some such offence and a fine of $15 or $20 was entered against him but no attempt was made to collect the fine. Then, when an election came on, we would have a list of the names of these fishermen along the shore of that county-and I believe of every county in Nova Scotia-that were popularly known as lobster votes. We used to mark opposite them that they were lobster votes and we could not expect to get any of them to support the Liberal party. The heelers of the Conservative party came to these men and said : If y'ou vote for the Conservative candidate, this fine will not be collected ; but if you vote for the Liberal candidate, a distress warrant will be issued to-morrow morning. In this way they used to hold the fines over these people and secure their votes from election to election. These were some of the methods adopted by hou., gentlemen opposite when in power. That was only eight short years ago, but since they have got into opposition they have grown very pure and go into hysterics over the case of one official who took an active part in an election.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman give us the name of one fisherman who was dealt with in that way ?


John Howard Sinclair: They will be found in a return which was brought down to the House in the year 1891, and they will also probably be found in ' Hansard,' because this matter was then discussed in the Houge. Hon. gentlemen opposite take the ground that no man who is an official of the government should have anything to do with an election, but they surely do not forget that when they were in office we had some
200 revising barristers, many of whom were active and offensive partisans. They were the men who made the lists and decided who should and who should not vote. The discussion we are having to-day seems to have been deliberately planned by our hon. friends opposite. It is nearly two months since the Truro ' Sun ' made the following announcement :-
During the recent by-election in Guysborough, Mr. B. A. Macnab, a Montreal newspaper man, well known in the commercial metropolis, journeyed to New Glasgow. There he remained a week. His presence in that place drew from the local Grit paper a perfect tirade of abuse. The visitor was accused of being a corruptionist ; he was styled a second edition of ' Cap.' Sullivan. A more flagrant series of prima facie libels could not well be conceived.
Mr. Mcnab made no sign. He left New Glasgow when his work was over. What that "work was is now becoming apparent. The revelations of corrupt methods employed in the Guysborough campaign are alleged to be due to his initiative. It would appear that during the campaign he had arranged a plan to bring to light the devious methods of the Liberals. And now, day 'by day, some new phase of crooked work is being brought out. The climax will, it is said, he reached when the matter is brought up in the House of Commons in connection with the passage of salaries,, in the estimates, of some of the government employees who took an active part in the fight. The affidavits in these particular cases are said to be very interesting.
We did have .one affidavit mentioned by tbe hon. member for Pictou, but I do not think he told us the name of the man who made it, nor did he give us the whole affidavit. He read some remarks from a paper which he said was an affidavit, and said that Mr. LeBlanc had taken an active part iu this election. The Truro ' Sun ' is one of the leading organs of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia. The editor of that paper is said to be high up in the ranks of that party and ought to know what he^ is talking about. He tells us that Mr. McNab came to Glasgow and remained there a week without making any sign. He is evidently a mysterious character is Mr. McNab. He was to old a campaigner to make any sign by which his real mission to Nova Scotia might be understood. The 1 Sun ' goes on to say that he was the author of all these revelations which we have been having in the Conservative papers with regard to that county. In other words, that he was the instigator of all these slanders and falsehoods scattered throughout Canada in the Conservative press regarding the people of Guysborough. The statements of the ' Sun ' may or may not be true, but l have it on good evidence that the room which this hon. gentleman occupied fit the Norfolk House at New Glasgow seemed to be tbe Iheadquarters of tbe Conservative 'party and was tbe place where the Conservative agents and heelers got their instructions before starting out on their various routes for the county of Guysborough. I am not

charging Mr. McNab with having done anything out of the way because personally I have no knowledge and have no charge to make against him. He may have been distributing religious tracts or prayer books, for aught I know.


Mahlon K. Cowan: It is not likely.


John Howard Sinclair: But I find the explanation of the 'Sun ' rather peculiar that he remained there a whole week getting up imaginary revelations, and revelations which were not given to the public for something like six weeks after the election was over and therefore could have no part in the result. That, however, was the explanation given by the 'Sun. ' We were told that the climax would be reached when this matter would be brought up hi the House of Commons. I suppose it is the climax we are having to-day. There is certainly a great deal of noise over a very small matter, but that is becoming characteristic of hon. gentlemen opposite. To quote the language indulged in by the great D. V. Johnson's ghost in the ' Rejected Addresses,' it is not the first time this session, Mr. Speaker, that the parturient mountain to your left has been in labour and has brought forth a mus-cipular abortion. These hon. gentlemen opposite attacked the Prime Minister over the non-production of the memorandum of the Grand Trunk Pacific and later on attacked the Minister of Railways because he would not make a speech, but when he did, there was not a single man on that side who undertook to answer it. Their recent attack on the Minister of Agriculture also was another evidence of a great deal of ado about nothing, and to-day it seems we are reaching the climax. I do not wish to be understood as advocating a policy of employing Dominion officials to do campaign work, but when one is discovered doing work of this kind, he ought to have the sympathy of hon. gentlemen opposite. They themselves furnished us with an illustrious example in the ease of Sir Charles Tupper. It will be remembered that in 1891 or 1892, when Sir Charles Tup-uer, Bart., was High Commissioner of Canada, drawing a large salary from the people, he came across the Atlantic, and while his salary was still running, stumped Nova Scotia in the interests of the Conservative party. The Liberals in this House then protested. They said it was not fan' that a man at the very head of the civil service, drawing a very large salary, should be allowed to conduct himself in that way, but I have yet to hear that any hon. gentleman opposite ever protested against his conduct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. member say that Sir Charles Tupper was drawing his salary while he was here in Canada ?


John Howard Sinclair: He was still in office and High Commissioner and I presume he was.


John Howard Sinclair: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My recollection is that he made the statement that he was not.


John Howard Sinclair: If the hon. gentleman would say that Sir Charles Tupper did not draw his salary during the month or two he was stumping Nova Scotia, I will take his word.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Sir Charles Tupper himself denied that. Surely his denial ought to be accepted.


William Mulock: Would it be considered proper for a civil servant, by simply refusing to accept his salary for the time he was transgressing, to act in the manner referred to ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That has nothing to do with it. It is a question of fact.


John Howard Sinclair: ordered or even asked by the government, or by any member of it, or by any one in anyway connected with it, or for that matter, by any one else to take part in the Guysborough election campaign held on the 16th March last, nor did I take any part in that campaign further than to deposit my ballot at Glenelg, an act which I am sure you will not characterize as offensive, or say that I have no right to do. I made no attempt to influence any elector in the exercise of his franchise, the threats of affidavits to the contrary notwithstanding.
I am pleased to say that I met many old friends of both parties with whom I had very pleasant chats during the three or four hours I remained at the Forks, my old home, on the 16th March.
(Sgd.) J. A. KIRK.
Dorchester, N.B., May 27, 1904.
I think that ought to clear up the record with regard to Mr. Kirk. He went to St. Mary's, his old home ; he went there for the purpose of voting for the Liberal candidate -I have no doubt that that is what he went for-he deposited his ballot and no more. He did not canvass any of the electors, or attempt to influence the vote of any elector, or. take any part in the election. Why should his name be bandied about in the newspapers or hints be thrown out on the floor of this House that he had done something that he should not have done ? I feel that hon. members should exonerate Mr. Kirk, and I believe that such statements will not be repeated, because, X have not the slightest doubt that every word that Mr. Kirk has written in regard to this incident is true.
I was a little surprised that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) should make reference to corrupt practices on the part of the Liberal party in the Guysborough election. I do not know that it is a good thing to wash our dirty linen here, but, if the hon. gentleman wants to discuss the question of corruption in connection with the Guysborough election, I am quite ready. If he wishes to compare the conduct of the Liberal party with that of the Conservative party in that election, I am prepared to discuss that question. I am ready to show the hon. gentleman certain facts that he would not care to bear the responsibility of or to have proven against his party. I have some proof under my hand that will be very interesting to the House, but may not be so interesting to hon. gentlemen on the other side. It involves the names of a number of gentlemen and I am quite willing, if it is thought necessary by the hon. gentlemen on the other side to go on


John William Bell: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) can take his own course so far as I am concerned. X stated, as I am prepared to stdte again, that one of these
men had made very important declarations as to the part he had taken in the election, statements that indicated that he had not very much regard for the election law. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether it is or is not the fact that Mr. George N. Grant, inspector of cold storage plants, with a salary and allowances of $2,167, is president of the Liberal Association of Guysborough ?


John Howard Sinclair: I think that is true.


Robert Laird Borden: Did he take no part in the election ?


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know whether he took any active part.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) know that Mr. Grant did not take an active part ?


John Howard Sinclair: I am not aware that he took an active part. The president of the Liberal association is very often a figure head. I have been asked by hon. gentlemen on the other side to discuss this question of corrupt practices in the Guysborough election, That is my excuse for trespassing any longer on the time of the House. A great many charges have been made in the public press regarding corrupt practices by the Liberals, but I notice that there is an utter absence of detail. Our opponents have had an opportunity to protest that election, but they let that opportunity go by. It was an election that certainly aroused a great deal of interest in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, as well as in other parts of Canada, and, if there was anything done by the Liberal party on that occasion that they ought not to have done there is not the slightest doubt they would have taken the occasion to protest that election. On that occasion I had the assistance for a few days of Mr. E. M. MacDonald, M.P.P., of Pictou. I do not need to tell hon. members of this House who Mr. MacDonald is. He is one of the rising young men of Nova Scotia, and i am looking forward to the time after the next general election when he will take his seat in this House as a supporter of the government and representative of the once Conservative but now Liberal county of Pictou. I asked Mr. MacDonald, who was present at one of the polling booths at that election to give me a statement of the facts that came under his personal knowledge. I was aware that certain things were done in the polling booth at which I was, as I have already told the committee, and was aware that similar things were being done in other polling booths in the county. Mr. MacDonald wrote :
With reference to matters in Guysborough, I beg to state to you some things that occurred during my stay in the county. I may say I arrived there the evening before nomination day and spoke in Guysborough nomination night, in Port Mulgrave on Thursday night, and returned to Guysborough with Pre-

mier Murray on Friday afternoon. I left Guysborough on Saturday with the premier and drove to Canso, spoke there that night, and Monday morning I drove to Port Felix where I addressed a meeting that night, and on Tuesday afternoon I spoke at Charlos Cove, and Tuesday evening at Larry's River, remaining there until election evening when I drove to Guysborough. On nomination day there appeared at Guysborough a man whom I afterwards discovered to be Mr. Prieur, of Montreal, who was closeted that evening in Grant's Hotel with Messrs. Chas. E. Tanner and E. C. Gregory.


Charles E.: Tanner is the deader of the Conservative party in the local legislature of Nova Scotia ; he is the Conservative organizer in that province and the leader of such opposition as we have there :
On arriving at Charlos Cove I found that he had been there at the house of Charles Richard since the previous Thursday and that he was accompanied by a man whom the people in that locality called ' Twlger,' which was evidently an assumed name. I found that he had not had any meetings but had been sending for people in that vicinity and interviewing them privately during the week he had been there, and that his conduct had been exceedingly mysterious and wholly different from that of a man who was looking for votes on the ground of principle. On Tuesday afternoon I called at the house where he was but he declined to see me In response to a message I sent to his room inviting him to come to my meeting, the answer was that he was no speaker and did not take any part in meetings. The next day he appeared at Larry's River poll and had his headquarters in the house of a man named Michael Pelrine. His companion ' Twiger ' appeared as the agent of Giffin under the name of ' Switzer.' Giffin, the Conservative candidate, was also in and about the house during the day, and from which drunken men emanated throughout the day. That Prieur was not engaged in discussing politics with the electors was evident, and one man, William Petipas, told me he had received money from him to vote for Giffin and that he had taken an oath to vote that way. Before leaving Port Felix on Tuesday morning i discovered that two men whose names were not known, and who I think did not belong to Nova Scotia, were there working in the interests of the Conservative party. In addition to these two men and Prieur and Switzer, the following men were in the county who did not address meetings :-John Baillie, Pictou ; H. V. Jen-nison, New Glasgow ; Mr. Simson, Halifax, who worked in Queensport district ; Mr. Parsons, Halifax ; Joseph A. Gillies, Sydney. Tanner spoke at only one meeting while he was there for a week, and other persons whose names I do not know.
Now, Sir, on that occasion in addition to the parties named by Mr. MacDonald the county was overrun by Conservative heelers of all sorts. We found their tracks in the snowbanks, everywhere over the county, there was another gentleman by the name of Francois LeMarchand who figured in that election. I am told he was one of the


John Howard Sinclair: secret agents of the Conservative party. He made no speeches, took no part in public meetings, but when the elections was over he became garrulous. He visited the town of Guysborough and made certain statements to a gentleman toy the name of Floyd, who has sent me an account of the statements made by Le Marctoand. Mr. Floyd is a young barrister of that town, and he makes this declaration :
Dominion of Canada,
Province of Nova Scotia,
County of Guysborough.
To wit :
I,	D. P. Floyd, of Guysborough, in the county of Guysborough, barrister, do solemnly declare that :
1.	I board at Grant's Hotel at Guysborough, Nova Scotia.
2.	Between the 24th and 31st day of April, 1904, while in the smoking room or office of said hotel at Guysborough aforesaid, a young man, who had been pointed out to me previously as Francois Le Marchand, entered and engaged me in conversation.
3.	He represented himself as the agent for the Halifax 'Herald' and 'Mail,' and announced his intention of getting the said ' Mail ' into as many homes as possible in Guysborough county. He asked me to subscribe and I, not stating to what party I belonged, refused on the ground that the editorials were of a very low order of merit and intimated that I regretted this very much. In this view he concurred.
4.	Growing confidential he stated that he not only had the ' Mail ' to use for election purposes, but that he had nineteen thousand dollars to spend in the county of Gyusborough, or as he expressed it, ' to place ' in the county before the next election, and that it must be placed to proper advantage. I then remarked ' You must have spent considerable at the recent election. In view of the fact that it did not do the work intended, it is strange that you are going to expend more.' He replied, ' The trouble was that the money did not get into the proper hands. Certain men got it and used it injudiciously. Look at the result at White Head ? Had I control of the funds in other districts I could accomplish the same results.' I said, * There must have been a great deal of money used in purchasing votes at the recent election.' ' How much do you suppose,' he asked. I replied ' about fifteen thousand.' ' More than that,' he said, ' there was twenty-seven thousand dollars spent by the Conservatives in the late election in this county. I do not know where it came from, but there -was lots of the stuff. I got a bonus of $750 from the ' Mail ' for my work.' This was what he said in substance.
5.	The said Francois Le Marchand remained about a week in Guysborough and, as I am advised and believe, got very few subscribers for the ' Herald ' or ' Mail.'
6.	I am advised and believe, that the said Francois Le Marchand spent some time in White Head working for the Conservative candidate, S. R. Giffin, prior to the recent election, and visited other districts in the county previous to said election.
7.	The said Francois Le Marchand, at the above-mentioned interview, stated that he was

preparing an article from Guysborough county for tbe ' Herald ' and ' Mail,' but did not say that he was writing over the pen name 1 Oculus.'
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of * The Canada Evidence1 Act. 1893.'
Declared before me at Guysborough, in the county of Guysborough, this 6th day of June, A.D. 1904.


D. P. FLOYD.
[Stage Direction]
A Justice of the Peace in and for the county of Guysborough.
John William Bell: Who signed that ?


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. L>>
P. Floyd, barrister of Guysborough. Now, I think perhaps lion, gentlemen opposite have had enough of these details.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


John Howard Sinclair: I have mountains of information here. Our friends opposite are losing Interest in this discussion, but I will give them one more sample brick. The Conservative newspapers have been charging the Liberals of Guysborough with having used intoxicating liquors to corrupt the electorate on that occasion. I may explain that the reason why these declarations have been sent to me is no doubt the fact that the Conservative newspapers in Nova Scotia have been stating that solemn declarations were going to be produced in the House relating to the acts of corruption on behalf of the government in the Guysborough election. These statements got abroad, and a great many people have sent me declarations of the facts that occurred, out of which I have selected a few. Mr. Aikens, of Mul-grave, makes the following solemn declaration :-
Canada.
Province of Nova Scotia,
County of Guysborough, N.S.
I, E. E. Aikins, of Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough, merchant, do solemnly declare :
1.	That I am an elector of the county of Guysborough, and reside at said Mulgrave.
2.	That I know Robert Peeples, also an elector of the said county, and a resident of the polling section of Mulgrave, and had a conversation with him a few days prior to the hy-election held in the county of Guysborough on the 16th day of March last.
3.	The said Robert Peeples is an active Conservative in the said district of Mulgrave ; and I am informed and believe was a member of the committee of that party at that election.
4.	I say that the said Robert Peeples on the occasion of the conversation referred to above, informed me that the said Conserv-tive party had a barrel of whisky which they intended to use for the purpose of influencing electors to vote for the Conservative party and asked me if I would deal it out in their interest ; which I refused to do.
194.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to he true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
Declared and signed this 9th day of June, 1904, before me.
,	E. E. AIKINS.
WM. /?. WYLDE. J.P.
Now, Sir, I am informed, although I do not know anything personally about this, that it takes about 100 flasks of whisky to fill a barrel. Mr. Giffin ou that occasion got 65 votes at Mulgrave. The Conservative party must have given to each voter about one and a half flasks of whisky if that calculation is correct. The Conservative candidate got over 1,600 votes in that election and if they treated them all with the same liberality with which they treated the people of Mulgrave they must have supplied about 2,500 flasks of whisky on that occasion. Still the editor of the Truro ' Sun ' turns up the whites of his eyes and talks about the Grits getting votes by the whisky method.
There was another charge made against certain people in Guysborough in reference to decimating the electoral lists to which I think I may be permitted to refer for a few moments as it lias become current throughout Canada in the Conservative papers, l will not refer to it if hon. gentlemen opposite object to me doing so. I did intend on a former occasion to take the opportunity of saying something about that question which has been very persistently discussed throughout the Conservative press and by the Liberal press too. As far as I can discover, the charges are without foundation. The charges were made by an anonymous correspondent in the Halifax ' Herald1 signing himself ' Oculus.' He gave what appeared to he a great number of facts regarding a number of names which he said had been struck from the electoral list of the district of St. Mary's. This was published also with black headlines in the Montreal ' Star,' and a great many editorials have been written in regard to it. The c-harge was also published in the Toronto ' Mail.' While I do not wish to weary the House by reading the letter of ' Oculus,' I may be permitted to read to the committee an abstract of it taken from the Toronto * Mail.' The ' Mail ' says :
Some startling disclosures have been made by an examination of the methods employed to keep Guysborough, N.S., in the list of Liberal constituencies. The riding consists of two municipalities, one of which is known as St. Mary's. In the recent by-election St. Mary's increased its Liberal majority by 77, although a smaller vote was polled. This led to inquiry. It appears that just previous to the election the names of 83 Conservatives had been deliberately and surreptitiously struck off the voters' list.
I want hon. gentlemen to note that. The statement is that just previous to the election the names of Conservative voters were struck off the lists surreptitiously. I am


John William Bell: Did any one ever make the statement that these names were struck from the lists a few days before the election ?	.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, I have read it.


John William Bell: This is not in the letter of ' Oculus.' That is only a summary the hou. gentleman has read. It is not the original.


John Howard Sinclair: It was said persistently by every Conservative newspaper. It may

not be in the letter of ' Oculus.' I am not certain as I have not the letter here.


John William Bell: I do not think it was.


John Howard Sinclair: Then it is admitted that it was not a few days before the election ?


John William Bell: No one ever said it was.


John Howard Sinclair: Oh, yes; it is persistently stated by the Conservative papers that it was a few days before the election when it t must have been at least a year before.
I 'simply want to correct that statement, because it would be simply impossible for that to be done. The list was revised a whole year prior to the election and the Conservatives had the same opportunity of placing their names on the list as the Liberals had.


John William Bell: Not quite as good.


John Howard Sinclair: full extent of the injury caused either of the parties by errors or partisanship of the revisers. That as to income voters more Liberals have been omitted from the lists than Conservatives, but that I believe the decision in each and every such case was right and would be upheld in any court of law. That in the case of property holders above referred to when the revisers discovered the error, these six names were restored by them without solicitation, at the next revision and are now upon the lists. That at the revision of electoral lists March 5th, A.D. 1904, there were present the revisers, C. W. Pye representing the Liberals and Newman H. McDonald and H. F. Harding in support of other applications. That out of the lists of eighty-two names cited by ' Oculus ' as disfranchised and referred to above, only fourteen applications to add to the electoral lists for A.D, 1904, were made by the Conservatives, the owners of thirty-nine of those names are alive and in this county, without the Conservatives making any effort to secure them the franchise. That as touching the pronounced Conservative leanings of those on the lists cited by ' Oculus ' in the Halifax ' Herald ' as before referred to, in the polling districts of Sherbrooke and Sonora, the Liberals added sixteen names from those lists of, ' Oculus,' the Conservatives only four, their total applications being six, and two they were unable to qualify. That as far as my knowledge goes, intentional wrong by the revisers in this revisal section No. 1 was never intended or committed. I have the fullest confidence in the integrity of my associate revisers, Messrs. Pye and Reid, and I firmly believe that did not their absence from the county, preclude them from making a careful review of the necessary document, they would be pleased to join with me in every part of this declaration, or to make independent declarations of the same tenor, covering their term of office.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
Declared before me at the town of Sherbrooke, in the countfy of Guysborough, this 26th day of May, A.D. 1904.


G. W. ROSS.
[Stage Direction]
A commissioner.
For taking affidavits in the Supreme Court for
county of Guysborough.
Tlie complaint was made that names were left on the list that should have been taken off, but the reviser declares that there was not a single application to strike names off. You will notice that the Conservatives complain that the name of Geo. Keiser was not found on the list of electors, and they charge the reviser with the criminal offence of striking it off improperly, but it turns out that Mr. Geo. Keiser is an insane man who was supported at the expense of the district. It will be noted also that there were twenty-one names struck - off in these four polling districts, and that is not a very large average of men to become disqualified during the year. This declaration of Mr. Mr. SINCLAIR.
Ross was published in the Halifax ' Chronicle,' the ' Eastern Chronicle,' New Glasgow, the Montreal ' Witness,' the Montreal : Herald,' and no one has ventured to question what Mr. Ross has stated. I have already said that no complaint was made to the municipal council or to the loeai legislature or to any source, until several weeks after the election was over.
Robert Laird Borden: Pardon me. Did not ' Oculus ' write a letter in answer to that ?	.


John Howard Sinclair: I think he did.


Robert Laird Borden: Then it is hardly right to say that no one has questioned it. As the hon. gentleman has read the affidavit or letter or whatever it is ; instead of saying that it had never been questioned, he should have read the answer as well, if he desired to present a fair case to the House.


John Howard Sinclair: I would be quite willing to read that letter of ' Oculus,' if I had it. However, I do not think the answer has any bearing upon the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The rest of us might like to form a conclusion.


John Howard Sinclair: I would be very pleased to put the answer on record if it is the only answer the Conservatives can make. But let me say that in the first place it is an anonymous answer, and no person has had the courage to make a statement at all over his own signature in regard to this. Now Sir, the only person who did attempt to make any change in the electoral lists in the constituency on that occasion, was Chas. E. Tanner the Conservative organizer in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Tanner approached the returning officer, who is a layman, not a lawyer, and made an application for the addition of certain Conservative names to the electoral list a few days before the election and he attempted to insist on these names being added, saying that there was legal authority for doing so. He got the returning officer into a good deal of confusion but the returning officer refused and very properly refused to add any name to the official list sent him on which the election was to be conducted. This was .the oply attempt made to tamper with the list in the county of Guysborough during that election. It was a bold and impudent attempt to tamper with the lists and was prevented by the refusal of the returning officer to do what was asked by Mr. Tanner. On the strength of these so called revelations, which are not signed by anybody and for whom no person will become responsible, we have been read a great many lectures by the Conservative papers in Canada in which we are told that it is of the first importance that there should be no interference with the lists. I wish to place myself on record as agreeing with that principle, that it is of the utmost
6^85

importance to the people of this country that no man should be allowed to tamper with the ballots and that there should be a fair revision of the lists on [DOT] every occasion. X can assure hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who do not belong to Nova Scotia and who may have ireadi some of these articles in the Conservative papers throughout Canada in regard to the manner in which the lists are revised in that province, that we have a fair and just revision of the lists and that there is no real reason to complain. I know that we have men on both sides who will try to take advantage of their oppenents and to get their own men on the list and keep the others off. But we have every safeguard around the franchise in Nova Scotia and no man need complain who takes interest enough in, his own affairs to see that his name is recorded. I know of only one case in the history of this country when this right, which every Canadian holds dear was in danger and that was the occasion of the introduction by the predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite of that precious piece of legislation known as the Dominion Franchise Act. That Act threw the whole question of revising the lists into the hands of partisan revising barristers. These were the only people who had the right to decide whether a man should vote or not vote. That system was created and maintained for the purpose of loading the dice; it was one of the greatest outrages ever perpetrated on a free people and the political party which is responsible for the Dominion Franchise Act and for the Act by which the counties of Ontario were gerrymandered should not find any fault with the Franchise Act of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend say that all the revising officers in Nova Scotia were Conservative partisans ? I understood him to make that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: Most of them.


Robert Laird Borden: I think he said all of them. Was not Judge Morse of Amherst county, county judge, was not Judge Savary of Annapolis one, and was not Judge Blanchard of ICentville another of those revising officers ? I think I could name others.


John Howard Sinclair: That is three out of two hundred. I did not mean to say all. I think I guarded that statement. I did not mean that they were all partisans but I quite understand that in localities where there was a resident county judge, we had the benefit of his decisions in this respect, but in other counties, where there was not f-a resident judge, we had to take the decisions of partisan revising barristers. That was the position of affairs during that period. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite have said over and over again that *hey
are not responsible for what their predecessors did and I do not hold them responsible in the same sense, that I hold them responsible for the things which they do themselves. At the same time they are con-, stantly reminding us of the achievements of (their party in the past and it is only right and fair that they should be kept in a humble, lowly and penitent state of mind by being occasionally reminded of the depths of depravity to which their party sank during the pei'iod in which they had the power to control the franchise of the people of Canada.


John William Bell: I shall not detain the House very long in replying to the remarks of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. (Sinclair). I have no doubt that he has had this upon his stomach, so to speak, for some time, and it is therefore only fair that the House should have patience and allow him to get rid of it. I was careful in introducing the subject to the committee to make as little reference as possible to the Guysborough election, because I do not approve of discussing provincial matters in the House. I therefore introduced the subject at the proper time, during the criticism of the estimates of the Minister of Railways and called attention to the action of some officials with the least possible reference to the Guysborough election. Without any reference at all to reports and rumours, I based what I had to say on what I believed to be authentic information and invited the minister to give us the opportunity, by the appointment of a commissioner, to prove the truth of what I have stated. My hon. friend has gone very far afield. He has developed to a large extent the party view of the recent election in Guysborough and he has filled me with pride in the opposition by informing us that that party had at its control in this election large sums of money. I knew that we had virtue. I knew that we had industry and a good cause, but I did not know that we had the money. If my hon. friend had devoted his time to telling what he knew, instead of what he did not know, he could have given us some very valuable information indeed. He could have told us the course of certain cheques that were cashed at banking agencies in Halifax just about that time and which possibly found their way in the course of time to Guysborough.


John Howard Sinclair: I could not, Mr. Chairman. I am not aware that any cheques at all were cashed on that occasion relating to my election.


John William Bell: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. I presume my hon. friend was prudent enough to take care not to know much about it. Possibly, however, some other people know a little more. The hon. gentleman has entertained the House with

his revelations as to the crimes and the crookedness of the Conservative party during that election ; and if I ever heard anything absolutely farcical it was the unfolding of his evidence on that point. Anythibg more grotesque and absolutely ridiculous, was never given in the hearing of this House. It was absolutely 1 vox, et praeterea nihil.' There is nothing to it, just rumours and suspicions. He has spoken of certain men named Switzer and Twiger. A man must have a name and there has been no evidence to show that the men did not give their own names.
iMr. R. L. BORDEN. The Prime Minister has justified that on another occasion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Justified what?


Robert Laird Borden: Going under an anonymous name. The instance he cited was the Prince of Wales. He said that the Prince of Wales travelled anonymously and why should not an officer of this government travel anonymously ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a good example.


John William Bell: I do not know how far these assertions that these gentlemen were travelling under incorrect names are true. I recall, however, one matter which was ventilated in this House in which case no less a gentleman than the father of the Solicitor General of this parliament was proved to have made his appearance, during an election in the Magdalen Islauds and there to have represented his distinguished son under an assumed name. He was Mr. Le-mieux when he went to the Magdalen Islands, but in the stimulating air of that district his name grew to Lamirande in the course of a night, Why should not other people have the privilege also of travelling incognito?
The funniest thing of all was that the hon. gentleman has succeeded-and I regret to say in connection with my own country- in disinterring the gentleman who must forever pass as the ehiefest of all the suckers in this world of ours, who met a gentleman called by my hon. friend Francois Le Marchand, who informed this gullible gentleman that he had $27,000 to spend on the last election. I regret very much that Mr. Floyd's habitat has been established in Nova Scotia, for I would like the people to believe that we are not altogether simpletons in that county down by the sea. No man has ever taken the trouble to prove by affidavit that he has been made a fool of to such an extent as our friend Mr. Floyd. Then we had a long statement from Mr. E. M. Macdonald, which contains absolutely nothing whatever. If he does not prove himself better at running elections than at drawing affidavits, it wiil take him some time to get hold of the county


John William Bell: of Pictou ; and if he does not know more about running elections in the county of Pictou than he has shown he does in the county of Guysborough, he cannot be very dangerous, and I need not feel much alarmed. But why did the hon. gentleman not give the names of those who found their way into the county of Guysborough in his own interests ? He mentioned three or four who had gone there to represent the Conservative party, and said that the snow banks were covered with their tracks. But a gentleman who was recently his legal partner in New Glasgow was there, and there was no mark of his tracks on any of the snow banks. He had a much more comfortable means of conveyance. He was driven through the county by the gentleman who was deputy returning officer. The deputy returning officer drove my hon. friend's iate law partner, and he carried a very suggestive looking little satchel, of which he took great care. I did not hear that Mr. Patterson addressed any public meeting, but he and his friend the sheriff did drive from house to house, and never parted company with that precious little satchel. I am willing to assume that my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) did not know anything about money in this election. I am willing to assume that it was a perfectly purely conducted election, although there were some surprising turns over in the vote. But when he undertakes to read the Conservative party a lecture on the use of liquor, I think he must have braced himself up with some kind of a bracer-possibly something of the kind that was used plentifully in that campaign. It is not possible that he was altogether ignorant of the fact that a good deal of spirit was thrown into the operation of the Liberal party on that occasion by the old custom of putting spirits down to keep their spirits up. There was a good deal of that sort of thing done, and I am much pleased to find that he regrets that that ancient and time-honoured custom was ever followed. The hon. gentleman made some comments reflecting on a gentleman named Mr. McNab, of Montreal. I am glad, however, that he showed more caution in his strictures than was displayed by the writers of certain articles in the Nova Scotia press. Mr. McNab is a clever and estimable gentleman, who has been undeservedly treated with a great deal of undeserved ignominy by the press of hon. gentlemen opposite. The articles written concerning him were not signed for most excellent reasons, but I regret very much for the fair fame of our province that a gentleman could not go into the neighbourhood of the county of Guysborough, when an election was about to take place, without being treated with such foul abuse as was heaped on Mr. McNab. As an instance of the extremes to wlficli the partisans of hon. gentlemen opposite went, I might men-

tion that one of them in my own county expressed the great regret he felt that Mr. Mc-Nab had not broken his wretched neck on his way home. I might say that Mr. McNab was never in Guysborough. He was in the town of New Glasgow, where I saw him, and certainly there was nothing improper in his conduct^in that town. He was there acting as any gentleman might whose business bad brought him to that place. Why does the hon. gentleman single out this gentleman and not mention any of the other estimable men who were in the county at that time ? Why did he not mention Mr. Kirk, who left the Dorchester penitentiary and went all the way to Guysborough. and spent there a long winter day, from eight in the morning until five o'clock in the evening, in the vicinity of the polls ? Why did he not mention also my friend Mr. Dickie, who was there in the interests of the party opposite, and who had not even a vote in that county, as far as I know, or any particular business apart from politics ?


John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not notice that Mr. Kirk said he was only there three or four hours.


John William Bell: I have credible information to the effect that he was there all day, and I am not disposed to quarrel with my information, which comes from two or three different sources. He did spend many hours in an open sleigh in the immediate vicinity of the polling place. Was he there acting as guard over some of the whisky which was used there in the interests of my hon. friend ? Then, again, the premier of Nova Scotia was there, and also Mr. Macdonald, of the county of Pictou. and Mr. Patterson and a host of others. Why were they not singled out by the hon. gentleman for comment ? But I would ask what is there to prevent anybody from going into that county if he should take an active interest _ in any election there ? No one would question on* this side the right of any citizen to take part in an election, who is free to do so. Why, then, should my hon. friend spend so much of our valuable time in telling us that certain gentlemen had gone into that county to take part in an election ? Surely that is the most natural thing to do. Not long ago I had the pleasure of meeting my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in a county in which he does not live, and I expect td meet him again in several counties in Nova Scotia during the next campaign. It is a part of the duty of public men to take part in an election campaign. If our hon. friend had taken up our valuable time in telling us what he does know, we might derive some benefit from his remarks, "but all he did was discuss things of which he has not any personal-knowledge. - All he did was to indulge in a mass of surmises which were absurd on their face, and he demonstrated their absurdity by this affidavit of Mr. Floyd. If anything would show that the hon. gentleman was not fit to represent a constituency in that province, it is the fact that he seriously discussed such an absurd affidavit, and indulged in such ridiculous surmises. My hon. friend went into the question of the electoral lists, but why deal with that question here ? That question has been thoroughly discussed in the public press. I was in the county myself, and I know that in the St. Mary's district, where I was working, some eighty names were not on the list which should have been there, and this was due to the fact that in that municipality the lists are prepared by revisers appointed by the county council, and that county council is composed of some five or six Liberals and not one Conservative. And in that district there has not yet been appointed one reviser or assessor within the memory of man who is not a partisan of hon. gentlemen opposite. Although these men have to perform judicial duties, they are, without exception, selected from the ranks of the party opposite. Every member of the council is a Grit, and every appointment made, if it has attached to it a salary of 25 cents, is made from the ranks of the Grit party.	.	,
Every electoral list prepared in that county is prepared by these men, and my hon. friend knows as well as I do that some of them are not over-scrupulous. He read an affidavit from a gentleman named Ross, who says, for the purpose of misleading the public outside the county of Guysborough, that one of the men left off the list was an escaped criminal. What are the facts ?
John Bjard did not leave Sherbrooke until after the 1903 revision. He had been on, and there was no change in his circumstances, yet he was struck off. In the spring of 1903, after the revision, he was convicted under the Scott Act of having paid for and passed over to another man one bottle of liquor. That is the criminal warrant. A conviction under the Scott Act is known to be no disqualification under the Scott Act.
Here is a man whose affidavit is read in this House, a man who puts what is practically a lie in his affidavit in order to mislead persons in other portions of Canada who do not know the facts. I need not, after that sample, pursue my inquiries on the character of the Ross affidavit. In the neighbourhood in which he has lived there is no occasion to do so for he is too well known. I could deal with other points in this affidavit, but it is not necessary. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) could not close without a fling at the Dominion Franchise Act. And yet the government which he supports and on whose behalf he pounds his desk so vigourously themselves proposed to pass a Franchise Act with regard to one province because they have lost tempor-rarily control of the government of that pro-

yinee. But they were compelled to drop the bone they thought to carry away. They may hope, In a short time to recover control, bnt they could not afford to wait. They were quite willing to fly in the face of the principle which they themselves had so often declared for by taking the control of the lists out of provincial hands. The moment a province gets out of their control they are ready to enact for it the law that they denounced so generally and so loudly. The hon. gentleman was not over ingenuous in what he gaid about the Franchise Act. He said that it was passed to enable the former government to appoint partisan revising officers. He spoke of this as being for the whole of Canada-he mentioned two hundred counties, and, though he was not quite right as to the number, it is evident that he had the whole of Canada in mind. He said that the late Conservative government had imposed upon Canada electoral lists made up by partisan barristers. His reputation for strict adherence to facts will not rise very rapidly in this House if he continues to make such statements. He was compelled to acknowledge his error. Being a practising barrister in his own province he could hardly have failed to know that in many of the counties in Nova Scotia, the revising officers were the judges, and in Ontario, it was almost the rule to have the county court judges perform this function. To my mind it would have been, better if the hon. gentleman had not made his speech. He will not add much to his reputation for judgment and sincerity by such speeches, and he has not added much to the esteem in which the people of his county will be held when he produces and reads such absurd affidavits as those to which he has treated the House to-day. He read the statement of Mr. MacDonald which, I think, the House will agree was a ridiculous statement. He might have done better if that hon. gentleman-I do not know that I should say ' honourable ' for it seems a misuse of the term to use it in that connection had prepared his list of voters, Mr. MacDonald was on trial before the grand jury of my county for presenting to the _ sheriff, who was revising officer, affidavits which had been forged and falsified, and he very narrowly escaped spending a portion of his years in a public institution where his keep would not have been at all costly to him.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House the result of that trial 1


John William Bell: The result was that the grand jury did not bring in a Bill. There was a friendly judge on the bench and Mr. MacDonald was allowed to go before the grand jury and succeeded in begging off. But there was no question about the facts and he never denied them. If he had brought his talent to bear the hon. gentleman would have had even a better list than that on Mr. BELL.
which he ran and which was a very good one for him, because, to my knowledge, some eighty names were left off the list, and of these almost all were Conservatives. They were not quite all Conservatives-and this will serve to show how nicely this Grit machine works. There were a few Liberals left off. and why ? Because, in a previous municipal election they had ventured to vote for certain men for municipal office who were not acceptable to the Grit machine. That machine cuts off the heads not only of those whom it is not able to control for Dominion elections, but even those who will not obey its behests in municipal elections. ' Altogether my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) might better have left this matter where it should have been left to be discussed-in Guysborough and in Nova Scotia. It is not proper to introduce such subjects in this House. In beginning the few remarks I thought fit to offer I took care to make no reference to my hon. friend. I simply called attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that certain of his officials were alleged to have taken an active part in elections. My hon. friend has admitted that one government official is president of the Liberal Association of Guysborough. All I wanted to do was to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the facts and to ask him whether he proposed to apply in these cases the principle laid down by his leader in 1897. When we challenge the conduct of the government in dismissing men for alleged partisanship, the principle was laid down by the right hon. leader of the government that a public official was free to vote as he chose, but was not allowed to take a more active part in political contests. I will watch-and so will others along the line of the Intercolonial- to see whether the Minister of Railways is going to live up to the lofty principle enunciated by his leader. I cannot say I expect very much from him. We can hardly fail to recollect that, when our friends on the other side of the House talk about purity in elections, when they proclaim their love and their devotion, their adoration even, for purity and high principle, it is the same as when certain people talk about honesty- time to button your pockets. We know-it is no matter of hearsay ; it has been proven to a demonstration and is set out broad and clear upon the pages of Canadian history, so that even the most casual reader cannot but note it-that the very things that these gentlemen profess to admire and revere as lofty and pure are the very things that, in practice, they sedulously avoid. They have preached every political virtue and have declared each to be dear to their hearts, but in the practice of these virtues they have been sad failures indeed. If ever a party was branded and stigmatized as being made up of hypocrites, of men wanting in sincerity, that party is the Liberal party of Canada.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited.-Mr. Oliver.
On the preamble.
David Henderson: This is a Bill of considerable importance, and I do not think it is properly understood. I hope the promoter will be able to make a satisfactory explanation of the Bill, and that before it goes through we shall have the assurance of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) or the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that the matter has been investigated, and that the Bill may be passed.


Mr. OLIVER.: The Bill was up for consideration the week before last, and on the joint suggestion of the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice, it was held over for consideration by the Justice Department. That consideration has been given. The legal gentlemen acting for the company discussed the Bill with the Department of Justice and made such alterations in it as the officials of the Justice Department suggested. The Bill in that form went before the Private Bills Committee the second time and was agreed to unanimously, and now it comes before the House in Committee for final approval. I am not in a position to discuss the very intricate question that was raised by the leader of the opposition when the Bill was before the House before, but I think it will be agreed that having been dealt with in this way we may fairly consider it as having been put in a satasfactory shape and proper to be accepted by the House.


David Henderson: I do not think that explanation is quite sufficient to warrant us in passing this Bill. To my mind it is an extraordinary Bill, it seems to ask for powers to do anything and everything. Though I do not * doubt the statement of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) that the Minister of Justice has looked into this Bill, still I think the Minister of Justice should be here and give an assurance to the committee that he regards the Bill as one that ought to receive the sanction of this House. But so far as I am concerned I do not think it should.


Robert Laird Borden: As for the preamble I think it is in a very much better shape now than it was before. It reads now as follows :
Whereas the West Canadian Collieries, Limited, hereinafter called the company, has by its petition represented that it was incorporated under ' The Companies Act,1 1862 to 1900, of Great Britain, and has been licensed under 61 Vic., chap. 49 (Dominion) to carry on mining operations in the Yukon and Northwest Territories by license dated the 6th October, 1903.
I assume that all that has been proved to the satisfaction of the committee to which the Bill was referred. Then the preamble proceeds as follows :
Whereas the company has filed a duly certified copy of the company's memorandum and articles of association in the office of the Secretary of State of Canada.
The memorandum and articles of the association correspond to the charter of the company as contained in an Act of parliament, and set forth the powers of the company and the purpose for which it was incorporated. The preamble proceeds as follows :
And whereas the company has, by its petition, prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition.
Of course we have to consider that in connection with what follows, we are on the preamble now. I do not see any objection to the preamble in its present form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The trouble with it is that it is an incorporated company under the Joint Stock Companies Act of England from 1862 to 1900, the Act as amended during that time. It comes over here and receives a license under the Land Act, empowering it to carry on mining, or grazing, or timber business. That license is an entirely different thing from an incorporation. Then we unite that license with the letters of incorporation and embody it in an Act of parliament here, leaving in it all the provisions which the original corporation contained. We do not know what the provisions of the Joint Stock. Companies Act were, what powers they have under it, but whatever they are or whatever they were they are renewed here. It seems to me doubtful whether we should pass this Bill. The Minister of Justice above all others ought to be the one to examine it and guide us, otherwise we are practically going it blind.


Frank Oliver: I can assure the committee that the Minister of Justice coincided to a great degree with the remarks of the leader of the opposition, and took the responsibility of reviewing the Bill so as to bring it into line with the laws of Canada. I think the committee will remember that I asked him particularly : Do you take the responsibility of doing this, and he said he did. Now he has discharged that responsibility, the Department of Justice has reviewed the Bill, and some changes have been made in it at the request of the Justice Department. The Bill has gone through the Private Bills Committee and so far as the promoters of the Bill are concerned every requirement has been complied with in order to bring it within the rules of the

House and within the general procedure in such cases provided.
On section 1,


Peter Macdonald: Section 1 is struck out and the following inserted :
The company shall he and is hereby recognized throughout the Dominion of Canada as a body corporate and politic by and under the name of the * West Canadian Collieries, Limited,' but such recognition shall not deprive the company of the power to make such variations in its constitution as it may lawfully make in virtue of the Companies Act, 1862 to 1900, and under the statutes of the Imperial parliament in amendment thereof or substitution therefor ; and such recognition shall not be deemed to authorize or empower the company to exercise in the Dominion of Canada any power or to do any act for the lawful exercise or doing of which an Act of the parliament of Canada would otherwise have been necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think this clause is fairly well guarded now. It has been pointed out that there might be possibly an objection to it. Really there is no very great object in enacting it at all. It practically does not differ from what the law would otherwise be because a company incorporated in a foreign country can in Canada, by virtue of what is known as the comity of nations, carry on its business and is recognized as a corporation internationally by the comity of courtesy of international law. Of course Great Britain has a different legislature from ours although it belongs to the same empire. The same treatment would be given to a company incorporated in a foreign country like the United States, or Germany, or Prance, so that this section does effect very much change. The section as drafted goes on to make this provision :
-and such recognition shall not be deemed to authorize or empower the company to exercise in the Dominion of Canada any power or to do any act for the lawful exercise or doing of which an Act of the parliament of Canada would otherwise have been necessary.
Therefore, the section does not really seem to me to add very much to what the company might otherwise do, and I suppose it is inserted for the reason that as powers are given further on, it is advisable in the first instance to recognize the company formally by statute, although that recognition does not seem to me as a matter of law to carry the company beyond the position in which it would have found itself under the law apart from this statute altogether. It is quite true that power is reserved to the company to make changes under the English Companies Act, 18621900 and to carry on its business in Canada, but it had the right to do that anyway. That is to say that a company incorporated in Great Britain which has a different legislature from our own or in-Mr. OLIVER.
corporated in any foreign country can come to Canada and carry on business, and carrying on business in Canada, it can by virtue of the legislature of this country or under the authority of the legislature of its own country make changes in its constitution or powers and after that, of course, as respects the powers of the company, they are limited by these changes. I do not think there is in the first section anything to which we might reasonably object. There may be a clause further on where very extensive powers are given the company to which some valid objection might be made, but as far as this section is concerned, I do not think there is any objection to be made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What position would we be in suppose we wanted to wind up the company ?


Robert Laird Borden: That depends on a careful examination of the Winding Up Act, but I imagine the company would have to be wound up in Great Britain where its head office is. The courts in Canada would be auxiliary to the courts of Great Britain for that purpose, and we would have the right in this country to see that the assets were so applied that no injustice would be done to Canadian creditors.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have had little experience in dealing with a foreign company, and that very troublesome question came up. How should the company be wound up 1 You have in the Winding Up Act a provision which sets out how the assets of the company shall be used for the liquidation of its liabilities, but there may be obligations resting upon the company in a foreign country and the question arose as to how the assets should be used. There was a conflict of jurisdiction. What authority would we have to deal with a foreign corporation and use the assets to satisfy the Canadian creditors, while the English creditors, or in the case that I have referred to. the American creditors, would not be satisfied ?


Robert Laird Borden: A difficult and important question arises in regard to that. I am not prepared to say that the company might not be wound up in this country.' I will not say anything about that at the present moment without investigating the statutes. In cases where companies incorporated in Great Britain have become insolvent while carrying on business in this country the question has sometimes arisen-it has arisen in my own province-whether liens obtained under the law of the province should prevail against the title of the trustee in Great Britain. In my own province we have held that liens granted under the law of our own province should take precedence of the title of the trustee. I do not know whether

the same would apply to other provinces. At all events the Canadian creditors would stand in the same position as the creditors in Great Britain. Their rights would be respected, they could tile their claims and participate in the assets just in the same same way as the English creditors would. Of course, as far as the winding up of the company is concerned, there would be exactly the same difficulty if this company were not coming to this parliament for its Act of incorporation at all. The company might carry on business in this country without coming to this parliament under the doctrine that I have already mentioned, it might become insolvent and if it had to be wound up, the same difficulties* to which my hon. friend has referred would arise in that case.
On section 4, subsection (n).


David Henderson: I think it is hardly worth while striking out any of these words because I think that nearly every power that could be given to the company is given. I hardly think it worth while striking out a few words. I think we ought to have some members of the administration here to say that this is a proper Bill, that it has been investigated and examined and that the government is prepared to say that it has the approval of the departmental officers under whose notice it should come;, because, to my mind, it is one of those sweeping, blanket charters that covers almost everything. and it will be a very strange matter indeed if it does not come in contact with private interests that we cannot detect from a cursory reading of the Bill.


Frank Oliver: I am very sorry that the hon. member foiv Halton (Mr. Henderson) should take the position which he does. I beg to assure him that the Department of Justice has reviewed the Bill, that the amendments contained are amendments suggested by the department and agreed to by the parties promoting the Bill. There cannot be anything more evident than that, by the very fact that the amendments which have been read have conformed to the suggestions then made by the leader of the opposition, and agreed to at that time, measurably at any rate, by the Minister of Justice. The whole of the amendments and the whole of the procedure has been in the last degree regular, and I would think it is hardly fair for the hon. member to practically say that my word in this matter is not good. I beg to assure the House that it is.


David Henderson: I have stated that I was quite prepared to take the hon. gentleman's word, but it may be within the recollection of us all that not very long ago he read a very severe lecture to members on this side of the House for being absent when business came before the House. I objected to this Bill when it was last called
simply because the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) was absent, and I thought as he was so extremely particular that every hon. member on this side of the House should be in his place, that it was just as well that his Bill should stand over. I notice that neither the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of the Interior is present to-night, and surely one of these ministers should be here to vouch for the propriety of this Bill. . Considering the strong position which the promoter of this Bill has taken with regard to members not being in their places when matters of this kind came up, I am disposed to follow his example and to insist that the proper minister be here to vouch for this legislation. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) chooses to read lectures to this side of the House, then when an opportunity occurs we have a perfect right to read a lecture back to him.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the powers enumerated in section 4 in conformity with those contained in the memorandum or articles of association of the company. I would presume they are, but it is Important that we should have some assurance as to that. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) know ?


Frank Oliver: I am not in a position to answer the question. I repeat that the Private Bills Committee considered the Bill and reported unanimously in favour of it in its present shape. That is the only assurance I can give the committee on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: In England there is practically no restriction to the powers they give to these companies and possibly the provisions of section 4 have simply been copied from the memorandum or article of association of the company as it is now constituted in which case there might be no very great objection to it.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 5,


David Henderson: Section 5 seems to give this company extraordinary power. Could it come into the county which I have the honour to represent and erect telegraph and telephone poles through the villages without any restriction whatever. Surely the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) should imagine that the people of this country have some rights. I take no exception because this is an English company ; I am very glad indeed that they are investing capital here to develop the country, but I think there should be some restriction so that we can actually say that we have a little claim upon our own property and some right to go out and in. If it were a Canadian company these restrictions would be placed around it. I can hardly believe for one moment that the Minister of Justice has assented to this Bill, and I must protest against its proceeding to-

night until we have some further assurance. I move that the committee rise, report pro-gresss, and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. FIELDING.: The practice is that all these Bills are dealt with by committees representing the House, and I presume that the committee has inquired into this Bill and given it due consideration. I am not a member of the committee, but I accept the statement of the bon. member (Mr. Oliver) that the Minister of Justice has advised on this Bill, and if so, I presume that he has passsed on this section because there is some provision in the genera! Act which will protect the municipalities with regard to telephone and telegraph poles. I do not imagine that the Minister of Justice would permit a Bill to go through for the purpose of allowing a company to take possession of the streets of any municipality, and I am bound to believe that there must be some governing provision in the general Act. I am not familiar with the Bill and I cannot say that the Minister of Justice has given attention to all these things but I think it is a fair presumption. If there is any grave objection to the Bill I have no desire to see it pressed to-night.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be something in the statement of the minister, but I think further there is no provision in the Bill enabling it to enter upon public highways. As to constructing conduits : that is made subject to the consent of the municipalities. The power to construct telegraph and telegraph lines won!4 not imply power to enter upon the streets.


William Stevens Fielding: Nor on private land without compensation.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there would be much danger so far as that is concerned, but as to conduits I think the limitations in clause 4 are not quite adequate. There are districts in the Northwest Territories which have no municipal government and the provision as to municipal control would not have very much application. I should think it would be in the interests of the constituents of my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) that there should be some further restriction in the Bill as to that.


Frank Oliver: If I were understood as saying that the Minister of Justice bad personally overlooked this Bill, I did not wish to say so. I say that I'lie officers of his department did.


William Stevens Fielding: That is what I understood.


Frank Oliver: And so, I suppose the Minister of Justice would be practically responsible for the amendments that have been made. I think that the point which the leader of the opposition has suggested is well taken. Where there are no municipalities that difficulty, however, could be cured very easily by providing that in such Mr. HENDERSON.
cases the government of the Northwest Territories, who really control all highways, should have the power.


William Stevens Fielding: We might insert the words ' or other authority.'


Frank Oliver: I think it would be proper to put in such words as are necessary to make the amendment.


Mr. HYMAN.: I may say that this Bill has not been before the Railway Committee at all. I find that under this particular clause -the company are taking power to
Construct, operate and dispose of telegraph and telephone lines for the purpose of its [DOT]undertakings only.
Of course, the words giving the company power to do this for its own purposes form just the usual clause which is put in all Bills, but I think before a matter of this kind is passed in this committee it should be referred to the Railway Committee, which is accustomed to dealing with questions of this kind and which imposes certain safeguards. I also notice in clause 6 :
The company may, for the purpose of any of its undertakings or for the promotion thereof, construct) and operate all such railway sidings, tramways, switches or spur lines, not exceeding ten miles in length, as are necessary to connect the works and properties of the company with each other or with the line of any railway company incorporated by or under the control of parliament.
That is a matter which seems to me to be directly under the power of the Railway Committee. My attention hits just been called to these provisions in the Bill, and I think that under the circumstances it should be referred back to the Railway Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I supposed it had gone to the Railway Committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am explaining that it has not gone to the Railway Committee ; it went to the Private Bills Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it ought to have gone to the Railway Committee.	[DOT]


Charles Smith Hyman: I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. In the meantime the Bill should be referred to the Railway Committee.


Mahlon K. Cowan: This matter was fully considered by the Private Bills Committee. This company was an English company incorporated under the laws of England. We in Canada were simply trying to give them the powers which they already had under their English charter, so far as they were consistent with Canadian law. No power of expropriation, as I remember, is granted, They would only have the power to construct a line not to exceed ten miles in length, a spur line for the purposes of their

own business, and the telegraph and telephone lines were on the same basis.


Mr. LANCASTER.: If they are given the powers suggested by the hon. gentleman, then, under the General Railway Act, they will be able to construct their road upon a public highway if they get the consent of the Railway Commission. It is not the policy of the Railway Committee to allow railways to run on highways without the con sent of the municipalities, and that is another reason why it should go to the Railway Committee. I have no doubt that is what was in the mind of the chairman ot the Railway Committee (Mr. Hyman) when he asked to have this referred to the Railway Committee.


Mahlon K. Cowan: We do not apply the Railway Act, and there can be no power to enter on highways under this Bill.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not desire to enter upon the merits but certainly clauses 5 and 6 refer to telephones and railways, and that being the case, the Bill ought to be considered by the Railway Committee before it is submitted to the. House. That is my only reason for making this motion.


Frank Oliver: I would like to point out to the committee that the question raised by the acting Minister of Public Works and Chairman of the Railway Committee (Mr. Hyman) was thoroughly considered by the parties who are promoting the Bill ; and as their enterprise is entirely a private one, and as they ask for no powers of a public character, they did not consider that it came under the jurisdiction of the Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does the hon. gentleman think that they could obtain the power to build ten miles of railway to connect their works with any line of railway incorporated by this parliament without coming before the Railway Committee ?


Frank Oliver: I suppose they would connect just as any other railway would connect or just as any crossing would be made over any other railway, and that would be by obtaining the consent of the Railway Commission. This Bill does not ask for authority to construct a telegraph or telephone or railway line as a public enterprise, but only to construct such for the purposes of operating their coal mines and coak ovens.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What is the difference?


Frank Oliver: There is all the difference in the world.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Why should they not
have that power ?


Frank Oliver: Why not ? These people are operating coal mines on a very large scale and also coke ovens. Is this parliament going to say to them : you shall not put up a telephone line between your two
sets of coke ovens or coal mines. Or you shall not connect them by a railway ? They are a coal mining company, and they happen to be located some five or six miles distant from the Crow's Nest Pass branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in order to get their output to market, they must reach that railway by a railway line. They have a railway line from their present coal mines to the Crow's Nest branch under a railway charter, which comes under the Railway Act, and is a public enterprise. They have also other coal mines in other places which are not yet developed, but to which they are prepared to build other railway lines, also secured under charter from this parliament. Where they are building a railway line as a public enterprise, they come under the provisions of the Railway Act, but where they want to lay down a pair of rails for the transport of their own output, they are not asking to be put under the Railway Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that mentioned in their charter ?


Frank Oliver: Half the railway charters that come before the Railway Committee contain a list of powers given by the committee which are not connected with railroading at all. This company is asking to be empowered to do certain things but not to be empowered to do them over the heads of other people. That is the difference between the two conditions.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman would admit that if this company asks for power to do a certain thing, we have the right to say on what terms arwl conditions to sanction the doing of certain things, and this parliament has the light to determine on what conditions they shall be done, and as this is a matter concerning telegraphs, telephones and railway lines, the acting minister is perfectly right in saying that it should come before the Railway Committee.


Peter Macdonald: This discussion is now out of order. The only motion before the Chair is that the committee rise and report.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is in connection with the end of clause 5.


Frank Oliver: I am trying very hard to show that the motion should not be agreed to. I submit that the question is a general one and must receive a general answer. In reply to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), the difference is between asking for a privilege and a power.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the hon. gentleman seriously argue that when the company asks a privilege this House should not say on what terms that privilege would be granted ?


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then if it is a question of a railway, surely he will see that it is the Railway Committee which should deal with it. And the very fact that the hon. member promoting the Bill wants to avoid the Railway Committee may cause members to think that this charter is one that should be scrutinized by that committee. I think he had better accept the suggestion of the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) and have the matter discussed on its merits in that committee.


Frank Oliver: I would be the last man in this House to deny the authority of the House to do as it pleases. Parliament is supreme ; it can take away to-day rights that it gave yesterday. I am not arguing against this Bill going before the Railway Committee, but I am arguing against the idea that those who promoted the Bill did not know what they were doing or that they tried to avoid going before the Railway Committee.
Mr. hi MAN. It is not the promoter of the Bill who sends it to the Railway Committee. The promoter comes before the House and asks for certain privileges, and the House l'efers the matter to the committee that it thinks has jurisdiction.


Frank Oliver: But the point I wish to make is that this Bill, according to good legal authority does not need, under the rules of the House, to go to the Railway Committee, inasmuch as it deals with a private and not with a public enterprise. At the same time, if the House says that it must go before the Railway Committee, certainly there is no objection whatever. But there is every objection to the idea being put forward, as was suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) a few moments ago, and as was the logical outcome of the suggestion of the acting Minr ister of Public Works, that, iu the nature of things, it should have gone to the Railway Committee, for we say that in the nature of the case it should not have gone to the Railway Committee.


Mr. BARKER.: It seems to me that the proposition of the acting Minister of Public Works is the proper one, if the Bill stands in the form in which it was printed. Section 13 expressly provides that section 195 of the Railway Act, 1903, shall apply to the powers given to the company by paragraph (M) of section 4 of the Bill. Paragraph (M) of the Bill deals with electric powers. And, turning to section 195 you will find many provisions there about municipalities and other matters that ought to be considered by the committee that deals with Railways and Telegraphs.


John Graham Haggart: In reference to section 6, I think the contention of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is correct. This Mr. OLIVER.
only empowers the company to construct and operate such railway sidings, tramways, switches or spur lines not exceeding ten miles in length, as are necessary to connect the works and properties of the company with each other'or with any line of railway. I doubt if it gives them power to pass over even a municipal road without the authority of the municipality or of the local legislature of the territories.
Mr, BARKER. But section 195 of the Railway Act expressly applies to lines and wires on the highway, and that section is the one that is applied by section 13 of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Further than that, though this Bill may appily only to a railway on the company's own land, there are some provisions of the Railway Act which it might be necessary to call into operation in connection with the work, as, for example, the provisions with regard to the safety of employees and with regard to the safety of the public, especially in the prevention of fires.


Frank Oliver: I have no objection.
Progress reported.


Charles Smith Hyman: With the consent of the House, I beg to move that Bill (No; 80) rest-pecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited, be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['That is paid monthly and is included in the statement up to that month.\t-\nSome resolutions reported.']
Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) asked for certain information with respect to the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways during the past fiscal year. We have not the returns for the month of June-of course, my hon; friend knows that it is impossible to have them at this date. But I can give the figures down to the end of May. On the Intercolonial, the capital expenditure to the end of May was $1,507,975.86 ; and on the Prince Edward Island Railway the capital expenditure for the same period was $364,924.66.


John Graham Haggart: And what was the expenditure on revenue account ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given that.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has given it for the Intercolonial, but not for the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The revenue for the Prince Edward Island Railway to the end of April-we have not got the figures later than the end of April-was $189,894.61, and the expenditure was $255,166.41.


John Graham Haggart: That is for ten months1' Mr. EMMERSOX. That is to the end of April.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before we dispose of that item, I want to refer to one statement that was made by the member for Guys-borougb (Mr. Sinclair). It is proper that I should do so, because of what I call ms wholesale slander of the judges, especially those of Ontario. He stated that over 200 partisan revising barristers dealt with the old Franchise Act, and it was desired to do away with them. Now, there are 213 constituencies in Canada, and if there was a revising barrister for each one there would be 213 of them. In Ontario there are 92 constituencies, and if there were one revising barrister for each there would be 92 ot them. In these 92 I am within the mark in saying that there were not 16 revising bai-risters in the province of Ontario outside the judges: most of the ordinary judges are doing that work to-day. That is an attacl^ upon the judges that was unwarrantable, unjustifiable, and which comes with, bad grace from a prominent lawyer. It seems to be only a bit of the parrot-like talk that has been indulged in by his friends without any proper justification. I wish to resent on behalf of the judiciary of the country this slander on men who are doing the same work they did for many years. In my riding there are three constituencies and only two judges, and you are obliged to appoint one revising barrister besides these two judges. The law required that the party appointed must be a barrister of five years' standing, because only a barrister of five years' standing was eligible to be appointed a judge. The barrister who did that work for years is now the judge of the county and has been for many years. All over the country the provincial lists where they are used to-day are revised by the very same men. They were judges of the county court then and they are judges to ckay ;' and I have not yet heard, in my part of'the country at least, any insinuation by Conservative or Reformer that when they went before these judges or revising barristers they did not get fair-play or were not satisfied.


Mr.   I@: I would also like to say a few words with regard to the observations of the member for Guysborougli (Mr. Sinclair). He took occasion to refer to some gentlemen in the province of Nova Scotia whom I know very well, and charac-erized them as heelers. The gentlemen whom he named were Mr. Ernest Gregory, with whom I am very well acquainted, Mr. Charles E. Tanner and Mr. Simpson. I do not recollect any other names. I understood him to designate these gentlemen as heelers, if I understood him correctly. I can only say to my bon. friend and to the House that these are very respectable men
in the province of Nova Scotia, and I think they will bear comparison with my hon. friend in point of reputation and ability.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think I used that word with regard to these gentlemen who are named. I did have occasion to speak of certain Conservatives, but I did not have these gentlemen in my mind at the time I used that expression. I do not think that what I said would bear the meaning the leader of the opposition seems to have put upon it. At all events, I did not intend that.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad my hon. friend did not intend it. I do not see that his words could bear any other construction, because these were the gentlemen he named as having been in the county, and afterwards he referred to Conservative heelers in the county. He referred to some one else, but he did not name the other gentlemen to whom he referred. So far as these gentlemen are concerned, all of them whom I have named-I do not know what Mr. Simpson he refers to, but I do know Mr. Tanner and I know Mr. Gregory-they are accustomed to take an important part in the pub lie life of the province. This was not the first occasion on which they have gone into counties where elections were in progress, and I suppose it is not the first occasion on which my hon. friend has gone into counties . where he was not resident when elections were proceeding.
I would also suppose that if my hon. friend desired to make a fair presentation of the irrelevant matter he brought to the attention of the committee, he would not only have read the answer but the letter to which the answer was given, and the reply which was made to that answer. He characterized that answer as absolutely unworthy of notice, and yet one single para graph of it, read by my hon. friend from Fictou (Mr. Bell), absolutely disposed of a very important part of the charge contained in the letter or affidavit of Mr. Ross. In any event, I suppose it would be a fairer course to submit the whole matter to the judgment of the House than to read one side of it.


John Howard Sinclair: Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him ? I would like the hon. gentleman to inform the House who made that answer. I have not yet been able to discover that any reputable person made any reply to Mr. Ross's affidavit, and if the leader of the opposition is able to tell us who it was, I would like very well to have his name.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 have no more knowledge of the name than my hon. friend. All I am suggesting is that if the statements of the writer were worthy of being dealt with to the extent of an hour's speech this afternoon, in a carefully prepared effort, with even the impromptu quotations carefully written out, one would suppose that the

words to which the answer was given might also have been given to the House in all fairness. Either the observations ot this writer were worthy of attention or they were not; my hon. friend seemed to regard them as worthy of attention, and he read the answer to them, but he did not read the response made to that answer. As a matter of fact, he was entirely out of order in bringing the question up on that item. The subject was discussed on this side from a proper standpoint, it was discussed with regard to the action of officers whose salaries were then being voted. The discussion was perfectly in order until my hon. friend took the floor, and then, instead of dealing with the matter which was before the House, he entered into a long disquisition, from carefully prepared notes, upon a certain matter which was not in order at all, for some object best known to himself. The question of the Guysborough election was not before the House ; the question before the committee was the action of officers whose salaries are paid by this country. That was the subject we were discussing, the suoject which my hon. friend did not discuss except for about five minutes at the commencement of his remarks. I think he would have been of more assistance to the committee in forming a conclusion as to what should be done, if he had devoted his attention to the nine gentlemen-I have the names of twenty here under my hand- whose conduct was being dealt with by hon. gentlemen in this House. That was a proper subject to be discussed, and not the absolutely irrelevant question as to whether or not one party or the other had been guilty of illegal acts in this election. I made no reference, nor did any one on this side of the House, to the conduct of any person except officers of this government. My hon. friend, for some reason which I cannot understand, saw fit to drag in the names of gentlemen who were not officers of this country, whose salaries we were not discussing, and who had just as much right to go into that county and take part in that campaign as had my hon. friend himself. Under these circumstances, I do not think it worth while to deal further with the remarks of my hon. friend, except to say that I think the gentlemen whom I have named can well afford to treat with disdain any animadversions made by my hon. friend on their conduct during that election. I venture to say that any one of them has as honourable a record behind him, and has as good a reputation in the community to which he belongs, as my hon. friend himself, and in saying that I am not intending to make the slightest reflection upon him.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Before the item is passed I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals as the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) is not in his seat, a question. The hon. member for Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Cape Breton made the statement this afternoon that : We might have dealt severely with the men who voted against the' government. Do I understand from that that the patronage all along the line of the Intercolonial is taken from the members who represent the constituencies along that railway ? The Intercolonial Railway is a national road and I think the members in Ontario have as good a right to have a say as to who should be placed in that- railway as the members along the line, and I am sure there is not one of us who is anxious that it should be a political line but the best way to bring that about is to allow the members to dictate to the management as to who should be employed upon the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is impossible for me to explain to my hon. friend what he is to understand from the remarks made by any other gentleman. If I make a remark and he asks me what he shall understand from it I shall be very happy to tell him. It is refreshing to hear him speak in the way he does. He is certainly a very new member of the House when he ignores the manner of disposing of government patronage either in regard to government railways or in regard to any department of the government.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: You approve of disposing of the patronage ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do. I am not going to be hypocritical about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a good deal of force in the contention that there should be no control over appointments on the Intercolonial Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a pity we did not commence that twenty years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is never too late to begin a good thing. " This hon. gentleman pretends to fall back upon the old argument : You did the same as if that were all that was necessary. If it were wrong when done by his opponents it is equally wrong when done by himself. His friends declared that it was wrong during the time they were in opposition, that it was an improper principle, an unsound one and that the railway could not be properly managed as long as it prevailed. Now, when he and his friends get into power why do they not show their faith in their own contentions by adopting a sound principle ? Is it too late to do that now ? The attention of the country is drawn to it. ,


Henry Robert Emmerson: Constitutional usage would not permit now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has a Minister of the Crown not sufficient backbone in him to say that because a thing is wrong I will not allow it ? If be has not, he should not be there. He is unfit for the position and his government are unfit for the position. As a minister of the Crown he ought to have
6110

some moral courage to father his principles and his policy whatever it is. If he cannot take that responsibility he is not fit to be a minister of the Crown. I say the attention of the country has been drawn to this subject in such a way that public sentiment would back him up in the course which I suggest. The government railway under his control should be managed upon the same solid business principles that prevail in the management of other railways and when that is done we may hope to see the Intercolonial Railway have something to 1he good instead of deficits year after year.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand the position of the Minister of Railways and Canals. I understood him this afternoon to state that all appointments were made only on the recommendation of the executive management of the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend so understood me he misunderstood me.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the hon. gentleman say ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: What I said was that there were not forced upon the management of the Intercolonial Railway any men who were not required to be employed on the road.


Robert Laird Borden: It would not seem to be going very much further to require that the men be subject to the approval of the executive management of the road. I do not think there is very much of an extension of principle there. If there is any thing in the principle which has been suggested by my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) it certainly means that. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals seems to go half way towards that principle but beyond that he will not go. If the principle is good in one case why not in another ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It wouid be a most vicious principle if by political influence men were forced on the railway who were not required. But where they do not require men I will say that as long as we have control of the government in Canada and as long as we have a government operated road, the government being responsible for its management, will ask for recommendations from its friends and not for those who are opposed to it.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not the question.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the question.


Robert Laird Borden: Well then my hon. friend is utterly incapable of understanding the English language.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Possibly. That is a nice way of getting out of it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a nice way of getting out of it. The hon. Minister of 195	'
Railways and Canals did state that he would act upon the recommendation and opinion of the management as I understood it in respect to the qualification of the men to be employed on the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is another question.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not his principle.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I never said that.


Robert Laird Borden: What is his principle ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that recommendations should be made to the management and that it was for the management to determine as to the fitness of the men recommended, and that we wanted to select these men.


Robert Laird Borden: We have the situation defined to a certain extent. As far as the number of men to be employed is concerned the government is to act upon the recommendation of the executive management of the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As to special fitness ?


Robert Laird Borden: As to special fitness. Would my hon. friend state in so far as that is concerned if he is to act upon the recommendation of political friends ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Robert Laird Borden: He is not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way do the recommendations from political friends come in ? When you come to the questioil of special fitness, are you to go to the executive management of the road or to the political friends of the government for the time being ? We are discussing not the management of this administration but the management of any administration in Canada. What is the principle ? Are you in the ultimate resort to be governed by the opinion of the executive management of the road, and is that to override the recommendation of the party friends or is the contrary principle to prevail ? Is the recommendation of party friends to override the objections of the executive management which may desire that the position should be otherwise filled ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the matter is very clear that the recommendations are made by the management. It is for them to determine as to the qualifications and fitness and for them to select those who are qualified. These recommendations are not merely made by one individual. There may be twenty recommended. From any number recommended the ones best fitted for the positions are selected, that being determined by the management. It is a question i as to qualifications and fitness.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: From the remarks of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals we can readily see how it is that we have a very large deficit, and when the people realize that the Intercolonial Railway is a political machine practically from one end to the other they certainly will feel that there should be some change made in its management. The hon. member for Cape Breton made the statement this afternoon that: AVe might have dealt severely with the men who are on that road. He certainly must have connected with himself in that statement the members of the Reform party along the line of the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: There is a new doctrine introduced in regard to the appointment of parties to the Intercolonial Railway which was begun under the administration of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and his predecessors. When I was managing the Intercolonial Railway I never interfered with the selection of men for any positions unless perhaps an inspector or a chief officer. The officers of the road had no directions then to take the recommendations of friends of the government. I understand that instructions are now given that a political supporter is to be employed in all cases. That is new doctrine on the Intercolonial Railway introduced by the present government. Just fancy the idea of a government interfering to say who shall be a trackman, or who shall dig a ditch on the Intercolonial Railway.


William Mulock: Did the hon. gentleman adopt a similar policy with regard to appointments on the Welland canal ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not remember that there was any other policy. I do not know that I ever interfered with any appointment on the Welland canal; I may have, but certainly I never interfered with appointments on the government railways. I never gave the officials to understand that they were to employ supporters of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: But thev always did.


William Mulock: I do not know what the practice of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) was with regard to appointments on the Intercolonial Railway, but certainly on the Welland canal which was under his jurisdiction, it was notorious throughout the province of Ontario, that lockmen and other workingmen on the canal were appointed upon the recommendation of the Tory member for the constituency.


William Stevens Fielding: And I beg to say that it was quite right that the appointments should be so made. I do not endorse the idea that it was wrong to make these appointments on the recommendation of the member for the constituency. The first consideration must be fitness for the work, and there is a


Henry Robert Emmerson: fair presumption that you could get men in either political party fit to discharge most of these duties. When the friends of the government of the day are beyond question fit to do the work, why should not the preference be given to them 1 What the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) says about appointments on the Intercolonial Railway under the Conservative government, will be looked upon as a supreme joke along the whole length of that road. The idea that appointments were made to the staff of the Intercolonial Railway by the Conservative government, irrespective of politics, cannot be taken seriously. It was looked upon as legitimate patronage, and so long as capable and honest men were appointed there is no fault to find. If, on the Welland canal, or on the Intercolonial Railway, my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) appointed persons of capacity and character on the recommendation of the member representing the constituency through which the canal or railway .ran, then he has nothing to apologize for. It was perfectly legitimate and fair, always provided that the persons so appointed were of good character and. capable to discharge their duties.


John Graham Haggart: 'The Minister of Finance says that my statement may be looked upon as a joke. He has the manager of the Intercolonial Railway beside him, and let him ask if I ever gave instructions that the appointments be made from those recommended by the member supporting the government in that section of the country. I never'did.


William Stevens Fielding: I would ask my hon. friend what difference would it make whether he gave the instructions or simply winked at the thing, when it was done for eighteen years ? Everybody knows that you could not appoint a man to the smallest petty office on the Intercolonial Railway in the constituency of Cape Breton unless you had the recommendation of Mr. Hector Macdougall the member for the county, and it was the same everywhere. It is utterly preposterous for my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) to pretend anything else. Whether or not he gave instructions is a minor question ; the main question is whether the appointments were made from the ranks of the government supporters. We all know they were, and there is no cause for complaint if the men appointed were honest and capable.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister not see the distinction between giving instructions to the officers of the Intercolonial Railway to appoint none but party friends, and giving them no instructions of the kind ? Such petty things as that never entered into the management of the Intercolonial Railway in my day.


William Mulock: How many Liberals were appointed ?	.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know that there was one. But I do say that there were no instructions to the officers that a man employed to dig a ditch or to make small repairs should be recommended by a supporter of the government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In .September, 1878, the Conservative party came into power and before the first day ef November about 400 employees of the Intercolonial Railway in the city of Moncton were turned out for no other reason than that they had voted for Sir Albert Smith. From that day down to 1896 not a single man or boy was employed on the Intercolonial Railway who was In any way allied to the Liberal party. I challenge contradiction of that statement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Railways has flatly contradicted his own statement made in the House this afternoon. In replying to the leader of the opposition about the production of a certain document which he referred to, he said that under the Conservative government the employees of the Intercolonial Railway who where Conservatives were marked one way, and those who were Liberals were marked another way and that he had seen a document to prove it. In view of that statement he now challenges any one to show that there was a single Liberal employed on the Intercolonial Railway. If his statement this afternoon was true ; if lm was not drawing on his imagination ; then his statement tonight is absolutely absurd. His statement this afternoon meant that there were a number of employees on the Intercolonial Railway who were supposed to be Liberals and that they were prevented from voting for the so called Reform party. Let him put one statement against the other and see where he finds himself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a very easy matter. While they dismissed some 178 there were a few who escaped ; and more than that-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend, I am sure, will be satisfied with my statement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I am afraid not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: During the long series of years of mis-rule, a good many who were Conservatives in 1878 and who were appointed as such, became so thoroughly disgusted with the party in power, that they changed their allegiance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, then they became Liberals and now, perhaps, the PosG master General, who has brought in the Welland canal in this matter, would tell us what the government has done since 1896 ; will he venture to say that this government has appointed any one to any position on the Welland canal since 1896 who was not then and has since remained 1951	.	i	0
a very violent partisan of the Reform party ?- Does he want the House to think that the present government are not doing the very thing which he wrongfully accused the Conservative party of doing. I live right *where the Welland canal is, and the Conservative party have been criticised there, the hon. gentleman who represented the district until 1891 as a supporter of the Conservative government, was found fault with, because Conservatives were not always appointed to positions on the Welland canal. I want to know where the government stand on this question and I say that they have not appointed any but those claiming to be violent partisans of the Reform party whether they were or not.


William Mulock: As I understand it the party system prevails in Canada and it is the practice of the government of to-day to remember their supporters in distributing public patronage. That practice has obtained in days gone by and I hope it is in full force to-day. I should greatly deplore it if the Liberal party, in the exercise of its patronage on the Welland canal or elsewhere, is neglectful of its friends and its own supporters. In my opinion appointments to-day are largely political, and I therefore trust that the Liberal party is living up to that principle in administering patronage on the Welland canal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the Postmaster General know that of all the outside scrutineers and agents and the active partisans in the elections in Lincoln, several are lock and bridge tenders appointed by him since 1896 ; that that is what they are doing instead of resting between night shifts on election day, that they go without sleep to attend the committee meetings and other matters of violent partisanship in connection with elections and does he contemplate dismissing them for taking that active part in politics ? Is he going to mete out to them the same sort of treatment as he metes out, for instance, to the postmasters who are directly under his eye and whom he dismisses for attending political meetings or doing some act that he thinks is going further than simply voting ? Will he dismiss these appointments of his oh the Welland canal if it is proved to him that they are acting as partisans in elections ?


William Mulock: I would be glad to answer the series of questions that constitute the hon. gentleman s speech, but I would have to deal with them in a group for his speech seems to be made up of a series of questions regarding alleged violent partisans on the Welland canal, and seemed to think active partisanship was proved by their, as he said, acting as deputy returning officers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I said scrutineers, bringing in the votes.


William Mulock: A scrutineer is one thing and bringing in votes is another, and acting as deputy returning officer still another. The hon. gentleman jumbles up all these alleged characters of men in the same sentence and asks if we are going to inflict punishment upon people who may be guilty, one of one transaction and one of another.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not mention deputy returning officers at all. I said scrutineers and agents.


William Mulock: I may have misunderstood the hon. gentleman, but I understood him to indicate that some of them had taken part in the very legitimate work provided by law. I would ask him whether it is fair for him to characterize the number of employees that this government has appointed to the Welland canal in that wholesale way as partisans. Many men who were appointed to the service will probably have in the past taken an active part in politics. There are others who have not taken so active a part. I do not think that their being appointed to office warrants the hon. gentleman in making such an assault upon the class as a whole who have been appointed on the Welland canal. I believe that the men employed on the Welland canal and appointed by this administration are doing their duty well by the country. They are men in humble walks of life, but they are giving-value for the pay they receive and they are good loyal citizens of Canada and good public servants. I think the hon. gentleman might be more generous to those in the humble walks of life in which these men are, and not stand up in the House to-night when they are not present to defend themselves and make an assault upon them insinuating that they are conducting themselves in such a way that they should all be dismissed from the Welland canal. I shall not proceed to defend them. They will have an opportunity in the future of defending themselves from the hon. gentleman. It will be sufficient, I suppose, to call their attention to the hon. gentleman's observations and they will be able to pass judgment upon his views, understanding just how generous he would be to them if by any unfortunate circumstance the Tory party should at any time have it in their power to dismiss them from office. I understand the hon. gentleman has now given notice before the House that these men are all to be cleaned out without a moment's hesitation should the opportunity be afforded to him to exercise that political power. May it be the good fortune of Canada to ward off until a long distant date the said day which the hon. gentleman says is coming.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the minister thinks it necessary to say what he has said in order to set these Welland canal employees Mr. LANCASTER.
against me I may tell him that he is not making much headway, because-I was going to say his friend Captain Sullivan, but I shall not say that as it might not be correct-Captain John Sullivan goes into Lincoln and tells them what the Postmaster General wants them to do. They sometimes do it and sometimes do not. I do not say that every employee on the Welland canal is a violent partisan. If I should prove to him that some of them were, would he chop off their heads as he does the heads of postmasters in this country for a good deal less than I could prove against several of the employees of the Welland canal in whom he takes so much interest.
The Postmaster General has brought up the subject. He could not allow the estimates of the Minister of Railways to go through without bringing in the Welland canal on an item connected with the Intercolonial Railway which, by the way hon. gentlemen opposite have seemed anxious to prevent going through. I do not know what the real reason may be for the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not know whether the administration of the Intercolonial by the new minister is quite satisfactory to them or not, but we do know that nine-tenths of this day has been wasted by hon. gentlemen, supposed to be supporting the government, in obstructing these estimates by speaking about everything under the sun except the item before the c-hair. In that line of conduct they apparently have the approval of the hon. Postmaster General, who, finding that the Guysborough election was a worn-out subject, brought the Welland canal into the discussion and criticised the administration of that canal by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hagigart) before 1896. The hon. gentleman tried to make out that I had used the term ' returning officer ' instead of ' scrutineers '. Well, I think that I am generally sufficiently clear in any remarks I make to this House, and I am sure that not even the Postmaster General could have misunderstood what I really did say. I never used the term returning officer. I did not accuse all the Welland canal employees of being active partisans, but I said that several who have been appointed since 1896 have shown themselves very active at election time. I do not say that they were all appointed because of their activity in elections, but they seem to be under the impression that if they desire to retain their positions they must do partisan service in obtaining votes for the present government. Does the hon. the Postmaster General think that these employees will make better lockmasters or bridge masters because they take an active part in politics outside of working hours ? Evidently some of them seem to be convinced that that is his opinion. In any event we do not find any of them exercising their activity in securing votes for the Conservative party. Later on, when welcome

to the proper item, I shall point out that the Postmaster General has not shown himself as good a friend as 1 am of the employees on the Welland canal. I had to make an appeal last year to have, their wages increased, but I am not aware that in that appeal I received any support from the hon. gentleman. As far as I am concerned, I care not whether a public employee be a political opponent of mine or not, he should receive the wages to which his work entitles him as long as he is kept in the service and whatever I can do to enable him to obtain justice, I shall always cheerfully do irrespective of his politics. We did succeed in having a statute passed which recognized the claims of these men, but they have not since got that increase of wages to which they are entitled, and I hope that the Postmaster General will help .me this session in endeavouring to have their just claims granted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is somewhat refreshing to have the frank admission from the Postmaster General that positions under the government are to be filled only by political partisans. He has laid down the principle that the government is bound to look after its own friends and would show themselves ungrateful if they did not do so, and that consequently all positions under the Crown shall be filled on that principle.


William Mulock: Not all, but speaking generally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By speaking generally, no doubt the hon. gentleman intended to include all. Is he prepared to say that when the government are about to appoint a judge, an essential qualification must be that he is a political partisan ? That is practically what it amounts to. Well, let me tell the hon. gentleman that one of the best men Canada ever produced, the late Sir John Macdonald, declared over and over again that he would select good men for the bench irrespective of political party, and he gave evidence of his sincerity in many appointments. Is the bench going to be prostituted by the carrying out of the opposite principle ? If it is, all I can say is that it is not to the credit of the Postmaster General or the government to which he belongs.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's statement of the abstract determination of Sir John Macdonald in the matter of the appointment of judges may be perfectly correct ; but speaking within my limited sphere of observation, I can tell him that in the province of Nova Scotia the Conservatives never appointed a judge who was not of their party, and I can say the same with regard to all the maritime provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can give the hon. gentleman instances which he must know himself.


An hon. MEMBER.: Sit down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who has the insolence to say ' shut up and sit down ? ' If he were outside, I would slap his mouth. I am within my rights and intend to exercise them. I want to draw the attention of the hon, minister to the appointment of Mr, Blake. Was he a Conservative or Reformer ?


William Stevens Fielding: I spoke only of the maritime provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood him to say that he believed the same principle was acted on in all the provinces.


William Stevens Fielding: I said that I only spoke within the sphere of my own observation in the maritime provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, 1 have given the hon. gentleman one instance and could give him several others. Mr. Justice Maclennan was another, and I believe that Chancellor Bovd was another, but do not remembei. I could mention several others if I had ^ a moment to think of the names. That prm-ciple was carried out throughout the whole life of the late Sir John Macdonald, and it was never objected to by the Conservative party.


William Mulock: I think it can be said that whereas the late government occasionally appointed a Liberal to the bench, their prevailing practice was to select their own friends for such appointments. As regards tlie present administration, I might remind my hon. friend that we have appointed a member of his own party to one of the highest positions in this country. I refer to the appointment of Mr. Justice Nesbitt to the Supreme Court. When we took office there were very few judges belonging to the Liberal party. 'During the eighteen years the Liberal party was in opposition, all the appointments to the Superior Court bench were made, with a few exceptions, from the Conservatives ranks, and when this party came into power there were very few Liberals on that bench in Ontario. As regards the county courts, I should be very much surprised if it could be shown that one out of twenty of the numerous appointments to the county court bench during the eighteen years the Conservative party were in power, was a Liberal. I believe that the hon. gentleman could scarcely name a single Liberal appointed to the county court bench among the many appointed from 1878 to 1896. It has always been customary for the Conservative party to claim that they were equally generous regarding appointments to the Senate. They have always tried to prove that claim by pointing to the appointment to the Senate from the Liberal ranifs of the Hon. John. Macdonald. Well, the Conservative party was in a majority in the Senate in 1878 when they took office, and when we came into office in 1896, the Con-

servative party had so entirely abandoned the idea of making appointments to the Senate from both sides that the number of Liberals in that body was nine as against seventy-two Conservatives, and we would not have had a man in the Senate even to be elected to the position of Speaker, had the Conservatives remained in office mueh longer.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to qualify an observation I made with regard to the bench. I had in mind the Supreme Court bench. I have been reminded that in that case of one county court judge in the maritime provinces, he had been chosen by the Liberal government, and) I wish to qualify my statement to that extent.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Whatever may be the sins of either party in the appointment of their party friends to office, I think it is a disgraceful, degrading doctrine that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) has laid down in this House to-night. The standard of our politics and our public life must be getting pretty low when a government can placard one of the great public utilities of this country with the words ' No Conservative need apply.' Simply because a man differs from the party administering the affairs of this country, he cannot get work on one of the great national serviced of the country of which he is joint owner. Talk about prostituting the electorate and offering bribes to the voters. I think that of till the bribes that have been shown up this afternoon in connection with the Guys-borough election and all the other elections in Canada fade into insignificance when compared with the enunciation of such a doctrine as that put forward by the Minister of Railways this afternoon. And I think that the fa'ir-minded people of this country will not take kindly to the doctrine put forward by the Minister of Railways and endorsed by the Finance Minister and the Postmaster General. I can only stigmatize it as a rotten degrading condition of affairs when such a doctrine can be put forward on the floor of this House.


Mr. LOGAN.: I am sorry my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey) is shocked to such a degree that he can only express his feelings by stigmatizing the condition of our public affairs as rotten and degrading. You would scarcely imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman's godfather. Sir Charles Tupper, in 1S82 laid down such a principle as he did as governing the Intercolonial Railway and its officials. There was an election in 1882, and during that time a boy named Ryan, seventeen years of age, working in a minor position in the offices in Moncton was dismissed. On flhe 17th of November, 1882, his father, desirous of knowing for what reason he had been dismissed wrote to Sir Charles Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
the question. He received no answer up to the following February when he wrote again. Not until April did he receive a reply from the then Minister of Railways. I will read a part of that reply of Sir Charles Tupper, and will commend it to the attention of my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey) who is so shocked at what he calls the present rotten and degrading condition of affairs :
The reason for his dismissal was that he took a very active part in opposition to the government at the last election.
This was a seventeen year old boy.
This, as you will readily understand, no government officer can be permitted to do, and your son's action was so conspicuous that it could not' be passed over.
What does the hon. member (Mr. Lefurgey) think of this for a degrading condition of affairs ? This boy could not even vote, yet he was dismissed because he took part in an election in opposition to the government of the day. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has referred to the statement of the former Minister of Railways and Canals (Air. Haggart) as a joke, it is a comedy, a farce, a comedy of farces, to hear the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals state that, prior to 1S96, men were appointed on the Intercolonial irrespective of their politics. Why, Air. Chairman, you might as well try to find an angel in the lower regions, as to try to find a Grit appointed on the Intercolonial by the Tory government prior to 1896. The hon. gentleman knows it-must know it. He says he did not write instructions to his officials to employ only Conservatives. Certainly not. His predecessor, the man whose shoes he was standing in, had written the letter which I have quoted laying down the conditions with reference to the employment and dismissal of officials. The former Alinister of Railways and Canals might as well have written to his officials instructing them to answer letters he wrote them as to tell them to employ only political friends of the government. It was a well understood principle. And while the discussion here this afternoon and this evening, may be entertaining to members of this House and to people in this part ,of the country, it will seem ridiculous to people living along the Intercolonial Railway for any man to say that men had been appointed to positions on the Interqolonial Railway irrespective of their politics and irrespective to whether they gave fealty to the government in power. Such a thing must seem ridiculous to the hon. leader of the opposition (Air. It. L. Borden) himself.
Air. LANCASTER, The hon. member for Cumberland (Air. Logan) talks about comedy Ibut it seems to me if he will look into a

large sized mirror he will see a comedy. He is undertaking to defend the Minister of Railways and Canals who refuses to take action against officers of his department who have taken an active part in politics, and to support and improve his case he quotes a letter from Sir Charles Tupper who did the very thing we are arguing the Minister of Railwavs and Canals ought to do. That letter of Sir Charles Tupper enunciates the principle that a public officer-and his age does not matter ; it is not a question of voting, because the man referred to was not old enough to vote-must not play the part of an active partisan in elections. The bon. gentleman seems to think that by quoting Sir Charles Tapper's action in dismissing a man for active partisanship he is justifying) the minister who refuses to do this very thing in any of eight or ten cases that have been laid before him, and he talks about comedies.


Hance James Logan: I do not care to discuss with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) the question of looking into mirrors. But I may be permitted to tell him that he has1 entirely- misunderstood the quotation I have made from Sir Charles Tapper's letter. In that letter it is stated that the young man is dismissed because he took an active part in an election'against the government of the day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The young man actively interferred in an election. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) mean to say that the Minister of Railways should commend a man for taking an active part in support of the government and condemn him for taking an active part against them ? I will take back what I said to the hon. gentleJ man about seeing a comedy if he will look into a mirror ; it.is not good enough acting) for a comedy ; it is a farce, a poor farce that he will see. He seems to think that it is justifiable to dismiss a man who even votes against the government, but not justifiable to dismiss a man who takes an active part in favour of the government-in fact his doctrine is that it depends altogether on whose ox is gored.


Hance James Logan: I have quoted to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) the doctrine of his former leader. It is the doctrine of the Conservative party that we are discussing to-day, arid not the doctrine of a humble member of the Liberal party.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It turned out that this young man had fallen an active part against the government.


Hance James Logan: How does the l.on. geUf tleman (Mr. Lancaster) know ? There was n6 investigation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) will not object to my
accepting the very statement that he makes and wanted me to undestand. Does he mean that I am to understand something different from what he has stated simply because I am on one side of the Speaker and he on the the other ? He wished me to understand that Sir Charles Tupper dismissed this man because he took an active part against the government. But against whom is merely incidental. Surely, the hon. gentleman understands that the dismissal was because the young man was an active partisan. That is the doctrine. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that a man should be dismissed if he takes an active part against the government, but should not be dismissed if he takes an equally active part in favour of the government ?


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: The hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) seems to have a very short memory. I would advise him to go back as far as the election of 1891. I do not know who was the Minister of Railways at that time. But I have this statement of fact to make, that after the election of 1891 several employees on the Prince Edward Island Railway who did not take an active part in favour of the government. were dismissed-not for being neutral in that election but because they had not taken an active part. The employees of the Prince Edward Island Railway were looked upon as supporters of the government as a matter of course. They were terrorized and expected to take an active part in favour of the government. I think it was the late Senator Howlan who ran the election in Prince county at that time and was defeated. He had resigned his position of senator and had gone down there to run the election, and having been defeated, he came back and was reappointed senator. At that time some employees on the Prince Edward Island Railway were dismissed because they had been neutral in the election. Now I would commend that chapter in political history to my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) whose memory 4s so short and who pretends to be so shocked to-day.


Richard Blain: What is the policy to-day ?


James Joseph Hughes: It has been explained to-night, it is certainly not so partisan as that of the old government.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman states something which he alleges to have occurred in 1891. It is curious that at that time none of these things were known to any one in the House. One of the charges made at that time was against the Hon. Sir Charles Tupper. What was the charge ? Not that he had dismissed any officials because they did not take an active part in suporting" the government, no such charge or insinuation was made at the time. But now, 13 years afterwards, that charge is



[Stage Direction]
made by the bon. member for King's, P.E.I. fMr. J. J. Hughes). The reason given at that time for the dismissal of one of the officers was that he took a very active part in opposition to the government. There was not a single member in the House, whether Conservative or Liberal, who did not agree that the party deserved dismissal on all the facts that were disclosed. The only question upon which a debate arose was this : How do you know that he took an active part in opposition to the government of the day ? Was there an inquiry ? Was there any evidence offered ? Sir Charles Tupper stated in the House at that time that if he was mistaken, if the information he had received w;is incorrect, he would restore the man to his position. He acted on Information which he thought was correct. But according to lion, gentlemen opposite he did not need to act upon it, according to them it is sufficient that a member of parliament should get up and state that a man has been an active partisan, and then without an inquiry at all , that man is dismissed. All that a member of parliament need do is to state to the minister in whose department the man is employed that such employee has been an active partisan, and his statement is enough: The Conservative government at that time backed up Sir Charles Tupper. Every member of the House thought it right that no employee of the government should take an active part in opposition to the government and if he does, he takes his political life in his hands and is liable to dismissal. The ouly charge made against Sir Charles Tupper was that he took his information perhaps from a member of the House supporting him and his government, and acted upon it. Sir Charles Tupper said the information he had received he thought was correct. The lion, member for Cumberland says that Sir Charles Tupper promised an inquiry into the case to see whether he had been an active partisan in the election. But what has that to do with the question? What answer is that to the charges made by us at this moment ? What we are considering is the bold statement made by the Minister of Railways that the patronage on the Intercolonial is to be exercised in a political manner, and instructions are to be given to the officers who have charge of the railroad down there that they must make their appointments from political supporters of the government. The only defence that the government can make is that the government that preceded them dismissed a person for alleged partisan conduct in an election. No more absurd argument was ever used in the House. The fact that Sir Charles Tupper in 1891 dismissed a person who was alleged to be an active partisan, is a justification for the present Minister of Railways giving instructions to his employees on the Intercolonial to choose none but political supporters. He may choose Mr. HAGGART.
political supporters of the government, but let him not make the bold, open announcement to the country that no poor man who is anxious to work upon the railway for $1, or $1.10 or $1.20 a day need apply if he happens to be a supporter of the Conservative opposition. You may follow that policy, but do not boldly avow it to the people of this country as the minister has done on the present occasion.
Andrew B. Ingram: I think it is pretty well understood now what the position of the political parties is on the question of patronage and on the question of public servants taking part in elections. The Conservative party, when in power, did not allow government employees to take an offensive part in elections. In 1897 we had the platform laid down by the leaders of the present government to the effect that every employee has a perfect right to vote as he pleases, but if he takes an offensive part in an election he is liable to be dismissed- after an investigation perhaps in some cases. It is well understood among the public servants of Canada that if they take an offensive stand in elections, should the government change hands, the same justice that was meted out to our friends in 1S97 and 1898 will be meted out to them. Therefore, it is well understood, and they know what their position is exactly. But I want to draw the attention of the committee to this further fact. That is all very well as far as the two political parties are concerned, the Conservative, party and the Liberal party, but there is a class of people in this country who are not very strong party men, who care very little about politics, but the question they are concerned in is that if the political parties abuse the power they have by employing a large number of unnecessary men, they are compelled to put their hands in their pockets and pay taxes in order to meet this unnecessary expense. Under these circumstances, they have a right to complain. I hold that in connection with one of the greatest public works that we bave in the Dominion of Canada, namely, 1,500 or 1,600 miles of government railway, it should be no part of any political party's duty to select the men because they are either Grits or Tories who are to be employed on that railway. We have on the floor of this House the manager of the government railway, and if that gentleman were a member of this .House at this moment and were permitted to get up and say whether or not he lias been interfered with ijs general manager of that railway by partisans who are pressing upon him and his officers the employment of unnecessary help, I go so far as to say that he would confirm my statement in that regard. Two years ago, when Mr. Blair was Minister of Railways, I asked him the question if his officers were not interfered with by partisans anxious to have men em-
612S

ployed upon the road who were not necessary at all. Mr. Blair's action on that occasion completely bore out the statement I made then, and -showed that it was a perfectly true statement. It is all very well for the non. Minister of Railways and Canals to sit and smile in his place. It is a matter of very little importance to him. He draws his salary for the least possible service imaginable, and he can sit there and smile with content, thinking he is carrying out his duties faithfully and well when he says that lie is going to take recommendations from his political friends, that they -are to have all the employment that is to be had on that railway, and that his officers are to select those who are specially qualified to fill the positions. He goes so far as to say that there will not be any man employed on the railway who is not required. I will leave it to the common sense of any man in Canada, I care not whether he is a Liberal or a Conservative, to say whether, so long as you have partisan recommendations in'connection with a large public work of that character, the general manager can act in accordance with his own idea as to the character of help that is necessary on the railway. In consequence of that condition, the people are taxed to the extent that they are. and we have a showing this year of a deficit of no less than $500,000 and odd, largely brought about by bad management. I am not going to accuse the general manager of being a bad manager, but I am going to accuse the system of being the reason why that manager cannot make the road meet its running expenses. Just as soon as this . partisan administration of the government railway is abandoned, just so soon will the people have the pleasure of knowing that they have no deficits in the management of the government railway. We are going to have this question fully discussed during the coming election. We are going to discuss the Transcontinental Railway, which involves the question c*f government ownership, and which is an issue between the opposition and the government policy, and in that case what will be the argument of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House ? There will be a change in their argument from that which they presented in former years. Mr. Blair has taken credit to himself for the administration of the government railway. He has been backed up by gentlemen representing the maritime provinces as being the best administrator of the government railway that this country has had for many years ; in fact, the best we ever had. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite are going to change their tune ; they are going to point to the government owned railway as being a failure, and in consequence' of that-failure they are going to say to the people : You are foolish to support the opposition policy of government ownership, because you see the results of government control and operation of railways In this country. But they will neglect and forget to say that the reason why the revenue from the government railway is not meeting the expenses is the -partisan interference that is permitted in the management of the road. I am glad to know that there are many people outside of this House who believe in government ownership, and I will tell the government that so -long as the people put up with partisan management of government railways, just so long will they have that interference. I would like to ask the manager of the road whether it makes any difference to him whether a man is a Conservative or a Liberal. Not one iota. If he wants to succeed in the management of the road, what lias he to consider ? If he wants a first-class engineer, he wants to get a man who is competent, and he does not care whether he is a Grit or Tory. If he wants a first-class conductor, or brakeman, or superintendent, or trackman, he does not care w-hat his politics are, he wants a qualified man, and if he is allowed to get him he will be in a -position to show something on the right side of the account at the end of the year. To-day and for years past this present system is and has -been going on, and that is the reason why the management is not able to put forth a good showing. While hon. gentlemen opposite -talk about their recommendations, what do they know about the qualifications of a first-class railway man ? They do not know the first thing about it. But yet they will recommend and insist upon this man being employed, although they know nothing about his qualifications, if he is a political friend I think that when the general election takes place, and when the hon. leader of the opposition comes back to power-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER.: Now you are joking.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, I will tell you how I am joking. In 1S97 and 1898 we heard these hon. gentlemen pounding their desks and saying :	We are going to be here for
the next twenty years.


An hon. MEMBER.: So we are.


Andrew B. Ingram: We do not hear that any more.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: They play the old game that the Conservative party played previously to 1896. In the midst of their strength they were in their weakness, and when they had a hopeless case they came into the House and pounded their desks. But the Conservative party went out and the Liberal party came in, and I can see the handwriting on the wall. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals will never pretend to assist his party in any way. No one will

pretend to say that he 'will ever be of any particular service to them-a man who came in to administer the Department of flail-ways and Canals, and who was afraid to open his mouth when the great transcontinental railway question was brought up in this House. But finally he did open his mouth. He got orders to do it; he was bound to do it, and after he did it, I do not think his friends took very much credit to themselves because of his effort.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He put his foot in it.


Andrew B. Ingram: He always does put his foot in it. But circumstances have changed. Where are those provincial leaders of the government ? Where are all those strong men who came in with the government in 1896 ? They have all gone, and they have taken in Henry the Silent, who dare not open his mouth on an important question. The same thing has occurred all along the line. The people recognize that, and when they get an opportunity of declaring themselves at the next election, we will find that the majority of the votes cast in this country will be for a good Conservative government and a good Conservative party, a party which are not afraid to stand bv their principles. No matter whether their principles are appreciated or not, wherever they are they will stand up and say : These are our principles. The Conservatives had a leader who was protectionist from start to finish, and he proclaimed it everywhere. The Liberals have a leader who has been in favour of commercial union, free trade as they have it in England, a revenue tariff, and in Montreal the other day he proclaimed that he was neither a protectionist nor a free trader. Now the Liberals are playing the fiddle to both free traders and protectionists. \\ in some of these gentlemen over there tell us what their principles are on any question?


Mr. COCHRANS.: To keep in power.


Andrew B. Ingram: That seems to be their only object. They are not free traders, they are not protectionists, and they are not economists it is sure, because they spend $70,000,000 a year and faster and faster goes the money in their hands. At last we have a government railway that is going to be a political machine. This afternoon these gentlemen scouted the idea that government railways were being administered on partisan lines, but to-night they have proclaimed that they are running the Intercolonial Railway as a huge party machine. At every station on the Intercolonial Railway there will in future be a big placard inscribed : no Tories need apply. This afternoon at three o'clock they were running the Intercolonial free of party lines, and whatever occurred in the meantime, the minister comes in at eight o'clock and tells us that none but Liberals are to be employed on the Intercolonial Railway. I suppose he got his Mr. INGRAM.
orders in the meantime, and being a docile gentleman he had to obey.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) told us that we were discussing the policy of the Liberal-Conservative- party.


Mr. TUCKER.: Louder.


Richard Blain: What is that voice from behind the Speaker's chair ? It is the first thing the hon. gentleman has said since he came to parliament. Perhaps he would be good enough to sit down until we get through. Lest the hon. gentleman from Cumberland should forget the policy of the Liberal party I will read from 1 Hansard ' of 1897, a few dismissals that have been made.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Give us the page ?


Richard Blain: Give my hon. friend a cigarette ; some one has said he has softening of the brain now and perhaps he will get it a little more. It is page 2."64.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is there anything about tea-pots in it ?


Richard Blain: I am very sorry that I cannot supply him with tea in the chamber but let him wait until the House adjourns. At page 2564 of the ' Hansard ' of 1897 I find the following :


Mr. QUINN asked :: 1.	Is it true that Michael Enright, an employee at Montreal on Lachine canal, was dismissed on 3rd April last without notice ?
2.	Was he so dismissed by order of the Minister of Railways and Canals ?
3.	On whose recommendation was he so dismissed ?
4.	Why was he so dismissed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Mi'. Blair).: 1. The services of Michael Enright, employed at Montreal on the Lachine canal, were dispensed with. 2. Yes. 3 At the request and upon the representation of the members of parliament for Montreal district. 4. No written complaint was lodged in the department.


Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	Is it true that Michael Behan, storeman on Lachine canal, at Montreal, was dismissed on 30th April without any previous notice ?
2.	Was he so dismissed by order of the Minister of Railways and Canals ?
3.	On whose recommendation was he so
dismissed ?	.
4.	Why was he so dismissed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1. The services of Michael Behan, storeman on the Lachine canal, ..were dispensed with on the 30th of April last. 2. Yes. 3. At the request and upon the representation of members of parliament for Montreal districts. 4. No written complaint was lodged in the department.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER asked :: (a.) Have the following, or any of them, and which of them, if any, been dismissed from the service of the Intercolonial Railway ?

1.	Alexander Stewart, section foreman at Linwood, Antigonish ?
2.	John Chisholm, section foreman, Heath-erton, Antigonish ?
3.	Finlay Chisholm, section foreman, James River, Antigonish ?
(b.) If dismissed, was any Investigation made prior to dismissal, and what was its nature ?	.
(c.) How long were these men in the service of the government and what was the record of each for efficiency and conduct ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Mr. Blair).: The services of Alexander Stewart were dispensed with on the 7th of January last. (b.) No investiagtion was considered necessary, as it was expii-eitely and positively affirmed by Mr. Mclsaac, M.P., that Mr. Stewart had infringed the rule laid down in respect to government employees. (c.) He had been in the service since September, 1880. Nothing recorded against him. 2. The services of .John Chisholm, section foreman at Heatherton, Antigonish, were dispensed with on' the 12th of November last on the personal statement and representation of Mr. Mclsaac, M.P., that Chisholm had been guilty of active and offensive partisanship in the last general elections. There, was no investigation. He had been in the service since August, 1884. Nothing recorded against him. 3. The services of Finlay Chisholm, section foreman at James River, Antigonish, were dispensed with on the 18th of November last, on the statement and representation of Mr. Mclsaac, M.P., that he had been guilty of active and of offensive partisanship in the last general elections. There was no investigation. He had been in the service since June, 1879.
One of these men had been in the government since 1880 and no charge or complaint had ever been laid against him, yet he was dismissed on the suggestion of Mr. Mclsaac stating that he had taken an active part in politics. These men were dismissed for active political partisanship without any investigation or any charge being laid against them. On this one page Of ' Hansard ' we find twelve men dismissed by the Liberal government on the recommendation of the Libera] members of parliament. And yet the member for Cumberland and his friends glory in that. We were not much surprised that such a policy should be upheld by some gentlemen on the other side, but when prominent men like the Minister of Finance, and the Postmaster General and the Minister of Railways join in it, it is a thing to be deplored. All these gentlemen stand up to say to the world ; the policy of the Reform government is that when a man wants an office the salary attached to which is paid out of the public treasury, one important qualification the man requires is that he is a supporter of the Reform party.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman attribute these remarks to me ? Does he serioiisly tell the House that I said that ( the first and only qualification is, that a man should belong to the Reform party ?


Richard Blain: I did not say that these were the hon. gentleman's words.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman say that these were the [DOT] ideas I expressed or anything like them ? The hon. gentleman, if he heard me, must have known that I said distinctly that the first qualification must be character and Capacity, and if character and capacity were given, then preference should be given to members of the Reform party.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Finance will not say that there has been a case in the history of his government where two men equal in qualification made application for an office or where the Liberal-Conservative had better qualifications than the other applicant in which he selected the Conservative.


William Stevens Fielding: I say that I know of no case in which a man has been appointed to office who was not qualified and capable for the work. If there was a ease in which n man was appointed who was not qualified and capable that would be a subject for discussion, but I say, given the qualifications of character and capacity for the work, the practice has been ever since Canada had a history as a Dominion to give a preference to the friends of the government of the day, and that practice. I hope, will be continued.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is enunciating the policy of his party.


William Alfred Galliher: And I would not think much of him if he did not; you bet I would not,


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. Gal-liher) says that he would not think much q.f the minister if he would not.


William Alfred Galliher: And I repeat it.
Mr. B'LAIN. And I repeat it. I am quite sure the House understands my hon. friend very well. That is a policy that seems to receive the approval and support of all the hon. gentlemen.


William Alfred Galliher: They would not be supporters if they did not.


Richard Blain: I suppose that will apply to judges ?	,	.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend wants an answer to that I will give him one. I see no reason why a man who is a Liberal should be disqualified from sitting on the bench. If the hon. gentleman can show a case where a Liberal was appointed who did not possess the qualification of character and capacity for the position that would be a proper subject for discussion, but I do not see, because a man is a Liberal, that he should be disqualified from a seat on the bench. *


Richard Blain: I do not go so far as to say that no Liberal is entitled to an office in the


An hon. MEMBER.: That is right.


Richard Blain: We are not condemning so much the principle that their friends should be looked after, but we are pointing out the hypocrisy of this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. oh.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is laughing ;
I suppose he is only waiting until the House dissolves to see whether he will get some reward for his services.


William Alfred Galliher: I am not looking for anything, I am very humble.


Richard Blain: I am glad there is one man on the other side not looking for office. He is an exception, of course, and we shall keep our eye on him for the next few years. I would ask the Minister of Railways if the policy of the government in respect of dismissals on the Intercolonial Railway is the policy that has been pursued by his predecessors, that when the member representing a county makes a charge against an official on the Intercolonial lia ilwav, then without any investigation whatever, simply upon the word and statement of the gentleman representing the county the hon. minister will dismiss the official whether he is a Reformer or a Conservative.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No cases have arisen since I have been in office.


Richard Blain: We want to know the policy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will wait, I said that no such cases have arisen since I took office. I shall consider what I should do when the matter is brought to mv attention.


Richard Blain: 


Richard Blain: Is that as far as my hon. friend would go ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is as far as I would wish to go.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the management of this railway is injured by an official taking an active part against this government surely it is wrong to have an official' taking an active part in favour of this government. He is then not only taking an active part in politics, but he is increasing the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway, making it cost the people of this country more than it would cost if its management was in the hands of a more competent set of men who would doubtless make it pay a profit. Surely we are entitled to know if the minister will aPPly the same rule to those who take an active part in favour of his own party as he will apply to those who take an active part against him. We are entitled to know that so that no person will waste time in proving these charges until we know whether we have a loaded jury or not and whether the same rules are to be applied on botfi sides.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have already answered the question which the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) asked me. I sail the matter has not been determined by me , and that as cases arise I shall deal with them fairly and do no injustice. While I am on my feet I want to say to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) that I think he failed to understand fully what I said with respect to the recommendation. I said that a condition precedent in all cases of recommendations would be the question of qualification and fitness. I think that my hon. friend misquoted me when he said it was simply .a question of politics.


Richard Blain: I did not so understand the hon. gentleman.	.


Mr. GANONG.: The hon. Minister of Railways has made so many contradictory statements that it is difficult to know really what he intended saying. . Up to six o'clock lie was posing as the very personification of justice, although he did go to sleep during that elaborate dissertation of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), which went so far afield of the item we are trying to carry.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Surely my hon. friend does not mean to say that I went to sleep.


Edward Cochrane: You looked very much like it.


Gilbert White Ganong: Well, the hon. gentleman may have been posing as the personification of justice who is popularly supposed to be blind, but his eyes were so steadily closed and his features wore so placid an expression that T really thought he had gone to i sleep.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure the hon. gentleman has no desire to mislead the House, and I think he should withdraw the statement. .


Gilbert White Ganong: Of course, if he says he was not asleep, I must accept his word, and. besides when he makes a request in a manner so childlike and bland it is difficult to refuse. There are just two things that occur to me in connection with this discussion. Either the Minister of Railways has given to us one of the greatest examples of conversion of a political sinner in history since the time of St. Paul or one of the most striking examples of colossal gall ever exhibted in this House. But there are some little matters which occurred to my mind when the hon. gentleman was telling us in his pleasant way of the belief which actuates him regarding the right to vote. Perhaps hon. members do not know the hon. minister as well as we know him in New Brunswick. He has a record, and what I am about to state, he will not dispute, or if he should, it is very easy to verify any statements X may make. He was at one time the leader of the government in New Brunswick and he was also at another time a member of the government in that province, though not its leader We then had elections held under the New Brunswick election law ; and in that little pocket borough which he almost owned, as well as the one he represented in New Brunswick, the county of Westmoreland, the government of which he was a member had its employees put in carts and carted to the polls where they were called on to deposit special ballot papers which had been given them. Not only that, but they brought such influence to bear on the proprietors of the cotton mill in that county, that they forced the overseer to use his influence-


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does the hon. gentleman say that I took voters in a cart to the polls ?
Mr. GANONG'. I say that he was a member of the government that ordered this thing to be done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does he say that the government did it ? I would like to understand his statement.


Gilbert White Ganong: I say that during the local elections these things were carried on by the government of which he was a member. The voters who were working for the cotton mills were taken in a van and driven to the polls in charge of partisans of the government who saw that they voted properly. They were provided with ballots and taken into' the polls where they cast those ballots and were then carried back to their work. They were not allowed to go to the polls of their own accord and east their ballots without being under any supervision. He also succeeded in educating another member of the government to go to the polls in Victoria Ward of St. John City and watch every labouring man who went to vote. Every railway or government employee down there had a special ballot paper put into his hand, and this member of the government stood at the polls to see that he deposited this special paper, and the voter knew that if he did not his head would be cut off. The hon. minister has since received his reward from the people of St. John, who the other day elected our hon. friend, Mr. Daniel, against the nominee of the government. I think therefore that we are warranted in receiving with suspicion the professions of the hon. minister and his sudden conversion. I took down the words of the hon. gentleman this afternoon. He said :	' Railway employees have the right
to their feelings so long as they do not give effect to those feelings,' That means that they can feel politically as they like but they must vote Grit. That is the doctrine he puts forward to-day. It makes no difference how you feel, you must vote Grit or you will lose your job. It would be very interesting if we could have a picture of the hon. gentleman slaying recalcitrant civil servants before he was converted and then a picture of him a little later, when he became so honest and good that he would not care to slay any civil servant unless he were a Tory, i think, without being offensive at all, 'that we may say of this new convert, this Saint Henry of the House, that for ways that are dark and tricks that are vain, our newly fledged saint is indeed very peculiar. The hon. minister Bas also told us that the Intercolonial is not overmanned. I
should like to have that statement confirmed by some of his officials. Why, down in the town of Moncton, the employees are tumbling over each other. This government boasts of surpluses aggregating $55,000,000 during the past few years, with one miserable small million of a reduction in the public debt. Well, it is easy to tell where the surpluses have gone.
They have robbed the people of $55,000,000. They have not accomplished any great work in Canada, but they have peddled out yearly $500,000 at least to useless officials- Grit officials according to the statement of the minister, That is the way a large portion of the money of which they have robbed the people lias gone. The minister _ said something with regard to the dismissals
C!+ ToVin nnrl T

tion in that connection. You would suppose, from the way he spoke that he had pleaded for the lives of these poor men. He states that gentlemen of his own political party had written him letters to try and get him to reinstate them. Will he lay these letters on the table ? It would be most edifying to the people of Canada, and especially to the people of St. John, to have these letters which were -written to the minister to

reinstate these gentlemen made public. I hope that before the session Is through the minister will give us that information. We had two gentlemen decapitated without reason. except that they did not appear to be quite as active in the interest of Mr. Mc-Ewen as they might have been. It is a re-i markable coincidence that they lost theirj jobs just after the election. And I am sure; anything that the minister can do to allay the feeling in the city of St. John would' help him when he next goes to find a candidate there-and he had difficulty in finding one in the last election-and it might help in that direction if these letters were laid on the table. I am sure we will use them to the best advantage to try to clear the minister's skirts, if possible, of the charge which seems to be positively made that interference from the minister's office resulted in the dismissal of these gentlemen from their positions on the railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The very dignified way in which I have been addressed, being called by my Christian name with the prefix of ''Saint ' naturally calls for a return of the* courtesy extended by my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong). The hon. gentleman has been kind enough to refer to my record in connection with the government in the province of New Brunswick and speaks incidentally of the election of 1899. I have some recollection of an election held in that province in that year. I appealed as premier of the province, and, out of forty-six members to be elected, the people were good enough to send forty-one to support me. I know that my hon. friend remembers keenly, very keenly indeed, that election of 1899. In the summer of 1898, he paid a visit to the city of Moncton, and there, with a boastfulness which, perhaps, did not do him very great credit, and which was very unfortunate for himself, stated that he was going back to the county of Charlotte, there, by his efforts, to elect four Conservatives to oppose the government led by me. He went back to the county of Charlotte and tried his utmost to carry out his promise. I am not going to refer to the means used in that election. But my hon. friend had the misfortune to find four good men and true, Liberals, elected in spite of his strongest efforts. He has referred to the campaign in Westmoreland in that election. I did not happeu to be a candidate in the county of Westmore-lad, but ran in the adjoining county of Albert. He speaks of the cotton mill in the county of Westmoreland. He must know that the cotton mill is controlled and operated by Conservatives. The hon. gentleman has not got his facts quite correct. These men who were carted up from the cotton mill to vote were carted there by the opposition machine to vote Mr. GANONG.
against the government. My hon. friend lives far away from the county of Westmoreland ; he lives in a remote part of the province ; and so he seems not to be familiar with the conditions prevailing in the county of Westmoreland. Despite the tactics of their opponents the Liberals carried three in the county of Westmoreland. It is true that in the whole province the friends of the hon. gentleman elected four men on that occasion, but they were men who were elected by accident. Now, I made the statement this afternoon that I cared not what the political animus or feelings of the employees of the Intercolonial Railway were, if they did not show their feeling or give effect to that animus in a partisan way. I would not complain. And I made the -statement very distinctly-and I adhere to it and will repeat it elsewhere-that, as long as I have the honour to preside over the Intercolonial Railway, I will say to the employees that they shall have every liberty to vote as they please but that they must not show themselves to be partisans. .


Andrew B. Ingram: They are all Liberals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) were to make that statement in Moncton, or anywhere in New Brunswick, or even in Quebec, say at RiviSre du Loup, the people would laugh at him. He would blush for having made such a statement


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, I think he is quite capable of blushing. But I think we under-1 stand fully the policies that have been laid down. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, as enunciated by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) when boiled down is simply this-the policy of the Conservative party when in power is to employ only Conservatives, but do not, for the world declare it; carry out the policy, but do it as hypocrites, and do not let the country know it. I made a statement as to the policy that I individually would pursue. I said that each political party is in favour of distributing its patronage among its friends. That was the policy of the Conservative party when in power, and I hope it will be the policy of the Liberal party now that it is in power. But I have this limitation to this policy-that capacity, qualification and fitness must be the first consideration. And, as an individual member of the Liberal party, and as connected with the government of the country, that is the policy which shall govern me.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I think it is about time that this committee got back to the question before the chair. We started) at three o'clock not to discuss the question before the committee but to discuss party politics. And I think we have had to-day a fair illustration of the curse of party poliJ

tics. We washed all the dirty linen of the county of Guysborough this afternoon and now we are engaged in washing the dirty linen of the Intercolonial Railway for the past seven years. I think it is about time that we passed those estimates if we have discussed them enough, but let us not discuss everything else but the estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now, that we have got rid of the bile.


Jabel Robinson: They are trying to get rid of you, and unless you behave yourself I hope they will. I hope that you *will announce to the people on the Intercolonial, not from the pulpit, but put up a placard in every office and public building belonging to that road, that every man who works for the government, if he discharges his duty faithfully, need have nothing to fear, but if he does not, if he becomes an active politician, he will be discharged. Don't meddle with him merely because he votes Grit or Tory, let him have an opportunity in every election of voting for whom he pleases. If you will put up that in your offices, then the name of Henry Emmerson will be honoured. That is what we want you to do to-day. We want you to set an example of what you prayed for and squealed for so loudly when you were in opposition. Take your own medicine, and give to people their rights instead of telling them that if they don't vote so and so they will be discharged. Why, Sir, I am surprised at the condition of things down there. I am not surprised at Nova Scotia and New Brunswick losing so many of their inhabitants, at those provinces not being so thickly populated as they were ; I would not stay in a province where they acted like that, where, if a man does not vote as he is expected to vote, his head is chopped off. Just listen to those people talking about heads falling into the basket! What will people say of us fifty years from now ? They will say that the people of out day were savages, that they used to cut the heads off. the railway employees if they voted wrong. Let us treat men as they should be treated. I 'don't want to make a long speech. I want to cut it short. If these estimates are correct, let us pass them and not inquire about what this man's politics is or what that man's politics is, what this party did ten years ago and what the other party did ten years ago. Does that help the country? Are the people interested in that ? Indeed they are not. What they want is good government, and they expect it from hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not a partisan, but I want to say this, that the country is disgusted with partisanship, and when you give the people another chance to voite they will sit down on the whole gang of you-on both sides.


Gilbert White Ganong: The Minister of Railways has referred particularly to me, so I
propose to refute him. I never made any such statement at Moncton as the hon. gentleman attributes to me. The first I ever heard of it in my constituency was from the hon. gentleman himself and Mr. Tweedie, in the town of Milltown. But although the statement was frequently refuted, the hon. gentleman carried it through their campaign, and perhaps it helped them. But there is one thing so far as the county of Charlotte is concerned that I want to say. It was not the melliflous tones of the minister that convinced the people of that county, it was chiefly a question of sympathy. The late premier had come from our county, and was a good Conservative, and the sympathy racket was played for all it was worth in the county in order to draw Conservative votes, and possibly that gained the election. But during the last week they got frightened, and then it was cash in uncut two dollar Dominion notes. The hon. gentleman can tell how much that election in Charlotte cost him. Directly across from the polling booth they had their headquarters in a tailor shop, with two pair of shears, and all day long they were dividing up $2 Dominion notes for use in the election. Where paid out they ran in serial numbers in a number of instances. The hon. gentleman knows, and it is cmrently reported that one of the souvenirs of that election to-day is a pair of gilded shears hanging up in the parlour of the hon. the Minister of Railways.


Mr. R. JOHNSTON.: I have been listening to this debate attentively and I do not yet understand the position of the Minister of Railways. When they were in opposition lion, gentlemen opposite condemned the system of appointing Conservatives to office on the Intercolonial, and announced that if they were elected they would do the thing fairly, that there were tw'o parties in this country, and if there was to be a deficit on the Intercolonial the two parties should pay for it. Their promise was that if they got into power they would divide the thing up so that both parties would be responsible for deficits on that railway. Now, I understand the Minister of Railways to say that if a Conservative employee on the Intercolonial takes an active part in an election he will be discharged. Am I right in that understanding ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that if a man became an active partisan in an election he would be discharged. I said he could vote if he pleased.


Robert Johnston: Now, then if a Liberal employee on the Intercolonial takes an active part in an election in favour of the Liberal candidate in the county where he may be working, will he be discharged

or will he be kept on ? I would like to have that question answered.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have already answered all those questions.


Robert Johnston: He has answered one side of the question, he has said that if a Conservative takes an active part against the government-


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statement I made this afternoon that I was going to make inquiries, that I had had complaints on both sides, and I was going to inquire into those complaints, without regard to the politics of the persons complained of. I said I would first see whether they had transgressed, and then I would decide what should be done with them.


Robert Johnston: The minister has said that if a Conservative takes an active part in an election he will be dismissed ; but what about the Liberal who takes an active part ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have explained my position.
< Mr. R. JOHNSTON. I am just as far ahead as I was before. If it is a Conservative that takes an active part in an election it is dead sure that his head will be cut oft, he is judged now. Now, if the same proof that would disqualify a Conservative from being an employee on the Intercolonial, is offered to the minister in the case of a Reformer employed on the Intercolonial, will he be dismissed too ?


Richard Blain: Could the minister give us a statement of the number of employees on that railway at present, and the number in 1896 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot now.


Richard Blain: I think this is a question that the hon. gentleman should be prepared to answer. We are discussing" the item of the Intercolonial Railway working expenses.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have sent to Moncton for that information.


John Waterhouse Daniel: We have had quite a long debate so far. Perhaps the debate will, not be without interest and probably some instruction to the country, and I think if it does nothing else it certainly makes very plain indeeed the cause of the enormous deficit we have had during the past year on the railway. However, I do not wish to prolong that part of the discussion but if the Minister of Railways and Canals would give me his attention I would like to ask him a question. 1 notice. in the remarks which the hon. minister made yesterday that he referred among other things to the Increased amount of expenditure which would be required to make repairs to engines, passenger, postal, express and baggage cars which is very largely increased over the expenditure of the previous year. I think it was Mr. R. JOHNSTON.
on the 1st July that quite a serious accident took place on the Intercolonial Railway not far from Truro. I do not know what the cause of the accident was but in the newspaper account that I read it was assigned to the spreading of the rails. The hon. minister has stated several times yesterday and to-day that the road bed of the Intercolonial Railway was in a most magnificent condition. It certainly ought to be because no expense whatever has been spared and in so far as the expenditure of money is concerned it should be in no other condition than in first-class condition. It is a fortunate thing that in that accident no lives were lost, but at the same time the damage to rolling stock was very considerable. This particular accident took place after the 30th June-on the 1st July and of course is not in fiscal year we are considering. In the extended remarks which the hon. minister has given to us in regard to the Intercolonial he made no reference whatever to the accidents on that road. I think, to have made his statement complete, he should have given us a record of the ae-j cidents on the Intercolonial Railway duringi the year. I am not. prepared to say now, speaking from memory that there were any other accidents, but I do not think the statement in regard to the Intercolonial Railway is complete unless that very important matter is dealt with in regard to it. I understand that much of the increased expenditure on account of repairs to engines, passenger cars, postal cars, baggage cars and express cars is due to accidents and not to ordinary wear and tear. Would the hon. minister give us some idea as to the cause of the last accident on the Intercolonial Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cars that are damaged by reason of accidents are repaired in the shops at Moncton and are paid out of the current revenue account. Unfortunately there are accidents. The hon. gentleman says that the accident of the 1st July was attributable to the spreading of the rails. That is a mere conjecture. As to the cause, that is being inquired into by the inspector of the Railway Commission. We had another accident within a few months. I refer to the one at Milford between Halifax and Truro. That was caused by the Canadian Pacific Railway train. The train became derailed and turned over and there was a serious loss of cars. That loss fell on the Intercolonial Railway. The cars were Canadian Pacific Railway cars, but they were being hauled by an Intercolonial Railway engine. The loss will be paid out of current revenue.


Andrew B. Ingram: What brought about the accident ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was inquired into by Mr. Duval, the inspector of the Railway Commission, whose report has not yet been

laid before the department. I am expecting it every day. To what he attributes the accident I do not know at this moment, but it was a somewhat serious accident. The loss of the cars was not a loss of very serious moment. It will amount to perhaps $25,000 or $30,000, but there was an unfortunate loss of life. These things will occur. I may say that I have a telegram from a gentleman who came over the Intercolonial Railway in the new Ocean Limited from Halifax as an ordinary passenger. He is a gentleman I do not know, but I have learned that he was a very prominent broker in the city of Montreal and he took occasion to telegraph to the department to commend very highly not only the new Ocean Limited train, cars, cuisine and equipment, but he spoke especially of the very excellent roadbed of the Intercolonial extending from Halifax to Montreal. That is a general expression of opinion by passengers. I met to-day on the street car a gentleman who had come up over the road on the Ocean Limited and he took occasion to congratulate me for the department upon such an excellent train service and such an excellent road. The high standard of the roadbed is being kept up, and I trust we will be in a position to keep up the very high standard in respect to the train service. This train, starting on the 3rd July, has kept to the time table to the very second all along the line and comes in sharp on time at every station.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was the accident due to carelessness ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In so far as I have any information you cannot attribute it to the carelessness of any particular one. I have no information as to that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does not the department have investigations as to how accidents occur and who is to blame ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The department did not have an investigation at Milford' because that was handed over to the Railway Commission. There is a feeling throughout the country that the officials of the road ot those associated with the management of the road are interested and that they are not the proper ones to hold the inquiry. I am expressing the opinion of the people who are interested in these matters. I felt in the Milford case that in justice to this expression of opinion, it was proper to get some person entirely outside the management of the road to make the inquiry, so that there might not be any suspicion that it was not disinterested. While the inquiries held by the officials are thorough and disinterested, yet it is a serious matter
and in the Milford case I thought it well to take this course.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is the duty of the officials of the railway to investigate these aceidents in order to ascertain what employees, if any, are responsible. That is the only way to maintain discipline on a railway. The hon. gentleman has spoken about the good road-bed, but his explanation about the rails spreading would not indicate a good road-bed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said nothing about the rails spreading. I referred to the hon. gentleman's statement on that point.


Andrew B. Ingram: It would be a very serious thing to have it go abroad that such was the case if it were true.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The officials are responsible for the condition of the roadbed and the efficiency of the service, and they might naturally be supposed to being interested in shielding the management from a charge of negligence. It has been usual for the management to hold this investigation, but in the Milford case we thought it well to adopt this method. With regard to the recent accident, a request has been made to the railway commissioners to send their inspector to investigate.


Andrew B. Ingram: Am I to understand that the department did not investigate this accident themselves ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is very remarkable, and I am sure the management of the road does not approve of it. Other railway companies suspend an employee when there is an accident; investigate the circumstances immediately and punish the employee, if he is to blame. It is only by strict discipline of that kind that you can lessen the chance of accident.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the report as to the Milford accident ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Duval, the inspector of the Railway Commission has not yet made his report.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the investigation held ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give the date exactly, but I think it was the first investigation Mr. Duval held after his appointment as inspector : it may have been some time in June.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that an immediate investigation should have been held. I happened to be interested because I narrowly escaped taking that train myself, and I came over the line a few hours afterwards and saw the cars lying there reduced to match wood. The train went off the track while coming round a curve and ran down a steep bank, the wonder being that more lives were not lost. It would seem to me that the cause might have been ascertained by making an immediate investigation. I would like to ask, in reference to an accident



which took place on the Intercolonial Railway near Windsor Junction about a year ago, and in which several lives were lost. I am speaking altogether from memory, but I think it was shown that some of the train hands had gone out with a train, while under the influence of liquor, and especially one man who was injured but afterwards recovered. I think proceedings were taken against him, but tha| he was allowed to leave the country and go to the United States, or at all events he did go. There was some criticisms at the time upon the act that precautions were not taken to have that man stand his trial. Does the minister remember the occurrence and could he give the committee any information with regard to it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: After the report was received the matter was placed in the hands of the Justice Department, and I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) is correct in stating that the man was allowed to depart. Proceedings were taken, but before the Justice Department, had the man served' or arrested he had escaped. All the others connected with that matter were dismissed from the employ. With respect to the Milford accident, I may say that there was an inspection by the locomotive men, the trackmen and other officers of the Intercolonial, who went there at once. The track was examined by the experts of the department and a number of the officials that very day. With respect to the recent accident, the officers of the department made a thorough examination as to the condition of the track. I am advised that it was found in very excellent condition.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any report of the officers who made the investigation of the track and reported the circumstances ?
Mr. EMMERSON; They made several visits and reported from time to time. They also gave their evidence at the sworn inquest. *


Robert Laird Borden: - Did they come to any conclusion as to the cause ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, they were not able to tell the cause. It was plain that on the one hand the cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway were defective, but there was no evidence to show that was the case, and no evidence, so far as I am informed, that would in any way indicate that the track was not in good condition. It was one of those unaccountable things.


Andrew B. Ingram: Had the track been recently repaired, or was there anything of that kind at the place where the accident occurred ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it was on a part of the line which had recently been laid Ml. R. L. BORDEN.
with new 80-pound rails, and which had received the ordinary inspection and care given by the sectiomnen in charge.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the proper elevation was not given to the outer rail on the curve, the train would run off the track.


Robert Laird Borden: The engineer was held to be principally at fault for the very disastrous accident at Windsor junction, which resulted in loss of life.


Henry Robert Emmerson: His name was Copeland.


Robert Laird Borden: It would hardly seem possible that he could have gone away if immediate action had been taken, for my recollection is that he was confined to the hospital for some time before he was able to go out, and there was ample time to have secured his arrest if it was desired to do so, and if instructions had been given at the proper time. That is my recollection of the facts, and therefore cannot understand why this man got away if there was any real desire to secure his arrest and trial. There may be some explanation of which I am not aware, and what I say is subject to any explanation that may be given, but I do not think the government are quite justified in this matter. Two or three lives were lost ; and if the press accounts are correct, this man was very much in fault, and undoubtedly rendered" himself criminally liable, because I believe he absolutely disobeyed a regulation of the road having the force of law and was sound asleep at his post, permitting his train to run past a signal which would have warned him to place his train upon a siding. The result was that the man who had committed the fault, while he received severe injuries, escaped with his life, whereas two or three men who were not guilty of any negligence lost their lives. It is a very serious condition of affairs, and would have justified every possible effort by the government to place the man on trial before a jury.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the man was taken to the hospital and the commissioner was sent down. As soon as they could get the evidence of that man and all the other evidence, they promptly made a report. The man was out of the hospital before that report was received at the Department of Railways, and when it was received and the facts were known the Minister of Railways instructed the general manager to dismiss these men and to have proceedings taken. The general manager sent the chief police officer of the railway to Halifax to arrest the men. This officer secured the assistance of the Halifax police, but before the man eauld be secured he had gone.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister has given me some information which I did not ask for,
1!

but has not given me the information for which I did ask. I asked him if he could give us an idea of how much of this cost of repairs to engines, passenger cars, postal, express and baggage cars, freight cars and so on was due to accidents and not by wear and tear. That was the question I asked the hon. minister because the expense last year for those purposes was very much greater than the year before. We ought to have some idea of the loss accruing to the country through accidents and in that way 'get a better idea of the management than we could in any other. The minister talks of gentlemen referring to the good roadbed and good service on the Intercolonial. I may say that the last time I came from St. John. I came around by the Intercolonial and have great pleasure in testifying that I think the carriages ran very smoothly and the road appeared to be very good. But 1 thought that we ought to be able to travel a little faster. I think that twenty-three hours from St. John to Montreal is altogether too long. When you go by the Canadian Pacific Railway, you take not half that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is only half the distance.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I was glad to find that a new train, was put on which is called the Ocean Express, which is said to do the run in a shorter time. How much shorter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About three hours.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It seems to me that this change should have been put in the time table.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The train did not start until Sunday and it is in the new time table, which is out.	. [DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: The train started before the time table was out. Would the minister give us a statement of the accidents which have happened on the Intercolonial and the increased expenditure they entailed ? I did not see in any statement of the minister where he procured the money to pay for the accident that happend ter the Canadian Pacific Railway train. Where was that appropriation taken from ? It does not come in under ' Repairs to passenger cars.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cars were taken to the shops and repaired.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What about those which were smashed beyond repair ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were sent to the Canadian Pacific Railway and were paid for by the Intercolonial. That would appear in the general repairs.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that included in the statement you gave us yesterday ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would appear in the general statement of the whole year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then the statement announced yesterday does not give the full deficit, because it does not include those cars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know what the full deficit will be until I get the full returns for June. I am only speaking of the actual payments up to the 31st of May.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The payments'have already been made for the train belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway V


Henry Robert Emmerson: The general manager says he does not know whether they were paid for or not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The item would be quite considerable.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think I have said it would be from $25,000 to $35,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister does not know whether that is included in the statement he made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I have not the returns of the Canadian Pacific Railway. AVe sent the cars to the Canadian Pacific Railway. They make the repairs and the Intercolonial is responsible to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the cost.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not think that the public will feel reassured by the statement of the minister with regard to the great length of time which has been allowed to elapse between the accident and the investigation into it. It will be rather depressing to the public to find that an accident can happen and no attempt at an investigation be made until a month later. I certainly would not look upon that as an evidence of good management. I would like to have an assurance from the minister that some sort 6f investigation has been made into the last accident which occurred three or four days ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: An investigation has been held by the officers of the Intercolonial and a further investigation will be held by the inspector, who will take evidence under oath. Parties will be heard under oath before him. The public will be invited to appear and give evidence and the railway officials will also be called upon to testify. Now, as to keeping any account of the cost of cars injured by accident as contradistinguished from the cost of cars that have been worn by use, I may explain that we do not keep a separate account. The only way by which we can get an idea of what accidents cost is through the estimate made at the time of each accident. We know that the accident at Milford will cost at least $30,000 in loss of cars, and there are other expenses besides.


John Graham Haggart: Before the item passes, would the hon. minister inform me if in the statement of receipts and expenditure on
COMMONS [DOT]
the Intercolonial for the eleven months the $140,000 due for rent on the Grand Trunk Railway is included ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is paid monthly and is included in the statement up to that month.	-
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The order for supply will be called, and the Minister of Trade: and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) will be the first minister whose estimates will be taken up. If his estimates are disposed of early, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prflfontaine) will probably follow. If not then the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson).


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the Prime Minister privately that some Bills would be taken up in the forenoon of this week, between the time when he spoke to me and Friday. That has been departed from.


William Stevens Fielding: The programme will be as I have stated.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) be kind enough to bring down the papers in connection with the overrulings in the matter of Corry & Laverdure ? I wrote to the minister some time ago on the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 o'clock midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 7, 1904.