1905-05-18

Mr. AEMAND LAVERGNE asked :: 1.	Is the government, or any of the ministers, aware of the following paragraph that appears every day in ' Le Canada,' of Montreal, under the heading : ' The Opinion of Monseigneur LS-gal.' ' We are satisfied with the system of education that we have, and we hope that it will he left to us ' ?
2.	Are these words an extract from any document of which the government or any of the ministers has a knowledge ?
3.	If .so, has the government or the minister who knows of that document any objection to communicate to the House the entire document in question ?


Mr. SPROULE.: 


Rt.   H@: The ministers, like all others who read ' Le Canada,' have seen the sentence which is quoted in the question. The words so quoted are not an extract from any document of which the government or any of the ministers have a knowledge. I may say to my hon. friend that Monseigneur Legal has not written to the government on this question so far as I know.


SALVATION ARMY-MR. RIDER HAGGARD'S REPORT.
Mr. URIAH WILSON asked :: 1.	Has the government received a copy of the report made by Mr. H. Rider Haggard to the imperial government respecting the working of the Salvation Army colonies ill the United States ?
2.	If so, will the government leave a copy of said report on the table of the House at an early date ?
3.	If not, has the government any reports by its own officers of the operation of these colonies, and will they be presented to parliament ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The government has not received a copy of Mr. H. Rider Haggard's report, and has no reports of its own officers respecting the workings of the Salvation Army colonies in the United States.


CHILD IMMIGRANTS FROM ENGLISH WORKHOUSES.
Mr. URIAH WILSON asked :: 1.	Has the government, or any official thereof, had a conference with Mr. Neill, an English Poor Law Guardian, with -eference to the migration to Canada of selected children from English workhouses ?
2.	What is the nature of fhe proposal, if any, that Mr. Neill made ?
3.	What answer was given by the government or its officials ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Neill is in this country gathering information as to the progress of children emigrated from Great Britain by boards of guardians, and has not made any proposal to the government or its officials.



SUPPLY-PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATIONS INTO THE STATE OF NEW YORK OF FISH CAUGHT IN MISSISQUOI BAY.

['Friday, May 19, 1905.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved tliat the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before this motion is put, I wish to draw the attention of the House and the government to a matter of some moment. The legislature of the state of New York has just adopted an Act prohibiting the importation into that state of fish caught in Missisquoi bay and the Richelieu river.
6189 MAY 18, 1905 6190	
According to United States newspapers that Act was passed in retaliation against the Dominion government, the latter having thought proper to allow fishing in Pike-river-viz., in that part of Lake Champlain which belongs to us-against the will of the United States government. That Act is such as to cause serious loss to fishermen in the district which I represent, and wherein the fishing industry is quite large. That trade has been established for quite a while, and our fish are sold largely on the New York markets. The matter is of interest, not only to fishermen in my constituency, but to the country at large. The United States government has adopted this vexatious law against the province of Quebec because the Canadian government would not comply with its request. I shall not undertake to say, Mr. Speaker, what our government should do under the circumstances. It seems as if negotiations would not be of much avail ; hut there is surely some remedy at hand. The suggestion 'of people in my district is that tolls should be exacted as formerly on the Cham-biy canal. Traffic over that canal is carried on in United States bottoms.. According to the Trade and Commerce returns, river boats in that part of the country are almost wholly controlled by people from the United States. The tonnage of exports in 1904 was as follows ;-united States boats, 82,000 tons ; Canadian boats, 10,000 tons. The tolls on the Chambly canal used entirely by United States boats, amounted to $24,000 yearly during the period tolls were levied on this canal. The exports of fish by the St. Johns farmers and fishermen average $23,736 year-iv. Should we decide to exact tolls as we did formerly on the Chambly canal, we would thereby reach the shipping Interests of the state of New York and be compensated for the loss resulting from that prohibitory law, the outcome of which will be to ruin that trade. Besides, that canal being used mainly toy United States boats, it seems only reasonable that we should resume exacting the tolls which were levied formerly. In order, Sir, to give you an idea of the loss inflicted on us by the prohibition of this trade, I may be permitted to read to the House an extract from a letter written by Air. Pierce, agent of the American Express Company, who refuses to reopen the agencies of that company in the St. Johns district, on the ground that the trade with the United States will not in the future be of sufficient importance to warrant the carrying on of the business. I quote his own words : I beg to say that, after looking into this matter very carefully, I do not see how we can consistently reopen the offices at Clarenceville Henriville and Sabrevois as there is not sufficient business to warrant the expense. The new law which has recently been passed in New York State prohibiting the importation of fisli from the province of Quebec makes the prospec less favourable than it otherwise would he, as this fish business would constitute the larger 1974	portion of the revenue which we might hope to obtain providing we reopened the offices. I trust that tbe government will at once take up this matter. It is a mere act of retaliation against us, an act which has no justification In itself, and which will surely be regarded in that light, not only by the people of the district I represent, but by the government as well. Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries). (Translation.) This is not a new question. It has come up in this House and before the people several times within the last few years. The Department of Marine and Fisheries has done all in its power to bring about a friendly settlement with our neighbours. However, we have not succeeded in concluding a satisfactory agreement. We had, a few years ago, in 1901 or 1902, I believe, made arrangements whereby Canadian fishermen were debarred from using nets in Misslaquoi bay. On the other hand, it was understood that United States fiisharmen would be prevented from fishing on the remainder of Lake Champlain. It has often been the case, as shown by our past experience, that while we are expected to carry out our xiart of the agreement, United States people do not carry out their own pledges. Although Canadians were prohibited from fishing in their own waters, no watch was kept on the other side of the line, and United States fishermen were using nets almost openly and at will. While we conformed to the law in Canadian waters, they did not conform to it within their territory. Subsequently, perceiving that fish were diminishing In numbers In the waters of Uake Champlain, United States authorities took up the matter once more and requested the Department of Marine and Fisheries to re-enact the ordinance passed in this connection In 1900, as the misdeeds I have just referred to had induced us to repeal it as regards fishing in the Bay of Missisquoi. These misunderstandings have given rise to a good deal of discussion and have induced our neighbours to renew their efforts towards bringing about an understanding < with us on that point. We answered that this was not the only question awaiting settlement; that there were many others. For instance, there is the question of the Pacific coast fisheries, which is of much greater moment than this, and concerning which we are seeking to bring about an agreement with the authorities of the state of Washington, with a view to putting a stop to the destruction of salmon in Puget Sound and in the Fraser river. And we informed the United States authorities that if they would agree with us to appoint a joint commission for the purpose of considering all these controverted questions, all these difficulties which spring up in Canadian and frontier waters we would willingly cooperate with them in taking the necessary

steps for the protection of the fisheries belonging to both countries. Of course, we are all well aware that in the neighbouring republic fisheries are left under the control of the respective states. There are seven of these interested in fishing. The President of the United States is in favour of appointing such a commission, but negotiations have fallen through.
I agree with my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville that the question is one of exceeding interest for his constituents; but, for the time being, I do not think it possible to remedy matters, except by reopening negotiations between the two countries" However, I have not lost all hope of attaining that object, seeing that the main issue, that concerning the fisheries of the Pacific coast, is one of interest, not only to the state of Washington, but, in a large measure, to the United States trade as a whole. As regards any other step which might be taken, the question is rather a difficult one just now ; but the Department of Marine and Fisheries has not given up the idea of resorting once more to negotiations.
My hon. friend suggested the re-enactment of tolls on the Chambly canal. I am not sufficiently well posted on the question to give an opinion off-hand ; but I am under the impression that such a step would not be productive of good results. I think that by means of diplomacy an understanding may be brought about with our neighbours, which will result in the passing of regulations satisfactory to both people.
Mr. B'. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, as these difficulties have been in existence for some time past, I think the House is entitled to know whether there has been an interchange of correspondence between the Dominion government and the United States authorities on the subject, and of what character have been the negotiations carried on between such authorities and Canada. There must have been an interchange of correspondence, there must be records and memos on file in the department, and I think the hon. minister would be meeting the wishes of the House by having this correspondence brought down.


Mr.   P REF O XT AIN E.@: (Translation.) I
may inform my hon. friend that when the supplementary estimates for fisheries are laid before the House, I shall be in a position to give all the information he wishes for, and to bring down papers which will shed new light on thet question.


Mr. MONK.: (Translation.) I also am of opinion that we would obtain more through diplomacy than by taking the means suggested by the hon. member for St. Johns, although the House should be grateful to him for the information he supplied as to the effect of such a measure. Our trade with the United States is extensive ; we are all Mr. PREFONTAINE.
interested in it; and its profits are shared in, not only by the constituents of the hon. gentleman, but by those of other counties as well in the vicinity of Montreal. I am not sure that by exacting tolls on the trade carried on with our neighbours, as suggested by the hon. gentleman from St. Johns, we would be bettering the condition of things. More would be obtained through negotiations, provided they are followed up as they should be. The government may prove their watchfulness by laying before the House the correspondence, which will show what negotiations have been carried on with a view to settling the difficulty. It is contended that United States authorities were not the first to fail carrying out the agreement. The papers which I wish to have brought down would put things in their true light.
The following newspaper clipping, containing an item sent from Albany to the Montreal ' Star,' has been handed to me :
Albany, April 3.-Confiscation of all fish caught in Missisquoi- bay, Lake Champlain, if shipped into this state, is planned in the Bill introduced Friday by Assemblyman Knapp of Clinton county. This is proposed in retaliation against Canada, that government refusing to prohibit the use of nets in Missisquoi bay. The Bill was advanced to third reading, and introduced to-day in the Senate.
Ninety-five per cent of perch, pike and bass of Lake Champlain are hatched in Missisquoi bay and at this season fish are running in large numbers. Until recently Canada issued licenses to fifteen men in Canada, who were able to take out fish valued at $30,000 a year.
According to the above item, dated, it is true, April 3rd, it does not seem to be such a foregone conclusion that we are not to blame in the matter, or that our government has not been neglectful of its duty. Under the circumstances, it seems doubly necessary that we should have access to the correspondence carried on, and that we should know where we are at concerning this disastrous state of things, for it is a disastrous state of things for parties concerned.



Mr.   A.@: 0. BOYOE (West Algoma). Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the House, and particularly of the Postmaster General, to certain irregularities which have occurred in connection with the post office at Thessalon-irregularities of so gross a nature that if the facts which I have to present to the House remain uncontradicted, as I believe they will be, the House will be seized of one of the most notorious transactions that have ever characterized this government or any other government. I refer to the subject of questions which were asked in the House yesterday and the replies of the hon. Postmaster General thereto. The hon. Postmaster General was asked who was the postmaster at Thessalon, and he stated that the post-

master at Thessalon to-day is one J. B-Dobey. Then he was asked as to why the former postmaster whom J. B. Dobey succeeded had vacated the office, and the kon. gentleman stated that he chose to resign. When asked if that were all, the hon. gentleman said-I did not hear him say it. but read it for the first time in 'Hansard' this morning-that there was a reason for the resignation of the gentleman who was succeeded by J. B. Dobey. When I inform the House that the former postmaster at Tliessalon and the gentleman who was appointed by the hon. Postmaster -General on the 16th of February of this year to succeed him are one and the same person, it will be seen that the matter is so extraordinary that it demands some explanation from the government. The hon. Postmaster General, in his answers to the questions of yesterday, stated that this postmaster resigned on the 21st of May, 1904, and was reappointed on the 16tli of February, 1905. Now, I have some information to offer to the House on the history of this extraordinary resignation. I propose to state the facts for the consideration of the House, and if the hon. Postmaster General can controvert or explain away the extraordinary facts which I am about to disclose, I am sure that the House and the country will be very greatly relieved. I understand that on the 11th of April, 1904, an investigation was ordered by the postal department into the Tliessalon post office. At that time the same gentleman who now occupies the position of postmaster was in charge of that office. The inspector reported to the department in April of last year that there was a shortage in that office of $505.44, that that shortage had been unexplained, and that the postmaster had promised to make it good. In arriving at that shortage the postmaster had been credited with a remittance of $500, alleged to have been made by him to the postal department. If that remittance was a sham, if the statement that he had remitted $500 to the department was false and fraudulent, then the shortage as discovered by the inspector should have been $1,005.45. On the following day, the 12th of April, the department here telegraphed to the inspector that it was impossible to arrive at the balance of that office until the February accounts had been received. The Deputy Postmaster General about the 2nd of May wrote a letter to the inspector in which he referred to the alleged remittance of $500 which the postmaster had stated that he had made by registered letter, giving the number of the letter. The Deputy Postmaster General also makes the following statement to the inspector for his information in the inspection of that office; that the department is not satisfied that that remittance (referring to the remittance of $500) was ever despatched by the postmaster, because if he (the postmaster) misstated the date of mailing each of the cash accounts, it may be inferred that he would also mis-state the facts in connection with the remittance in question. The deputy also asks the inspector to visit the office again, and says that if the inspection proves that the remittance was not forwarded, he will take the money order books and place a reliable person in charge. He adds that there is scarcely any reason to doubt that the postmaster, for some rea-' son unknown, has been making false statements for four or five months with 'regard to the returns to the department. The inspector visits the office, and on or about the 10th of May, 1904, I believe, he made a report to the postal department, with which doubtless the hon. Postmaster General is familiar. In order to draw the attention of the House to that report, I will just state a few heads of the subjects which were covered by it. He reports, I understand, that he visited the post office at Thessalon on the 7th day of May and made a careful audit, that before leaving Ottawa he had examined the letter book of the railway mail service in the department, and that there he had checked over the letter bills, with the entries in the registered letter book ; and he found that the statements made by the postmaster in regard to the disposition of the accounts on the 8th and 11th of April were not correct, and were not substantiated by the letter books. He further states that the credit taken by the postmaster on the 5th of April, for $500 sent by registered letter No. 200, was not correct; that no such number appeared on a bill of that date ; and that credit had been taken for a further remittance of $608 on the 30th of April, 1904, under registered letter No. 580, but there was no receipt for it. In that report he adds : ' I am satisfied it has not been sent.' He further says that the postmaster or his assistant has been falsifying the returns. He says he examined the assistant In the post office, from whom he obtained the following information, which is of an extraordinary character, in view of what followed. He says that the assistant stated that he had handed the postmaster, at his request, out of the post office till in the Thessalon post office the following sums : about the 10th of May, $450, which was to enable the postmaster to buy a house adjoining his own residence which he considered a bargain; $172 a short time before the date of the report, with which to buy pulp wood, as, forsooth, he was speculating in timber ; $200 a few days before the report; and he thinks $300 further ; in all about $1,100 out of the post office funds. The inspector in that report further says that he questioned the postmaster, and asked, as would be reasonable and proper, for an explanation ; and this is the explanation that he got. The postmaster admitted that he had, received sums of money

from his assistant, but said that he supposed all the time that they were from what had been placed to his credit by salary warrants. The inspector criticises that	statement, and says ' This
statement I do not believe, but I am satisfied that there was an understanding between the postmaster and the assistant.' The inspector had said he was led to believe that the postmaster was well off, but he was now satisfied that he was in financial difficulties. As a matter of fact the postmaster at that time was, and now is as I understand-although I am subject to correction in this-an undischarged bankrupt. He says :
I have been much deceived with the postmaster and his assistant. I told him that he would be dismissed. The postmaster said that he would prefer to resign.
And the report closed with a recommendation by the inspector that the postmaster be forthwith dismissed. That is the report of the inspector, as 1 allege it against the hon. the Postmaster General and his department. He may ibe able to explain it.
The postmaster said he would prefer to resign.
Contrast that statement with what we got yesterday from the Postmaster General when he said that he chose to resign and there was a reason. On receiDt of that report it appears that the Postmaster General was seized with a fit of most virtuous and righteous indignation because across that report he appears to have written his magnificent fiat that this postmaster be forthwith dismissed. 'That was on May 19, 1901, according to the report. Then in order to implement that and to make the dismissal effective the hon. gentleman, I believe, wired the member then representing that riding for a recommendation for a postmaster at Thessalon, intimating to the hon. member that the circumstances before him did not warrant any delay, and that he must dismiss the postmaster unless a resignation were filed. At that time I understand-the Postmaster General may set me right if I am wrong-the hon. gentleman had signed the fiat, for the dismissal, that the dismissal had taken effect, and that ,so far as the department was concerned, this gentleman, the postmaster at Thessalon, was a dismissed official and was no longer in the employ of the department.
The next circumstance that arises is a telegram on May 19th following, referring to the office and stating that the postmaster at Thessalon is still in charge of the office and that he signs the returns, and on May 20, there having been, as I understand, some correspondence in the meantime with regard to the employment of somebody else in the post office temporarily, the secretary of the postal department telegraphed the in-


Mr. BOYCE.: namely, the principle of provincial rights, which he championed so loudly in 1896. For political reasons and having regard to political exigencies of the situation, he changed his mind with regard to the enormity of offences committed by the postmaster at Thessalon, and he retracted his dismissal. He made up his mind that the gravity of that offence had been wiped out by the subsequent political activity of that gentleman. Sir, I look forward with some anxiety, certainly with eagerness, to the explanation of the hon. gentleman with regard to those facts. I would like to ask him what steps were taken by the Postmaster General towards visiting the consequences of those offences upon the postmaster, or his surety. Were the sureties of the postmaster ever changed ? Was a new post office bond ever entered into.? Was the postmaster ever prosecuted ? Was any inquiry ever instituted further than that involved in the report of the inspectors ?
Now, Sir, there is appropriated out of the funds of this country thousands of dollars every year for the maintenance of an efficient staff of post office inspectors, whose duty it is to ascertain just such facts as these, and to report. They are presumed to be competent men, and are judged to be competent by the hon. gentleman who has acted upon a report in this instance. Then, Sir, of what value to this country is that corps of inspectors of the Post Office Department when all their reports, all their inquiries, and the result that was ascertained, are set at naught, as in this case, where the crimes that were reported by the inspectors to have been committed have been condoned by reason of political exigencies ? Let me summarize again. The offences of which this postmaster was guilty resolve themselves under three heads :	First, the misappropriation, the misuse, the conversion, or any other name the Postmaster General, as a lawyer, likes to put to the facts, and he knows the proper term to apply-of the sum of at least $1,100, and possibly $1,G00 ; second, the report of the inspectors that the postmaster has falsified returns for four or five months ; third, that the postmaster has been guilty of falsely pretending to send money in two registered letters, one with $500 and the other with $608, when there were no such letters on the letter bill. These facts require explanation. I ask the hon. Postmaster General to give a frank explanation to this House and to the country and to explain why, as Postmaster General, as holding the dignified pffice of a minister of the Crown, he could, without any investigation, without any explanation at all. condone offences so grave and foist upon the public the services of a man who was reported against by his own department for having committed such grave offences.


Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I think that fair-minded men will agree with me when
I say that when a question is raised which goes to injure the character of a hitherto respectable citizen of the country it ought to be approached in a fair, impartial and non-partisan spirit, not for the purpose of trying to distort, or misrepresent facts, or create false impressions, but simply in a judicial and fair way to try to ascertain the proper view to take of a public transaction. In this narticular case it is beyond controversy that there were irregularities at the Thessalon postoffice, but that doubt arose because of the question : ' Who is responsible for them ? In the particular case of the Thessalon post office that doubt arose because of the fact that the postmaster chose to delegate the management of the office to a person in whom he had every right to place the fullest confidence. The postmaster, as is often the case throughout Canada, was not giving his detailed and exclusive attention to the office although he may have signed reports made out for him by those whom he employed. In the particular case in question the postmaster appears to have been trustful and to have throughout his tenure of office, in the last few years at least, relied on the fidelity of his employees. When my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) put a notice of motion on the order paper my attention was called to it by my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Dyment) in whose constituency this post office is situated, and as it did not appear, as I viewed the case and as I view it to-day, to be one calling for any public criticism and as it was probable that no good would come out of it but simply that we might succeed in breaking the hearts of some people


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. FOSTER.: The hearts of whom ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: At all events the hearts of people are entitled to consideration. In any event, before the matter was brought to the attention of the government, it would be reasonable that whatever information was possessed on the subject should be given to the hon. member (Mr. Boyce) that he might decide on his course. I had not the slightest doubt in my mind that any impartial man on seeing the information that I acted upon, would take the course I took. Therefore I at once invited the hon. gentleman to come to my department, and I instructed the officers "to place before him whatever information there was within the reach of the department, anything that had any bearing on the question. I had not the slightest doubt that aa impartial consideration of that information would have been accented as a satisfactory reason for the course pursued. It seems to have been different. Some people might perhaps think that when a member is admitted to the files of the department in that way some-

thing is owing from him. In this particular case, on the information that I had in the month of May, 1904, I came to the conclusion that the postmaster should be dismissed. I gave him an opportunity to send in his resignation and, as my hon. friend says, a resignation was received. It is of no special consequence, I suppose, if a man is put out of office whether we allow him to resign or whether we dismiss him. Perhaps there may be cases where dismissal should take place promptly. However, he was ordered to be displaced from a position of responsibility and power in connection with the management of the office in the month of May, 1904. Subsequently information came to me which caused me to question the justice of my decision, and I am of the opinion that no lawyer in this House, if he stripped himself of bias, or that no judge on the bench would sustain my decision of May, 1904. As I say the postmaster-left the management of his office to others, and I was in hopes it would not be necessary to have given publicity to these charges against people when you cannot pin down the responsibility to any one person. In this particular case I say it is not possible for any person to say without a reasonable doubt that the postmaster was the pne to blame. On the contrary, I think a reasonable conclusion would be that there was another person to blame for whatever took place. The postmaster had been in office for a quarter of a century. He was appointed, I think, in 1S80. He had an unblemished character. These circumstances were brought to my attention and other circumstances, all of which I am perfectly willing should be placed in the hands of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).


George Eulas Foster: Would my hon. friend (Sir William Mulock) allow me one question ? iSo long as the matter has developed as far as it has and the Postmaster General is giving publicity to the case, does he not think that he ought to be frank with the House and tell the House what these reasons were ? I think we ought to have all the information now that the matter has gone as far as it has.


William Mulock: My information is that the postmaster was not the guilty one.


Mr. BARR.: Who was ?


William Mulock: I do not think I should say who is guilty.
Mr. BARR, is my hon. friend attempting to throw suspicion on the assistant who is known to be


William Mulock: Known to be what ? I did not hear the conclusion of my hon. friend's sentence.


William Mulock: Mr. BARR, i ask the hon. gentleman if he is not attempting to throw suspicion on the assistant who is known not to be guilty and every person knows up there that he is not guilty.


William Mulock: Would the hon. gentleman say on what information he makes the statement that the assistant is known not to be the guilty one ?


John Barr: That is what we want to know.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman says that every one knows the assistant is not the guilty person. I ask him upon what evidence he makes that statement ?


John Barr: We would like to know who is the guilty one ?	m


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barr) has nothing on which to base that statement, and yet I have information upon which to base my conviction ; and my conviction and my firm opinion is that no person in the discharge of judicial duties could find the .postmaster guilty morally of the offence of having for a certain length of time made use of post office funds. Though it would not, in my judgment, in one sense, mitigate the offence, I may observe that there has been no loss sustained and that the misappropriation was promptly made good. The member who introduced this matter made a statement about sureties ; I do not know upon what evidence he made that statement. I would say that Mr. Dobey, when formerly postmaster, was insured in a guarantee company for $800, and the hon. gentleman says the security was not renewed when he was reappointed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not make that statement. I asked the Postmaster General whether there w.as a new bond or not.


William Mulock: It is immaterial whether the hon. gentleman made that statement or not, because in one sense it was suggested by him, and, as his remarks will show, he challenged me to prove that there had been any new security obtained. The postmaster on being reappointed was insured according to our assessment system, which is the method of insuring postmasters almost generally throughout Canada to-day. We have a security from him- to the extent of $1,200 ; a security set on foot since his reappointment. The hon. gentleman says that I knew the postmaster had geen guilty of illegal practices. I say I know nothing of the kind. I admit that the postmaster is blameable for having put itoo much confidence in others, but I would like to know who has not, in the course of his life, been obliged to regret being over-trustful of people whom he thought he was perfectly warranted in trusting ? That is the head and front of the offence of the postmaster-hav-
MAY is, 1905
mg been trustful and having not exercised that full supervision over the work of his office which he ought .to have exercised. But that is a different sort of shortcoming from that with which he is charged here by the hon. gentleman, and if I were to dismiss him for that particular offence the result would be .that I would ruin him in the minds of the people of Canada.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will the Postmaster General state that this postmaster did not personally sign the account and return claiming credit for $500 and $680, which he never remitted ?


William Mulock: X do not know what he may or may not have personally signed, but any person who has been in the office of Postmaster General knows perfeet-ly well that among the thousands of postmasters throughout Canada there are those who are constantly signing their weekly returns without being absolutely aware of the facts upon which they are built up. Their clerks, their staff, make up these returns for them, and the particular case in question is one of that kind. I suppose this posmasiter signed these returns trusting to their correctness, relying upon the statement made to him by his. assistant or by whoever else may have had charge of the office at the time.


Mr. LALOR.: Do )I understand the Postmaster General to say (that this postmaster receives $1,000 a year salary and does not give his personal attention to the business of the office ? X think that is the statement of the Postmaster General, and I would like to be sure about it.


William Mulock: I did not say anything about the salary, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lalor) may be about right as to salary. I say that up to the time of his dismissal it appears that his trouble had arisen because of his not having, up to that time, given the duties of the office his personal attention. It was not to my knowledge. Doubtless he now gives the office his nersona'l attention, but his initial trouble arose from his not having supervised and been actually aware of the whole of the details of the office, and, in fact, not taking the actual management of it as he ought to have done. It is an office of sufficient importance to warrant the full and undivided attention of the postmaster._ The hon. gentleman who introduced this question stated that after the dismissal of the postmaster he had been paid his salary up to the 31st of August last. Will the hon. gentleman inform me whether the postmaster was paid any money for services performed after his dismissal '!


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My statement was that it appeared that the postmaster had been paid his salary up to the 31st of August, 1904. I asked the Postmaster General, if that were
not correct, to contradict it. That fact is as I am informed and as I understand.


William Mulock: I am not able to say up to what date he was or was not paid, because I do not carry the affairs of the accountant's office in my head. I am quite satisfied on this point : that no money was paid to him for any services rendered by him after he was dismissed from his office. I will get the information on that point.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is it not on record in the Postmaster General's department that this man was paid up to the 31st of August, 1904, that is, that he was kept in the employment of the government as postmaster of Thessa-lon and paid a salary up to that date, many months after his dismissal ?


William Mulock: Well, the hon. gentleman has made that statement


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am asking the Postmaster General if that is not the case.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman made that statement, and he knows more of the files in connection with this matter than I do. I have not looked into that point to see whether or not the money the hon. gentleman says was paid to him in August was for services rendered up to August, or whether it may not have been moneys that were owing ito him up to the time of his dismissal. It is my opinion that when that point is looked into it will be found that there was paid no money for any services after the time of his dismissal. He would be entitled to nothing unless it would be for the rent of the premises.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I do not pretend to know more about the hon. gentleman's department than he does, but I want to tell him that if he will take the trouble to look at the papers-and he has had twenty-four hours' notice of this motion-he will find that the accountant sent him a memorandum, which is among the papers, stating that the man was paid up to the 31st of August, 1904. I do not know more than that.


William Mulock: You say that *the accountant sent a imemorandujn, to whom ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: To the Postmaster General, and it is in the files.


William Mulock: Oh, well, that is all nonsense ; the accountant never sent me a memorandum about the pay of any gentleman in the service of the government.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Before the hon. gentleman calls it nonsense, might I ask him to look at the files and he will see.


William Mulock: I have not the records of the office here, but it is impossible
62C7

to suppose that the accountant sent me a memorandum telling me up to what date he had paid the postmaster.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I may tell the hon. gentleman that there is such a memorandum among the papers if he takes the trouble to look at it. There is a memorandum stating that this man was paid up to the 31st of August, 1904, and that the office was transferred on the 3rd of September, 1904.


William Mulock: I am not saying whether or not there was a memorandum-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But the hon. gentleman said it was nonsense.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. What I said was nonsense-'and I should not have used such an undignified word-what I say is this : The hon. gentleman stated that the accountant sent to the Postmaster General a memorandum to the effect that this officer had been paid his salary up to the 31-st of August. What I say is that the accountant would have no possible reason -for sending to me a memorandum on any such subject, and I am satisfied -that lie never sent me any such memorandum. If the papers were before me at that time, there would he no occasion for his sending me a memorandum.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Do I understand that the hon. Postmaster General denies what I state ?	*
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. I state that the accountant never sent to me the memorandum the hon. gentleman speaks of.
5Ir- b<-!YCE. That is not the question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the hon. Postmaster General whether he denies my statement that there is among the papers referring to this matter in his department a memorandum to the effect that this postmaster was paid up to the 31st of. August, 1904, and that the office was transferred on the 3rd of September, 1904 ?
. MTLLIAM MULOCIv. H am not making any statement as to that, for I do not know 'what paper may or may not be on file.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then why does the hon. Postmaster General deny things the existence of which he does not know ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. The point I deny is that the accountant sent me a memorandum.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman says he does not know.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. I know what is sent to me. I do not know what is put on file in the 10,000 post offices in Canada, and I say that on that point the accountant would have no reason to send me a memorandum. I am not speaking from memory. I am speaking from the -practice Sir WILLIAM MULOOK.
of the department, where we have to work by rules. The accountant would not send me a memorandum of that kind, and when the hon. gentleman said that the accountant had sent me a memorandum to the effect that this man had been paid his salary up to the 31st of August, and sought to hold me responsible for his having been paid after his dismissal, I point out that the real point of that statement was, not that there had beep a memorandum, but that I had been notified by the accountant of that payment. 'On that point the hon. gentleman is in error ; there is no foundation for the statement.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will the hon. gentleman allow- me one question ? Did he reappoint Dobey to the post office at Thessalon without looking over the papers on file in his department ?
Sir WILL! AM MULOCK. I do not recall everything that occurred on the reappointment. 1 recall the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. -Dyment) coming to me after the commencement of this session. The fact is that! wffien an order is^ issued to send to the person who has the patronage of a riding for a recommendation to fill an office, the matter disappears from my attention until it is brought up again by some circumstance. Months may elapse, and long periods do frequently elapse, wdien positions are vacant, but it does not follow that the transaction is present in my mind until final action is taken. In this particular case, if anything w-as brought to my attention I dealt with' it, the file w-ould then be put away, and that would be the end of the transaction. I do recall the member for East Algoma coming to me during this; session and giving to me his strongest opinion as to the innocence of the postmaster of any guilt ; and on that occasion I made it my business to review the circumstances, and go through all the available information. That was the information which I desired the hon. gentleman to study as a professional man and a person familiar with weighing evidence; aud I was in hopes that as a lawyer he would have seen the case as il did-that -I 'wTas not warranted in dismissing the postmaster on the charge of having committed a crime, and by that act disgracing him in the eyes of the public when there was a very grave doubt, or more than a doubt as I think, as to his guilt. As I have said, I had no reason to doubt his innocence when the whole case came befor me, and I would have been doing less than my duty if I had not reinstated him under these circumstances. I wms not aware until this moment of his having taken part in politics. I have never seen the gentleman, I have never spoken to him, I have never had any communication with him except in the ordinary course, and I think no one could have acted in a

more conscientious way than I did in dealing with this case.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Might I ask the hon. Postmaster General a question ? The case came before him originally upon the report of the post office inspector, which sets out the guilt of this man in the clearest possible terms, if its effect has been correctly stated by the hon. gentleman who brought the matter to the attention of the House. The hon. Postmaster General speaks of the case having come before him more fully. Upon what did it come before him more fully ? There was the report of the post office inspector : was there any further ''nvestigation ? 1 think that is a very important matter for us to know.


William Mulock: Mr. Speaker, I have no opinion as to the officials of this post office. I have no reason whatever to shield one of them more than another ; I have no reason to shield any one of them. I have only one duty to perform, and I am only performing that one duty ; but in the discharge of my duty as Postmaster General, I want to spare the feelings of people if I can do so, and if no public good is to be served from disregarding their feelings ; and I will say this to the hon. leader of the opposition, who is a lawyer of standing, and who would, I am sure, take a nonpartisan view of this matter. If he were to go through the file-and he is most welcome to it-I am perfectly sure that he would not have made the speech which has been made to-day. I would be pleased if he would do that, and he will see that this is not a question so one-sided as it has been represented. I ask my hon. friend if he would be willing to do that ? The reason I do not wish to bring the file down is obvious to the hon. leader of the opposition.
Mr. POSTER, Might I ask the minister what is the method of paying the salary of the postmaster at Thessalon ?


William Mulock: A percentage, do you mean ?


George Eulas Foster: No. I mean, does he get it quarterly, and by whom is it payable, and to whom goes the receipt from him ?


William Mulock: I judge from the statement of the hon. member for West Algoma that he is paid by what are called salary warrants.


George Eulas Foster: Issued where ?


William Mulock: I think the salary warrants all come from the accountant. I am not aware of the working details ; but I understood that what are called salary warrants are issued by the accountant at regular intervals, under which the postmaster is in some way entitled to be paid, that payment coming out of the revenue for the time being instead of having to be
voted by parlament like the ordinary expenditure. I think that is the way.


Mr. HAGGART.: Is that monthly or quarterly ? I think it is monthly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Quarterly.


George Eulas Foster: Whence does the money issue for the payment of this quarterly or monthly salary, from the office here ?


William Mulock: That I cannot say ; it is an old practice that has been in force I suppose ever since there has been a post office, I do not know whether it is a warrant entitling him to retain that amount or whether it is in the nature of a cheque transferring to him that money. Perhaps the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), who has been Postmaster General, can say.


John Graham Haggart: I am not sure of it. You can see the point easily, if it is [DOT] a monthly payment and he took $450 he must have known of his guilt.


William Mulock: There is 3, very reasonable explanation of it, and that is why I think it is so unfair, with all respect, so unfair to the parties interested to make use of this occasion in this House to debate in an ex parte way a matter that ought to be dealt with judicially and in no other way. I say there is an explanation-it may not be the true one-given by one of the officers in the office.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is that explanation on the file ?


William Mulock: My hon. friend has seen everything on the file, he is in possession of everything and perhaps it would occur to him-it does to me- that when I, as I did in this case, invite him to look into, the whole case and withheld nothing from him, not even the private correspondence,, the letters from anybody-I gave instructions to my secretary to place all the material at his disposal and there was no desire to conceal anything-I wanted to satisfy the hon. gentleman as to the fairness of my course and he knows what is on the file and what is not; and I would agree, return ing to the question, to ask the leader of the opposition if he would care to look through that file himself, and if after looking through that file he says he thinks there would have been any service to the public by my bringing a return to this House of every document there except communications that are marked ' private and confidential ' and what I could not produce without the consent of the writers, I would be most pleased to give the reports and everything to the House and they may judge for themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman is making an appeal to me in this regard I would say that I would be very glad to discharge any public duty which devolves

upon me, but it does not seem in a matter of this kind to which so much publicity has been given, that hon. gentlemen on either side of the House would be satisfied with my report as to matters on which there might be very grave differences of opinion. I was asking the Postmaster General a very simple question, that is whether or not his fuller consideration was based upon any report of any officer of hi^ departmetn. For example, whether this inspector or any other inspector of the department had made any subsequent report withdrawing or modifying in any material respect the report which was originally made. I ask that question because I gathered from the language of the Postmaster General in the first instance, that there must have been something of that kind, and I thought possibly he was omitting through inadvertence.


William Mulock: When I made my decision to dismiss this officer I only had the one opinion of an officer. I was not aware at that time of his having given a different and conflicting opinion, but I subsequently found that it would be quite unsafe for me to act upon the opinion of that officer in regard to this particular case as to where this guilt lay and 1 would not act upon it; I felt I was taking a very grave risk in purporting to find a man guilty of an offence on the advice of an officer who had expressed different opinions regarding the case, and therefore. I could not place confidence in the soundness of the judgment of the officer to whom the hon. member for West Algoma has referred. Therefore, when in February last the hon. member from East Algoma (Mr. Dy-meut) called upon me and requested me to reinstate this officer I went through the papers and decided that that was the only reasonable course open under the circumstances. But since my hon. friend says he does not care to assume any responsibility except of a public character I shall go this far :	if it should appear that some person
very close to the postmaster occupying a very delicate relationship to him should have made known to the department where the guilt lay, and that it did not rest with the postmaster, that satisfied me where it did rest as this did, what should I have done ? So far as this postmaster is concerned, I was satisfied that the evidence did not prove him guilty. There may be a doubt as to who is guilty, but I am satisfied the postmaster was not proved guilty, and under those circumstances I was not going to ruin that man. ruin him in the eyes of the public, a man who stands as high in the community as any person who has been for twenty years a public servant, and with this exception has been faithful and reliable, has- not been charged with being short in his money or guilty of any breaches of trust. I do not thinli, under the circumstances. I was doing more Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
than my duty in revoking the decision which I had arrived at from only a partial consideration of the case. All lawyers can understand that cases can be presented and for the moment you may form an incorrect impression ; subsequent light may be thrown on the case and cause you to feel that you have made a mistake. That was so in this case, and I have no more to say upon the subject except that if the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) chooses to go through my file and if after reading those papers he thinks the whole file should be brought down and presented to the public, minus confidential papers, if he thinks that it does not dislodge the finding I made in May, 1904, I will produce those papers and the House can again go into the subject.


George Eulas Foster: The defence that has been made by the Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock) if we are to call it a defence, or the explanation, if we apply the milder term, is really the most extraordinary I ever listened to, and I appeal to the experience of hon. gentlemen on either side of the House if they ever heard a charge brought and substantiated in the way this has, to which a reply has been made in such a manner as this has been attempted to be made by the Postmatser General. A most singular thing that he thought it his first duty to prove to this parliament and the country his own utter unreliability. What did he say ? As head of a department with innumerable officials under his direction, men who, in the exercise of their office, come to be experts in investigation, who investigate matters on the spot and get all the local flavour and make themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the case right in the home where the proceedings took place- after a thorough and searching inquiry by responsible officers, extending over a considerable period, so grave was this case, under the presentation made by his officers, made to a gentleman with so kindly and tender a heart that he would not for the world do an injustice to any man, official or otherwise, that he dismissed the official. One would naturally suppose that every care would be taken before the initial sentence was pronounced against a man who, the minister says, has always had a reputation for honesty, has had twenty years' public experience, and whose conduct he was called upon to judge, and in whose case an advance judgment would not only put him out of business as an honest man and official but reflect upon his family and relatives as well. The Postmaster General, a thorough lawyer, himself at the head of a department, with all its responsibility, knowing what hinges on his decision, undertakes that most responsible of all duties-the duty of making a pronouncement against one of his fellow men-he does it deliberately and on the evidence declares that the man must be dismissed. And now he comes up and

says that there is not a lawyer or judge or a man of common sense in Canada who would sustain the conclusion he came to at that time.


William Mulock: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to misrepresent me. What I said was that fuller and later information brought to me showed me that my judgment in the month of May was wrong.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman did say that and he also said the other. If he denies, I shall take his denial but I appeal to ' Hansard.' Then he goes on a second step, and says : I came to the conviction later that this official was innocent ; I shall not give you the ground upon which I came to that conviction, but I will let the leader of the opposition into the secret if he will take the trouble to come over to my office ; the country and this House however must not know what are the grounds upon which I came to the conviction that the official was innocent, but such grounds there certainly are. Well, the same gentleman came to a conviction and gave his sentence that the man was guilty and dismissed him. Then he says that no judge or lawyer or man of common sense would uphold that opinion, and he now asks us to sustain the conviction which he subsequently came to and in respect of which lie does not furnish us any evidence or ground. Does he not see that he has read himself out of court, and there is not a bit of use in bis standing up now and saying that any one of the conclusions he came to is a proper and right conclusion ?


William Mulock: Did the hon. gentleman never make a mistake ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, often. What does the hon. gentleman ask the House to do ? He asks this House to trust him for a conviction. But this has gone too far. It is impossible to stop him. This hon. gentleman who was so tender of heart that he would not break a heart-and no one wants to break hearts if it can be avoided-that hon. gentleman has stood in his place and used language just as plain and clear as was necessary to show that a certain person was absolutely guilty, who has never been tried, and against whom, so far as this House knows, there is not a tittle of evidence to prove any charge. Very tender hearted about the heart of a grown man but not so tender hearted about the heart of one who is not a grown man. Everybody on each side knows to whom the reference is made. Nobody needs to go a step further to know that the hon. gentleman has pronounced a judgment against the second person after having taken back his judgment against the first. This matter has gone so far that it cannot stop here. This House wants to know all the facts and must know them. Thi^ House wants all the papers and must have them. The hon. gentleman has
not always been so tender about shielding private correspondence. There is an episode in his history, which he will not forget and which, if he tries to forget, this House and country will not, when he absolutely rifled private correspondence and made it public to the world. He issued a volume in which it could be edited, published and distributed ; but when it comes to be a matter of a public official wrong-doing when the moneys of the country have evidently been used wrongly and taken wrongly-the hon. gentleman will not deny that nor will anybody. Now. however, it comes to this, every public official in this Dominion looks to-day to the Postmaster General and this government to know' whether or not officials have to toe the line or whether it is permissible for them to do about as they please. What is the admission of my hon. friend ? It is that there are ten thousand postmasters in this country who never know what they are signing, wiho do not know whether they are affixing their names to what is a correct report or not, that this is a shining example of such a postmaster, and when it comes to moneys being wrongly taken, when it comes to the misuse and embezzlement of public money, then the hon. gentleman says: we must be tendeii hearted ; we must not punish the wrongdoer ; we must not punish officials who do that sort of thing. You do not need to publish it on the streets now, you need not send a circular to every official under this government. That is not necessary. Every one will know, when the report of to-day's proceedings is circulated, that, so far as this government is concerned, they need not be at all anxious,' if they are only good partisans.
The Postmaster General undertook to say to my hon. friend who brought this matter up to-day-he did not say it in so many words but implied it- that my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) had not acted honourably and had abused the right which he had given him to look over the correspondence. But had not my hon. friend the right to see that corrrespondence ? Whose is it ? Does it belong to Wm. Mulock, Esq. ? Is it the property of the Postmaster General ? It is the country's business that is being carried on and my hon. friend is simply a departmental officer carrying on this business, and this parliament represents the country and has a perfect right to all that correspondence in order to get at the bottom of this question and see that its affairs are being properly carried on. What discourtesy was my hon. friend guilty of ? What courtesy was exercised by the Postmaster General when he said to him, go over and look through the files ? The Postmaster General did no more than his duty, and my hon. friend exercised no more than his rignt. The right and the duty were side by side, and the House has the right to look into the whole matter. It

goes further than the minister would have us think it goes ; it touches at the very foundation of things. Here is a department the responsible head of which is the Postmaster General ; here is all the array of his machinery. He sets that machinery to work, that machinery does its work and reports thereon, and statements therefrom come up to my hon. friend the Postmaster General for his final decision. What is the report of the inspector ? My hon. friend ti-ies to excuse the matter by saying that somebody who was in the office paid out the money when it should not have been paid out, when the postmaster himself knew without a shadow of doubt that he was getting money which did not belong to him. What was his salary ? $1,000 a year. Suppose it was paid by monthly warrants, and suppose he has the right to take it out of the till, he can only take out one-twelfth of that per month. Suppose it is a fourth of that salary, he can only take'one-twelfth of that fourth out of the till per month.


William Mulock: There is nothing to show that it was taken out of the till.


Mr.   POSTER@: The report of the Postmaster General's inspector shows that that money was paid out of the till, it must have been paid out of the till.


William Mulock: It does not show that the postmaster knew it was taken out of the till.


George Eulas Foster: The postmaster knew that he got it.


William Mulock: He may have known there was money there.
Mr. FOSTER, Is my hon. friend so trusting in this regard that he does not think a man of business getting a salary of $1,000 a year, knowing that lie needed the money, knowing just how far he had drawn out his salary-I do not imagine he ever left it to rust in the till of the post office-do you mean to say it is conceivable that when lie took out of the post office $450 at one payment, he did not know that he was getting something over and above what was due to him? It was inconceivable.


William Mulock: There is nothing to show he knew that he was getting money out of the till.


George Eulas Foster: Where would it come from ?


William Mulock: As I have said, there is an explanation. It is explained that the party who gave him this money had money for him.


George Eulas Foster: How derived ?


William Mulock: Left with the assistant


George Eulas Foster: Who left it ?


George Eulas Foster: 


William Mulock: The postmaster from time to time had been allowing accumulations in the hands of the department.


George Eulas Foster: That does not appear.


William Mulock: That is the explanation that has been given to me of that amount.


George Eulas Foster: That does not appear from the inspector's report, but what does appear from the inspector's report is this, that the postmaster admitted that he had received sums of money from his daughter, but that he supposed all the time it was from what she had placed to his credit from his salary warrant. Now does my hon. friend and the members of this House think that a village postmaster, evidently wanting his pay when it was due, did not take his pay when it was due, when he could go at one time and get $450, and directly after get $172, and shortly after $300 more, and attempt to pretend that he believed that that money was lying there at his credit? Did the post office inspector believe it ? The post office inspector informs the Postmaster General in his report that he did not believe it. Well, now, there is something more. There is not only the -taking of the money which he must have know was not his-all the worse, all the meaner, all the more reprehensible if he would allow an innocent related hand to dip into the till instead of his own. Do you mean to say that he not only did that but in order to cover it up he falsified the accounts, in order to cover it up-cover up what? His own credits of salary in arrears there. Why should he want to cover that up? In order to cover it up he made false statements with reference to sending registered letters, which the post office inspector himself investigated, and which were investigated here at the head office as well, and from both sources were found to be absolutely incorrect. He took the money out through a hand that he should have withheld from meddling with anything of that kind, took the money out, and to cover it up, falsified his accounts, took the money out and to cover it up made certain false statements with reference to sending money by registered letter, which he never sent. What graver thing could an official do? Can any one think, can the Postmaster General himself think, what graver things an official could do than that?
Now that comes to him in an official way. His post office inspector makes an inspection on the ground, reports those things and his belief in them, and that the man be dismissed. The Postmaster General sits here in his office, goes as a judge at the papers, at the information he has so received, issues his decree, and the man is dismissed. Then he gives way to evil influences and he allows the man to send


IS. 1905
[Stage Direction]
in his resignation. Why should that be done? If the Postmaster General had the information which he had at that time which he now says is wrong, and on that information said this man should be dismissed, why did he allow him to resign ? Is that conducive to official honesty and probity in the department of which my hon. friend is the head ? Later convictions had not come to him then. These two things were done just about the same time. A man whom he decided to be guilty and worthy of dismissal, instantly, the' very same moment almost, he allowed to resign, to hand in his resignation, and then gives a misleading statement to the House as to why he resigned. That was not a fair and frank statement that the Postmaster General gave my hon friend in answer to his question. Now that is what took place in his department, after a thorough investigation by his own officials. There was the opinion of his post office inspector. Every high official at least, and probably every official in my hon. friend's department, knew what was going on. The post office inspector knew it, post office inspectors other than that one knew it, the whole service became honeycombed with this knowledge of things. What is the moral effect upon a department where its own officers are snubbed, where, after investigations are thoroughly carried on, they are set aside by the Postmaster General, and where things like these are condoned? Is it in the interest of public morality, is it in the interest of official probity and the proper performance of the duties of the office ?
Now what will the inspector say ? My hon. friend was challenged as to whether he had made any official investigation and got reports which would upset the statements that he had made. He had no frank answer. I conclude therefore he has no answer, that he did not undertake this second part of it through officials of his department, but lie arrived at his conviction from other sources. Now, Sir, it seems to me that there can only be one thing that an official can say, and that is this : It is thoroughly useless for me to make examinations and try to perform the duties of my office, because when I make the investigations, when I make recommendations, the minister simply turns me down and puts the man back again. What respect will any official in the Postmaster General's department, in that division of it. have for a post office inspector after this? The post office inspector is sent somewhere else to investigate something or some one, but the man whom he goes to investigate says : A fig for you and your office ; I have got Mr. Dyment, or I have got some other Grit member behind me. I will have it made right with the minister ; you may go on with your formal work. Thus you have shorn your post office inspector of every vestige of authority. You have shorn your 198
officer of self-respect and of the respect that is due to him in the department over which he presides. You have made the name of inspection a by-word and a reproach and you have taught your department, through and through, on the case as it stands to-day, that if officials have political influence behind them they need not be honest, that they may take money and buy a house if they can make a bargain out of it, that they may take money to pay for pulp wood when they are in the speculation, that they may take money for this and for that out of the till provided they can get a relative to do it for them and upon whom they can, when the time of stress comes, throw, in an unmanly fashion, the onus of the guilt of the thing. That is what the hon. Postmaster General has taught his department and that is wliat, if the government sustain him, the government will teach this country. It is all of a piece. This is not the first.
William Mulock: No, this is not the first.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. Postmaster General had ideals when he was in opposition

he threw them aside when he became a member of the government-ideals, beautifully painted, painted with great care, as with the brush of a master, held up to those on the other side of the House before 1896 and every man on that side of the House who could not gaze upon that painted ideal and read his own image clear was represented as being a man not fit for the public service of this country. Every one of these the hon. gentleman has turned to the wall and nailed it there, and on the obverse side since he lias painted actual pictures, not ideals-the Jackson picture, for instance. This is of a piece with that. The hon. Postmaster General sits there today with the onus upon him of having taken a criminal from the province of Ontario, made him a high public officer of this government and sent him abroad knowing his record, and with infinite chivalry that old knight, Sir Richard Cartwright, after long years of warfare stood up here and looking around, especially on the hon. Postmaster General, and knowing his former course said : I will relieve his conscience of it altogether ; I will take the sole responsibility of this appointment. Chivalrous Sir Richard Cartwright ! But that did not absolve the hon. Postmaster General. The hon. Postmaster General made that appointment just as much as Sir Richard Cartwright made it. It had to be made by Council. It was an Ontario appointment in a public way and by geographical responsibility as well as by ministerial responsibility the hon. Postmaster General has to take the odium of it. What has he done ? He has sent a man that the judges scored, a man that reputable lawyers would not appear in court with, a man, who, if

I

certain papers had not been lost, -would have been disgowned, to represent Canada abroad, in a country where the name of a public official or agent has been from time immemorial the synonym for probity. That is the way wrong doing has been committed toy my hon. friend. This, as the case appears to-day, is on a par with that. But, oh, how virtuous my hon. friend gets in a different case. The quiet little village of Kentvale, whose only disparagement in the eyes of the Postmaster General is that it is inhabited chiefly by wilful and rebellious men who will vote the Conservative ticket, has a postmaster, who, I suppose, had a heart, who had a reputation, against whom not a word could be said or has been said, and yet, because, in the village of Kentvale, a large majority voted the Liberal Conservative ticket and against the government side, my great hearted and large minded friend the Postmaster General must, forsooth, don his armour and go into the fight. There is an enemy of the public service. He must be dismissed. He drew the enormous sum of $25 a year. He has dared as a free'man in Canada to exercise his political opinions and vote for the man of his choice. That never must be allowed in the public service of Canada, and the hon. gentleman decapitates this postmaster at Kentvale. Utterly oblivious of broken hearts, of lacerated feelings and of the almost infinite tenderness with which he is known to handle his fellow creatures he disgraced, in so far as he could, and dismissed the postmaster of Kentvale. But here is this man, Mr. Dotoey, who conveniently, between the sentence and the execution of the sentence and the time that a new conviction comes to the Postmaster General, part of the time being paid his salary, goes into the political field with all his armour on, speaks publicly, does all he can, an active partisan out and out; yet, consistency compels the Postmaster General to dethrone and recapitate a man who votes an his convictions and is not a violent partisan and to put back into office a man with a record such as has seldom been brought down to this House and a man who was a violent political partisan. That is consistency. That is acting on principle. Oh, the pettiness, the meanness of conduct of that kind V The hon. Postmaster General owes to this House now all the papers so that we can take it in hand as soon as possible and let the people's representatives see where the rights of this case are.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Mr. Speaker, the discussion has widened a good deal and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) who has just spoken has referred to matters which, while they are in order in a debate of this character, do not reach the immediate question which was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Mr. FOSTER.
Boyce). The facts of the case, as I learn them from this debate, because I am, like the rest of the members of the House, only learning the facts from this debate, seem to be very few. Representations having been made that a certain postmaster had been guilty of misconduct, my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), being satisfied with the information that is presented, dismisses him from office. So far there will be no question but that my hon. friend acted as he thought ini the interest of the public service. But, a few months later, information reaches my hon. friend which satisfies him that a mistake has been made and that the man is innocent. The statement of my hon. friend the Postmaster General is that upon further information he believes that he made a mistake. What then is the proper course to pursue ? Having dismissed the man in good faith, but as he subsequently found out through erroneous information, should he adhere to his unjust decision or should he reinstate the man in office? My hon. friend the Postmaster General says that the later information satisfied him that an injustice had been done and that therefore he was convinced that he should reinstate the man.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: May I ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) why that information is not here.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a point I was about coming to. My hon. friend the Postmaster General has stated that he thinks no good purpose whatever will be served by bringing down all the papers in this matter. He has stated that, having obtained this information, he gives the substance of it to the House and he offers to submit it in full to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), who, of course, is not bound to accept it unless he wishes. The Postmaster General has nothing to conceal, but he thinks the widening of this discussion and the introduction of other names will not be conducive to the public good, and might do individual harm. That is a fair statement of the case. The Postmaster General says he prefers not to1 bring down these papers. I do not agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that the House has a right to all these papers. Of course, the House has a right to dismiss the government if it wishes -but the House is always reasonable in matters of (this sort, and will only demand papers when their production is felt to be conducive to the public good. If the information received by the Postmaster General was such as to lead him to believe that a mistake was made, surely everybody will see that it was only common justice that he should remedy that mistake and reinstate the officer. If my hon. friends opposite insist that the papers must be brought down, well that is a question for the Postmaster

General to consider, and I am not going to speak tor Mm, but 1 can quite conceive there may be good reasons why papers should not be brought down. It constantly happens that it is in the public interest that papers be not brought down ; it is not an unusual thing to have papers submitted to the leader of the opposition, who has a certain degree of responsibility, differing perhaps from that of the hon. gentlemen by whom he is surrounded ; it is not an unusual thing to have papers submitted to him in order that he may satisfy himself that in the main justice has been done. If the Postmaster General believes he has good reason for not causing the introduction of other names by bringing down these additional papers, why should there be any assumption of partisanship ort anything else that has nothing to do with the -case ; why does it not present itself as a case of injustice having been done unwittingly to a public official and of that injustice being corrected in the light of further inquiry ? That, after all, is the whole case. You may broaden the discussion out into other points, but confining myself entirely to the question brought before the House by the hon. member (Mr. Boyce), it seems that it can be disposed of in a very few words. The Postmaster General dismisses an officer, and then afterwards believing that he has made a mistake he corrects the error, re-instates the officer, and tells us there are good reasons why he would prefer not to bring down all the papers, although he would gladly submit them to the leader of the opposition, so that the leader of the opposition may satisfy himself the Whole thing has been done with the best intentions and without any wrong to the public interest.


Samuel Hughes: The evidence has been brought out that this man I)obey was an offensive partisan in the official sense of the term. Would not that prevent the Postmaster General appointing him in any event 1


William Stevens Fielding: I do not understand that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) bases his case on any question of offensive partisanship. I understood the hon. gentleman to present the case in a different light, and I am merely dealing with the question of the dismissal of a public official for misconduct and of his re-instatement upon inquiry and in the belief that an injustice has been done him. We may introduce other questions, but dealing solely with the case of the appointment of this postmaster, I am not able to see anything in it beyond the simple fact of a mistake having been made, an injustice having been done, and that mistake having been -corrected and that injustice having been remedied by the Postmaster General under the circumstances stated.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the Minister of Finance has very remark-198J
able ideas as to the circumstances under which papers should be brought down. Here is a man who was dismissed by the Postmaster General, on his own fiat, upon the report of the post office inspector, and, notwithstanding that dismissal, it would appear that this postmaster remained in charge of the office for some months, and that finally his resignation was accepted.


William Mulock: He never was in charge.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I have a memorandum here on the file of the department which indicates that he was still in charge on the 19ith of M-ay, and the Postmaster General previously to that had signed this fiat that he should he dismissed.
-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The order may have been -made a few days before the 19th of May, but it would take a little time to put some person in charge. When instructions were given for his dismissal instructions were given about the same time to have a reliable person put in charge, and the postmaster was not left in charge a moment longer than was necessary to get some one to take charge of the office. The inspector had some reliable person in his mind and, when authorized, put that reliable person in charge. That took place, I think, a few days after the order was made, and from that time forward the late postmaster, I assume had no control of the office.


Robert Laird Borden: The information to which I have already referred is contained in a telegra-m of the 19th of May from the inspector to Mr. Smith, who, I think, is secretary of the department. The telegram says :
The postmaster at Thessalon is still In charge.
He seems to be amazed -that the postmaster should be still in charge, and on the 20th of May the secretary of the department wired Mr. Henderson, the inspector :
Present arrangements are satisfactory if the accounts and cash are kept exclusively in the hands of the young woman.
Why should you keep a man there as postmaster during a considerable period, if his conduct has been such that it is necessary to keep the cash and accounts exclusively in the hands of one of his assistants ? But the significant circumstance in connection with this is that on the 21st of May the inspector reports to the Postmaster General-I gather from the -memorandum it is to the Postmaster General himself-that the postmaster is under the impression that the difficulty may -blow over and that he will still remain postmaster. Th-at is a very significant circumstance. The Minister of Finance says that he could see no good public reason why these papers should be brought down. Let us examine that for a moment. The Postmaster General does not

deny that there has been at least embezzlement of the public funds ; that there have been false returns ; that there have been letters alleged to contain money sent forward as registered letters which did not contain money at all or which were not really forwarded at all, one or the other. Three different charges were enumerated by my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce), and I listened attentively to the Postmaster General in order that I might hear from him some denial that these three breaches of the crftninal law had taken place. Now, I do not care whether it is the postmaster or whether it is some one else, an official of the department has been guilty, according to the facts which have been placed before the House and which are still uneontradieted ; some person in the employ of the department has been guilty of these several offences. It is suggested by the Postmaster General that the postmaster himself-although his answers to the inspector would not lead to that conclusion-was not really guilty. I would find it very difficult indeed, without a formal investigation, without some better evidence than the mere statements of gentlemen who may have gone to the Postmaster General for that purpose ; I would find it very difficult to believe that even if that money were abstracted by the assistant and relative of the postmaster at Thessalon, that that was not done at his instance and with his connivance. I would say that it would have been the duty, in my opinion, of the Postmaster General to have had a very careful, formal and official investigation before he allowed this man to escape on any such plea as that. The Minister of Finance thinks these papers should not be brought down. We have heard something of reputations-how is the reputation of the postmaster cleared by smirching the reputation of some one else ? That is the way in which the defence has been put forward to-day-by attacking the reputation of a relative.


William Mulock: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I do not know what the Postmaster General means if he dogs not mean that.


William Mulock: Not attacking.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I do not care whether yon call it attacking or not; you are transferring admitted guilt from the postmaster to the postmaster's assistant, you are doing that without any formal investigation, and when you do that you remove, you attempt at least to remove the stain from the character of the postmaster by placing that stain upon the character of the postmaster's assistant. It is in the public interest that the facts of the case should be laid fairly before parliament, it would seem to me that it is due especially to the postmaster himself that the facts to which the Postmaster Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
General has alluded should he laid before parliament, in order that parliament may come to the conclusion that he is innocent if he be really innocent, and that thus his good name may be vindicated before the people of this country. I have been dealing so far only with the question of criminal responsibility, because if there is criminal responsibility, it seems to me that the government ought to place before parliament very good and sufficient reasons why the matter has not been followed up. There is a very significant sentence in the report of. the inspector to the effect that he was thoroughly satisfied that there had been an understanding between the postmaster and his relative who was also his assistant. I do not think a judgment of that kind, which was come to by the post office inspector after a careful investigation of the circumstances on the spot, should he lightly set aside by the Postmaster General if he expects these officers to do their duty in the future.
But there is another element in the case, which the Postmaster General has not touched at all, and it is this. Let us assume for the moment that the postmaster was not really guilty of the offence which has been laid at his door by the report of the post office inspector. Let us assume that the embezzlement took place without his actual knowledge, and that he signed these false returns without actually knowing that they were false, is there anything in the circumstances of the case from one end to the other which would justify the Postmaster General in re-appointing him ? Was there no other man in that town who could have been appointed to this office ? It seems to me that the Postmaster General has attempted a defence only so far as criminal responsibility is concerned, and that be has not offered one word to this House in extenuation of his conduct in again appointing this man to this office without any report vindicating that man's character, certainly without any report vindicating his official performance of his duty. It seems to me that my hon. friend the Postmaster General could not have done this unless pressure of a most extraordinary character had been placed upon him for that purpose. I believe that the hon. gentleman, apart from those very strong partisan feelings which I think sometimes actuate him too much, tries to carry on Ms department in a businesslike way ; but surely in this instance there must have been pressure of a most extraordinary character placed upon him, otherwise he could r.ot have done what he has done.


William Mulock: There was not the slightest pressure.


Robert Laird Borden: That still leaves my hon. friend the Postmaster General in an indefensible position absolutely. Some
6225 MAY 18, 1905 6226 [DOT] . 	 .			
reference has been made to the postmaster at Kentvale, a man who was dismissed because he had Conservative proclivities, although my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) states that he took no part in the election. I have two other instances in mind-the dismissal of a postmaster at Upper Musquodoboit in the county of Halifax, because some Conservatives met at his house. Certain Conservatives, of whom I was one, were travelling through the countv of Halifax, and we stopped at his hotel. Borne Conservatives of the surrounding district met at his house in the evening. He had been dismissed two or three years before for alleged offensive partisanship, but had been reinstated. The post office was removed about a mile away, and he was told that his services would be no longer required. In the same county the Kent post office was removed about a mile for the alleged reason that Miss Kent, whose family are Conservatives, must be deprived of the position in order that a strong supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite could be appointed. We know the doctrine that was laid down by the First Minister in 1897, when this matter was discussed in the House of Commons. He simply said: If any man in the public service of this country makes himself an offensive partisan, an active partisan, that is to say, if he takes an active part in the politics of his country, then 1 shall give him his full time to devote himself to that particular matter.' Here is a man against whom is the record disclosed by my hon. friend from West Algoma to-day, who takes the most active part that could be taken in the public affairs of this country, who goes upon the public platform and speaks, not only in one election but in two elections, and my hon. friend the Postmaster General sees fit, upon the recommendation I suppose of those whom that man assisted, to re-appoint him with this record staring him in the face. Surely we are entitled to take the words of the Prime Minister at their face value. They do not mean, as I understand them, that a man may be an offensive partisan provided he works for the Liberal party, but that he can not be an offensive partisan if he works for the opposite party. Yet from time to time, ever since that declaration was made eight years ago, we have seen the principle worked out just in the way in which it has been worked out in this case. I concur in the statement of my hon. friend from North Toronto that these papers ought to be brought down. There is no need, it seems to me, of any secrecy in this matter. Whatever aspersion may be east by these papers on the postmaster's assistant, cannot be greater than the suspicion that has been cast upon that person by the words of the Postmaster General this afternoon. I trust therefore that the papers will be brought down, sc	that we may see exactly the nature of the evidence which has led my hon. friend the Postmaster General to absolutely disregard the report of his officer, who inquired into and reported upon this matter. Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax). With regard to the particular instance in question, I have nothing to say, because I am not personally acquainted with the facts. But the honourable and learned leader of the opposition, in the course of his remarks, made an allusion to the removal of the postmaster of Middle Musquodoboit in the county ot Halifax, of the facts of which he does not appear to be cognizant. He alluded to this subject a year or so ago when bringing up the question of the wrongful dismissal ot this officer on which occasion he stated that the postmaster at Middle Musquodoboit had been	 Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend misunderstood me, it was the postmaster at Upper Musquodoboit, Mr. Stewart, not Mr. Kaulbach. Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE. He alluded to both. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did not allude to the one at Middle Musquodoboit. Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE. This very interesting locality will have the eyes of Canada turned upon it on account of this discussion to-day. The postmaster at Middle Musquodoboit was dismissed, but not on the first complaint that was ,made. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did not allude to him at all. Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE. And not on account of the assembly of the notables in that district to meet the learned leader of the opposition, not on account of the influx of political partisans in that district on that occasion, but it was because it had been proved by the affidavits of three or four reputable people that he had both canvassed for the opposition candidate and that he had taken an active part in the organization of that district on behalf of the Liberal-Conservative party. Mr. LANCASTER. Will my hon. friend tell me if that is a worse offence than the misappropriation of public funds ? Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE. I will be able to tell something about the misappropriation of public funds too if necessary. Now with regard to the question of the removal of the postmaster at Upper Musquodoboit, that "-entleman was retained in office although his partisanship was well known and was most offensive to a large number of the residents of that locality, who repeat-edlv wrote letters to members asking for the dismissal of that gentleman on the ground of

political partisanship. Affidavits were sent that this gentleman had canvassed a number of individuals pending that election, and had used his influence and his office as the rendezvous for the choice spirits of the Conservative party in Upper Musquodoboit. I resisted for a long time recommending the removal of that individual but when it became known that in addition to his partisanship he had used personal abuse both to a number of leading gentlemen in that locality and personally to myself to my knowledge, I took upon myself to recommend that that very objectionable individual to whom the learned leader of the opposition has alluded to this afternoon be removed from his office as an object lesson to others in the vicinity that they were not to use their position and office to damage the government of which they are servants and to abuse residents in the locality.


Robert Laird Borden: When did the abuse take place? I am very much surprised.


Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE.: The abuse took place-I did not know the man at all. I was paying a visit to that portion of the country, and the first thing I knew I was abused by that gentleman from a wagon while passing through the woods.
I did not know him, but I found out afterwards that it was the learned postmaster of Upper Musquodoboit.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman tell me when it took place?


William Roche: It took place previous to the election of 1900.


Robert Laird Borden: He has been in office for four years since.


William Roche: That only proves what I have said, that I am a long-suffering individual.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simeoe).: It has been the habit of quite a considerable portion of the public press of this country, and particularly of pulpit speakers, to make the statement that Canada is so utterly dead to any sense of decency in politics that no matter what is said on either side of the House is applauded. I think if some of those editors or reverend gentlemen had been in this House to-day and had seen the Postmaster General sit down as he did amid profound silence on the other side of the House, with not a single bit of applause, they would at least admit that crimes may become so great that even partisans will not approve of them. That was the case this afternoon.
I remember last year when Sir Richard Cartwright was brought to task in the celebrated Jackson case-and I must join with the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) _ that the conduct of Sir Richard Cartwright on that occasion was rather to be admired than that of the Postmaster


William Roche: General-Sir Richard Cartwright said plainly and fairly that a crime had been committed and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) omitted the most important part of Sir Richard's statement on that occasion, that while a crime had been committed a greater crime had been committed by Jackson in letting it be found out. The Postmaster General will not admit a crime has been committed although the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. William Roche) who has listened attentively to the discussion when he rose to speak would not say a word in approval of the conduct of the Postmaster General in this case. The Postmaster General has had some admirers I think among the independent press in this country, but I think after the explanation in this case they would shudder to think of that hon. gentleman being at the head of one of the large spending -de-dartments of the government of this country. He is at the head of a department where two things can be carried on, a certain amount of petty grafting and a large amount of vindictiveness, and the country generally knows that there is no minister who has pursued with greater vindictiveness officials who are not friendly to him politically, than the Postmaster General since he came into office. The hon. member for Lancaster recalls the great Grimsby case which was mentioned last year. What was the man's offence in that case? He was standing at his door and hearing from a man coming down the street the result of the poll he said : If that is the case, Mr. Gibson is defeated. The Postmaster General who is so tender hearted to-day, without any regard for that man's family or feelings drove him out of his position. I need not recall many other cases where nothing but vindictiveness was stamped on the face as the sole and only reason for men being put out of office. Let us consider how the hon. gentleman regards the conduct of his own department in other respects. Wre had a case the other day. A post office contract expired-and I do not know how many similar cases might be discovered if inquiry were made-and without asking for tenders, although the 'Courier' had received only $140 odd, the Postmaster General undertook to advance his salary to $160 for this mail service in utter defiance of the law.


William Mulock: What law ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The law that the Postmaster General cannot give what he pleases to a courier.


William Mulock: Is there anything in the law which prevents my doing so ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Common decency, and I hope and trust that there is law in this country to say that the Postmaster General cannot give mail contracts at whatever

figure he thinks right. Had the hon. gentleman called for tenders, the work would have been performed at a cheaperYate than it was at first, but without any warrant or authority he increases the pay from $140 odd to $160 a year. And what is the reason? Because the man is one of the strongest partisans in that district. My bon. friend from Halifax has pointed out that because a postmaster permitted people to come to bis house that is sufficient to make it a rendezvous and have him dismissed. In the adjoining riding of Sim-coe they go on the platform with the approval of the Postmaster General and if he will dismiss him I will give him the name of a postmaster there


Mr. LANCASTER.: I shall give another.


William Humphrey Bennett: He will not dismiss him because he is one of the hangers on. How does he deal with the patronage in his department ? Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of supplies have to be purchased for the use of the department throughout the Dominion, thousands of dollars have to be spent for repairs of mailbags. Are tenders asked for this work ? Boots are required for the carriers in Hamilton. Why the hon. gentleman who represents Hamilton on that side (Mr. Zimmerman) has not influence enough apparently to ba.v6 $400 *worth of boots for tho men in his own constituency in connection with the postal service supplied by a firm in that constituency.


Mr ZIMMERMAN.: My hon. friend forgets that I have only been a member of this House a very short time, but I would like to know if the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has tried to get that patronage ?


William Humphrey Bennett: When my hon. friend on the Liberal side cannot get it what chance can there be for my hon. friend on the Conservative side ?


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: I have not tried- to get it.


William Humphrey Bennett: We have the fact that the Postmaster General does not think it beneath himself to take up to a little country town like Aurora, in his own constituency, thousands of dollars worth of patronage in order to strengthen himself. One would think he ought to be a little courageous especially when he represents what was supposed to be, until the, last local elections, a Grit hive, and give that patronage to other ridings where it rightfully belongs. He tells us that no pressure was brought on him to have this postmaster reappointed. But let the House bear in mind the dates of his dismissal and reappointment. Mr. Dobie resigned on the 21st May, 1904 and was not reappointed until the 16th' February, 1905. Does the Postmaster General expect any men of this House or
any person in Thessalon or Algoma to be so supremely innocent or idiotic as to believe that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment) was not continually pleading for the reinstatement of this official ? Why, the evidence upon which he was reinstated was all before the minister when the minister dismissed him. There is not a word in that record in rebuttal of the statements made to Inspector Henderson. Mr. Henderson went to Thessalon and made a full inquiry. He found that the daughter of the postmaster there, who was his assistant, had given out of the till public moneys to her father. On one occasion she had handed her father $450 to buy a house. I need not traverse the ground of defence. Ihe salary of the postmaster in a town of that size is paid every month. How then could the postmaster at Thessalon believe that there was $450 due him for a month s salary, when his salary is only $1,000 per year ? On another occasion she gave him $172 out of the till to buy pulp wood, on another $200 and on still another $300. Why, in those sums alone there is $1,000 involved, and therefore how could the postmaster pretend, with any show of plausibility, that this was salary ? The dates will show that these payments were all crowded together, and no doubt were made to meet certain exigencies not connected with the public service at all. But the fact of the matter is that in that part of the country such an offence is simply winked at. It lias never been supposed that there was any administration of the criminal law in that section. Take the outrages committed at the Soo in connection with the elections there, when the very men to whom was intrusted the administration of tne criminal law simply laughed at those often-ces and condoned them. It is notorious tbat the administration of criminal law in Ontario, particularly in Algoma, has been a tfarce. Mr. Dobey was a strong partisan and knew that he would have the support of the member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment), and of Mr. Wigg the local candidate, and of the criminal prosecutors in that district, end consequently felt quite certain that nothing would be done to him. And nothing would have been done if his case had not been brought to the notice of the House. I do not suppose that even after this exposure, the man will be dismissed. W e hod a somewhat similar case yesterday afternoon of an agent at Fort Macleod who put all the blame on his son, and in this case we have the postmaster at Thessalon saddling all the responsibility on his daughter. He should be dismissed for his cowardice if for nothing else. This incident gives a little insight into what is going on at Ottawa Whether there have been other similar cases or not in the Post Oflice Department I am not aware, but I know from the public accounts that the Postmaster General distributes patronage in his own

riding in. order to assist himself, and at the expense of the public. Go all over the province of Ontario, and you will see those large iron boxes placed on the different streets for the reception of letters and other mail matter. Does any one believe that those boxes are furnished at a fair price, that tenders are invited, and the contract for them given to the lowest bidder ! Not by any means. They are given out to the strongest partisans of the Postmaster General in the little town of Aurora, and are made in a small foundry there instead of being given out to public competition. These people last year were paid $3,500 for these boxes ; and year by year the Postmaster General, in order to strengthen himself in that riding, is giving out contracts for thousands of dollars worth of supplies without tender. The House has been furnished an example this afternoon of the tension which the Postmaster General's conscience can stand. I have had similar instances in. many an election contest in the province of Ontario and am in a position to judge of the elasticity of the hon. gentleman's conscience.


Samuel Hughes: I have some remarks to make on the matter before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: It was understood that tin? House would not sit to-night, and if the hon. gentleman is not going to be long we might wait a little.


Samuel Hughes: Better adjourn the discussion as there are others who wish to take part in it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The only question before the House is the motion to go into supply.


Robert Laird Borden: The debate can be continued whenever the motion is again made to go into supply.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps we had better formally go into supply now, and then, when another day the motion is made to go into supply, the debate can be renewed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
William Stevens Fielding: We will not meet again to-night, owing to members being engaged elsewhere. I therefore move that the House do now adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the House meets again, I hope the Postmaster Gen-erai will be able to bring down the papers on this subject to which reference has been made, m time for any further discussion.
hulOCK. I will take e mattei into my serious consideration.
agreed to, and House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.


William Humphrey Bennett: Friday, May 19, 1905.