1908-06-02

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called I beg to ask the Minister of Justice when I may expect a return respecting paroled prisoners which I moved for some time ago.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister pf Justice).: I may say to my hon. friend that extra efforts were made to prepare this return in order that it might be brought down as soon as possble. It was found that if only one man was kept at work on it. it would occupy him eight hours a day for Mr. R. L. BORDEN.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When may I expect a reply as to my inquiry concerning the liberation of Agnes B.'Kun, of Sydney. The Prime Minister will remember that I directed his attention to the resolution of the council passed about three weeks ago, on the 7th of May.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I saw what was said in ' Hansard ' in regard to the matter and I have really nothing to add to what my hon. friend the member for the riding (Mr. .Johnston) stated on that occasion. The resolution which was then read to the House by the hon. gentleman was forwarded to me shortly after it was passed by the municipal council and 1 replied pointing out to the council some considerations which it seemed to me had been overlooked in the preparation of the resolution. I have not sinoe Friday last referred to the papers to ascertain exactly the date upon which I wrote, but I am nuite sure it was a few days prior to the date mentioned by the hon. gentleman as that upon which lie had been communicated with. The circumstances, however, are fully set out in the resolution and in the letter which I sent in reply to it, which letter, according to my hon. friend from the county (Mr. Johnston) has been published in the newspapers there.


Robert Laird Borden: Would there be any objection to laying on the table of the House a copy of the communication of the Minister of Justice in reply to the resolution ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: No, certainly not ; it has been made public already, although it was not written for publication.



SUPPLY-ADMINISTRATION OF THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["If the charges had been proved with regard to one of the officers I would say yes, they would. But let us take a supposititious case. Suppose it were true that Mr. Lithgow had misbe-liaved on a certain occasion; suppose he had been intoxicated, I would say for my part to the minister :\tGive that man a further\nchance; do not dismiss him; he is a good officer ; I would not be thet first one to cast\na stone at him ; he may have misbehaved, but he is doing better and will do better, and I would not dismiss him. That would be my advice to the minister. But it is a very different thing for a man to be accused of having continuously lived in open shame to the scandal of the community.\nI have no hesitation in saying that such a man would have to make a very strong case before I would retain him in the service. But if such a good officer as Mr. Lithgow has the misfortune to make a break, as the saying is, I would ask him to give his promise that he would not fall again, and on that condition I would not dismiss him from the service. I repeat, I do not know Mr. Lithgow, I never saw him, but all the reports that I have had from the Yukon agree that his public conduct has been remarkably good and in the public interest. That is my own view of tlie matter. I may say further that I know -and perhaps my hon. friend from North Toronto knows also-that there are men of the same persuasion and I think of the same cloth as Mr. Pringle who do not take the view he does with regard to Mr. Lithgow. After all, in a country like the Yukon, if a man has the misfortune, as we say in common parlance, to make a break,\nI think it would not he wise on the part of the government to exact frprn him the pound of flesh and be absolutely merciless towards him.\nWith regard to Mr. Girouard, who has been accused of the most grievous offence, he could not remain in the service with that cloud over his head. He had to do one of two things, and he has done both. First of all, he had to clear his character, and to do that he brought an action for libel against Mr. Pringle, which action I understand is pending. I was asked by an hon. member if the action had been tried. As I understand, the courts in the Yukon take their recess during the winter and sit during the summer, so that the case has not yet been tried. At all events, Mr. Girouard has left the service, and, therefore, these matters are not perhaps of much interest at the present time except so far as they show whether or not the government have done their duty. I have only to repeat that, in my humble judgment, the minister in this matter behaved as he should have behaved ; he gave Mr. Pringle the opportunity to bring his charges and have them investigated, and Mr. Pringle was not fair to himself when he refused that opportunity. If he had taken it, and if the witnesses on whom he relied had not come forward, then it would have been oi>en to the minister to decide whether or not he would prosecute any further. The House will agree with me that the minister did his full duty, not only to Mr. Pringle, but to himself and to the government of which he is a member.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.", "After Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker. I propose this morning to lay before the House as briefly as possible, blit

yet somewhat in extenso, certain matters in relation to the administration of the Yukon, particularly as developed in correspondence which has taken place between the Rev. John Pringle, of the Yukon and various ministers of the Crown. It is a question of some difficulty sometimes to know just what a man is thoroughly justified in bringing before a parliament and in the mass of correspondence which has been laid before the House and which I have gone over very carefully, it is somewhat difficult to make a presentation of the question without going very extensively into the subject matter treated of. This, from its very nature in this case, touches individuals; it does not in any case touch individuals personally as individuals, but touches individuals as officials of the government in the Yukon, and officials appointed by and paid by this country. So that in placing this matter before parliament and the country I am to be taken as doing it in the public interest and from a public point of view. If it touches the individual in that way I cannot help it and I suppose the House cannot help it. The individual, if be is a member of the government or a member of the council of the Yukon or engaged in public office, has to take these disadvantages.
The Yukon for a long time has been a land of mystery, lying away off thousands of miles from the seat of government, with communications which in some seasons of the year are very spasmodic, always difficult'and at the best seasons of the year not very rapid or frequent. It lies so far from the seat of government and the centre ot interest that it is only by fits and starts that what occurs there catches the attention of the larger part of Canada and, in fact, is discussed in this House. It lies there chiefly in the charge of officials who are resident there. It is extremelv difficult for a member of this House to find out what goes on, mixed up as the administration is between the Yukon council, wnich has certain powers of its own, keeps its accounts and does its own business and the department here whose action is under the immediate direction of this government and with whose accounts our own accountants have first and chiefly to do. We find it difficult to get any connected idea or any connected run of what goes on. Inquiries for information which is asked for and which one thinks he ought to get quickly have to he referred to the Yukon and it sometimes takes many many months to get it. I he interest dies in the meantime and the ^ sequence of events is lost. From the time that this government took hold of the Yukon to the present time it has been subject to rumour, subject to suspicions and subject, as well, to actual information in the way of facts that have gradually come to be established. It was first the happy
hunting ground of the whisky perinitter and extravagant tales, I daresay, are told of the fortunes that were made and the peculiar manner in which they were made by the army of pioneers in that branch of the development of that country. Suffice it to say that there has been for years a very general impression that the whisky permits were scandalously managed and that they resulted in ill-begotten wealth and wealth too, in no small degree, to various parties implicated in connection therewith.
Rut, it is not my purpose at this present time to go particularly into that branch.
It has been the happy hunting ground of the royalty on mining inspection and it was with very great difficulty that here, at the seat of government, any connected idea could be got as to what was going on under the loose and far distant supervision of the particular persons or person who, for the time being, held that office. Out of that, as well, there have been strange tales and stories more or less founded which have come down to the present day. These things also I do not purpose to go into detail on at the present time. Then, there succeeded from the time that the early miners began to go in, the long, grinding, tortuous, mysterious dealings with mining claims, the history of which will, I suppose, never be written, the history of which, if written, would be a tale both of wonder and not unfilled with humiliating instances, I dare say, if they were ever properly known. I, myself. have known men of the greatest probity, men of the highest conduct, men of undoubted honesty, who have gone to the Yukon, have remained there and have come back and the tales that they have told in reference to the actions and doings in those early days are certainly wonderful and are not at all creditable, not a thousandth part of which has been placed upon the record and I suppose never will be. But, we know enough to know that if the history of that long series of years in which the mining areas and claims of the Northwest -were being thrown about like battledore and shuttlecock between the inspectors and the officials were written it would furnish a history that would be intensely interesting. and, as I remarked, with reference to something else, not very creditable to the administration of affairs in that distant part of the country. That, I do not propose to go into in detail at the present time. I suppose it will never he gone into in detail according to its merits, hut along with that there has been another and a more lurid illumination, so to speak, of the affairs of that far distant part of the country. It has had relation to the administration and the administrators and the results of_ the ad ministration in a social and moral point of view. Not until 1902 was any individual found who appeared to be strong enough, bold enough, courageous enough to make


George Eulas Foster: ing characteristics of our public life here. I am quite well aware that human society, even where at its best, is not utopian, but the officials in a frontier mining camp, the men who represent, or are supposed to represent, the Canadian government, should be above suspicion-pure and upright-because the law, which is the expression of the moral sense of the Canadian people.
The poison has permeated every department of our life; affects business, personal and public; so that the prevalent impression is that one has 'to be ' on the inside ' or must 'fix' some one before he can get even whait is hia right under the law. We may differ in our opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom, the expediency or .inexpediency of a government's policy in given conditions.
But there can be no question about this: That under the policy adopted, righteousness, not influence, * graft ' or ' pull ' should prevail. You may ask me for specific examples, showing that the conditions of which I speak exist. That is not my business. I am not a detective; nor have I gone out of the way of my ordinary life to look for this condition. The people know it, act as if they knew it, talk as if they knew. I have heard the names of police and departmental officials used in connection with matters which belong only to the gutter. I would a hundred times have been angry, only that my anger was overwhelmed by sorrow at the truth of what was said.
You will permit me to speak in detail of certain things which are of vital interest to our people, and ought therefore to be of some interest to our government.
1. Hydraulic concessions.
He goes on to give his own opinion of hydraulic concessions and his opinion inclines to this at that particular time, that hydraulic concessions, concessions to people in large, should not be the policy of the government; that the individual miner and prospector ought to have the ground and that it ought not to be cut out from him by large quantities of this country being given over to the large holder, the speculator and, some time or other, the great hydraulic worker. He develops that and, in the course of it he says :
My blood boiled, when, standing on the Ar-kansaw Creek divide, I saw the great and beautiful river issue from the foothills, and remembered that it was in the grasp of capital, that the people had been disinherited; and that everything in this great rich district was to be food for the maw of a greedy government favoured corporation.
He was referring to the notorious Tread-gold concession.
I own no claims in this district directly or indirectly, and am therefore not personally interested. But I feel for the plain men who have to ^ compete in locating ground with a corporation which has unlimited money and no conscience; which, even when the miner has located, has a cinch on him through the iniquitous Klondike water privilege.
In more than one public meeting in the city of Dawson, it was stated in my hearing, and

958b
was not denied, that concessions such as the ' Bronson & Ray/ ' Philip/ &c.-
Said ' Philip,' I believe, having been the law partner of a Minister of the Interior.
-were granted on representations which were suggestive of perjury. This, at least, is I believe true, that perhaps with one exception no proper knowledge of the ground was had before the concessions, none of the conditions on which it was granted have been fulfilled.
I am convinced that men could stake and work, on any concession granted in the Yukon and that an appeal to the law would secure them in their claims; that all of them have been so loosely granted that they are void.
Last winter I went to the headwaters of the Stewart river on a missionary trip. On that great river a number had staked, and others were intending to stake in a district south of the McQuesten and Stewart rivers. Men who has prospected spoke again and again to me of the richness of the higher bars and the wooded bottoms of the Stewart. Three miles and a half below the police post at McQuesten, I found two of my old friends (Partridge an-1 Nelson) of the Teslin trail. They had the easiest mining proposition in the Yukon pan open cut from the river about ten feet deep, with drifts on either side. The dirt averaged a dollar a bucket, in a paystreak 280 feet wide. When I returned, the first item of news I got from one of our daily papers, was that five miles of the Stewart hanks, south of McQuesten, had been granted to one Wilson. I verified the report in the Gold Commissioner's office. It is an iniquity, whether granted in ignorance of the possibilities of the district, or because some one had a ' pull.'
This policy will depopulate the territory ere long. Let us keep hydraulic companies out and give the common people a chance, under the now more favourable conditions of living, to work the low grade ground.
Concessions have been granted, I am convinced, not only carelessly but iniquitously; the heritage of our people given to satisfy the greed of capital, without due consideration of the rights of the people in the ground, or of the character of the statement made to secure these concessions.
2. The laws against gambling, dance halls, and other immorality, are either not enforced | at all, or enforced so spasmodically that people know that there is a ' nigger on the fence.' Of course, we all know about the order from a deputy minister a year or so ago which was practically an order to the police to keep their hands off. But where the gamblers and their friends of the dance halls and whisky trust got their promised assurance, we do not know. As to the gambling: it was closed all winter, partly because there was nothing in it for the gamblers, partly because the police said it had to be closed. But when the clean-up began this spring, i. e., when the men who had ' gophered ' in hills and creek beds all winter, were about to reap their harvest, the vultures, evidently assured of immunity by some one, began their work. It was left to ministers and a few other cranks to see that the law was enforced. Our attempts to do so have taught us that we must choose between the alternatives of thinking that our lawmakers are incapable, or that our law enforcers are without conscience or moral courage adequate for the discharge of their duty.
The dance halls in which more men, some of them government officials, have been ruined than in any other of our protected dens, are run wide open. I wish the government would, for its own good name, either suppress these ' hells,' or at least take means to verify reports, current all over this camp, about officials who are their habitues. Prostitution flaunts itself everywhere; the abandoned woman (to say nothing of the abandoned man) is everywhere:	beside respectable homes;
across the street from them; beside our grocery and dry goods stores; on first and second and third, and every avenue and road. Unless some one is robbed or injured in her house she is undisturbed.	,
ffe have 210 licensed bars for a population of about 20,000. On twelve miles of the Bonanza road

60 above to 60 below-there are three 'for every mile.
That is a pretty large allowance even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will agree.


Mr. FIELDING.: The reverend gentleman seems to have known the locations very well.


George Eulas Foster: He does. And he writes from knowledge. Does the Minister of Finance mean to impute anything to the Rev. John Pringle?


William Stevens Fielding: No, but I think that the reverend gentleman, having this knowledge, might certainly have exercised his power in another way. He could have found local authorities to deal with the matter rather than bring it to Ottawa. And, perhaps I may be permitted to remark that it seems a rather strange thing that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Thompson), who knows all about the conditions there, sat here for many months and never alluded to this matter, and also that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) only brings the matter up after the hon. member for Yukon has gone away.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad the hon. minister has put in these words. It is the same poor, old, wretched excuse. When such things as these are being brought to light, when the attention of ministers is demanded, the only answer is to make not very nice insinuations against Rev. John Pringle, and they throw the blame on others
__on any others-in order to shelter their
own government.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will permit me: I do not desire to make the slightest imputation against the character of Rev. Mr. Pringle. If the hon. gentleman drew that inference, let me say that I had no intention of saying anything that would justify it; and, if what I said was capable of conveying that impression. I withdraw it at once.


George Eulas Foster: It would have been better if it had not been made. It is exactly the same insinuation that one F. Tennyson Congdon made in reference to Mr. Pringle in a memo, that I shall have the pleasure of reading a little later.


Sir WILFRID  LATJRIBR@: 'Pleasure.'


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Don't miss any of it.


George Eulas Foster: I will not, because I have no doubt that my hon. friend who is making the interruption is probably listening with both ears wide open.


Alexander Johnston: We have lots of time.


George Eulas Foster: There seems to be no limit to the number of licenses. The saloon men in Bonanza village, six in number I think, asked the license commissioners to grant no more licenses. The acting commissioner and the person known as Ikey Rosenthal-


Alexander Johnston: What's the matter with Ikey?
'Mr. FOSTER. That is a gentleman that I will introduce to the hon. member for Sydney. He will probably be quite familiar with such-
-drove to our village with the result that at least four additional licenses are to be granted. I make the foregoing statements advisedly, for I have the very best reason for believing that Mr. Hinton the license commissioner was forced against his judgment to grant the additional license.
But the worst feature of the licensed houses here is that a very large percentage of them are houses of prostitution. Many of them run it is true, by people of good character. But a large number of bawdy houses with a government license to prey upon the public.
I have wondered since coming north why the permit system was adopted. Was it to restrict the sale of liquor P Or to make it respectable? Or to make money for government exigencies? Or to make money for men with a pull?	J
Pardon this plainness, it is the wav the people talk about it here. If either of the nrst two ends was sought, the permit system is a failure. If the last two, it has been an unqualified success. Of all the debauching influences which touch our private and our public life, the whisky permit and its possessor are the worst. Of it, almost all other evils are begotten.
\\ hat the officers of the Northwest Mounted 1 olice think about all this, 1 do not know. But the rank and file do not hesitate to say that when they do their duty, they are praised as the finest force on earth, and then to use their own expressions, are r buffaloed/ thrown down/ Again and again have they raided places running in defiance of the criminal law of Canada, only to be told by some official friend of gamblers, that they have exceeded their duty. The law is systematically manipulated- not to protect the public, but to protect and nurse the gambler and shame honest men. It is enough to degrade any force, however fine, to know that


George Eulas Foster: where immorality is concerned, it is useless to do their duty that the law itself will be used to thwart them, and defeat the ends of justice.
I have written in plain terms. If I am asked what right I have so to address the government of Canada, I answer: That I am a Canadian and love my native land. I hold that we have a right to expect that the men who represent our government, the officers of the law and of departments, should not only do justly, but live rightly. I have said publicly here, and I repeat it, that there is a conscience in the east, and I shall do my best to arouse and invoke it for the overthrow of wrong. That I shall refuse to be silent, when I know that men who are public servants, are renegades from righteous and purity; and that I snail protest against the outrage put upon us, of having to look upon men as our superiors, who are hand-in-glove with crooks and gamblers and apologists for immorality, men who are not so much concerned about tire enforcement of the law, as they are about finding excuses for the evasion of it.
Two years ago I refused to believe stories I heard about the scandalous lives of Yukon officials. These stories were used for party purposes, those using them not so much concerned about the interests of the country, as about the interests of their party. For this reason they were willing to exhibit their country's shame exaggerated greatly, I then believed before the world. I refused to believe these stories, and my statements concerning them were made use of on the public platform from Halifax to Victoria to rebut statements made by our opponents. I was largely in error I fear. If things then were worse than they have, been during Mr. Ross' ab-cense this spring. I was certainly in error, I should at least have been silent.
I write this not as a minister, but as a citizen. I wrote it as one who has the greatest confidence ill Mr. Ross' ability and integrity, and my strictures do not touch him personally.
Brit I have been so overwhelmed with the stories of lewdness and injustice, especially since his departure for Ottawa, that though I have never heretofore taken a public part in politics, I shall certainly use my influence in every legitimate way, to cast out of our public life the principles which are a menace to our life as a people and the men who are their exponents and apologists and the illustrations of their power.
I am, sir,
Yours in sincerity,
(Sgd.) JOHN PRINGLE.
P.S.-I have sent this only to members of the cabinet and to Mr. Ross.
You, Mr. Speaker, and the House, will remember that this was written by a friend to friends, by one of the Liberal" party to the chiefs of that party and written, as he expressly states, that the facts might be brought before the Prime Minister and his government in order that by that knowledge of the facts efficient measures might be taken to redress the grievances and to do away with the evils as far as they could be done away with. Well, Sir, "to that communication of 1902, the Rev. John

Pringle received no answers from some of the ministers at least, at least I do not find on these files an answer from any of them. The government went on with that astonishing statement before the face and eyes of the First Minister who is the representative of the government of this country. That state of things went on ; not only was no heed given to it personally by the First Minister, as it would appear from these papers, but it does not appear that any step was taken at Ottawa to inquire into it or remedy it. It would seem to me that the first thing that the Prime Minister should have done on such an explicit statement being put into his hands and from the source from which it came, was to have instituted a searching and full inquiry; for two reasons, first for the reason of justice to his own officials and representatives if these stories were unfounded and, secondly, for the reputation of his own government and the people of Canada part of whose territory the Yukon, with its quite large population, was. But, neither of these things was done. Those conditions continued and the Rev. John Pringle remained in the Yukon, travelling from one place to another, going ultimately to' Dawson City and, at last, seeing that nothing was done, he again adressed himself to the Prime Minister, on the 3rd of January, 1905. I shall ask the House to listen to the second letter written three years after the first as nothing had resulted from his first attempt at redressing the matters complained of:
Bonanza, Yukon Territory, January 3, 1905.
The Right Honourable
'Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear 'Sir,-A little more than four years ago I was asked by Mr. E. M. Macdonald, of Pietou, Nova Scotia, to write him my opinion of the Liberal administration of the Yukon Territory. Not suspecting the purpose of the request, ignorant, indeed, of the political faith of Mr. Macdonald, I replied to the effect that the charges had been largely trumped up by the enemy; that the administration of the Yukon was, on the whole, good. My letter was used in campaign literature all over Canada, especially in the maritime provinces. I had not then been in the northern mining district or at the administrative centre, Dawson, In October, 1901, I was transferred to Bonanza, 13 miles from Dawson. On May 27, 1902, I 'sent a statement of the situation here, as it then appeared to me, to each member of the federal cabinet and to Mr. Ross. Referring to my letter to Mr. Macdonald, I said I feared that I was .mistaken when I wrote my letter to ihim ; that I should iat least have kept silence. For I found that the administration had been a disgrace to the Canadian name- such as no seif-respecting Canadian would excuse. There was marked improvement during Mr. Ross' tenure of office. But things have gone from bad to worse under Mr. Cougdon's administration. He has shown such a lack of moral strength in his relation to the public service and the public interests while commissioner, and in lids relation to the political interests of ou-r people, before his appointment, and since his resignation to run for parliament, that there has been a general uprising .against him. It has resulted in the election of an independent Conservative. His election is significant not as a condemnation of the Liberal government or of its general policy. The (real significance of Mr. Congdon's defeat may be read in the fact that it was made possible by -the efforts and votes of loyal Liberals, who refused to recognize as true Liberals the man and .the gang he had gathered around him, who had trampled upon the principles and traditions of the Liberal party, and .made your administration of Yukon interests a stench in the nostrils of our people.
I need not speak of 'the character and loyalty of the dissentient Liberals in Dawson who refused to swallow -the dose Mr. Congdon offered. I prefer to speak of the Liberals of the mining districts whom I know as no other man does, and to assert that the votes which elected Dr. Thompson were Liberal votes; that the men whose organization and utterances made the victory possible were Liberals-Laurier Liberals. The gang which Mr. Congdon gathered about him for the campaign-men who were the creatures of his administration and his political methods-were such as would damn any cause. All that the speakers in opposition had to do was to name them in connection with Air. Congdon's candidature, and the work of getting votes for Thompson was done.
The fight was won by men who had their hearts in it, against men who had their pockets onilv in it-.patriots against mercenaries. The issue was not, from the firing of the first shot, doubtful. Permit me, even at the risk of being thought tiresome, to refer to the course of affairs since my letter of Maw, 1902. It may be assumed to start with., that officials called to 'serve their country on the frontier, especially in a frontier mining camp, should represent in the highest degree the moral sense of the Canadian people. No lustful, drunken, grafting misfits should he found, or if found, retained in office here. In July, 190^, Mr. Ross practically compelled the passage of an ordinance suppressing the dance halls, t.lie women in which were r the most dangerous class of prostitutes/ and absolutely excluding lewd women from licensed liquor houses. In September of the same year, Mr. Ross lying unscoluscious at Whitehorse, the ordinance was amended at the instance of the legal adviser, now Judge Newlands, so as to render the ordinance abortive. But under Mi. Congdon's lead we have legalized the dance halls. Some government officials are their habitues, and an official here, Mr. Pepin, in the gold commissioner's office, mays nightly in the Dominion dance hall, getting $60 per week for the exalted service.
He goes on to mention others, but I will lot read their names.
The inclosed affidavits concerning Mr. Girouard, the registrar, are sufficient, it leerns to me, to ensure his permanent removal from office in this territory, at least.

Then follow certain remarks with reference to Mr. Girouard which for the time being I will not read.
Did the government know of these and similar doings 'by others ? If it did, what words of condemnation 'are too severe for such neglect of the moral welfare of cur people? If it did not, then I think such ignorance is almost criminal. The names of the controller of this territory and others whom the government can locate without difficulty, are coupled publicly with not very desirable persons.
The dance halls of Klondike City, the home of the abandoned women boldy advertise their dances in Dawson before the eyes of our wives and children by poster, and in their ears by megaphone. All 'this seems 'to accord with the moral sense of many whom the government has sent to guard our interests. We are bringing our wives and children into this territory, making homes here, and it is an outrage that we should have an executive who permits these things, that he should practically pander (to vice. Here is one point at which the government must work a radical reformation before it can accomplish the contentment of the great mass of our people, or gain their confidence in the administration.
Then he goes on to state that without set purpose he was the means of bringing to the notice of the executive the steal and the postal service, and claims that the investigation was not a real investigation, and that the utmost leniency, amounting even to wrong, was shown in the matter.
The campaign for (Mir. Boss' election began m the autumn of 1902. The 'representative of Mr. Boss in the .territory, chairman of his executive committee, was P. T. Gongdon. I am a Liberal and with other Liberals and Conservatives had the greatest confidence in Mr. Ross. We had the best grounds for our confidence. But was there ever such a dirty campaign .in the interest of a good man? Mr. Boss would have had a larger 'majority if a man of unbluruted political moral sense had been the leader in his interest. Scores of good Liberals refused (to vote (because of immoral methods adopted by the Boss executive. Bribes were given, money was paid out of the road fund 'hundreds of dollars on one creek-to men who had not done a day's work on the roads. The Baldwin affidavits -prove this, and the controller now knows it to be true, though he was not responsible for it. Lewd women were promised money to dope Clark men over election day. One hundred and twenty-seven votes were cast at Caribou crossing

one hundred and eight of them for M-r. Boss-where the legitimate vote numbered not more than ten.
That sounds familiar ; it has been heard of in other places.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Hear, hear : that is what they want this Bill for.


George Eulas Foster: One hundred and seventv-iwo at-Glacier and Miller where there were not half that num-Mr. FOSTER.
her. It was a carnival of corruption which Perhaps the people might have forgotten but
for two things.
First, that -thousands of dollars, promised road house people for board, and others for money lent for the fight, are yet unpaid. The Gold Hill road built for votes cost $7,800. It ought not to have cost more than $1,500. It is a peirpetual reminder of the election of 1902, and of the man who engineered it. The original bluff road near Dawson, which I am told cost to build about $3,000, cost to widen, on tho eve of the election, about $26,000, another reminder. Scores of men hired ostensibly to work on the roads were fed at points on the creeks, never worked on the .roads at -all, and were fed at the expense of confiding citizens. The Minister of Public Works had better, I would respectfully suggest, look into the road expenditure, wood expenditure, &c., with ft degree of thoroughness which has surely been lacking in the past.
Second, I prophesied at the beginning of the Thomjpson-CongdoiL campaign that the man who was responsible for such dirty work would not let the people forget it, that it would be worse than duplicated when his own political -life was at stake. We have had a reminder which has amounted to a ' jolt ' all around.
He then goes on to describe what he calls the McAulay deal with reference .to some tenders and others things in connection with that election, which I do not propose to read at the present time, except to state that one Pierre Leduc, a returning officer, refused to give the people cognizance of the lists, and Judge Dugas refused to advise Leduc to yield to the people's demands for their rights. As a matter of fact, there was a charge of conspiracy which was brought up later in an action, but I shall take another opportunity to bring that before the House.
The attempt to disfranchise the people succeeded, for not less than 500 of our best people found on election day, that Mr. Congdon and his band of political thieves, had robbed them of their franchise. It was such an apparent iniquity, that scores of men who had never voted for a Conservative were driven to vote for Thompson. I need not enlarge further, Majors Wood and Cuthbert can tell the story of the refusal of, and the struggle for, the admitted and most sacred rights of British subjects. We want a commissioner who will give us a clean, businesslike administration. Our party here must have it, or it will be dead. Surely the kind of thing we have had during the last two years must come to an end. We want a commissioner who will commend officials who act in accordance with the regulations of the civil service, and censure those who make themselves offensively partisan. The man of whom-and may I not say, of whose retinue also-this territory has purged itself, bullied the first, and took to his heart the second. A large part of our officials here are the right kind of men, and took the right attitude in the campaign, however they voted. Telegraph, customs, post office, police, refrained from any expression of partisanship. A large number of officials, in and con-

nected with, the departments in the Administration building also refrained. But there were many in the building and in the outside service who were an offence, and will never be anything but an offence to the people of this territory.
I have, we all have, our ideals; but life in the west teaches us, that all we can do is to move towards our moral ideals. X am not extreme. But I represent thousands when I say that I will not keep quiet, about officials, who are whore-mongers, when officials spend the people's money for party or private purposes. Give us an official body clean in public and private life, and the government will find the people of the Yukon not less intelligent, or moderate or less easily contented, than the people in older Canada. The alien people here, other than the moral scum which always gravitates to a frontier mining camp, or moderate or less easily contented, than the subjects of Britain whose home is here. Give us your best men, and you will find that we are not far from ranting with your best people.
I took a public part in this campaign because of its appeal to the moral sense in me. I never took part in a political fight before, never spoke on a political platform in my life until now. The unusual course has been justified. I began with some doubts as to the wisdom of my course, I ended it with none. X have written, as I have written, because I am a Canadian and also because I am a Liberal. Mr. Congdon and his party deny me the name. To me Liberalism is a synonym for progress and purity, and when I stand for these, I am a Liberal if I stand alone. Investigate. Investigate. It can be done quietly and yet thoroughly. Purge the public service of unclean and incapable men; get rid of the parasitic class; give us, as our executive, a Liberal, who is also a sane and upright man, and at the end of the five years, the appeal of the government to the electorate of the Yukon will not be in vain.
It is evident that Mr. Pringle has not yet forgotten his party allegiance because it breathes out in every line. What he is particularly anxious to do is quietly, by investigation and action, to purge the life of the Yukon of its evil elements and replace them by decent conditions. Mr. Pringle sends with that letter a list of affidavits. The affidavits I shall not read just at present. There is a series of them referring to J. D. Girouard, the registrar of land titles for the Yukon Territory. The facts set forth are sworn to by R. H. S. Creswell, T. D. Patullo, Robert McKay, Dan Currie, Frank E. McNeil, H. W. Sillars, Emil Poyza, Ben Johnson, Wm. J. Kendle, David T. Evan, Richard Rossmossur, Gus Lindbam, Chas. Stevenson, John Cameron, George J. Locke, Henry C. McLeod, William A. Munroe, Andrew E. Greenman, T. G. Wilson. T. James. E. Gordon, all of Dawson. The affidavits affect very vitally Mr. Girouard the registrar, both as an official and as a man. The occurrence took place at the time these elections were going on. When the parties wanted the lists of certain polls and were told that Girouard had them, they went to his office. There they were told that Girouard was not in but they routed him out from where he was concealed, chased and collared him, and brought him to his own office and made him deliver up the lists.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: He had a run for it.	,	.


George Eulas Foster: He had a hard run for it but could not run with sufficient rapidity to outrun the men who were after him.


Robert Laird Borden: He was pretty well winded.


George Eulas Foster: Maybe he was somewhat winded before he began to .run. That letter and the accompanying affidavit was acknowledged by the Prime Minister in these words ;
Ottawa, February 6, 1905.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of January 3, last. I have to inform you that all the charges which you bring to the attention of the government relating to the administration of public affairs in the Yukon territory, will receive immediate attention from the different departments interested.
Yours respectfully, WILFRID LAURIER.
Thus three years ago the right hon. gentleman received that appeal from a friend of his own, and yet up to this time no action has been taken and no remedy applied. Again in 1905 the same information, with other information added, was brought to his attention. Then he acknowledged the letter and promised that matters would lie attended to. Matters, however, were not attended to, so that later on, in 1905, the Rev. John Pringle addressed a letter to the Governor General of Canada, inclosing a copy of the one he had sent to the First Minister, thus bringing the attention of the head of the administration in this country, to what he considered intolerable abuses in a portion of the Dominion. He received an acknowledgement to the effect that the matter would be brought to the attention of the ministers of the Crown. That letter of 1905, which I have just read, was, it appears, handed by one of the ministers to Mr. Frederick Tennyson Congdon who appears at that time to have been in the city of Ottawa, and Mr. Frederick Tennyson Congdon wrote a memo, for the ministry, I suppose, on the letter and allegations of Mr. Pringle of the 3rd day of January, 1905. I am not going to read the whole of that memorandum of Mr. Congdon. It is a heated and I should say a partisan reply to the Rev John Tringle. But there are certain parts of it which it probably would be well to read. He commenced by saying :



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pringle commenced writing letters containing positive statements in regard to Yukon matters before lie had entered the territory or knew anything in regard to its affairs. The first of his letters was written about four years ago to M. E. M. Macdonald, of Pictou, Nova Scotia.
Now if that was his first letter written to Mr. Maeflonald. of Pictou, as Mr. Congdon says, what does Mr. Congdon mean by the statement that he' had begun to write letters on Yukon matters before he had entered the territory or knew anything in regard to its affairs ? because when he wrote to Mr. Macdonald four years ago he was in the territory.
With respect to this, Mr. Pringle since has claimed that in spite of the positive terms of the letter he was ignorant and ill-informed. His ignorance and lack of information in regard to any matter have never in the slightest degree affected the assurance with which he spoke. In 1902 it became in the interest of Mr. Pringle to write once more. In this letter he expressed the opinion that he was mistaken when he wrote formerly and that he should have kept silence. This was during the term of office of Mr. Ross. No doubt later he will come to the . same opinion with regard to the present letter. If it comes to his advantage to withdraw every statement he now makes he will have no hesitation in doing so.
I read that to show the nature of the purported answer of Mr. Congdon to the allegations of Mr. Pringle. He goes on :
In the winter of 1902-3, Mr. Pringle became a candidate for the Yukon council and was elected. During his candidature nothing was too severe to say against the administration of the Dominion government, of the Minister of the Interior and of Mr. Ross as commissioner.
Here is Mr. Congdon replying to charges of evils which had occurred under his administration. The first thing he attempts to do is to raise a spirit of prejudice against Mr. Pringle, alleging that he had spoken against the Minister of the Interior and against the government at a previous time. What on earth would it have to do with the facts of the case whether he had or had not so spoken ? But Mr. Pringle's letter and ids assurances are to the contrary, that he was an ardent believer in the Liberal party and a defender and supporter of the government. He goes on and states whom Mr. Pringle opposed, how he spoke of them, and the like of that. Then he states that :
He had been elected to the council as an opponent of the government. He for a time supported the territorial government. He worked for the Liberal nomination. He failed to get it. In once more condemning the government, he was venting the spleen engendered by his disappointment and pursuing the only course by which he hoped to rehabilitate himself with his former supporters. His new policy was adopted as the only feasible mode of escaping from the intolerable position of being disliked and despised . alike by friends and opponents of the government.
George Eulas Foster: While Mr. Ross was labouring to reform and improve administration Mr. Pringle was busy scandalizing and condemning him. He continued to condemn until in order to strengthen his criticism of my administration it became necessary to praise that of Mr. Ross. Undoubtedly there was a marked improvement in every way and in the social life particularly, in the Yukon territory, under the administration of Mr. Ross, but there is no one in the least fairininded who will not say that there has not been a continued improvement in later times. T claim no credit for this, although I have endeavoured in every way to aid it. As far as I am aware, Dawson is socially as free from vice as Ottawa. A lady is as safe from insult and from witnessing anything offensive on the streets or in public places of Dawson, as in any part of Canada. The men in the public service there will compare favourably in efficiency and character with similar officials elsewhere.
I do not propose to say anything in regard to Mr. Pringle's comments on my lack of moral strength. I do not acknowledge him to be a competent judge of moral strength or any other moral qualities. It is one of these sanctimonious expressions with which he endeavours to lend colour to the slanders he delights to spread. If he were possessed of common honesty he would have coupled with his condemnation of me the statement which I compelled him to make upon the public plat-, form that while I lived in a country in which according to himself the besetting sin is that of alcoholism, I have continued to be a total abstainer, that while as he claims lust has prevailed, I have lived a quite, clean and decent life and while grafting in his estimation is the most common practice I have never made a cent by improper means and am as poor today as when I became commissioner of the Yukon Territory. It is not pleasant for me to mention these matters, and probably Mr. Pringle failed to do so, because they do not entirely support his theory of lack of moral strength. The reverend gentleman thinks it is sufficient condemnation for him to speak of my supporters as a 'gang,' as ' creatures of mine ' and as ' boosters ' to ensure their condemnation. Most of the men whose names he enumerated are as intelligent, as upright, as pure in life and as respectable in every way as the Rev. John Pringle. If the reverend gentleman wishes to make a comparison between his life and my own, I am quite ready to undergo the test. If it is condemnation of a public man that some of his supporters are not perfect in virtue, I am quite ready to compare my supporters with the men with whom Mr. Pringle delights to associate and who are supported by him.
With regard to the matter of the dance hall ordinance, it is somewhat surprising that neither in the council of which Mr. Pringle was a member, nor upon the public platform has he ventured publicly to condemn that which he now desires secretly to criticise. The Yukon ordinance, to which he refers, was passed unanimously by the council and was assented to by myself as a matter of course. It has never been criticised by any one publicly in the territory. It is a matter within the authority of the Yukon council and may safely be left to the decision of that body.
He then accuses Pringle of stumping with dance hall associates and says that he there-

fore found it difficult to condemn them. With regard to Mr. Pepin he says that Pepin had a perfect right to play where he pleases. He says that Pepin was playing in the dance hall because his salary was not large and he had to make money and whilst playing there he simply was the player and nothing else. That is a statement which may very well have its weight. The employment in that respect did not in the least interfere with the discharge of his official duties.
It has been the delight of Mr. Pringle to circulate private slanders with regard to every man from whom he differs. It is in this spirit that he speaks of Mr. Girouard.
I have not deemed it my duty as commissioner of the Yukon territory to act as a spy upon the private life of the officials of the territory. With resoect to Mr. Girouard, I know him to he an efficient registrar and useful member of of the council. The statements made by Mr. Pringle in regard to him and the facts set out in the affidavits accompanying the letter deal with matters of which I know nothing . . .
The notices of the deponents to the affidavits accompanying Mr. Pringle's letter will appear clearly to any one who makes inquiries into their modes of life.
He says their modes of life are not correct. and therefore their affidavits cannot be trusted.
The controller of the territory is one of the best officials in my humble judgment to be found in Canada.
The controller at the time, I think, was Mr. Litligow.
His integrity and his efficiency in the discharge of his public duties are well known and recognized by everybody. It is in the discharge of these duties that I have had to do with the controller, and I have this to say in regard to him that his word would be accepted where Mr. Pringle's would be despised. Mr Pringle does not like the controller, and he therefore, according to his wont, indulges in low slanders against him.
I repeat once more that the social conditions of Dawson are as good as in most parts of Canada and that Mr. Pringle only pretends to be shocked at them in order to make a point against an opponent. Undoubtedly there is vice in Dawson, but I have yet to discover the community that is free from it.
He goes on to take up the question of the post office and alleges that Mr. Pringle did not discover the defalcations, and states also that everything was done by the Postmaster General that could possibly be done; that the trouble was that the clerk was insane and committed this theft during the period of his insanity, and, instead of being incarcerated and punished, he was put in charge of his brother and taken out of the territory as an insane person.
With respect to the charges affecting the election of Mr. Ross they are the usual ones made by irresponsible persons. He pretends to be a Liberal but did not work for Mr. Ross
and he is ready to make a finding with regard to the election against myself without the slightest evidence either of the misdeeds or of my connection with them. I had no more to do with any corruption in that campaign than had Mr. Pringle. And Mr. Pringle knows this.	_
The evidence of Mr. Pringle with regard to election promises is not very trustworthy unless he himself were a party to the promises or were present when they were made.
With reference to the enumerators he claims that most of them were honest and did their work well, though there may have been some of whom this could not be said. And he goes on to say:
I may also mention the fact that I was not commissioner of the Yukon territory nor a member of the Yukon council during that election and was not in any way responsible for the expenditure of public money. . . .
The spoils system was never put in operation by me. I never dismissed an official on account of his politics, although there were many Conservatives in the government employ in the territory. I did endeavour in ail proper cases to see that public patronage went to supporters of the government.
He says their modes of life are not cor-charges made by Mr. Pringle, but as I have uot read those charges in the House I will not read Mr. Cougdon's answer.
With regard to Mr. Pringle's statements as to enumerating the lists, the polling divisions, &c., I -have only to say that I had no more to do with it than had Mr. Pringle. I did not appoint the enumerators and I did not nominate a single one of them. There were half as many enumerators in number as at the previous election, or even a less proportion. This was necessary on account of the enormous expense. The smaller number necessitated giving each a larger territory and as far as possible each ^enumerator fixed his location for the purposes of enumeration in the most central point within his district. This of course enabled Mr. Pringle and others to appeal to prejudices in certain localities necessarily ignored.
It is easy for an irresponsible individual like Mr. Pringle to say that five hundred of the best people were disfranchised but it is a different thing for him to prove anything so absurd. Most of the enumerators I believe did their work fairly and well. The other to appeal to prejudices in certain localities necessarily ignored.
Now, I have read the chief parts of the reply of Mr. 'Congdon, because I had read the charges made by Mr. Pringle, and thought it but fair to place on record also Mr. Congdon's reply. Now, a peculiar thing took place. Mr. Congdon had Mr. Pringle's letter placed in bis hands as soon as it came here. Concerning his former letter, that of 1902. Mr. Pringle says that, though it was written to the ministers and marked ' private,' it got into the hands of the Yukon officials and he had to meet it on every occasion. The letter of 1905 was at once given to Mr. Congdon, who made


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
evidence. But, Mr. Pringle begins to find out the authority that Mr. Henderson had and he comes up against this fact that it is simply to be an examination, that Mr. Henderson is not a royal commissioner and that he has no power to summon witnesses and to examine them on oath. Immediately when this comes out the Rev. John Pringle says that he cannot undertake to carry on an investigation in the Yukon, bring his witnesses and face all the opposition that he will have there unless these witnesses are to he examined under oath and he can be protected as a royal commission or a commission appointed to examine under oath alone could protect him. On the 2nd of October, 1907, he says, writing to Alex. Henderson, commissioner, Yukon :	.
Dear Sir,-I am prepared for the investigation which you have been instructed to hold into the charges which I have made of scandalous living on the part of J. T. Lithgow and [DOT]1. E. Girouard, prominent public servants in the Yukon.
He specifies his charge against both of these gentlemen and continues :
I have to complain that similar charges have been made by myself and others during the past four or five years, and that the. government has until now ignored the charges and palliated the evils.
I shall give the names of my witnesses as soon as the date and place of investigation are fixed.
(Sgd.) JOHN PRINGLE.
Then the date and place were fixed. Then comes the refusal of Mr. Pringle. I think I can best show that by reading a letter which he writes to Hon. Frank Oliver, as follows :
Dawson, Yukon Territory, October 18, 1907. Hon. Frank Oliver,
Minister of the Interior.
Sir,-Inclosed is a copy of a letter sent by me to Commissioner Henderson with reference to the investigation into the scandals connected with the names of Messrs. Lithgow and Girouard, controller and registrar of this territory, respectively.	.
I think that the position which I take therein is reasonable.
When the government appoints an investigator with the power to subpoena, commit and protect witnesses, I shall be ready with overwhelming proof of the truth of the charges I have made.
To us, who have lived here for years, whose moral sense these officials have habitually outraged, it seems almost ridiculous that the government should require any formal investigation. The kind of thing against which we pro'est, in the public service has had a very impressive illustration here in the last few
More than two months ago nearly $40,000 in gold in transit from the American side was stolen from the post office in i	. %"a
principal in the robbery and who died at is believed by his own hand, while under arrest,

[Stage Direction]
had been for years a frequenter of saloons and dance halls and the slave of the women who swarm in them; and at the same time an employee of the Public Works Department, with keys in his possession which gave him entrance to every public building in Dawson.
His pay $10 a day-did not suffice for the demands of his life and therefore he stole to make up the deficiency. A dance hall .employee decoyed a post office employee from his place and the Public Works Department employee used the department key to gain entrance to the post office, and abstracted the gold.
. It is useless to expect morality in the public service when immoral men are nursed and protected therein.
I am, yours in sincerity,
(Sgd.) JOHN PRINGLE.
Mr. Henderson writes to Mr. Oliver :
Dawson, November 8, 1907.
Dear Mr. Oliver,-I am inclosing herewith a copy of the correspondence relating to the charges of the Rev. Dr. Pringle against Messrs. Girouard and Lithgow. You will see from Dr. Pringle's letter to me of the 23rd ultimo, he declines to appear as a party in what he calls an informal investigation. ' I would suggest, if agreeable to you, that I he appointed a commissioner to investigate the charges under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter 101, Revised Statutes of Canada,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) ALEXANDER HENDERSON.
Commissioner.
Hon. Prank Oliver,
Minister of the Interior, Ottawa.
I have here the minister's reply to Mr Pringle :
Ottawa, November 14, 1907. Dear Sir,-Yours of October 18 to hand inclosing copy of your letter to Commissioner Henderson m which you decline to offer evidence as to the correctness of the statements made m your former letter regarding Messrs. Lithgow and Girouard. I note that you say when the government appoints an investigator with the power to subpoena, commit and protect witnesses, I shall be ready with overwhelming proof of the charges that I have made.
I take it from this that you are not ready to offer evidence of -those charges to Commissioner Henderson in the investigation which he is instructed to hold. This is a matter tor your own consideration. For my own part I see no necessity for an appointment with tlie powers you suggest.
On the strength of your statement I have as already said instructed the commissioner to investigate with a view to arriving at the tacts. He has communicated with you in order to fix the investigation, to suit your convenience As you do not intend to appear the investigation will have to proceed without your assistance, and the commissioner has been so instructed. If for lack of the evidence which you say you are able to furnish the investigation -should not establish the facts which you desire, I beg to point out to you that rhe fault is your own, and not mine.
Mr.   POSTER@: The minister seemed to forget entirely that there is any public side to this question and seems to be making an attempt to throw the whole onus upon Dr. Pringle if he does not come to time before the insufficient tribunal.
I note -in your letter of the 18th you say ' it seems almost ridiculous that the government should require any formal investigation.'
And here the native justice of the minister bursts into a flame :
I can only say in regard to that, that it is an inherent right of every British subject that he should not be condemned without evidence; that he has a right to hear the evidence against him, and has a right to he heard in his own defence. I might remind you that Canada is not Russia of the present day, not Spain of the time of the Inquisition.
Having delivered that splendid burst, which he might have thought of when he shortly before this told Rev. John Pringle that he had not a copy of Mr. Congdon's criticism of Mr. Pringle's letter, although the government had had it in their possession for six or eight months-and by the way Mr. Pringle did not secure a copy of it until more than a year and a half afterwards, when he had to beg for it. It was very like being in Spain or Russia for a mau to be unable to get a criticism of his own statement. The minister concludes:
I w,11! tf-ke Die liberty of saying that while tne Canadian government cannot do the impossible, it is admitted by all unprejudiced people who have had the opportunity of observing that so far as the support of law, order and morality is concerned, the Canadian Yukon, under the administration of the Canadian government, compares most favour-woridWltJl any other gold mining camp in the
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) FRANK OLIVER.
That about ends the letters which I shall read except that I shall note that Commissioner Henderson on December 17 1907 sends out a report and in it he includes a telegram he had sent a little before, as follows :
I can unhesitatingly affirm that the Yukon including Dawson is as moral in all respects as any other part of Canada. The report follows by mail.
The report is found on page 29 of these papers. He accompanies this also with reports from Major X. T. Wood, assistant commissioner and from Capt. Wroughton commanding 'B' Division, Northwest Mounted Police. His own report and the testimony of these two men is directed to establish the statement that at the present time the moral conditions of tbe Yukon as regards dance hails and tlie sale of liquor and the like of that are tolerable at least and as tlie commissioner says probably as

good as anywhere else in the Dominion of Canada. They are very long and I make that statement as to their Qiirports in order that it may appear without putting them upon ' Hansard.' If it is thought best however we can have them read so that they shall go on ' Hansard.' If the minister thinks I had better read them I shall do so. Very well I shall do so.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: You did not want much encouragement.


George Eulas Foster: No. I read these simply because the House might think it unfair that I should publish other statements and not publish these statements of the commissioner and I might be criticised for so doing.
I gave what I considered a fair summary of them but I am not going to submit myself to criticism on the ground that I did not give the statements of the commissioners and of these other officials. The first which I shall read is as follows, this is Mr. Henderson's report to the government:
Dawson, December 7, 1907. Sir,-I have the honour to report that I have received your letter of the 4th ultimo, ill which you state that some time ago you asked me to let you have a general report with respect to the allegation of immorality in the Yukon. I also received in due course your letter of the 6th September on the same subject, in which you state that you are in receipt of certain papers concerning the licensing of two music halls in Dawson, which papers are set out fully in your letter and which it is perhaps necessary for me to again enumerate. On receipt of your letter of 4 th ultimo, I wired you as follows:
' x unhesitatingly affirm that the Yukon including Dawson is as moral in all respects as any other part of Canada, report follows by mail.'
My reason for sending you the telegram was that I thought .perhaps a telegram giving the purport of my report might be of use to you. Before my arrival in the territory I had heard that the question of dance halls had been brought prominently before the public through a letter addressed to a Winnipeg newspaper by the Reverend Dr. Pringle, and 1 felt that one of the first questions which would demand my attention would he the devising of some solution to remove the conditions complained of should I find the complaint was well founded. After my arrival in Dawson on July 14, X ascertained that two dance halls respectively called the ' M & N ' and the ' Floradora,' were in active operation, and that there was some diversity of opinion as to whether these institutions were a menace to public morals or otherwise. My own opinion was that they should he suppressed, and before the session of the Yukon council, which opened on the 9th of August last, I had thoroughly canvassed the situation with every member of the Yukon council. I made no secret of the position I proposed to take in the matter. An amendment to tho liquor ordinance was introduced by the Honourable Mr. Justice Dugas, providing in effeet that no music hall should he kept in connection with premises licensed to sell liquors (sec. 3, chap. 9, ordinance, 1907.) There was some opposition to this Bill in the council, and various amendments proposing the postponement of the operation of the Bill to a later date received some support, hut eventually the section passed as proposed, the effect being to immediately make the sale of liquors in dance halls illegal. The two dance halls I have mentioned continued to run for some time without selling liquor until the largest, the 'M. & N.', went out of business, and the other still continues to run as a dance hall, but I am credibly informed by the police that there is very little business being done and that no liquors are sold in the dance haih
The most vicious feature of the dance hall was undeniably the sale of liquors to frequenters with the result that it is has been stated that on many occasions men, who were induced to drink excessively, lost large sums of money, hut since my appointment as commissioner 1 have never had any complaints of this kind. I might add that I have given instructions to the -police -that they are to watch carefully for any infraction of the law and immediately prosecute those who are guilty of any violations thereof.
I have also informed Dr. Pringle that I feel it my duty to investigate any complaint he may make respecting any infraction of the liquor laws or any laws enacted for tho suppression of vice or immorality.
I might add that I delayed making a full report, as I understood that the effect of the amendments I have spoken of, would he brought to the attention of the government by a perusal of the ordinances passed at the session, copies of which were duly forwarded to the government in accordance with the order in council governing the same.
Generally, I am of opinion that the standard of morality is as high in Dawson as in any other town in the Dominion. From my own observations I am quite at a loss to understand the necessity for comments such as 'have recently been made to the effect that there is greater immorality in the Yukon than elsewhere in Canada.
I might call attention in this connection to section 4, chapter 9, of the amendment to the Liquor Ordinance, 1907, which repeals section Cl of chapter 76, of the Consolidated Ordinances, and substitutes therefor a new section consisting -of subsection 1 -and 2. I -have every reason to believe that public sentiment is overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation enacted at the recent session of the council, and I feel that I have the support of the community in ray efforts to see that these laws -are strictly lived up to. However, I have -learned since my -arrival in Daw-son, and I am convinced, that the conditions <now are better than at any time in the history of the city; and I am greatly surprised to learn that this fact is not recognized by those who give publicity to statements regarding morality in the territory.	.
I' am inclosing you herewith reports ot Major Wood and Captain Wrighton, respectively the assistant commissioner ot the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and the officer commanding ' B ' division of the same force. As both these gentlemen are familiar


George Eulas Foster: Ottawa, January 2, 1908.
Dear sir,-I have before me the papers in connection with the inquiry ordered in respect to Dr. Pringle's charges with your covering letter of December 7. I note that in your letter of November 8. yon suggest your appointment as a commissioner to investigate the charges under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter 104, Revised Statutes of Canada,
19In reply to this suggestion I beg to say that it appeal's to me that it would be a, very strained construction to put upon section -of that Act to say that an inquiry into charges of the nature of those made by Dr. Pringle was an inquiry ' into and concerning any matter connected with the good government oi Canada or the conduct of any part ol tne public business thereof.'
Inasmuch as Dr. Pringle has been requested to make a specific statement of his knpwledge of the facts regarding which he complains and has failed to do so, I do not think I would be warranted in applying the terms of the Inquiries Act. If Dr. Pringle had availed himself of the opportunity which you gave him under my instructions it would then be a matter for consideration whether we might or might not invoke the terms of the Act, but without something more definite than lias yet been brought to your attention, I do not think we have sufficient warrant for doing so.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) FRANK OLIVER. To the Hon. Alexander Henderson,
Commissioner Yukon Territory,
Dawson.
There are just two points in that letter on which I wish to comment. The first is that Dr. Pringle having been requested to make a specific statement of facts and he
failed to do so. It is well to give just at this point Dr. Pringle's statement again.
Dawson, Yukon Territory, October 2, 1907
Alexander Henderson, Esq.,
Commissioner of the Yukon.
Sir,-I am prepared for the investigation, which you have been instructed to hold into the charges which I have made of scandalous living on the part of J. T. Lithgow and J. E. Girouard, prominent public servants in the Yukon.
Then follow explicitely (a), 1, 2 and 3 ; (b) and (c), the charges that he makes and which he declares himself ready to substantiate. So it is not because there were not charges made by Dr. Pringle and it is not because he was not ready to substantiate them. But he knew the crowd against whom he had to go up and he did not propose to put himself in the position of having no sworn testimony and no protected witnesses, in fact no protection at all before tne examination and no punishment for perjured witnesses. He had too large an experience with those whom he calls ' the gang ' in the Yukon, to put himself in that false position and in that I think he was absolutely correct. The other comment is that the Minister of the Interior says that he will not grant a commission to examine under oath because he does not consider that an investigation of the charges made by Dr. Pringle was :
An inquiry into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
I think that simple comment upon that is quite sufficient. I have always supposed that it was a part of good government in Canada to see that men in office conducted themselves with credit and honour to the country. Of course if we are to revise that and subscribe to the doctrine that it does not matter a tinker's fiddle as to what a man representing the Dominion of Canada does when he is in office, then the position of the minister may be a fair position. But I would ask the Minister of the Interior if he did not grant a commission on oath but a few mouths or weeks ago to investigate a case simply with reference to property. I forgot the name of the person but the minister 1 think, will know. When that person made a complaint, the Investigation into the business under review was made without oath and without the power to swear witnesses. He made an application for a commission to examine under oath in a mere matter of private property and it was granted to him by the Minister of the Interior. But in a case of this kind, the Minister of the Interior could not see that it was pertinent or came under the law.
The Toronto ' Globe ' sometimes has a spasm of virtue and in one of those it wrote a criticism:

The paper containing that criticism says :
Iir. John Pringle's charges of scandalous immorality against two prominent officials of the Dominion government are not at present to be investigated. Commissioner Henderson required the names of Dr. Pringle's witnesses and Dr. Pringle declined to give them to the commissioner until the latter should receive authority to compel witnesses to appear and testify on oath, he not having been vested with such power. The minister refused to delegate such authority to the commissioner, and there the matter rests.
The Toronto ' Globe ' discussing the question says :
The issue thus raised is one that may be considered entirely apart from the question of the truth or falsity of the accusations. It is incredible that a clergyman of Dr. Pringle's standing should make grave charges against public officials in a community such as the city of Dawson without havin'; good ground for believing them to he not only well-founded but capable of being proved. He was desirous of having them investigated, hut he knew he would have little chance of establishing them unless witnesses could he compelled to testify on oath and thus become indictable for perjury if they swore falsely. The request for an inquiry conducted under this commonly used and easily afforded safeguard, was, under the circumstances a perfectly reasonable one, and it is not easy to understand: why it was refused. Public opinion will not throw responsibility for failure on Dr. Pringle until some adequate reason is forthcoming.
I think that represents the sane and proper view of the case under the circumstances.
I notice that, as usual, some of the papers have not been brought down. For instance there was a joint telegram of protest from the Protestant minister of Dawson somewhere about the 14th or 15th of December, 1904, at the time when riots were fairly within the horizon on account of the outrageous proceedings at the election. Nor are there the telegrams of the police officials notably that of assistant Commissioner Wood at about the same date. He also made very strong telegraphic representations to the government with regard to the seriousness and urgency of the situation. There is also a telegram sent by Rev. John Pringle himself which has not come down with the papers but, fortunately, I have a copy of it.
Dawson, December 15, 1904. Hon. Clifford Sifton,
Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa.
Conditions here intolerable. Names illegally removed from lists. Enumerators refuse lists, polling divisions on order returning officer. Some enumerators missing-others in barracks under police protection. People incensed and assembling. If people's rights further invaded forbearance will cease. Cong-don and outfit desperate adopting desperate methods. People will not stand for it: Judge Dugas refuses even to advise in matter. Gir-ouard public scandal. Outrage on common decency. Must not retain position nor get
Mr. foster.
other, humiliates self-respecting people to do business with him. Statement and affidavit by mail. Government dare not countenance these things. Take some measures that will produce lists, polling divisions immediately.


JOHN PRINGLE.
[Stage Direction]
* And so the case ends, so far as the papers are concerned. But Rev. John Pringle still stands to liis guns, and as late as February, 1908, I find a letter from him published in the Toronto 1 News ' and dated Dawson, January 28. In this letter he says :
Ha,s the law been enforced in the Yukon? Has it been enforced in precisely the same way as the law in every other part of Canada has been enforced? Let us see.
1.	There is, or it is generally believed that there is, a law forbidimg the immigration into Canada of prostitutes and criminals.
Has this law been enforced?
We have a customs house at Summit, and a strong police force at WMteho-rsa-the door to the Yukon. Wihat has been done to throw back the steady stream of prostitutes with the collateral stream of male undesirables which have poured into this territory for years ? Absolutely nothing.
The police who are always ready to do their duty have mot been instructed or permitted to prevent this shameful immigration.
It is sufficient for my pur-pose to quote the words of the assistant commissioner of police, spoken in the Yukon Council, last August, during the debate on dance halls: ' If the dance halls are closed hundreds of these women will not flock to the city, as they have been doing, for the past two years.' If there is any sudh law or -regulation governing immigration and its enforcement elsewhere, has been on Yukon lines, it i-s a dead letter, dead as a coffin nail.
2.	There is a federal Sunday law, passed after sore -travail. I shall not argue whether it is good -o-r had, broad or narrow. It is a law for the enforcement of which in the unorganized districts and territories the Minister of Justice is responsible.
H-a-s this law been enforced in the Yukon?
Last April the assistant commissioner of police was advised that the law was in force, and instructed to report to the Minister of Justice infractions of the law. He dad so. Was the law enforced?
Was there any pretense made of enforcing it?
Absolutely none. The assistant commissioner was told that the police would do their duty if they attended to complaints made by private citizens, and the constables on duty on the streets of Dawson and on the creeks, saw the law broken-book stores, cigar stores, general stores, teams, wood-sawing machines going on S-unday as on other days-and under order, did nothing to enforce -the law. The Department of Justice had forbidden action, and had thrust the onus and the odium of prosecution on the private citizens.
3. The Criminal Code forbids the business of prostitution. Has. this law been enforced as in any other part of Canada.
He goes on to give very explicit reasons to show that this law is a dead letter. He says that it is impossible to convict. The Minister of Justice, he says, instructed the

authorities iu a particular case which'was reported to him to take no action. He goes on to speak of gambling :
4. The Criminal Code forbids gambling. Has ifche law been enforced precisely in the same way as in any other part of Canada ?
To say, here, that it has, is to raise an incredulous laugh. I have seen in the police court, right under the eyes of the police magistrate, all the furniture of the common gambling houses raided by the police, money taken from the faro tables, cards and chips from the poker tables, the best men in the police court swore to the facts. The case was dismissed. How do police magistrates in the east calculate the preponderance of evidence? By counting the witnesses solely or by considering their character and weighing themr testimony also? .	.	. Have the laws for the
protection of life and property been enforced?
I believe they have, thanks to the police, unthwarted and unhindered in .this sphere of their duties, and also to the impossibility of escape except north or south by the river into the arms of the police, and east or west into an untrodden and unhospibable wilderness.
Has the liquor ordinance
[Stage Direction]
6. Has the liquor ordinance been enforced as such laws are enforced in any other part of Canada ?
Emphatically no.
He then goes on to give liis proof, and proceeds :
My mind is, of course, unlegal, and I shall be pardoned if, in a measure, I fail ito see and appreciate the nice distinctions which laws and lawyers make. But the foregoing seems to me to be a pretty fair case against the contention that law has been, or is now, enforced in the Yukon, in the same way as in any other part of Canada. If way means procedure, I admit it; if it means the measure of the law's enforcement by the procedure provided, I unhesitatingly deny it.
He then goes on to mention the postal frauds and to show how much or how little has been done in' reference thereto. He continues ;
What about the criminal conspiracy oases after the election of 1904? The franchise stolen from one in eight of our voters, and no redress found. Why were the cases dropped? A gentleman now on the Supreme Court bench could, I think, give the reason. Was there what I learned from the eastern press is called a ' saw-off/ or some other new scheme as yet without a name? The cases were dropped. The public never knew why. They would like to know even now. Administrative and judicial abortion where a great public wrong is under investigation arouses the suspicion of free men. I think a very interesting and informing series of papers might he written on: ' curiosities of representative government, with illustrations from the Yukon/ Perhaps ' Immoralities ' might be substituted for ' curiosities/

[Stage Direction]
Presbyterian Minister. Dawson, January 28, 1908.
I clipped from the Vancouver ' News ' a letter signed with a nom de plume, which letter bears out in much the same, or even stronger, language the statements made by the Rev. John Pringle in the letter the reading of which I have just concluded.
I do not propose at this stage to make any extended comments on the papers I have read. My object has been to lay this matter before the House and through the House before the country. I think that comments that might bo made and sustained would be something of this nature; In the first place that the government is certainly at fault for not having given such attention as it should to the high standing and character of the men whom it placed in commanding positions in official authority in the Yukon. In the second place, that the government must have found it absolutely impossible not to know during the last five or six years what was going on in this connection in the Yukon. They must have had information both from official and unofficial sources. I believe they did know. In addition to the other information that came to them, there were in 1902 the explicit and fully detailed information of Rev. John Pringle. Prom 1902 up to 1905 the government did absolutely nothing by way of investigation for adequate redress. Then when Rev. John Pringle sent an additional letter in 1905, with fresh information added to that already given in 1902, that letter also resulted in no action on the part of the government. After waiting for months, Rev. John Pringle wrote to the Governor General in 1906 and sent to the Governor General with his covering letter the letters that he had sent before to His Excellency's ministers. Even then the government did nothing adequate, made no investigation or examination and procured no redress. But the Governor General's letter seems to have got later into the hands of the minister (Mr. Oliver).	.
Then, in 190T, on a fresh impulse given by the extraordinary canvass made both for and against Mr. Lithgow, as governor of the Yukon, the whole matter was brought to a head and the minister took tardy action. But for all these five years the Prime Minister, knowing absolutely just what was going on, paid the salaries of the men who were involved and implicated, raised their salaries from time to time, gave them the official mantle of this country and of this government and kept them in their places despite everything that had been said. Then, when at last they made a show of investigating, they did not grant, in a case like this, the formal and effective investigation which they would and did grant to a man whose small claim was in question and who called for an investigation under oath and got it. The Rev- John Pringle, with his information and his witnesses ready had to declare that he could not put himself in the position of attempt-
[Stage Direction]
ing to give his evidence unless he had the protection of the oath for the witnesses and all that proceeds from that. Then the investigation is entirely dropped and the commissioner has nothing better to say than that as the Rev. John Pringle did not go on with his charges and as no other prosecutor appeared he did not consider it of use to carry it on any further and he ends it with, in his report, giving a certificate of good character, in so far as he himself goes and in so far as he himself knew, to the very parties who were accused and whose conduct ought to have been inquired into under the accusations of the Rev. John Pringle. I think that in the administration of any part of Canada, and more particularly of that distant part of Canada where people from every clime come, and where they judge of the character of this country and the character of its people and government by what they meet with there, a special care ought to have been taken to have kept common decency, at least, side by side with official life and to have redressed the monstrous and almost incredible grievances which all good and moral people in that country had to complain of.
Mr. W. ROCHE (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) In the course of his remarks, but it appeared to me that the gravamen of his charge was that certain officials of this government were in the habit of playing music in dance halls. I think he gave the names of them-the Flor-adora and the M. and N. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he knows the instrument upon which [these gentlemen played because if this is a question of comparative ethics between a mining centre like Dawson and other centres we ought to know the character of the instrumental music which they rendered. We all know that a gentleman who could play well on the banjo or the concertina, or the violin would be very popular with the heterogeneous population which floats into these music halls. These music halls are not recognized as being hopelessly immoral in a great many centres. In London, in New York and in a great many other centres there are music and dance halls. It -would not be a question of immorality if an official were endeavouring to while away a long evening in Dawson by playing well upon any of the instruments indicated or engaging in the festive dance provided he did not disturb the peace by attemptng to perform upon the trombone or any instrument of that kind.
I think the hon. gentleman ought to give us that information now.


George Eulas Foster: If the House will allow me I will take just a moment to, In the first place, commend the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. W. Roche) to the government and the Prime Minister as also the defence which he proposes to put up


George Eulas Foster: to a case such as has been presented to this House. If the government have as high an appreciation of the issues involved as the hon. member for Halifax has, it will be for them to say. But, as to the hon. gentleman himself and the query he has made, I will leave him and the peculiar position he has just taken now to the people of the city of Halifax who will understand the issue and understand the position that he takes in reference to an issue of this kind. As to the peculiar type of instrument upon which this gentleman was playing I have no special or detailed information such as my hon. friend evidently desires to have. It may probably have been an instrument of many strings ; I am not sure.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, while my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) who has spoken at such length, has not seen fit to offer the House any conclusion to his remarks, we can at least give him credit for having made good his suggestion of yesterday that although the government might take the mornings it would not necessarily get more business done on that account. However, we will not begrudge our friend the double pleasure that he has had during the last'two hours and a half, pleasures in which he revels so much : one, the sound of his own voice, the other, the pleasure of putting discredit upon other people at a distance from here, not only individually but collectively, not only by reason of his own ingenuity and imagination, but by the ingenuity and imngina-ation of another man. I think it is not going too far to say that my hon. friend has traded perhaps too much on the fact that that gentleman whom he quoted so much was a member of the clergy of a great church in this country. I would not suggest such a thing in regard to the Rev. Dr. Pringle, but my hon. friend will have to admit that as there are members of parliament who have their imperfections, so there may be ministers of the gospel who are not entirely perfect, and it is not sufficient to say that because a statement is made by the minister of the gospel it is absolute evidence that it is in all parts and points absolutely correct.


Robert Laird Borden: It might perhaps be regarded as a fair ground for investigation.


Frank Oliver: Precisely; so it was considered to be a fair ground for investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the investigation held ?


Frank Oliver: It was a matter of regret on my part that it was not found to be sufficient ground for investigation when the opportunity was given.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the minister mean by that ?


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to say that it was not found to he sufficient ground for investigation when the opportunity was given.


Mr. K. L. BORDEN.: In what way ?


Frank Oliver: The opportunity for investigation was given and it was not taken advantage of on a paltry lawyer's quibble. Our lion, friend has traversed a great deal of ground during his harangue of to-day, from the question of the general administration of the Yukon to the private conduct of certain individuals connected with it. The character and propriety of the comment that has been made may be brought out by one or two instances in the quotations that he has given. The letter of the Rev. Mr. Pringle, dated May 27, 1902, contains the views of the reverend gentleman in regard to the administration of the mining business in that country. He says :
In one notorious case, Treadgold, the most important water privilege in the Yukon has been handed over to a corporation. I do not hesitate a moment to say that this concession is an in'qmty and the people will some day reap the bitter fruits of its government's wrongdoing. The Klondike water should be used directly by the government of Canada in the interests of the people.
My blood boiled, when, standing on the Arkansaw creek divide, I saw the great and beautiful river issue from the foothills, and remembered that it was in the grasp of capital, that the people had been disinherited; and that everything in this great rich district was to be food for the maw of a greedy and government favoured corporation.
My bon. friend (Mr. Foster) could not have improved on that language, and I am sure he read it to-day with a great deal of gusto. This letter was written six years ago and necessarily we know more to day than we did then. The Klondike river still flows out of the foothills ; it is not in the grasp of government favoured corporations and to this date its water has not been utilized for the purposes that the Rev. Dr. Pringle desired it to be utilized for, and declared it would have been utilized for if it had not been for the action of this government. The reverend gentleman says the water at that time was in the grasp of the notorious Treadgold concession. There is no Treadgold concession to-day, there is no Treadgold water privilege ; whatever water privilege Treadgold got upon the Klondike river he never exercised it, for the good and sufficient reason that it was not any good. But Mr. Treadgold has utilized another water privilege on another river and as a result of Treadgold's personal efforts capital has been induced to come into the Yukon so that there is to-day in process of construction, a scheme for the purpose of mining completely the remaining gold bearing gravels of that country on a scale that does not exist in any other country in the world. An expenditure is being made there for this purpose under the supervision of this man Treadgold in the way of building flumes and in the purchase of claims to the extent, I am credibly informed, of $10,000,000. And it has not utilized in any way, shape or manner the water of the Klondike river which the Rev. Dr. Pringle has announced to the world was tied up from beneficial use in the development of that country. Now, the Rev. Dr. Pringle was mistaken at that time ; he was absolutely and utterly mistaken in that.


Mr. SPROULE.: Does the minister deny that Treadgold did not have possession of it then ?


Frank Oliver: I am not denying that Treadgold had possession of it then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then Dr. Pringle was not mistaken when he said that Treadgold had it ?


Frank Oliver: I am denying that the possession of it by Treadgold had then or has now or ever had any deleterious effect upon the development of the gold mining of the Yukon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister himself admits that Treadgold had it but did not use it.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he did not use it, it would not enure to the advantage of the mining interests there.


Robert Laird Borden: What became of it?


Frank Oliver: It has been free for the use of any body for years and years since then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was not free then ?


Frank Oliver: It was not at that time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then Mr. Pringle could not have been mistaken in the statement he made.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Pringle was not mistaken as to the ownership by Treadgold of the concession but he was mistaken in the statement that the ownership by Treadgold of that concessipn was any injury to the development of the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: What became of the concession ?


Frank Oliver: The concession was forfeited because it was no use.


Robert Laird Borden: Forfeited because is was no use ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is very remarkable.


Frank Oliver: It may be remarkable but there are many things that my hon. friend does not know and that is one of them.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that Treadgold forfeited it ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: This is the first time I ever knew he could do so. He might surrender it but the government alone could forfeit it.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is a lawyer and I am not able to quibble with him on legal points. The fact is that Treadgold had that concession and he has not it now. The essential point of the statement of the Rev. Dr. Pringle was that Treadgold's ownership of that concession was an injury to the Yukon and I say Dr. Pringle was mistaken as the facts to-day prove. I say that the concession was of no value to Treadgold, that the Yukon is being developed to-day, not by the concession but by the investment of money made by the same Treadgold at another point and in another direction.


Robert Laird Borden: If the concession were of no value to Treadgold so that the property could not be used, would not that of itself be an injury to the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: Certainly not. If it was no good to Treadgold and no good to any body else what difference who owned it. If my hon. friend owned it to-day and if it could not be utilized by anybody, is the ownership of it hurting anybody. '


Robert Laird Borden: Did it not tie up the property in the meantime ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly, but so long as the property was of no value to anybody what difference did it make ? That is elementary and my hon. friend though a lawyer ought to know it.


Mr.   POSTER@: Was the property tested?


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman know what property is in question ? It was not land, it was a water right. It was a question of investing money to bring that water into beneficial operation on the mining claims, and the engineering conditions were such that it could not be brought economically into beneficial operation on these claims.


Mr.   POSTER@: That is what remained to be tested.


Frank Oliver: The evidence of that is that to-day Treadgold is bringing water


Frank Oliver: from another source altogether at a total expenditure of some $10,000,000. I am not finding any fault with Dr. Pringle for the view he took. I am merely suggesting he was mistaken in that view ; that he was absolutely and entirely mistaken.


Mr.   POSTER@: As also was Treadgold.


Frank Oliver: As also was Treadgold ; as anybody is liable to be mistaken in a gold mining country.


George Eulas Foster: They never know what is going to happen.


Frank Oliver: They never know what is going to happen until they get the gold in their pockets. Giving Dr. Pringle credit for good intentions, I say that Dr. Pringle is liable to be mistaken ; and here is one very clear instance in which he was absolutely mistaken. If my hon. friend was aware of the conditions of that country he has not the same excuse for offering' this quotation from Dr. Pringle's letter to the House to-day as a condemnation of the government, as Dr. Pringle had in writing it, because the events have proven that Dr. Pringle was wrong although my hon. friend did not inform the House on that point.


Mr.   POSTER@: I had to give the whole document. My hon. friend would not have me read one part and omit another part.


Frank Oliver: I am not finding fault with what my hon. friend said. He was making a partisan presentation of the case and he took advantage of this statement which Dr. Pringle made years ago before the knowledge had come, and he was using that statement to create the impression that that condition existed to-day. If he was aware of the facts

I do not say he was-he must have known that it did not exist and that Dr. Pringle was mistaken when he made that statement.


Mr.   POSTER@: I suppose my hon. friend does not want to be unfair to Dr. Pringle, and would not like it to go out that Dr. Pringle was mistaken in that statement. Dr. Pringle, as the minister agrees, was right in his statement of the facts at that time, but was not right in his appreciation of what might happen from them.


Frank Oliver: He was right in a part of his facts, but not in the whole of them.


Mr.   POSTER@: I imagine that he was right in the whole of his facts, but not in his anticipations.


Frank Oliver: He stated his anticipations as facts, in the most emphatic language. The Yukon is a very important territory, and it is not necessarily surrounded with that air of mystery which my hon. friend suggested, and which seemed to be such a

source of enjoyment to him. The Yukon is a business proposition, and it is desirable in the interests of every j>art of Canada that it should be fully and properly developed. Tile value of the Yukon is in its gold production. When gold was discovered there the means whereby that gold production could be made most effective, most economically, was under the consideration of the government of the day. In a vast country like tlie Yukon no government could expect, and this government did not expect, that there was abundance of gold everywhere. While there was abundance of gold in one or two or three locations, a great balance of the area contained either no gold or a limited quantity of gold. Therefore in their mining regulations they made provision not only for the mining of the limited area where gold was abundant, but also for other areas where gold was less abundant ; that is to say. they provided for miners' claims and for hydraulic concessions. Rev. Dr. Pringle, in this letter written in 1902, declares most strongly against hydraulic concessions, declaring them to be iniquitous, and holds the government responsible for tile iniquity of the policy, as he was perfectly right in doing if it was iniquitous. The principle underlying that policy was an absolutely sound principle, a principle which it is necessary to recognize in the securing of the gold production of that country. Any policy that does not recognize the necessity of providing for the development of the vast areas of low-grade values in that country is not an effective or sound policy. It is possible that, owing to lack of knowledge of the conditions at the time, the administration with regard to the hydraulic concessions was not all that could be desired ; but the idea that is attempted to be conveyed by Dr. Pringle, that the principle of hydraulic concessions was a principle of corrupt dealings, intended to bar out the individual and to advance the interests of corrupt friends of the government, had absolutely no foundation in fact ; and my hon. friend, in using Dr. rringle's letter to place that same idea before the House, is in exactly the same position as Dr. Pringle.
There is just one other allusion I want to make to these long letters of Dr. Pringle's. In the letter of January 3, 1905, he deals with conditions as he considers he finds them at that time, particularly with the circumstances surrounding the election of Dr. Thompson, the sitting member for the Yukon, and he gives his opinion, in good free terms, of the gentleman who was or claimed to be, the government candidate, and of the methods by which he attempted to secure election. I want to read one line of this letter, because I think it is desirable that the House should have its attention drawn to it in view of further or future letters written by Dr. Pringle. He is dealing with the expenditure of money, asserting that the money of the country was being administered under the Yukon government with a view to advancing the interests of those who were likely to support Mr. Congdon. This he particularly charges was the case in regard to road works, and he says :
It is am open secret that Mr. Bertrand would ha.vc started ia road around the cliff to Moosehide, to cost about $15,COO had not Mr. Lithgow (refused to be responsible for the expenditure.
Mr. Lithgow was the controller of the territory, what might be called the Finance Minister of the government as it then was, and Dr. Pringle declares that Mr. Lithgow, in the discharge of what he believed to be his duty in his official position on that occasion. saved the government of the country $15,000 which he charges it was desired to expend corruptly in the interests of the election of the government candidate. That is the same Mr. Lithgow whom in his letters of last year, he charged with divers and sundry crimes and misdemeanours, which I think was very little to the credit of the gentleman making the charges.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister allow me one remark there ? That seems to me to show a spirit of eminent fairness in Dr. Pringle. He gave to Mr. Lithgow the full credit of stopping the illegal expenditure. When it comes to other sides of Mr. Lith-gow's character, he prefers his charges.


Frank Oliver: Dr. Pringle at that time did not make any charges against Mr. Lithgow. His charges in 1905 were against Mr. Congdon and his supporters. Mr. Lithgow apparently was not one of Mr. Congdon's supporters, and therefore he has no charges against him, and the simple statement was made that Mr. Lithgow had prevented an improper expenditure of $15,000. Either the statement that Mr. Bertrand wanted to expend $15,000 improperly is untrue, or the statement that Mr. Lithgow prevented that is untrue. He can have it either way.


George Eulas Foster: Which way is it ?


Frank Oliver: I say he can have it either way. I do not think it is either way. I am not entitled to accept his statement.


George Eulas Foster: You are not in a position to deny it.


Frank Oliver: I am not in a position to deny it, but I do not accept it. There is nothing in these letters to warrant an acceptance of their general allegations. 1 have pointed out one or two cases in which they are very wide of the mark, and where a gentleman uses such strong language as Dr Pringle does, the chances are that he has gone wide of the mark in more cases than one.
Dr. Pringle wrote in 1905 and received a

reply, but he finds fault because he is not given a copy of the reply which Mr. Goiig-dou sent to the department. I want to point out in this connection that when the government received Mr. Pringle's letter in the beginning of 1905, the government at once asked Mr. Congdon what reply he had to make to it. It was not therefore a case in which the government was letting the matter rest. The demand for a reply from Mr. Congdon was immediate and so was his reply, and in my humble judgment his reply was conclusive. It seems to me that the case was then closed. The government had inquired into it and the allegations had not only been denied but disproved. And there was nothing further to be done. And I am not aware that Dr. Pringle had any particular or inherent right to be given a copy of the letter sent by Mr. Congdon. He had seen fit to make a statement, the government had made inquiry, and it was for the government to decide whether it was satisfied or not.


Sir WILFRID  I.@: What inquiry did the government make ?


Frank Oliver: It inquired from Mr. Congdon, who was the man charged by Dr. Pringle with impropriety in the conduct of the election. Mr. Congdon's reply was, in my judgment, conclusive.


George Eulas Foster: Why then was Mr. Henderson appointed to investigate ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is mixing up his dates. That was subsequent. Mr. Henderson was not appointed until the summer of 1907 and Mr. Pringle's charge and Mr. Congdon's reply were in 1905. The matter rested there until the necessity came to appoint a commissioner to the Yukon in succession to Mr. Mclnnis. In the interval between the beginning of 1905 and 1907, Mr. Mclnnis had been appointed commissioner, and after having served a certain time he resigned and we had to appoint a successor. Mr. Lithgow's name was mentioned favourably for the vacancv by some of his friends in the Yukon. His name was forwarded in nomination for the position, and Dr. Pringle, having heard I presume of this recommendation, came out with another letter in which he gave his opinion of Mr. Lithgow and matters and things generally in the Yukon. His letter was written to myself and replied to. Dr. Prinsrle's letter was dated 19th January, and is as follows :
I am ashamed to think that the impression will go abroad that the people of the Yukon are willing to have such a man as Lithgow as commissioner, much lo^s to request the government to appoint him. His life here has been a public scandal, and while if he were a private citizen, I should have nothing to say excent to himself, as a public official and one evidently seekinv the highest position in this territory in the people's gift, he is or>en to the judgment of any citizen Mr. OLIVER.
He says that Mr. Lithgow's life was a public scandal, and after a long statement to that effect, concludes :
Last night a meeting for the purpose of promoting Mr. Lithgow's interests was called by his friends who are for the most part those who surrounded Congdon. The meeting was overwhelmingly anti-Lithgow. Many did not vote, but it showed 97 to 73 against Lithgow.

In that letter there is no suggestion of an attack on Mr. Lithgow because of any act in his position as controller. The attack is based wholly on the possibility of his appointment as commissioner. That letter was promptly replied to and did not call for further action ; but on the 31st July 1907, the Rev. Mr. Pringle comes forward with his charges against Mr. Lithgow and Mi. Girouard in their positions as government officials.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister correct in that ?
Mr- OLIVER. That is as I understand


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will look, he will find that the charge against Girouard, substantiated by affidavits, was made in 1905 by Mr. Pringle.


Frank Oliver: Possibly, I am speaking of the correspondence addressed to myself and of which I have personal knowledge.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Pringle's letters of 1905 were also addressed to the minister.


Frank Oliver: I was not minister at the time ; but if this letter was addressed to the then Minister of the Interior in the early part of 1905, I myself visited the Yukon during that period. I visited that country for the purpose of looking into the conditions for myself, and I am bound to say that neither Mr. Pringle nor any one else in or about the Yukon gave me any hint or indication of any such charges such as have been made in the letter. It appears to me that if the conditions were so bad and urgent as represented, it would have been only reasonable and fair that I should have been informed of them at the time and in the place where I was for the express purpose of seeing and hearing all I could with regard to the administration in the Yukon.


George Eulas Foster: They might have been a little frightened.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: Will the minister read the charges as shown on page 14 ? I think that he and the House will find they are tolerably specific.


Frank Oliver: They are tolerably specific.


George Eulas Foster: I think they are verv specific.


Frank Oliver: That is the point I want tile House to come to. Well, I do not wish to discredit ' Hansard ' by reading the wording of this statement unless my hon. friend insists.


George Eulas Foster: I do not insist if you only admit they are specific.


Frank Oliver: I do not admit they are specific, and if the hon. gentleman insists they are I will have to read them to show they are not specific, and that they are not in a form which will enable any man to come forward and disprove them.


Robert Laird Borden: He would not come forward to disprove the charges ; he would come forward t,o disprove the evidence that was brought in support of them.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend forgets he is in parliament and not in a court.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman knows where he is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the party who makes the charges produces credible evidence to prove them.


Frank Oliver: I am not learned in the law, but I think we all know enough about
the law to know that when I bring a complaint against you I have to state the time and place and occasion, and the reason for that is so that you may have an opportunity of disproving that charge in particular and in general. Unless time and place and occasion are given you have not a fair opportunity to disprove my charge. In this case Dr. Pringle does not give time and place and location. He says that certain things occurred but he does not put that assertion in such shape that Mr. Lithgow or Mr. Girouard could come forward and say : That is false, I was not there at that time or place. Under this statement of Dr. Pringle, Mr. Lithgow and Mr. Girouard would have to prove a negative covering an indeterminate period of it might be one week, or one month, or six months, or five years as the case might be, and I submit that is not a fair or reasonable proposition.


George Eulas Foster: Did the minister read the particulars of the affidavits with reference to Girouard ?


Frank Oliver: I am not going to read them.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me he would find them very particular as to date, as to place, as to circumstance.


Frank Oliver: But these are not Hie statements of Dr. Pringle and it is Dr. Pringle I am dealing with now.


George Eulas Foster: I thought it was Dr. Pringle's evidence.


Frank Oliver: I am dealing with Dr. Pringle and the statement he made, and I am arguing in defence of the position I took in dealing with this question, and I want to show the House and the country that the position I took was fair. I want to point out that the statements made by Dr. Pringle were not in specific form such as would be fair and reasonable to enable the men who are charged with these offences to absolutely disprove them. I say that the man who makes a general charge such as that is not acting fairly towards the person against whom he makes it. And I say that charged with my responsibility 1 would not be warranted in doing otherwise than offering Dr. Pringle an opportunity to come forward and make specific statements as to these charges before I would have further proceedings in the matter. Fair play is bonnie play, and while Messrs. Lithgow and Girouard may he people living aw'ay in the Yukon, they may be discreditable or creditable. In the position which I occupy it is not for me to consider where they are or who they are or what they are, but to give them just the same square deal that any white man is entitled to in this country. I don't think I was entitled to do otherwise than to require, before taking further proceedings, that Dr. Pringle should
9G27

say when, where and how these transactions took place so as to give these men a fair and reasonable opportunity to disprove the charges if they could.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister pretend to say that under a royal commission issued by parliament to inquire into the conduct of officials charged with wrong-doing, it is necessary to state specific dates and specific instances ? Does he think that yon should lay a complaint in such a case as you would lay a complaint before a magistrate ? Does he think that was done in the case of McGreevy and Connolly, who were charged with certain offences in connection with public works ?


Frank Oliver: I take issue with that position here and now and I do it ,on my responsibility as a member and as a minister. As I understand it the very foundation principle of British justice is that there shall be no trial unless there is an accusation. Whatever may be the view of parliament on any special occasion, or of the Governor in Council on any special occasion, for myself in the administration of my office I have not taken any other view, and I may inform the House and the country that I do not propose to take any other view than that there shall be a charge before there shall be an investigation.


George Eulas Foster: Why then did the minister appoint Mr. Henderson to make an investigation ?


Frank Oliver: To give Dr. Pringle an opportunity to make his statements specific so that there could be an investigation. I further gave Mr. Henderson authority to make inquiries as to the general or specific conduct of any official in the Yukon.


George Eulas Foster: Which he did not do.


Frank Oliver: Which he has reported to me in his letter, that he did, and that he has nothing to report as to misconduct on their part.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister regard it as necessary that a charge must be made specifically against an official with regard to date, time, and incident ? Does he think he is doing the proper thing to go pn with an inquiry and not allow the witnesses to be either subpoenaed or sworn, but take their ipse dixit ; and is he willing to accept that as evidence but not allow the commission he has appointed to put these witnesses on oath ?


Frank Oliver: When the charge is made specific, when a statement is made which is capable of being proven or disproven as a question of fact-then is the time we will take to put witnesses on oath, and until that specific statement is made, I say I am not warranted, as a matter of fair play, in putting it in the power of a man who Mr. OLIVER.
is unwilling to make such a specific charge to compel this or that citizen to come forward and make a statement under oath concerning matters on which, perhaps, he has no information or, perhaps, concerning which he does not wish to speak.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But he says:	Give
such a commission and I will make a charge, but until you do that I will not make a charge. He probably has a reason for that.


Frank Oliver: I say that, until he makes a specific charge, I will not give him an inquiry under oath, but if he does make his charge specific the question of an inquiry under oath will be one for consideration. That is a point I want to make absolutely and positively clear.
Mr, FOSTER. That is the policy of the government?


Frank Oliver: That is my policy in administering this department in this connection. I want that distinctly understood. While I want to see honest officials and clean administration, I will not be a party to a system of simple slander which will discredit honourable men-or dishonourable or any other kind of men-without anybody being responsible for the circulation of the slander.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) think that he ought to be higher or greater authority than parliament ? Take the example of what this House has done in the Hodgins case. A committee has been appointed to inquire into certain allegations that have appeared in the press, and we give the committee charged with that duty power to swear every witness who comes before it and bring out all the information under oath, though the charges are only of a general character and though neither dates nor specific instances are alleged. Parliament is supposed to he a model in what It does with regard to inquiries or anything else. Does the minister think he is a higher authority than parliament or what parliament does it is not proper for him to do ?


Frank Oliver: I think that parliament has a higher authority than I have, and that what may be perfectly justifiable for parliament may not be justifiable for me, that what may be justifiable action on the part of parliament in the prosecution of the public business would not necessarily be justifiable in me in the investigation of the private character of an individual. Parliament is supreme ; parliament can do what it pleases ; parliament can be unjust if it likes ; parliament can make any inquiry it wishes to make, but I say that even parliament has no right to set up an inquisition into the private character of individuals. Still, even if parliament had such a right, it would not follow that I have that right. I do not pretend to such
-TUNE 2, 1908
a right, and I do not propose to exercise it. I say distinctly that I do not propose to make myself a party to any general scheme of slander, let it be put forward by any person, minister of the gospel or any other. If a slander is uttered, the best I can do is to afford the man who utters it an opportunity to prove what he has stated, to substantiate it by any evidence he may bring forward, to choose his own time, his own place, his own occasion, and if he will not do that, if he will not choose time, place and occasion so that the party accused can disprove the accusation, if it be a thing that can be disproved, I think I have discharged my duty, as I have said in my letter to the Rev. Dr. Pringle, and I believe that the country will sustain me in that position.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the country will reach a different conclusion.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that, because men live in the Yukon they are less entitled to the rights of Canadian citizenship than are those who live in Toronto, or Ottawa or elsewhere. I deal with all Canadian citizens in the same way. I want to say that it seems to me it has been the habit in discussing this question of the Yukon to discuss it with the idea that the man who has taken his life in his hand, who has risked his all and his life every day in the reclaiming of the wilderness and the building up of the country-this man, merely because he is a pioneer, is to be regarded as less than the ordinary kind of man and that he is not entitled to the same consideration as other people. I want to say to this House, and I will say it to the country, that so far as I am concerned the pioneer is the man whose interests require first attention at the hands of this government, of this country, of this people ; and that, because a man is a pioneer in the Yukon, because a man is a gold miner, he is none the less a citizen of Canada and none the less entitled to every consideration that every other citizen of Canada is entitled to. Because Dawson is in the Yukon the citizens of that city are not less entitled to fair-play, honest treatment, fair consideration, they are not less entitled to being spoken of fairly and decently, than are the citizens of Toronto or Ottawa. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how would such a proposition as tliis^ which has been suggested by Rev. Dr. Pringle be received if applied to the city of Toronto or the city of Ottawa? That a slander should be uttered against a citizen of Toronto or Ottawa, that it should be declared that his private conduct was not such as it ought to be, and because he held an office from the city or from the province or from the Dominion, therefore there must be an inquiry by royal commission into whether it is true or false. It would be absurd. No man
would justify such a proposition applied to Toronto or Ottawa. Why then apply it to the Yukon?
That is the case as it has struck me- we must give to people who are living in the Yukon the same consideration as we are giving to people anywhere else, and that to trespass upon the rights of a citizen of the Yukon, whether a government official or a private citizen, is just the same as to trepass on the rights of a citizen of Toronto or Ottawa. And Rev. Dr. Pringle has no more right to circulate throughout this country allegations that this man or that man is not correct in his private life than any reverend gentleman in Ottawa would have to circulate such statements regarding the members of this House or regarding any other citizen.
It is said that there is vice in the Yukon. It is said that there is crime in the Yukon. The evidence is that there is less crime in the Yukon, man for man, than there is possibly right here in Ottawa. As to vice,
I am not able to answer. But it is certainly a notorious fact that the city of Ottawa is not free from vice-that the city of Toronto is not free from vice-that the city of Montreal is not free from vice. Why should not parliament concern itself with the morals of the city of Montreal as well as with the morals of the city of Dawson? It seems to me that there is a wrong point of view in regard to this question of the conditions in tlie Yukon and in regard to the observance of law and morality there. It is unquestionable that, from the establishment of the authority of the Canadian government in the Yukon, there has been a most phenomenal maintenance of law and order, of enforcement of the rights of life and property. No one can gainsay that. When you consider the facts in the Yukon along with those in Alaska immediately across the line, the comparison is simply [DOT]startling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the minister a question? If that be so, how does he account for the fact that we have paid for a number of years $500,000 for a police force to look after the people up there-$500,000 for a police force for 8,000 people?


Frank Oliver: I say that the maintenance of law and order in the Yukon


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what the police are for.


Frank Oliver: Well, they are there, and they maintain law and order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any portion of Canada where the condition of things is anything like that ?


Alexander Johnston: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. gentleman say? I do not think the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) ought to be so needlessly offensive.


Alexander Johnston: Somebody ought to ; it is time. You had better sit down now.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Frank Oliver: The Mounted Police are maintained in the Yukon by the country for the purpose of keeping law and order. They have kept law and order. So, that,
I say, the contrast between the conditions in the Yukon and in the immediately adjoining territory of Alaska, in so far as law and order are concerned, and in so far as protection to life and property are concerned, is simply startling. There is no consideration given to that fact. Conditions are painted in the Yukon with regard to vice and immorality, which conditions exist, I say, in every city of the Dominion and in every city of the world, xt is a matter of regret that these conditions do exist. It is to be regretted that they exist in Dawson, but they do not exist any more in Dawson than can be helped. The authorities are as energetic in suppressing this condition in Dawson as they are anywhere else, but because they are not successful in Dawson, as they are not successful anywhere else in the world, is no reason why the people of the Yukon should be slandered in general or in particular.
Mr. iSPROULE. Is it a fact that you will have an equally good condition of affairs in a country where you have one hotel selling liquor for every ninety-four of the people as you will in a country where there is only one hotel for every thousand people. The former was the condition that they had in Dawson a few years ago.


Frank Oliver: On the other hand it must be remembered that there Is a good deal of difference between the conditions in Dawson and the conditions in other places. The conditions in Dawson were at that time that there was an immense aggregation of men engaged in active, energetic, outdoor employment with plenty of money to spend and limited opportunities for spending it. I do not know that there were more opportunities for getting liquor in Dawson in proportion to the class of men who took liquor than there were in any part of Ontario ; because, it must be remembered that in Ontario the proportion of men who are of the class which I have described is very limited as compared with the whole population whereas in Dawson they are the whole population. There is no use of comparing conditions unless you compare like conditions, unless you compare the conditions that existed in Dawson with similar conditions elsewhere. However, I am not apologizing or saying anything with regard to the conditions as to the sale of liquor. That is a matter within the regulation of the Yukon Council itself. It is in accordance with the public opinion Mr. SPROULE.
of the people of the Yukon. Perhaps they are wrong. If I had to answer the question I would say that they were absolutely wrong and that is their business and they must transact that business as best they may and according to their own judgment.
1 will not repeat the slanders which have been uttered by the Rev. Dr. Pringle with regard to Mr. Lithgow's private character and I will only revert to the certificate that he gave in these very letters to Mr. Lith-gow with reference to his character as a public official. A man who, as he says, saved the country $15,000, even though there was pressure upon him to allow the expenditure to be made in the heat of an election when a supporter of the government was concerned, is the man that he asks us to condemn, that he asks us to put out of his position where he has served a useful purpose during all these years and he asks us to do so because he chooses to repeat a slander that he heard against him. When he was given an opportunity to give us the proof he was not able to get the people who had given him the story to come forward and say it was true. Under these circumstances we could not do other than we have done. If we are to listen to every attack that might be made upon every officer of the government in his private capacity we are not giving that credit to good service that good service is entitled to. Let me allude to the suggestion that the hon. member for North Toronto made as to the difference between the treatment given the demand for an investigation by Dr. Pringle and the demand for an investigation by a Mr. Perron who complained of some mishandling of his affairs in the Gold Commissioner's office. The difference between the conditions was this : The complaint of Mr. Perron was in regard to public business and Mr. Perron was entitled to a commission under the terms of the Act.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister mind stating what was the business ?


Frank Oliver: It was something in connection with priority in the filing of a certain document. I have just forgotten the actual facts. It was a matter of the transaction of public business. The Act expressly says :
The minister presiding over any department of the civil service of Canada, may appoint at any time, under the authority of the Governor in Council, a commissioner or commissioners to investigate and report upon the state and management of the business, or any part of the business, of such department, either in the inside or outside service thereof, and the conduct of any person in such service, so far as the same relates to his official duties.
The charge made by Mr. Perron related to the official duty of a certain member of the service and under that section an in-

vestigation was lield. I submit that the charges made by Mr. Pringle against Mr. Lithgow and Mr. Girouard are not charges in regard to their official duties and that therefore this section does not give authority to hold a commission upon these charges.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is wrong with reference to the charge made against Mr. Girouard. I think that absolutely and definitely refers to his official duties. He should have been somewhere and he was somewhere else.


Frank Oliver: No, I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I am afraid we will have to read these charges in order to satisfy him.


George Eulas Foster: If you read the affidavits you will find it.


Frank Oliver: But there were no affidavits.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, there were six of them.


Frank Oliver: Given by Dr. Pringle ?
(Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sent by Dr. Pringle to the Prime Minister.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of the charges amde by Mr. Pringle, in 1907.


George Eulas Foster: What's the odds as between 1907 and 1905 ?


Frank Oliver: The odds is this that I ordered an investigation into the charges made in 1907, and if Dr. Pringle had these affidavits in his possession all he had to do was to put them before the commission. I do not know why he did not do so. He did not do so although we gave him the opportunity to do so.


George Eulas Foster: He told you why.


Frank Oliver: But he did not do so at any rate. He refused to do it.


Robert Laird Borden: Why would the affidavits be any better in the possession of the commissioner than in the possession of the government ?


Frank Oliver: The government appointed a commissioner to hold an investigation and when a commissioner is appointed to hold an investigation it is through his hands formally that everything has to be done.


George Eulas Foster: The commissioner asked the minister for a commission ?


Frank Oliver: I know he did and that is a point in regard to which the commissioner and I differed. As he was the commissioner, my view, for the time being, prevailed.


Robert Laird Borden: Only for a short time.


Frank Oliver: I cannot read the section in any other way. It is provided that there 306
shall be a commission of inquiry into the conduct of any person only so far as the same relates to his official duties. We have granted commissions to inquire into matters affecting the official duties of officials in the Yukon. We have not granted a royal commission to inquire into the private conduct of any official in the Yukon, but when allegations against the private conduct of any official were made, although they were not specific and although they were not substantiated by evidence, an opportunity was given both to make them specific and to substantiate them by evidence. While I do not wish to load up ' Hansard ' it might be just as well to read the conclusion of the correspondence between the commissioner and myself so that It may be available to the public. On the 2nd of January, 1908, I wrote the commissioner :
Ottawa, January 2, 1908.
Dear Sir,-T have before me the papers in connection with the inquiry ordered in respect of Dr. Pringle's charges with your covering letter of December 7.
I note that in your letter of November 8 you suggest your appointment as a commissioner to investigate the charges under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter 101, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
In reply to this suggestion I beg to say that it appears to me that it would be a very strained construction to put upon section 2 of that Act to say that an inquiry into charges of the nature of those made by Dr. Pringle was an inquiry * into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduot of any part of the public business thereof.' Masmuch as Dr. Pringle has been requested to make a specific statement of his knowledge of the facts regarding which he complains, and has failed to do so, I do not think I would be warranted in applying the terms of the Inquiries Act.
If Dr. Pringle had availed himself of the opportunity which you gave him under my instructions, it would then _ be a matter for consideration whether we might or might not invoke the terms of the Act, but without something more definite than has yet been brought to your attention, I do not think we have suflicient warrant for doing so.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) FRANK OLIVER. Hon. Alexander Henderson,
Commiisisoner Yukon Territory, Dawson.
I followed that with another letter on the 9th of January, as follows :
Ottawa, January 9, 1908.
Dear Sir,

Your report of December 7 on charges made by Dr. Pringle against Messrs. Lithgow and Girouard has been duly received.
I note your statement that both Messrs. Lithgow and Girouard have emphatically denied to you the truth of the charges. I also note the refusal of Dr. Pringle, when offered the opportunity, to make such further statements in connection with his charges as would be necessary to enable you to reach a



conclusion; also your statement that no other person in the territory had made any charges to you with respect to either of the officials named; that yon had seen nothing in the conduct of either of them which would warrant the conclusion that the charges made by Dr. Pringle against them, or either of them, could be substantiate!; and also that Mr. Girouard has commenced an action against Dr. Pringle for damages for libel, and that the action is now pending.
In yiew of these facts, and as you have no authority to hold an inquiry under oath, 9Uch as Dr. Pringle desires, it does not seem to me that the ease at present calls for further action on your part.
At the same time I desire it to he distinctly understood that in case of there coming to your knowledge such personal actions of any official of this government in the Yukon Territory as would or might constitute a publio scandal, or as to refleot unfavourably upon this government you are expected to report the oa.se to me fully and without delay so that the government may he in a position to deal with such official as the circumstances seem to warrant.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) PRANK OLIVER. Hon. Alexander Henderson,
Commissioner Yukon District, Dawson, Yukon Territory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister know what was the result of the action for slander ; was it prosecuted ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say. I presume the courts will deal with it.


Mr.   POSTER@: Is Mr. Girouard now an officer of the government ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Girouard is not an officer of the government at the present time. Mr. Girouard applied to leave the government service and the office he held has been consolidated with another office in the interests of economy.


George Eulas Foster: Who holds the consolidated office ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Lalibertfi was librarian of the Justice Department and he now holds the dual position of librarian and registrar at the former salary of the registrar. In conclusion I want to say that I think there should be a very wide distinction drawn-at any rate I want to draw a very wide distinction-between allegations made against the public and against the private conduct of any official. I am quite aware that a man is the same man in public as in private, and I am quite aware that it is to the credit of the government and to the credit of the country that its officials should conduct themselves so that there should not be any scandal attaching to their names while they are in the public service. I do not think there is any person in this House who is more thoroughly imbued with that idea than I am. But, as was stated in Mr. OLIVER
the quotation from the ' Globe this is not a question of the conduct of Messrs. Girouard and Lithgow ; this is a question of whether a royal commission should be appointed by a responsible minister to find out whether an official of his department had conducted himself properly in his private capacity. In regard to that I want to say that I hold myself responsible to the House and to the country for the private conduct of the officials of tile department which I have the honour to administer so far as that private conduct can be considered to come in collision with public interest or public duty, and for my part I do not need any royal commission to tell me what to do in the case of an official in the employ of the Interior Department, whose private conduct is such as to reflect discredit upon the government.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of the Interior has treated us to one of his old time extraordinary speeches which fortunately are becoming less and less frequent the longer he continues in office. When he seeks to cast discredit on Dr. Pringle, naturally he does not allude to the circumstances that four years ago he and his party were perfectly ready to exploit that reverend gentleman's name for the purpose of clearing themselves from odium in connection with the Yukon. But now that this gentleman has made certain statements, first in 1002, again in 1905 and afterwards in 1907, the minister while preserving a certain appearance of fairness has endeavoured before the House and the country to cast that discredit upon Dr. Pringle which is hardly consistent with the fair play for which he himself cried out so vehemently in his address. The minister asks for fair play. Does he think it is fair play to the people of Canada or to the people of the Yukon or to his own officials, that he should make a mockery of the investigation he pretended to carry on in regard to the charges made by Dr. Pringle ? I endeavoured during the course of his remarks to find a single line of intelligible thought in the mind of the minister with regard to the course that ought to be pursued, and I say in all candour that I was absolutely unable to find it. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House will be able to extract from the remarkable address of the minister any comprehensible line of thought as to the duty of a public man in regard to officials under such circumstances. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) came under the censure of the Minister of the Interior. My hon. friend exercised a remarkable control in dealing with this matter. He over and over again as I know-because having a copy of the return before me I followed

him-left out passages that he might very well have read had he desired only to east discredit upon the administration of this government. There was no attempt by the hon. member, except to put forward a few of the least, but not any of the worst of the abominations and deviltries that have been carried on in the Yukon under the administration of this government and by certain officials of this government during the past six or seven years.
I do not desire at the present moment to speak of the allegations of Dr. Pringle so far as they concern the remarkable concessions granted in the Yukon or the policy of the government in regard to the development of that country. I will not even refer to liis charges in respect of the manner in ,which the election in 1904 was carried on, although it is perfectly well known to any one who has come in contact with men from the Yukon, that not only in that election, but in the first election in the Yukon, exactly that kind of work was carried on. In the first election there were two polling places established near the American boundary, and eight or ten men were brought over from the other side of the line. They went up and voted. Five minutes afterwards they went up and voted again under other names ; and so they continued, with the result that in places where there were not more than five or six people living, the then member for the Yukon had a majority of between 300 and 400, if I am correctly informed, a majority greater than the total majority by which he was returned.
But these are not the important parts of the statement of Dr. Pringle. His statements concern, in the first place, the administration of the Yukon by this government. I will take for the purpose of my argument simply one challenge by Dr. Pringle with respect to the administration of that country by this government. Let us look at what he says in his letter of the 3rd of January, 1905, with respect to the carrying on under the sanction of this government of what are known as dance halls in the Yukon-licensed dance halls :
I found that the administration had been a disgrace to the Canadian name, such as no self-respecting Canadian could excuse.
I may say that throughout Dr. Pringle's letters he seems to have noting but good words for the endeavours of Mr. Ross, now Senator Ross, to bring about decency and public order in that country. He says further :
In July, 1902, Mr. Ross practically compelled the passage of an ordinance suppressing the dance halls, the women in which were the most dangerous class of prostitutes, and absolutely excluding lewd women from licensed liquor houses.
That was the work of Mr. Ross, the condition of whose health, I understand, corn-3064
pelled him afterwards to leave that country, so that he was not responsible for the condition that supervened after his departure.
In September of the same year, Mr. Ross lying unconscious at Whitehorse, the ordinance was amended at the instance of the legal adviser, now Judge Newlands, so as to render the ordinance abortive, hut under Mr. Cong-don's lead we have legalized the dance halls. Some government officials are their habitues.
And further on :
The sergeant of the town station tells me that fifty per cent of the licensed houses are houses of prostitution.
There is a distinct charge by Dr. Pringle -in the first place, that these dance houses were carried on as houses of prostitution; in tlie second place, that Mr. Ross, then Commissioner of file Yukon, had put them down ; in the third place, that Mr. Newlands. afterwards elevated to the bench by the government of this country, had introduced an amendment into the ordinances of the Yukon which practically rendered nugatory Mr. Ross's efforts ; and, in the fourth place, that afterwards Mr. Congdon gave full swing to these dance houses by permitting them to he carried on under the sanction of tlie government. Has the Minister of tlie Interior any denial of the truth of what Dr. Pringle stated as to the character of these houses ? Though he has not a word of denial, I will answer him out of the mouth of his owu officials in the Yukon to-day. Instead of endeavouring to cast aspersions upon Dr. rringle, as he has done, lie and every other member of that government ought to he grateful to this man for raising the agitation which has resulted in the abolition of dance halls in the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman inform the House by whose legislation the dance halls have been abolished ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will show that as a result of tlie agitation brought about by Dr. Pringle they have been abolished by Ml-. Henderson, since lie has been there as commissioner. That is my answer to the minister ; does he regard it as satisfactory ?


Frank Oliver: It is satisfactory as far as it goes, hilt it is hardly correct.


Robert Laird Borden: For his information I will read the evidence of one of the hon. gentleman's officials, in order that he may be convinced that he does not know everything about liis own department or even about the Yukon which he pretends to govern.


Frank Oliver: To save the hon. gentleman trouble, I will say that the dance halls were abolished, not by Mr. Henderson, but by ordinance of tlie Yukon council.


Robert Laird Borden: Which Mr. Henderson brought about The minister may talk

about lawyers' quibbles, but I know no man more given to them than the hon. gentleman himself.


Frank Oliver: Does the Speaker control the legislation of this parliament ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, but the government having the majority of the members of the Yukon council, control them, and the commissioner, I suppose, can exercise a certain influence on the men appointed by this government to bring about legislation, and therefore, did it in this case.


Frank Oliver: The commissioner is the speaker of the council.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister persists in his quibbling. I will not pursue the matter further.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that members of the council appointed by the government, such as Judge Dugas, are open to political influences ?


Robert Laird Borden: Beyond question they are under the control of this government, and they have carried out the policy of this government ever since they have been in the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman explain for the information of the House just how Judge Dugas is under the control of this government in his action ?


Robert Laird Borden: It does not make the slightest difference to me whether his action was under the control of the government or not. The point I make is that the abolition of the dance halls was brought about as a result of the agitation carried on by Dr. Pringle. I have read the evidence of an official of this government, and I will proceed to read the evidence of an official of the Northwest Mounted Police, bearing date the 7tli December, 1907.


Frank Oliver: Before we get away from the point as to the right of this government to control the legislation of the Yukon council. I think it would be interesting to the House and the country to have that point settled. The hon. gentleman has suggested that the appointed members of the council are subject to the authority of this government in their legislation. I may ask him, since Judge Dugas' name has been mentioned, to what extent is Judge Dugas' action in the council of the Yukon subject to the control of this government ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is subject in this way, that this government, so long as it keeps that council under its control, is supposed to have its policy carried out by that council. If any member of that council does not see fit to carry out the policy of this government in that connection, he is in the same position as would be a member of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
the cabinet who did not find himself in accord with the policy of the government as a w7hole. He would find it necessary to leave that council just as a dissenting minister would have to leave the cabinet. If my hon. friend does not agree with me, I am sorry that we differ, but the point is a very subsidiary one. Instead of cavilling at Mr. Pringle, this government ought to be grateful to him for having started and carried out an agitation which has brought about the dissolution of these dance halls in the Yukon. The government should have expressed their gratitude to Dr. Pringle, rather than endeavour to cast aspersions on the gentleman who has brought about that very good reform.


Frank Oliver: I want to have the credit placed where it belongs. The dance halls were abolished by the legislation of the Yukon council and not by the authority of this government.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad to have the minister make practically the admission that if the policy of this government had been carried out, the dance halls would not have been abolished.


Frank Oliver: I did not make that admission.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what else the hon. gentleman's words mean. I would have supposed that'the government were in accord with the policy of_ the Yukon council in that regard, but the minister makes it clear that, for some reason or other not apparent, he desired to have these dance halls continued.


Frank Oliver: I cannot allow my hon. friend to suggest that anything I have said is open to any such construction. I say that the Yukon council, ,on its own responsibility and by its otvn authority, abolished the dance halls and that it was not this parliament or government that abolished them.


Robert Laird Borden: I am reading from a letter of the 7th December, 1907, from Mr. T. A. Wroughton, commanding 1B ' division of the Royal Northw'est Mounted Police, to the assistant commissioner of that corps, and dated from Dawson, Yukon Territory :
Royal Northwest Mounted Police.
' B ' Division.
Dawson, Y.T., December 7, 1907. The Assistant Commissioner,
R. N. W. M. Police, Yukon Territory, Dawson, Yukon Territory.
Sir-I have the honour to report, pursuant to your instructions, as follows, with regard to the alleged social evils in Dawson.
Formerly, while dance halls were permitted to exist under a licensed system, they were undoubtedly hot beds of evil; women were encouraged to frequent these places by the glare and glitter and a life of comparative

luxury as compared wit h the lives of their hardworking and honest sisters. These women were ostensibly under salary, whereas as a matter of fact the salary they received was a mere subterfuge, their real pay being derived from the monetary percentage they derived from the price of drinks, &c., which they were enabled to persuade the customers to buy. Time and again cases have been prosecuted in the courts, but we were unable to get convictions; we were confronted with the cleverest legal talent that money could procure (these people always appeared to have unlimited capital at their backs.) Time and again we spent money and energy in working up cases, employing special men (stool pigeons) but always with the same result.
The last attempt we made in the percentage cases was as strong a case as we could possibly hope to get (this was the opinion oi the Crown prosecutor) but what with perjured evidence and advantage taken of every technicality we failed. Naturally the class of men we have to employ (our regular men being too well known to conduct this species of work) was not of the highest order, and this the defence never failed to bring forward.
The last assembly of the Yukon council, however, repealed the objectionable ordinance with the result that conditions are much improved. The principal dance hall has gone out of business, and the only one remaining is trying to keep up its end on the sale of temperance beverages, and is, I am informed, tottering -to its fall. It was said that intoxicants were sold on this side; I have employed detectives on the matter who report that such is not the case.
That is the report of this officer of the police regarding the character ,of these dance halls. Let us look at what Mr. Henderson says about his action in the matter. The minister, as I understand, denies that this reform was brought about through the action of Dr. Pringle. I am reading from a letter of Mr. Henderson, being his report, under date of the Ttli December, 1907, to the Minister of the Interior :
Before my arrival in the territory I ha6 heard that the question of dance halls had been brought prominently before the public through a letter addressed to a Winnipeg newspaper by the Reverend Dr. Pringle, and I felt that one of the first questions which would demand my attention would be the devising of some solution to remove the conditions complained of should I find the complaint was well founded. After my arrival in Dawson on the 14th July, I ascertained that two dance halls respectively culled the M & N and the Florodora were in active operation, and that there was some diversity ot opinion as to whether these institutions weie a menace to public morals or otherwise. My own opinion was that they should be suppressed, and before the session of the Yukon council, which opened on the 9th August last, I had thoroughly canvassed the situation with every member of the Yukon council. I made no secret of the position I proposed to take in the matter. An amendment to the liquor ordinance was introduced by the Hon. Mr. Justice Dugas, providing in effect that no music hall should be kept in connection with premises licensed to sell liquors (section 3, chapter 9 ordinance, 1907). There was some opposition to this Bill in the council, and various amendments proposing the postponement ot the operation of the Bill to a later date received some support, hut eventually the section passed as proposed, the effect being to immediately make the sale of liquors in dance halls illegal. The two dance halls I have mentioned continued to run for some time without selling liquors until the largest, the M & N, went out of business, and the other still continued to run as a dance hall, hut I am credibly informed by the police that there is very little business being done and that no liquors are sold in the dance hall.
The matter then is perfectly plain. Here is the statement of Mr. Pringle that these dance halls, licensed and sanctioned by this government, were no better than dens of iniquity. Here is the report of their own officer, a prominent officer In the Northwest Mounted Police, who makes practically the same statement. Here is the report of Mr. Commissioner Henderson who says that his attention was drawn to this matter by the letter of Mr. Pringle published in a newspaper at Winnipeg, that he looked into the matter and/satisfied himself that Mr. Pringle was right, and that he thereupon canvassed every member of the Yukon council and had the necessary legislation introduced, which was accordingly passed by the council, and which put an end to these public nuisances. That is exactly what I said in the first place and what the Minister of the Interior controverted, and I leave it to the House whether he or I was right.
The next question debated by the minister was whether or not this government were right In practically refusing an investigation into the charges made by Mr. Pringle.
I confess myself unable to follow the devious journeyings of the minister in his argument on this subject. In the first place he said that it was not proper to enter into any investigation of the private conduct or character of public officials. Why then did he propose to grant any Investigation at all ? Why did he authorize Mr. Henderson to make 'any such investigation ? If the private character of public officials, even when It amounts to a public scandal, flaunted in the face-of the whole community, is not a matter of no public interest, why did the Minister of the Interior empower Mr. Henderson to make any investigation into these charges ? Then later on he took the ground that although it was proper to make an inquiry, it was not proper to make one on oath. That does seem to me a most remarkable position for the government to take even through my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior.
You proposed for some reason-the minister did not make it at all clear to grant an inquiry into certain charges made against the conduct of certain government officials and you proposed to refuse the verv thing which alone could make that


Frank Oliver: Perhaps my hon. friend would take this opportunity to explain on what he bases the supposition that it was of any more importance when it came from the Governor General's office than when it came from the Rev. John Pringle ?


Robert Laird Borden: Because when it came from Dr. Pringle no action was taken and when it came from the Governor General some action was taken.


Frank Oliver: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, he is quite in error. Rev. John Pringle wrote to several parties at once. The letter was received in my absence and while I was absent letters were forwarded to my office from the premier and His Excellency. When I arrived I found the letters and I notified Dr. Pringle that I had received his letter and had received the letters from the other parties whom he had notified. They came to me at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: We will accept the minister's explanation.
Dear Sir,-I beg to inclose herewith copy oL a letter received by me from the Governor General's office.
Was that letter also addressed to the Minister of the Interior?


Frank Oliver: I imagine that there was a letter addressed to myself and to the Governor General, that is my remembrance of it.


Robert Laird Borden: The letter to the minister and the communications forwarded to the Prime Minister and the Governor General reached the minister all at the same time?


Frank Oliver: The minister reached them all at the same time as I remember.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister reached them all at the same time. It is another illustration of my hon. friend's capacity for what he calls the lawyer's quibble. However, I shall read the letter :
Ottawa, August 28, 1907.
Dear Sir,-I beg to inclose herewith copy of a letter received by me from the Governor General's office. As you will note from the address and contents, the original of this letter was addressed to the premier and to my-salf*	11 will be good enough to investigate
fully the specific oharges made by Mr Pringle against Messrs. Girouard and Lith-gow, and you will, of course, call upon Mr Pringle to substantiate those charges. You are to investigate fully and report. Should the Rev. Mr. Pringle desire to lay charges against any other persons in the employ of the government or of the Interior Department especially, you are to investigate them as well.
The minister tells us to-day that he would not issue a Royal commission because the charges were not specific. In his letter of

August 28, 1907, be referred to them as specific charges and they were made much more specific by Dr. Pringle during the negotiations for an investigation which took place between him and Mr. Henderson. So I think that will fairly dispose of the minister's contention that the charges were not specific.
But let us take another authority, if the minister's authority is not sufficient for himself. In a letter from Alexander Henderson, Commissioner, to the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, bearing date 23rd September, 1907, I find the following statement :
The charge against Mr. Girouard seems to me to be reasonably specific, but I informed Dr. Pringle that before I could hear and investigate charges against Mr. Lithgow, these charges in fairness to Mr. Lithgow should be made definite and specific.


Frank Oliver: 
Robert Laird Borden: That is exactly what you have been saying, aud on October 23, 1907, as will appear on reference to that page, Dr. Pringle, in compliance with the request of the commissioner in that behalf, made his charges against Mr. Lithgow a great deal more specific than those against Mr. Girouard, which already had been declared by the Commissioner to be reasonably specific. So that I think will dispose of the contention of the minister that he did not issue this Royal Commission because the charges were not sufficiently specific.
Why then did the minister refuse to issue a Royal Commission? He had embarked on this investigation after receiving a certain communication from the Governor General's office in connection with the private conduct of certain public officials which was declared to be a public scandal. Let us see how the minister comes out of tlie investigation in that respect. _ The Rev. John Pringle on October 18, 1907, in a letter addressed to the Minister of the Iu-terior, used this language :
When the government appoints an investigator with the power to subpoena, commit and protect witnesses, I shall be ready with overwhelming proof of the truth of the charges I have made.
On the 14th day of October, 1907, in a letter addressed by him to Alexander Hen-, derson, the Commissioner of the Yukon, he said this :
I think, Sir, that the alternatives before you are the following :
1.	As the agent of the Minister of the Interior to inquire into the scandals, at least six years continued, connected with the names of these two officials.
2.	To get from the authorities at Ottawa the
powers of a royal commission to investigate the charge I have made.	.
If you adopt the first course I shall, having made specific charges, do all I can tc aid you
That was the situation. The minister had declared the charges sufficiently specific. Commissioner Henderson had held those against Mr. Girouard to be sufficiently specific, but required further particulars regarding Mr. Lithgow; these particulars were given. Then, Mr. Henderson found himself in a position to proceed, because specific charges against both these men had been filed with him and brought to his attention. Dr. Pringle held, and properly held, that the investigation would be only farcical if there was no power to compel
the attendance of witnesses, to examine those witnesses on oath and to force them ;o speak. So, in the letter I have read, the commissioner, Mr. Henderson, suggested that he should be given power to make the investigation an effective one. And the only answer of the minister is that he saw fit to differ from Mr. Henderson in that opinion, and, for that reason, he refused any effective investigation; that is the best I can make out of it. The minister is in this dilemma : charges had been made of a character which were a public scandal, so that a public servant of this country, if the charges were true, should no longer hold his office. In that case there should be an investigation-an effective, and not a farcical investigation. If, on the other hand, the charges were not of a character to affect the status of a public servant, there should not have been any investigation at all either informal or effective. The minister started the informal investigation, not only acknowledging that the charges were of a character to affect the status of a pub-lie servant, but that those charges were sufficiently specific, and they more specific afterwards-but, when the true situation was placed beore him, for some reason not made known to this House, he declined absolutely to allow witnesses to be examined on oath and rendeied

abortive any attempt on the part of Dr. Pringle to prove that the charges were true. In the result, that is unfair to the public servants themselves-there can be no question about that. Because, Di\ Pringle, having the courage of his convictions, has not been silent during the last four or five years : on the public platform and in the press he has made known to the people of the Yukon and of Canada generally the charges that he has asked the minister to investigate. When this government, acting through its Minister of the Interior, declined to investigate these charges in any effective way, they did a grievous injustice not only to the people of this country but to those two men as well. More than that, they did an injury to the public service of the country, and they have shaken public confidence in the intention of the government to carry on as it ought to be carried on the government of the Yukon. So far as Mr. Lithgow and Mr. Girouard are concerned, I pass no opinion as to the truth of the charges against them; no member of this House is called upon to do that. What we insist upon is that, charges having been made and investigation ordered, and these charges touching the value of the service of these gentlemen as public servants, there should be a proper investigation. So far as integrity as a public servant is concerned, and so far as capacity is concerned, ail I knew of Mr. Lithgow when he was in Halifax many years ago, in the public service there, led me to believe that he would be a valuable public servant in the Yukon. I have no knowledge of his conduct in the Yukon, and no knowledge concerning Mr. Girouard ; but I do believe that these charges ought to have been investigated, and ought to have been investigated in an effectual way. In the result the minister lias seen fit to leave upon the records of this country, in the shape of the affidavits forwarded by Dr. Pringle in regard to Mr Girouard in 1905, and upon the records of parliament sworn testimony which Mr. Gironar^l, as well as the government, ought to have desired to have investigated and investigated to the utmost. If the charges against Mr. Giourard are false, then the men who made these affidavits and the men who put forward these charges ought not to be walking the streets of this country in perfect immunity. On the other hand, if the statements in these affidavits are correct as to the conduct of Mr. Girouard on a certain occasion, then the government of this country is sadly in default in having permitted him, for the past four years, to exercise the functions of a public servant in the Yukon. There is the dilemma ; you can take either one horn or the other, as you see fit. It is the result of the inaction of this government ; for, the very moment that these affidavits were placed on the Mr. R. ju BORDEN.
files of the Department of the Interior, it was the duty of the government, without regard to Dr. Pringle or anybody else, to have the mattter probed to the bottom. The minister (Mr. Oliver) seems to think this is purely a matter between Mr. Pringle and the government, and that if he (Mr. Oliver) can discredit Dr. Pringle in some way, if he can cast some aspersion upon his character or conduct or motive, he has disposed of the question. But it is a much larger question than that; it is a question of public morals in the Yukon; it is a question of the administration of public affairs in a distant portion of the country. The issue, to my mind, is scarcely such as the Minister of the Interior would suggest. I regret that the government have seen fit to adopt the course they have adopted. It will not be commended by any intelligent citizen in this country, Liberal or Conservative, who really understands the facts and the situation.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: As the letters of Dr. Pringle, which have been made the subject of this debate, were addressed not only to the Department of the Interior, but also to myself-and, indeed, for that matter, to the whole of the cabinet-perhaps it would not be out of place for me to give my views on this question as it arose from time to time from 1902 up to the present year. Addressing myself at this moment to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who has taken charge of this matter and who has read the correspondence out and out, I may say to him that, as I saw that correspondence as it arose from time to time, beginning in 1902, added to in 1905 and added to still further in 1907, it seemed to me that these letters came from a gentleman who certainly was zealous for the public weal, but one whose discretion and language, perhaps, were not such as to strike one very favourably. I cannot help having for Dr. Pringle great respect, for certainly, he has shown that he is very much in earnest in prosecuting what he considered to be the public good. At the same time, for my part, I might have wished that his language was a little more moderate than it always was in his communications. My hon. friend has read numerous letters which have been addressed to the government by Dr. Pringle, but he read only one part of the letter of 1902.


George Eulas Foster: I read the whole of the 1905 letters.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend did not read the whole, but only part.


George Eulas Foster: I read probably nine-tenths. There is here and there a little passage that I did not read.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, my hon. friend left out several passages which

I think he did very well to leave out. But, in that letter of 1902 there was nothing that he could not place upon the pages of ' Hansard ' and allow it to go to the country. I have to observe to my hon. friend that in this letter of 1902 there is nothing definite, there is nothing positive, but it is full of general assertions, assertions of immorality in certain quarters, assertions of malfeasance in other quarters, assertions of peculations and other offences in still other quarters. My hon. friend expressed some doubt as to the propriety of the course which was followed on that occasion by the government. He expressed surprise that no action had been taken. The reason, Mr. Speaker, seems to be very obvious. I ask my hon. friend what action could have been taken by the government upon a letter of the character of the one that we are now discussing ; that is the letter of 1902 ? I repeat, no name is mentioned, officials are aspersed with some vehemence but no names given, charges are made of a very indefinite character which could not be investigated. But at that moment, when Mr. Pringle was addressing the government and making complaints as to what was going on in the Yukon, or at a later date, if not at that moment, the Yukon was presided over by Mr. Ross and to the efforts of Mr Ross he gave the most ample credit. Not only does he give credit to his efforts but he also gives credit to Mr. Ross for the success of his efforts and he says, in so many words, in the correspondence, that Mr. Ross, during his administration, had succeeded in uprooting many of the evils of which he had been complaining. Unfortunately, the administration of Mr. Ross was not very long, not as long as perhaps it should have been for the good of the Yukon. The difficulty which the government has always had in the Yukon has been to get such ofiicials as would discharge their duties in a manner that would be satisfactory to all concerned. As my hon. friend has said, the Yukon is a land of mystery. It is so far off that I think my hon. friend will agree that it is difficult, with the numerous officials that the government has to employ there to make sure that every one of these persons shall be of the character which we would all desire. Mr. Ross was an exceptional man, he was a most successful administrator and everybody bears testimony to that fact, not only his friends but his opponents, every man who has had any thing to do with the Yukon bears testimony that under Mr. Ross, as also under the administration of Mr. Henderson, his successor, the Yukon was and is well administered. But, with Mr. Ross' departure the complaints commenced again. The character of the administration established by Mr. Ross is
well justified by tbe correspondence of Mr. Pringle himself because, Mr. Pringle who, as I said a moment ago, I think, was actuated by a desire for the public weal, allowed three years to elapse before addressing any further complaint to the government. He addressed his first complaint to the government during the administration of Mr. Ross in the year 1902. In the month of January, 1905, Mr. Pringle sent another complaint. Communication is reasonably speedy when navigation is open, but as soon as navigation is closed communication is very slow. I do not remember the exact time at which the letter reached me but I am quite sure that when the letter reached me the hon. gentleman who had been Minister of the Interior was no more in office. That hon. gentleman resigned about the commencement of March and it was about that time I received the letter from Mr. Pringle. In that letter of Mr. Pringle there were two charges ; charges were made against two different parties, Mr. Congdon and Mr. Girouard especially. The charge against Mr. Girouard was a very positive, specific character. It was not so much a charge of a direct offence committed by him but it was leading to a very direct charge against him. The matter dropped at that time because there was an interregnum in the Department of the Interior, but in the summer of that year the new Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) who wanted to know exactly what the condition was in the Yukons took the very wise precaution of proceeding to the Yukon himself so as to investiagte all matters and see what was to be done. We know that the result of his trip has been very far reaching and that it has corrected many abuses of which the people complained and has introduced a new era into the administration of that country. As I understood from my hon. friend on his return, he heard no complaints whatever from anybody of the character which have been mentioned in Mr. Pringle's letter of January, 1905. But, more than that, the letter of Mr. Pringle was referred, by the Minister of Justice, who had received also similar complaints from Mr. Pringle, to Mr. Congdon for his observations upon it and Mr. Congdon denied absolutely all the allegations of fact contained in Mr. Pringle's letter. This disposes of the charges made by Mr. Pringle in 1905.
But the latter charge which was brought by Mr. Pringle in 1907 was perhaps the most important of all and it was one to which immediate attention had to be given. Mr. Pringle, in his letter of 1907, made positive accusations against two officials of the government in the Yukon. I think Mr Girouard and Mr. Lithgow, who were the parties charged by Mr. Pringle, are

acknowledged to have been very good officers discharging the duties of their offices remarkably well. Of Mr. Lithgow, especially, I am bound to say, in justice to him, that there is not in the Yukon a more painstaking officer or one who commands more generally the respect of the community than he does. Everybody acknowledges that. I do not know Mr. Lithgow personally, I do not remember of ever having seen him, but in all of the correspondence I have had about him' testimony is rendered universally to the fact that he is a most competent officer and discharges his duty fairly well. But, he is of the human race and he is not free from faults. He has his faults, I am bound to say, but with the faults he has. everybody in the Yukon, while acknowledging his faults, will say at the same time that he is a good, competent officer. This is the testimony which I have to bear of him and which I think is only his due. The charges that were made by Mr. Pringle against Mr. Girouard were very formal. They could not be ignored. What was to be done under such circumstances ? I appeal again to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Poster) : What would he have done under such circumstances ? He was a minister at one time, and he had numerous officers under him. Let us take a hypothetical case. If the hon. member for North Toronto had been in office and if some one had made the charge against any of his officers that he had been guilty of intoxication, not only privately but openly in the streets of the city, what would he have done ? Would the hon. gentleman have appointed a royal commission to investigate the charge and pronounce upon it ? The offence is a private one but it may be such that a minister may have to take notice of it, and sometimes a minister does. In my humble opinion this was a case Ifor departmental investigation by the minister to ascertain whether the official was guilty, and if guilty whether he was excusable or whether he should be expelled from the service. I am glad to say these things do not occur very often, but they do happen almost every year in the public service and the minister in charge of the department concerned does not appoint a royal commission under the great seal of His Majesty to investigate such cases. It is a departmental affair.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a provision for a departmental investigation under. oath.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think that the investigation of such an offence would come under chapter 104 respecting public and departmental inquiries, which says :


Sir WILFRID  I.@: The minister presiding over any department of the civil service of Canada may appoint at any time under authority of the Governor in Council a commissioner or commissioners to investigate and report upon the state and management of the business or any part of the business of such department, either the inside or outside service thereof, and the conduct of any person in such service so far as the same relates to his official duties.
My hon. friend is a good lawyer and I think he will agree with me that the charge made by Mr. Pringle did not come under the scope of that Act. However, I will not examine this case in the light of the technicalities of tlie law but rather under the broader law of common sense, common fair play, and common justice to the accuser and to the accused. Under such circumstances I say that the action taken by the minister was very proper. Had these officials resided in Ottawa the minister himself might have decided what should be done, but in this case he had to delegate his power and he gave instructions to Mr. Henderson to look into the matter and to ask Mr. Prlncle to attend and investigate the charges. Mr. Pringle was notified, but he said he would uot come to the investigation unless lie had a royal commission to compel the attendance of witnesses and to have the protection of the law for them. Now, the charge made by Mr. Pringle was that these officials had been guilty of public scandal in their private conduct, and lie said it was notorious and that the whole community of Yukon bad been aware of it. Was it not the duty of Mr. Priugle when the commissioner was authorized to receive liis complaint, to come before the commissioner and to say that he made these charges for such and such a reason seeing that he bad alleged they were notorious and a public scandal? Then, when Mr. Pringle would not come forward Mr. Henderson investigated for his own satisfaction the life of these officials.


George Eulas Foster: In what manner did Mr. Henderson make any investigation as reported by him ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I don't mean to say that Mr. Henderson pried into the private life of these gentlemen or that he examined any witnesses to burrow into their lives to see whether they had misbehaved themselves or not. But the commissioner dealt with the charge of Mr. Pringle as couched in this letter, that these men had behaved in their private life in a public and scandalous manner. The commissioner was able to say to the minister : I live in Dawson ; I have been here for some time ; I know these men ; I know they are good officials and discharge their duties properly, I have not heard of any such public scandals as are mentioned by Mr. Pringle.


George Eulas Foster: He says : Since I came here.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the substance of the report he made to the minister. Mr. Henderson has been in the Yukon since May, 1907 and Mr. Pringle's letter was written in July, 1907, and here is part of the letter which I can read.
The disgraceful scenes of the last ten days in which prominent public men and government officials of more than one department have been the chief aotoTS, have more than justified everything I have written to members of the cabinet or to the press in regard to the immorality which prevails in our community and official life.


George Eulas Foster: What is the date of that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the very last charge made by Mr. Pringle on tbe 27tii of July, 1907. With this language of Mr. Pringle before him the commissioner reports to the minister : I am not aware that anything lias taken place in the life of these men which I can report on ; I know them to he good and honourable men. That is the comment of the commissioner. Mr. Pringle would not come before the comiriissioner and I think lie was not fair to himself in that. I repeat the minister was perfectly right in refusing at that time to issue a commission under the King's great seal to investigate the private conduct of these two officials. The minister was told he had two men in his service who had misbehaved in a public and scandalous manner in the community. If they were guilty of such scandal he would probably come to the conclusion they were not fit to remain in the service, or at all events he would call upon them to give their explanation of theiv excuse as to whether or not they should be retained in the service. Therefore it was open to Mr. Pringle to come forward with his evidence, his own and that of other witnesses before the commissioner. If the other witnesses had refused to come forward, the commissioner could have reported tlie fact to the minister, and have advised a further investigation. But in the circumstances of the case, I say that the conduct of the Minister of the Interior was absolutely right. Certainly it was not his duty to order such a solemn proceeding as an investigation by a royal commission into matters which were departmental, affecting the private conduct of officials.


Robert Laird Borden: If the charges had been proved would they have justified dismissal ?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the charges had been proved with regard to one of the officers I would say yes, they would. But let us take a supposititious case. Suppose it were true that Mr. Lithgow had misbe-liaved on a certain occasion; suppose he had been intoxicated, I would say for my part to the minister :	Give that man a further
chance; do not dismiss him; he is a good officer ; I would not be thet first one to cast
a stone at him ; he may have misbehaved, but he is doing better and will do better, and I would not dismiss him. That would be my advice to the minister. But it is a very different thing for a man to be accused of having continuously lived in open shame to the scandal of the community.
I have no hesitation in saying that such a man would have to make a very strong case before I would retain him in the service. But if such a good officer as Mr. Lithgow has the misfortune to make a break, as the saying is, I would ask him to give his promise that he would not fall again, and on that condition I would not dismiss him from the service. I repeat, I do not know Mr. Lithgow, I never saw him, but all the reports that I have had from the Yukon agree that his public conduct has been remarkably good and in the public interest. That is my own view of tlie matter. I may say further that I know -and perhaps my hon. friend from North Toronto knows also-that there are men of the same persuasion and I think of the same cloth as Mr. Pringle who do not take the view he does with regard to Mr. Lithgow. After all, in a country like the Yukon, if a man has the misfortune, as we say in common parlance, to make a break,
I think it would not he wise on the part of the government to exact frprn him the pound of flesh and be absolutely merciless towards him.
With regard to Mr. Girouard, who has been accused of the most grievous offence, he could not remain in the service with that cloud over his head. He had to do one of two things, and he has done both. First of all, he had to clear his character, and to do that he brought an action for libel against Mr. Pringle, which action I understand is pending. I was asked by an hon. member if the action had been tried. As I understand, the courts in the Yukon take their recess during the winter and sit during the summer, so that the case has not yet been tried. At all events, Mr. Girouard has left the service, and, therefore, these matters are not perhaps of much interest at the present time except so far as they show whether or not the government have done their duty. I have only to repeat that, in my humble judgment, the minister in this matter behaved as he should have behaved ; he gave Mr. Pringle the opportunity to bring his charges and have them investigated, and Mr. Pringle was not fair to himself when he refused that opportunity. If he had taken it, and if the witnesses on whom he relied had not come forward, then it would have been oi>en to the minister to decide whether or not he would prosecute any further. The House will agree with me that the minister did his full duty, not only to Mr. Pringle, but to himself and to the government of which he is a member.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 180) respecting the Crown Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Sproule.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed discussion on motion that House go into Committee of Supply.
['At the request of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I beg to lay on the table a copy of letter written by me to the city clerk of Sydney, N.S., with reference to the release of Agnes B. Kun.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to deal somewhat briefly with the subject at present engaging our attention. That subject is the alleged misconduct of officials in the Yukon Territory extending oyer a period of six years. From time to time charges of misconduct on the part of these officials were made to the government- charges of misconduct, of immorality, of dishonesty, of graft-and in various ways it was brought to the attention of the government that the officials in that remote territory were not conducting themselves in a manner creditable to the administration or the country. These charges date from the year 1882, and two of the officials especially implicated were Messrs. Lith-gow and Girouard. The charges were first made by the Rev. John Pringle in 1902. Mr. Pringle speaking of the conditions prevalent in the Yukon among government officials, stated that the characteristic of these officials were ' lust and graft,' and claimed that no one was able to secure what rightly belonged to him unless he were 'on the inside' and ' had a pull.' In other words, it was impossible for those who were prosecuting the industry of mining to either secure ,or maintain their rights without influence at court, and that influence was presumably an improper one. In a public meeting jn Dawson City, it was stated publicly, before an audience of hundreds of people, that such concessions as the ' Bronson and Ray,' and the ' Philp ' concessions, granted on representations which were, to say the least, suggestive of perjury. Mr. Pringle says that he heard it said that two cabinet ministers were in these. In case I might be charged with misquoting, let me give the exact words used : I
I heard it stated before an audience of hundreds by a lawyer named Woodworth that two cabinet .ministers, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Siffon) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) were interested in one or more of these loosely granted concessions.
Now, if Mr. Woodworth was making a statement which was libellous, you would naturally expect that he would be prosecuted, because the statement was of too important a character to he allowed to pass Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
unnoticed. If he were not making a libellous statement, then tbe government were remiss in their duty iu not calling them to account for it.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Hear, bear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should like to know what it Is that so much amuses tbe bon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). Is it laughable that any minister of tbe gospel should make such a charge ?


Alexander Johnston: He is amused at the word ' lle-bellious '.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does tbe bon. gentleman know about it ? Nothing more than to sit and laugh. We know the saying that laughter at times denotes the vacant mind, and that is evidently the case in this instance, because the bon. gentleman appears Deither willing to take tbe trouble to inquire into tile facts nor desirous of knowing them. Instead he treats the whole thing with levity, though it is the solemn statement of a minister of the gospel who, in his desire to improve the morals of the people, brought the matter to the attention of the ministers of the Crown so that they might have it inquired into and, punish those guilty of corrupt acts if the charges were established. If the charges were libellous, the party who made them could be punished, and surely no minister of the Crown- especially those implicated-could afford to let them pass unheeded. Mr. Pringle specially stated that the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were specially interested in one or more of those loosely granted concessions. I draw more particularly attention to this because of the statement made by the right hon. first minister to-night that he saw nothing In these charges which ought to engage his attention. There was nothing in them, he said, to warrant an inquiry. They were all of a general character and there was not a single specific allegation. But was uot the public declaration made before a large audience that two of the right hou. gentleman's colleagues are improperly interested in Certain concessions sufficiently specific. Yet the first minister himself said : I see nothing in these charges upon which to hinge an inquiry. They are of such a vague and general character that there Is nothing to inquire Into. Yet this man says that two cabinet ministers, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Marine, were interested In one or snore of these loosely granted concessions.
Then he says :
Concessions have been granted, I am convinced, not only carelessly but iniquitously ; the heritage of our people given to satisfy the greed of capital, without due consideration of the rights of the people in the ground or of the character of the statements made to secure these concessions.

He charges general immorality, but yet the First Minister says these charges are vague and general and there is nothing to inquire into. IVhat does he say?
The dance halls in which more men, some of them government officials, have been ruined than in any other of our protected dens, are run wide open. I wish the government would, for its own good name, either suppress these ' hells,' or at least take means to verify reports

But there is nothing there to inquire into

-current all over this camp, about officials who are their habitues. Prostitution flaunts itself everywhere, the abandoned woman, (to say nothing of the abandoned man) is everywhere ; beside respectable homes ; across the street from then; beside our grocery and dry goods stores; on first and second and third, and every avenue and road. Unless some one is robbed or injured in her house she is undisturbed.
He goes on to say :
But the worst feature of the licensed houses here is, that a very large percentage of them are houses of prostitution.
He tells us that there were 210 houses licensed to sell liquor there at that time and yet there was a population of, at the most, 20,000 people, That is about one licensed house for every 95 of the population in that district.
But the worst feature of the licensed houses here is, that a very large percentage of them are houses of prostitution. Many of them run, it is true, by people of good character but a large number are bawdy houses with a government license to prey upon the public.
And yet the government are not concerned about it and see nothing to inquire into.
I have wondered since coming north, why the permit system was adopted. Was it to restrict the sale of liquor ?
At the time it was adopted we were told it was in the interest of temperance. I remember the ex-minister saying that this was one of the means we kept in our own hands for the purpose of promoting temperance in these camps in the west.
I have wondered since coming north, w-hy the permit system was adopted. Was it to restrict the sale of liquor or to make it respectable or to make money for government exigencies, or to make money for men with a pull?
I think the experience of times since has proven one thing, that it made money for men with a pull. We remember when J. D. McGregor, the license inspector there who had authority to give permits, refused permits to a number of people who desired them to take liquor into that country, but gave it to be understood to one of his friends that a permit would be granted to him. That man rushed in all his liquor in
the fall of the year when navigation was expected shortly to close and then the permit was granted when it was too late for others to bring liquor in. McGregor then resigned his position as inspector and became a member of the firm that got the permit. I believe he was one of three who shared in the profits and I am told they made a large amount of money. With these facts before us, can we say that the permit system was intended to restrict the sale of liquor? No, it was rather to make money for government exigencies or to make money for men with a pull. He was one of the men with a pull.
Rev. Mr. Pringle says:
The law is systematically manipulated not to protect the public, but to protect and nurse the gambler and shame honest men.
This man speaks with knowledge and has been very reasonable and fair in the statements he has made. Speaking of the Northwest Mounted Police he says that they are a splendid body of men, the finest on the earth but:
It is enough to degrade any force, however fine, to know that where immorality is concerned it is useless to do their duty, that the law itself will be made to thwart them and defeat the ends of justice when they endeavour to carry it out.
I have written in plain terms because if I am asked what right I have to so address the government of Canada I answer that I am a Canadian and love my native land. I hold that we have a right to expect that the men who represent our government, the officers of the law and the departments of the country should not only do justly but live rightly. I have said publicly here and I repeat it that there is a conscience in the west and I shall do my best to arouse and invoke that conscience and I shall refuse to be silenced as long as this continues.
Mr. Pringle follows this up by affidavits which are here from different parties setting forth the crookedness of the officials there with regard to their conduct in political life, and speaks of one of the commissioners who is absolutely keeping the list from the people while he is known to be in a house of prostitution. X have affidavits here presumably from respectable people.


George Taylor: Read them?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may read one of them as they are practically all the same. This one reads as follows:
Canada, Yukon Territory, to wit:
I, Robert Howard Stanley Greswoll, merchant, of Dawson, Yukon Territory, do solemnly declare as follows:
1.	That I am a member of Dr. Thompson s campaign committee.
He is the man who attended to the list.
2.	That E. Baribeau, enumerator for South Dawson, had stated on the 8th day of December that he could not allow the said com-


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) must have taken down my words incorrectly. I do not recall having alleged that the Rev. John Pringle, in making his charges, had a political purpose. If I did I certainly did not intend to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the inference I drew. If I misunderstood the hon. gentleman I wish to withdraw my statement because I do not desire to misrepresent him in any particular. But, if he did not do it I find that some others have. I have here a copy of the ' Daily News-Advertiser ' of Vancouver, B.C., and I notice that a writer in that draws attention to it. It reads as follows:
To the editor ' News-Advertiser.'
Sir,-I noticed in a recent issue of the Vancouver ' Province,' an interview given by Mr. Alexander Henderson, commissioner of the Yukon

He says that Rev. John Pringle is doing it for some other purpose rather than for the purpose of elevating the moral standard of the people.
-lately from Dawson, headed ' Pringle campaign a political one.' 'It is a political move '


Mr. MACPHERSON.: My hon. friend is not quoting the commissioner's interview. My hon. friend is quoting a letter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quoting a letter stating what the commissioner said.


Robert George Macpherson: No, my hon. friend is not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am.


Robert George Macpherson: The interview was not given to the ' News-Advertiser.' The interview was given to the ' Province.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quoting a letter written to the ' News-Advertiser.'


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, but I want my hon. friend to make the distinction fairly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have I not made it fairly? Have I not said that it was a letter written to this paper? Is that not fair enough? How much fairer could it be? It is impossible to make it any fairer.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend purports to give a statement made by Governor Henderson that Rev. .John Pringle was conducting a political campaign. If my hon. friend will be fair he will quote Governor Henderson's interview, not a letter written by some one else referring to that interview.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I not reading this letter ? If the hon. gentleman will listen a little more attentively he will find out that he was mistaken in his observations. What does this say?
I noticed in a recent issue of the Vancouver ' Province ' an interview given by Mr. Alexander Henderson.
Am I stating other than facts?


Robert George Macpherson: That is all right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, then, why get up and interrupt ?


Robert George Macpherson: I have a reason for interrupting. The reason I interrupted was that my hon. friend purports to use a statement of Governor Henderson when, as a matter of fact, he has not the interview before him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not purport to use any statement at all. I purport to read a letter, let it carry whatever weight it will in the House, and that letter sets forth that this is an interview given by Governor Henderson. The letter says :
I noticed in a recent issue of the Vaneou-ver ' Province ' an interview given by Mr. Alex. Henderson, commissioner of the Yukon lately from Dawson, headed ' Pringle Campaign a 'political one.' ' It is a political move,' started off the commissioner, in discussing the recent allegation of Rev. John Pringle, concerning the immorality of Dawson.
* He intends taking the stump.' ' He has fallen out with the government and will take the field in the Conservative interest, that is the explanation, I think'; 'the dance halls have been closed, and will not be re-opened.
Knowing what I am writing, for, I may say, I have lived several years in Dawson, and have fairly well kept tabs on matters there, going back half a dozen years, I will begin with the dance halls, which were authorized and made legal institutions during the Congdon regime, largely through the instrumentality of the appointed members of the Yukon Council, including Mr. J. E. Girouard, who also stood firmly by the dance hall element at the time they were put out of business, and during the present commissioner's time. As to the immorality of Dawson, to any one who knows and has kept the run of the matters, when any of the government advocates, from the commissioner down to Pinkert, assail Mr. Pringle as having said that Dawson is immoral, they are trying the old dodge of the herring across the trail. Mr. Pringle has in public print denied this charge, and has said that the opposite is the case. He has stated that certain of the government office holders have been leading such lives as to disgrace them and their offices. He Mr. SPROULE.
has oamimunicatted this to the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior on several occasions, mostly without any effect.
Recently these matters have caused some folks to ' sit up and take notice,' and the outcome is that an action for damages has been instituted against Mr. Pringle (not by the city of Dawson, but by the friend of the dance halls). We see in the Dawson ' Daily News ' of April 10, 1908, in extenso statements of claim and defence in the libel suit of J. E. Girouard vs. Rev. John Pringle. As most of the subject matter would he almost considered: ancient and true history to Dawsonites, it would not likely be any surprise to them but to one so new to the territory as Commissioner Henderson, one would expect it would give him some concern, especially as it involved one whose services in the Yukon council he had ' found invaluable and had learned to lean on him.'
One is more than surprised to see in the April l#h issue of the same * Daily News ' that a farewell banquet is given to this same J. E. Girouard, at which Commissioner Henderson in his speech ' predicted from what he had learned that Mr. Girouard would he given an opportunity of a seat in parliament.' ' Mr. Henderson rose to enthusiastic and dramatic fervour during his talk,' says the ' News.' In the Dawson ' Daily News ' of April 15, 1908, is a list of the ' guests,' beginning with Commissioner Henderson and former Commissioner F. T. Congdon and a long list of others, a few of whom would hardly he expected to be found at a banquet given to a party accused of sheep stealing which would be a very trivial offence against society compared with the matters mentioned in the Dawson ' Daily News ' of April 10 last. But every one to their taste. When Commissioner Henderson says of Mr. Pringle's action. ' lit is a political move,' he would seem to be measuring other people's corn by bis own half bushel.'
Now as to this J. Girouard we were told by the Minister of the Interior to-day that he is no longer in the employ of the government and that he has gone God knows where. I imagine his suit against the Rev. John Pringle will not be prosecuted further. It would seem from this letter I have read that some one accuses the Rev. John Pringle of having nothing but a political aim in view, and Henderson the present commissioner goes to a complimentary banquet given to this man who is practically an outlaw of society, to try and make him somewhat respectable. And yet the Minister of the Interior sees nothing wrong in it. It is a nice position for the commissioner of the Yukon. What will the world think of it when they know this.


Robert George Macpherson: Know what ?
. IMr. SPROULE. Know that the present commissioner to the Yukon attended a banquet to such a man and made use of the remarks he did and vilified the Rev. John Pringle because he was honest and independent and truthful enough to say what he believed to be true.


Robert George Macpherson: Who vilified the Rev. John Pringle ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that as far as I know Mr. Henderson did so when he said that the Rev. Mr. Pringle took this action for political purposes. If that is not vilification, what is it ?


Robert George Macpherson: The hon. gentleman takes a letter written by a man in Vancouver and a letter from Dawson and compounds the two and reads that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all. What is contained in that letter is what is stated by Mr. Henderson.
take his word as readily as the word of the Rev. John Pringle? Did you ever yet see a prisoner at the bar who did not plead not guilty? Mr. Congdon's denial is a plea of not guilty, but these affidavits which I have read from seven or eight individuals swear to something different. Will you give as much credence to the denial of interested parties, who are charged before the bar of public opinion, as you will to the statements of a disinterested party who swears to what he knows to be facts?


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend suggest that the Rev. Dr. Pringle has sworn to any facts? He had an opportunity to do so.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) will get the Dawson ' News ' of April 14, he will find in it a three-column report of the banquet with Mr. Henderson's statement, and the extracts my hon. friend has read have been evidently taken from that paper.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend from North Toronto does not bear out then what the hon. member for East Grey states.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, because one part of Mr. Henderson's speech is the allegation that Mr. Pringle's motive was a political motive.


Robert George Macpherson: The interview is given in the ' Progress ' and the letter my hon. friend reads is from the ' Progress.'


George Eulas Foster: What my hon. friend is reading from is a letter written to the [DOT] News-Advertiser ' by * Bona Fide,' and dated Vancouver, May 12, 1908, and he gives a quotation from the Dawson 'Daily News ' of April 14.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the interview with Commissioner Henderson.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend gives Commissioner Henderson's words as contained in that interview. Therefore, it is direct enough, and it ought to be correct.


Robert George Macpherson: Why does not the hon. gentleman read the interview?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I read the interview, which was in that letter between inverted commas, and so far as I know it has never been contradicted.


Frank Oliver: If there is a clash of evidence between the Rev. Dr. Pringle and Commissioner Henderson, why is not the word of Commissioner Henderson as good as that of Rev. Dr. Pringle?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because the one is an interested party and the other is not.


An hon. MEMBER.: Which one?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Commissioner is the interested party, because he is defending himself. The First Minister says that Mr. Girouard has denied it; should we not


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have said that the Rev. John Pringle and others have made certain charges and these charges are backed up by affidavits. The First Minister says that we should accept the denial of Mr. Girouard and be perfectly satisfied with that against the sworn statements of seven or eight people as to what they saw with their own eyes. The First Minister and the Minister of the Interior desire to go no further, but turn round and practically insinuate untruthfulness on the part of the Rev. John Pringle without giving him the proper opportunity to prove his charges. I say that the country will_ not be satisfied with that. The First Minister says they gave him an opportunity, but they wanted to have his charges as specific as a charge made against a man charged with crime before a magistrate. They refused to- allow Dr. Pringle to subpoena the witnesses and bring them before the court to prove his charges. They tell him to go and ask the witnesses to come, and in the meantime in all human probability the government officials would buy them off or spirit them away. There are strong grounds for believing that would be done, because the Rev. John Pringle says the administration of justice in that country is practically a farce-that instead of the Mounted Police being permitted to enforce the law, the law is invoked to prevent them enforcing it. In the province of Ontario we have found time and again, both during the Ross administration and the Mowat administration preceding it, that people could not be convicted of political crimes, because the' moment the charges were made against them the witnesses were bought off or spirited away and kept in the United States. So it is in the Yukon. The administration is in the hands of men who do not desire to administer justice, but desire to prevent the administration of justice, and the same thing would most likely have happened if the Rev. John Pringle had attempted to prove his charges m the way proposed by the First Minister. But the Rev. Dr. Pringle said:	Do as you do
before any committee of the House! of Commons; subpoena these people in the



regular way, and then if they refuse or neglect to come, they can be dealt with for contempt of court, and when you bring them to the bar, put them under oath, so that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But the Minister of the Interior said : I shall not give you the advantage of subpoenaing them. You can ask them to come; and if they do not, it is not my fault. I have given you the opportunity to prove your charges, and it is for you to prove them without any aid from me. Is that how a man should be treated who made these charges for the sole purpose of letting his party know what was bringing them into contempt and purging the political life of his country of what was bound, if unchecked, to demoralize it ? Will the country be satisfied with this failure to prosecute ? I ,very much misjudge the character of our people if they will. We have been told over and over again that the administration of justice in that country was vicious. We have been told that by parties who live out there and in whose integrity I have every confidence, and judging by the shuffling and evasive conduct of the government I have no doubt that every word they said is true. Mr. Pringle was perfectly justified in refusing to go on with the inquiry unless it was conducted on proper lines and unless he were given a fair opportunity to prove his charges. Was he given that ? Not at all. Yet the Minister of the Interior says there was nothing to inquire into. He takes the ground that the moral character of the government officials was not a subject for inquiry at all, that it was a matter in which the government had no interest. No doubt my hon. friend is sincere on that contention judging by the fact that although Wagner had been twice prosecuted and had been sentenced by the court and compelled to suffer the penalty due his offences, he was afterwards taken up by the minister and put into a responsible position. That evidently is the minister's idea of the right kind of a man to act as government official. Wherever the hon. gentleman got his training, he is evidently sincere, but I wonder what the great honest public, what the moral and church going element of our community, what the ministers of the Gospel will think when they find that doctrine propagated by a minister of the Crown' In my judgment, they will form a very low estimate of the morale of the Minister of the Interior. That however is the position he takes, and the responsibility for that position is with the government. Sooner or later their misdeeds will recoil upon them. When they appeal to the country,
I have no doubt that thousands of honest, good meaning reformers will refuse to de-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: clare by their ballots that the government did their duty when they did not carry out this investigation. They will refuse to endorse the conduct of the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister and will show by their vote that they consider them anything but men of the highest type of character and animated by the best intentions.


William Erskine Knowles: I shal endeavour to be as brief as possible as I do not wish to assist my hon. friends opposite in their obstruction or play into their hands any longer than the necessity of the case requires. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition was careful, in replying to the Minister of the Interior to indulge in his usual introduction by saying that the speech he had just listened to from that hon. Minister was one of the most * extraordinary ' he had ever heard.


George Eulas Foster: He only uses that when the Minister of the Interior speaks.


William Erskine Knowles: I notice that when he answers the right hon. the First Minister, whose speech has taken the wind out of the leader of the opposition, my hon. friend was wont to say that the speech he has just heard is the most ' remarkable ' one he ever listened to.


George Eulas Foster: That seldom happens.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend will find it frequently happens. It is a most convenient form of reply when one has no effective argument to make, and I have no doubt we will find it frequently resorted to before this session is through. Our hon. friends opposite have not had much success in their attack on the administration of this government in the Yukon. Their main attack was on the proposition of the government to build a railway to the Yukon. On that question, although they presented something of a united front, when we have had some light thrown on the inside facts, as we have had by one of the principal members of the opposition sitting very close to the leader of that party, learn that they were not so united as they led the country to believe they were. We have had the statement from Sir Charles Tupper, who is a true Canadian, that two great mistakes were committed by the Conservative party. One was a trivial mistake and the other was a serious one, namely, their opposition to the proposition of the government to build a railwav to the Yukon.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend had read the papers, he would have seen an explicit denial by Sir Charles Tupper of that statement.


William Erskine Knowles: I have not seen it. I have been away for several days and possibly missed the paper which gave publicity to it.


George Eulas Foster: It was in the ' Vancouver News Advertiser'


William Erskine Knowles: I have not seen it; and since we have not heard from the hon. member from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), I do not think that he could have seen it either or we would have had him on his feet on another question of privilege. However, we will let that rest. I desire to say nothing but what is fair, but the country will have its own idea of the policy of the opposition when it attacked the Yukon railway proposition and will have its own idea as to whether or not there may not after all be a grain of truth in the statement of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). With all due respect to the great ability of Sir Charles Tupper, it is just possible that his memory may be at fault and that, without any reflection on his desire to be accurate, he may not have fully recollected the facts, and that there was consequently some truth in the straight statement which we had from the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). Coming more particularly to the proposition before us, we find that the only sources for the attacks of hon. gentlemen opposite regarding the administration of the Yukon are a certain young men's club in Dawson city and the Revd. Mr. Pringle. Mr. Pringle has been in public life many years, and it is no injustice to say of him that he has been almost always a man with a grievance. Whether federal matters or territorial matters were in question, he has always had an eye for a grievance. The statement was made this afternoon, and we find it in the letter of Mr. Pringle himself, that he is not in politics. Well, while I do not wish to impugn the honesty of the reverend gentleman, I must say that I do not see how that can be, because in the whole history of the Yukon territory there has been no man out there who has been more intensely and constantly active in political life. To such an extent has that been the case that I know of no one who has had so many intense friends and so many bitter enemies as he had while in the Yukon council. The result was that he ceased to be a member of that council, and had he run again, he would have had no show of being re-elected. I wish it to be understood that I have no reflection to make on Mr. Pringle personally. I do not desire to express any opinion concerning him, but we have his own statements, all made in a spirit of the greatest bitterness, against Mr. Congdon
307i
who won the nomination at the last election. Although in many respects Mr. Pringle is eminently fitted for public life yet the Liberal convention did not think so and in their wisdom they selected Mr. Congdon. And from that day to this, although previously he and Mr. Congdon were good friends, he became Mr. Congdon's determined enemy. It was stated by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that Mr. Henderson compromised himself by attending a banquet given to Mr. Congdon. Why, Mr. Pringle himself attended a banquet given to Mr. Congdon before Mr. Congdon secured the nomination to this House. When Mr. Congdon was appointed commissioner, the citizens of Dawson gave him a banquet and one of those who raised their voices most favourably in praise of Mr. Congdon was Mr. Pringle himself. But afterwards they became estranged, there occurred this cleavage between them and we find the condition which exists to-day where there seems to be a spirit of the utmost revenge, not to use a stronger word, in the heart of Dr. Pringle against Mr. Congdon and his friends.
In addition to that we have the resolution read by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) which embodies the views of the Young Men's Liberal Club of Dawson.
I have no doubt that every one here knows what that club was. The Liberals of the Yukon Territory, of Dawson City, lived for many years in harmony and then there occurred this cleavage. In the one hand were the Liberals whose head might be recognized as Mr. Congdon. On the other hand there were the Liberals of whom as pro-rninent a man as any was Dr. Pringle. They drifted apart until there was a cleavage and a new organization was formed early in the year 1904, about six months before the general elections. They formed a new organization absolutely different from the other and called themselves a Liberal club. They were men who were opposed to Mr. Congdon and his party, who would not recognize the convention that selected Mr. Congdon, but men who, one and all, supported Dr. Thompson, who always was and still is at heart an honest and consistent Conservative. They practically supported Dr. Thompson, the present member for the Yukon, in his election, and were most active, even taking the platform in that election opposing Mr. Congdon and supportihg Dr. Thompson. It is true that Dr. Thompson came here as an Independent, it is true that until that last night when he made his dramatic departure from here that he followed that course as an Independent. It is true also that he was always a Conservative, but out of consideration for his constituents he left the councils of the Conservative party. But, during the time he was in this House he never voted on want of confidence

motions, he consistently adhered to the position of an Independent and apart from the vote on the Autonomy Bill he always absented himself from votes, taking his course* manifestly and openly and saying that that was what he was doing. When he was about to catch the midnight train for Vancouver, expecting a dissolution of this House, he said that from that night on lie would be no longer an Independent. Thinking that he would not again appear in this parliament, he took occasion to say that he would return to his first love and his constant love, the Conservative party. It was that gentleman whom Dr. Pringle supported and at the same time he was very bold and very constant In his assertion that the only thing he had at heart was the good name of the Liberal party and the good name of Canada. I do not think we need read very much between the lines of his letters to conclude that Dr. Pringle was inspired by motives other than those which he wrote on the pages of those letters. We know the characters of the men who have been administrators of the Yukon. We know that they cannot for one moment be accused of a desire to shield immorality, graft, corruption or anything of that character. Let us start first with Commissioner Ogilvie. Then we have the Hon. James Hamilton Ross. These are two men whose honour I think nobody will question. They have neither loose views nor loose conduct with regard to morality or drunkenness or political corruption. Then take the next man, Mr. If. T. Congdon. Mr. Congdon may not be a brilliant success as a politician, he may not be an arch schemer, he may not be a good man to make devices and plans. I believe that in this respect Dr. Pringle can cut circles around him, but he is a man who no one will ever dare to say has loose views or conduct with regard to morality. I do not think that even the most careless speaker will ever say that he is loose in his views on even a moderate use of intoxicants or that he is a man with an inordinate desire to graft or be corrupt. I have never heard such a charge made against him and I am familiar with all of these charges. The charge that has been made Is that he had associates and employees under him in his position as Commisioner who have been open to suspicion, but I am confident I am stating the truth when I say that no responsible person will venture to assert that he is crooked or that he is a person who would in any way recognize, protect, encourage or tolerate corruption.
Then we have had the representatives of the Yukon in this House. The first was the Hon. James Hamilton Ross. I spoke of him a moment ago. Then we have the present member, Dr. Thompson. Those are the only two representatives we have had in this House from the Yukon. There again we have two men who represent Mr. KNOWLES.
public opinion a thousand times more than Dr. Pringle. They have sat here since 1900 but did they raise any voice of denunciation against this government ? Surely it was for them to say : The government is not endeavouring to enforce the laws in that land. It seems to me that it would have been their duty to do this had there been ground of complaint. Dr. Thompson's first duty was to represent the people of the Yukon, his one plank was that he would first and foremost represent the good opinion of the Yukon Territory in this House and apart from that he left party questions alone. Dr. Thompson is a man just as responsible as the reverend gentleman of whom I spoke, a man careful in his life, well advised in his views, a person who would not * be a party to corruption or immorality in any form. Messrs. Ross and Thompson have been here, they have come and gone and it has remained to this late date, when the public servants are crying out for their salaries, it remains for the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) after all these years to conclude that this question is so urgent and such a disgrace to the country that he cannot let the public servants have their salaries but he must discuss the affairs of the Yukon Territory. I take the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) at his word and I too will be pleased to see the effect this will have on the country. Here on the evening of the 2nd of June, when the cheques are already in arrears and the government desires to have money voted to pay the civil servants that they may not only not fall into debt but into the unprofitable habit of going into debt, the hon. member for North Toronto prevents the granting of supplies in order to discuss this question. It is a most serious thing and the country will appreciate its seriousness, that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) rises day after day to bring up such questions. The duty of bringing up this matter would have fallen on Senator Ross and Dr. Thompson and not particularly or properly on the hon. member for North Toronto.
But there is another conclusion I wish to draw from the silence of these gentlemen on the subject and it is that in view of this silence the presumption is altogether in favour of the accused. I do not for a moment say that it necessarily proves the innocence of these parties but I do take the stand that it makes a great presumption of innocence and that if this outrageous scandal had existed in the Yukon for all these years we would have heard of it from the representatives of the Yukon. If the charges of the hon. member for North Toronto are true it surely lays a most grave and serious reflection upon Dr. Thompson and Senator Ross, his predecessor.


George Eulas Foster: May I say that the papers upon which the whole information has been

based were not brought down to this House until a few weeks ago ?


William Stevens Fielding: Three months ago, the main return.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so, I had to ask for a supplementary return.


William Stevens Fielding: On the 3rd of March, just three months ago.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose it was three months ago.


William Erskine Knowles: Suppose they had not been brought down at all, would not Dr. Thompson and Senator Ross know enough to bring it to our attention if it had been such a public scandal as has been suggested? The truth is they did know the facts but knowing them they have not spoken about this matter. Surely, if there had been the open, public, outrageous scandal of which we have heard this afternoon, there would have been no trouble in Dr. Pringle finding many citizens well disposed towards decency and good government and desirous of maintaining decency in the conduct of public officials, to come and give their evidence before Commissioner Henderson. There are plenty of citizens in the Yukon who have just as strict and just as wholesome views with regard to public morality-and with regard to private morality too if you like-as Rev. Dr. Pringle has, or any of our friends opposite who have spoken on this subject, and who would be as strongly animated by a desire to keep clean the public life of their community. The Rev. Dr. Pringle is not so much holier or better than all the other citizens of the Yukon that, if there had been this glaring outrage, he would be the only man who would like to see a reform effected. The House will agree with me, I am sure, that, in such a case, there would have been plenty of people desirous of maintaining public morality who would come forward and give their testimony to support Dr. Pringle in bringing about a reform.
I am glad that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is now in his place as there is one remark which I wish respectfully to make with regard to what he said concerning the putting down of dance halls. He seemed to be determined that he would not admit that the Yukon government was primarily responsible in this matter or was really responsible at all. He seemed to say, in the first place, that Dr. Pringle was the initiator of the movement and afterwards seemed to say-and I am sure, did say-that it was really an act that this government was responsible for, in effect an act of this government and not of the Yukon Council. The hon. gentleman laid it down, I think, that everything done by the Yukon Council this government must get credit or blame for. I cannot understand the hon. gentleman taking that position. The Yukon Council surely exercises jurisdiction within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Yukon Act and amendments thereto, just as the provincial legislatures act within their jurisdiction by virtue of the British North America Act and the amendments thereto. The passing of such legislation, I submit, is wholly within the power of the Yukon Council; and I cannot for a moment understand my hon. friend making the statement that it is something for which this government must assume responsibility. And I was certainly very much surprised that the hon. gentleman should go so far as to say that Mr. Justice Dugas, who is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Yukon, in the discharge of his duties would be subject to political influence. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that; if I am wrong, I hope he will correct me.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to be governed by what I said, and not by the construction which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) puts upon what I said. I may add, if the hon. gentleman will allow me, that what I stated in the first instance was that (Commissioner Henderson) procured the change in the law when he went there. That was disputed by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver).


William Erskine Knowles: With that statement I find no fault. I am corrected by the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) if he said that I am incorrect in believing that he implied or stated that Mr. Justice Dugas, in his opinion, would be influenced by political considerations.


Robert Laird Borden: I used no such language.


William Erskine Knowles: I asked the hon. gentleman a question, and I understood him to say, ' Yes.'


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; I made no direct allusion to Mr. Justice Dugas.


William Erskine Knowles: I asked the hon. gentleman directly and distinctly if he made that statement. I do not see how he can say he made no reference to Mr. Justice Dugas, for he answered my question. I made the reference in the first place, but the hon. gentleman answered.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is entirely in error. I gave no answer of that kind. I said that the government, by virtue of the fact that it appointed a majority of the members, could, at any time, control the council. The point on which issue was taken by the Minister of the Interior was that which I have mentioned just now. I said that Mr. Commissioner Henderson was responsible for having brought about the change, and I said

that he had done it because Dr. Pringle had brought the subject to his attention. I afterwards read Commissioner Henderson's own report in which he declared that, having had his attention directed to the subject by Dr. Pringle's letter, he had canvassed every member of the council and procured the necessary change in the legislation to be introduced by Mr. .Justice Dugas. and it was passed upon his initiative.


William Erskine Knowles: Well, of course, I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, which, I have no doubt, is correct. I understood him differently, and I believe that other hon. members on this side understood him as I did.


Robert Laird Borden: They misunderstood me.


William Erskine Knowles: I am sure of it. However, the hon. gentleman did say that the Yukon Council was subject to the control of this government


Mr.   R.@: L, BORDEN. Certainly.
Mr. KNOWLES

in its legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


William Erskine Knowles: And X understood that control was not only in the way of the veto, but control in the ordinary sense.


Robert Laird Borden: In other words, it is in the power of this government to enforce its policy in the Yukon by reason of the control it has over the membership of that council.


William Erskine Knowles: That would be possible only by way of removal of members of the council and the appointment of people who are nothing but tools in the hands of the government, and


Mr. BRISTOL.: You would not call them tools if they carried out the policy of the government?


William Erskine Knowles: Certainly, if they were not true to their own opinions and to their oaths, I would call them tools. That is what I said, and that is what I shall be ready to say to-morrow. I was about to say that I understood the leader of the opposition to say that the law which was passed with regard to gambling houses and dance halls was a law which was made by reason of the fact that it was desired by this government. If so, I am confident that he does not do justice to the gentlemen who are members of the council, especially to the learned judge who is a member of that council, in thinking that that learned gentleman would fail to use his own good judgment and be true to his oath of office. I am sure the leader of the opposition could not, on reflection, renew that statement.


Robert Laird Borden: Apparently, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles! has not un-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
derstood me yet. What I intended to suggest, and what I desire to adhere to is that if the government of this country found the men appointed to the Yukon Council persisted in maintaining a policy and a system under which the most notorious houses of prostitution in the shape of dance halls were run in that country, it would be possible for this government, if it found remonstrances with these gentlemen unavailing, to dismiss them from their office and appoint men who would not allow that condition to continue.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. He will agree that that could have no influence upon the present action of the council in Dawson?


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the supposed control of the government of the Yukon Council.


William Erskine Knowles: I think the hon. gentleman cannot understand the point to which I am referring-his contention, as I understand it, that the legislation under which the dance halls were driven out was the result of the desire of the government at Ottawa and not the result of the judgment of the Council of the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: On the contrary, I stated that it was the result of Mr. Commissioner Henderson's initiative-that he went to the Yukon and, having had his attention called to the matter by the Rev. Dr. Pringle, took steps which resulted in this change.


William Erskine Knowles: Very well, let it go. The charge is so flat that I felt disposed not to speak at all. I was willing, however, to say a few words; but really, the attack is dead, and it seems almost like abusing the dead to go on with this discussion.


Alexander Johnston: Even the father of it has run away.


William Erskine Knowles: It is further to be observed, as you will see by reference to the file, that Dr. Pringle has stated that he has charges only against two men. Mr. Pringle informed the commission to this effect, as you will see in the commissioner's letter, addressed to Hon. Frank Oliver, dated September 23, 1907.
He says:
He informed me that he had no charges to make against any person in the employ of the government other than Messrs. Girouard and Litligow.
In regard to these two gentlemen, and these are all that a royal commission could deal with, one of them is out of the service of the government and I do not see anything so very urgent about his case that the public supply should be stopped to deal with it. With regard to Mr. Litligow, he

is a gentleman who was brought into the public service by lion, gentlemen opposite, he has been kept in the public service by this government because he is a good official and I do not think that any one in the Yukon or out of it will say that he has ever been guilty of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. He is a very superior man, a good official and the public service has not suffered by the fact that this gentleman has been kept in the employ of the government. The fact that he has been kept in the public service is no reason why the supplies should be held up and the public servants should lose their monthly pay. Mr. Lithgow, Mr. Girouard and Mr. Pringle sat for years together in the Yukon council, and Mr. Pringle never raised any objection when they stood as equals upon the floor of the local legislature. It is very strange that it took him all these years to find these things out about Mr. Lithgow and Mr. Girouard.
The bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) spoke with regard to the Governor General's letter. He seemed to say that the Governor General's letter was instrumental in bringing the government to a condition of action. It is very clear that the Minister of the Interior received a communication from the secretary of the Governor General and from Mr. Pringle at the same time, that is the first communication he ever had from Mr. Pringle, so that it is impossible that he or the government should only have been stirred to action by the receipt of a communication from the secretary of the Governor General. It is not fair or worthy of the hon. leader of the opposition to advance the argument that it was the letter of the private secretary of the Governor General that stirred the minister up. If that were so it would be very easy to get anything done because any man, upon writing to the government, could also drop a note to the Governor General and the Governor General's secretary could say that such and such a letter had been received. I want to read the opening part of the letter of the 28th August, written by the Minister of the Interior to the Rev John Pringle:
Your letter of July 31, was brought to my attention on my return from an extended trip to the west, which began on July 19th and ended on Monday, August 26.
Only two days before this letter was written.
I was, therefore, not in Ottawa when your letter arrived, and was consequently unable to reply to it before. Since my return I have received a letter from the Governor General's secretary informing me that His Excellency had received a copy of the same letter. The premier had also informed me (that on receipt of the copy of the letter sent to him he communicated with Messrs. Girouard and Lithgow the allegations made <by yourself against them.
Showing that the point that was made by the hon. leader of the opposition, that the Minister of the Interior was moved to action by the fact that Mr. Pringle saw fit to write to the Governor General was not quite fair.
There has been a good deal said this afternoon about the lax way in which justice is administered in the Yukon and these statements have been made upon a very feeble foundation, such as the letter which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) read, signed by ' Bona fide.'


George Eulas Foster: That is a good name.


William Erskine Knowles: It is a good name, and it is a name that any rascal can make use of.


George Eulas Foster: That is rather an imputation on ' Bona fide.' You should not do that.


William Erskine Knowles: them prevail, and citizens have the same right to complain and complaints, so far as I know, are listened to.
There has been no specific charge in the papers. I don't know what the complaint is. But I say that, speaking broadly and generally, it is unfair to the Yukon territory-I do not care about myself-and unfair to the officials that statements should go abroad that law generally is not generally enforced in the rukon territory. I know of no mining camp where law is so well observed, where men and women are so safe in going about the streets as they are in this camp.
I regret to have to make these remarks, but I feel it to be my duty-not personally, mind you, but as an official charged with the prosecution of the law in this country-to say that I know of no case where the law has not been enforced, and I know of no case where the law has been asked to be enforced and refusal made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I remind the hon. gentleman that I brought to the notice of this House, some few years ago, a specific case where two men were fined, and, I think, imprisoned for taking timber without a permit when the timber dues had been paid and when they desired to appeal and when they attempted to get the evidence which they had a right to get it was denied them over and over again, they could not get it and they have not got it to this day.


William Erskine Knowles: I think I am familiar with the case that the hon. gentleman refers to, but if I understand that case, it was simply that the machinery of the criminal law was called in when it should never have been called in; it was such a trivial matter. I understand that the charge of hon. gentlemen opposite is that In important matters the criminal law is not called in. The hon. gentleman has gone back year after year; I do not know how many years he has gone back to bring these cases up. He told us this afternoon about a whisky contract twelve years old. That is getting pretty old and probably if whisky is that old it will be better than when they took it in. Our hon. friends opposite are fond of bringing up these matters of great age, and so we hear session after session of the * Arctic,' the North Atlantic Trading Company, the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, the Yukon liquor permits, always the same old accusations. We have wasted this whole day upon a matter that is many years old, that has been before the public as an outstanding scandal during all these years, and it is only at this late date that they again repeat the story for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.


Edmund James Bristol: Considering the eagerness of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) not to waste the time of the House he has delivered rather a long and Mr. KNOWLES.
pointless defence of what he calls a dead attack made by the opposition. Had he the courage of his convictions he would have said nothing, or else he would have said something to the point. The matter is in a nutshell. The first question is : Who makes this attack, and the answer is : The Rev. John Pringle. And Mr. Pringle is, as he says in his letter of the 27th of May, 1902 :
I am the Presbyterian minister at Bonanza. I am a citizen of Canada by birth, a Liberal by conviction, believing that the triumph of Liberal princples is the triumph of might.
Is Dr. Pringle alone in his attack? Not at all. On the 13th November, 1907, at the regular meeting of the Young Men's Liberal Club, composed of what may be called the decent young Liberals of' the Yukon Territory, a resolution was passed which unanimously confirmed the statements of the Rev. Dr. Pringle. Now, I have the honour of knowing the Rev. Dr. Pringle I have been in the Yukon and I can say that I did not find there a man who waa more highly respected and more generally revered by the people of the Territory than was the Rev. Dr. Pringle. When you find such a man simply committing the sin of being a Liberal of the old school attached to true Liberal principles, and when you find him supported by the decent young Liberals of the country, one would think that a good tactician and able statesman like the Prime Minister would be able to-discern that the Rev. Dr. Pringle was telling the truth and not the man who wanted to retain office at all hazard. What interest had the Rev. John Pringle, a Liberal by birth, a man highly respected, one of the leading divines of the Presbyterian Church, what interest had he to tell lies? There can be no suggestion that he had the slightest possible Interest In doing so. But the other men who contradicted him, the men who wish to retain office, the men whose living depended on their retaining office, they had an interest in refuting the statements of Dr. Pringle, and it is the statement of such men that the Prime Minister takes as against the statement of Dr. Pringle, supported as it is by the young Liberals of the Yukon. The right hon. gentleman says that in 1902 there was no charges of a specific character. It is a peculiarity of the Prime Minister and those associated with him that they never are able to find a specific charge when they don't want to investigate. But if the right hon. gentleman will peruse the letter of the 27th November, 1902, he will find there a charge sufficiently specific to warrant investigation. This document came to the Prime Minister from a Liberal by conviction, and it came from a reverend gentleman entitled to the highest respect, although it has suited hon. gentlemen opposite to-day to cast aspersions on the Rev.
9681	JUNE 2, 1908	9682
Dr. Pringle. In 1902 Dr. Pringle brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the subject of hydraulic concessions, then a question of live interest in the Yukon, and because of which considerable ill-feeling was engendered against the government of the day, it being stated, and I believe truely, that a great many valuable concessions that could have been worked successfully by the miners themselves had been given to certain favourites of the Liberal party. It is true that the present Minister of the Interior has properly seen fit to cancel certain of these concessions, but the fact remains that as far back as 1902 this question was brought to the attention of the First Minister and this business administration went asleep until 1906 over a matter of such vital importance to the people of the Yukon Territory. The reverend gentleman goes on to say :
Concessions have been granted, I am convinced, not only carelessly, buit indquitously; the heritage of out people given to satisfy the greed of capital, without due consideration of the rights of the people in the ground, or of the character of the statements made to secure these concessions.
The government said this was not specific enough, and so they did not take the trouble to investigate it and to see whether the statement was true. The reverend gentleman complained of the dance halls in which some of the government officials were frequenters, and he says:
But the worst feature of the licensed houses here is that a very large percentage of them are houses of prostitution. Many of them run, it is true, by people of good character. But a large number of bawdy houses, with a government license to prey upon the public.
He says further :
The law is systematically manipulated, not to protect the public but to proteat and nurse the gambler and shame honest men.
The government saw fit to take no action with regard to these charges. On the 3rd of January, 1905, another letter came to the First Minister, and the specific charges in that letter were such as to demand investigation at the hands of any well meaning government. Mr. Pringle's fairness is shown by the fact that he is glad to concede the part that Mr. Ross, as Yukon Commissioner, took in putting down the abuses referred to, and be points out that these abuses have again arisen and are in fuller swing than they were before Mr. Ross took means to mitigate the evil. But instead of investigating the matter the Prime Minister simply takes the word of the men charged against the statements of the Rev. Dr. Pringle, who could have no personal interest in the matter. And so it was allowed to rest until 1907, when charges were again made, and the Minister of the Interior on the 28th of August, 1907, wrote to the Hon. Alexander Henderson a letter which, although it has been already read, it is proper to read again, because in my judgment it is the key to the whole situation. The letter says :
Dear Sir,-I beg to inclose herewith copy of a letter received by me from the Governor General's office. As you will note from the address and contents, the original of this letter was adressed to the premier and to myself.	.
You will be good enough to investigate fully the specific charges made by Mr. Pringle against Messrs. Girouard and Lithgow, and will, of course, call upon Mr. Pringle to substantiate those charges. You are to investigate fully and report.
Should the Rev. Mr. Pringle desire to lay charges against any other persons in the employ of the government, or of the Interior Department especially, you are to investigate them as well.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) FRANK OLIVER.
The point of that letter is simply this. If the Minister of the Interior is to be taken at his word, if he is to be bound by that letter, be is of opinion that there were charges to be investigated, and if so, there was, as he knows only one proper method of investigating a charge of a public character. If those charges were charges against those gentlemen in their private capacity-and I am passing no opinion on the truth or falsity of the charges themselves-it was not the business of the Minister of the Interior to investigate them. He had a right to investigate the charges only if they came under part 1 or part 2 of chapter 104 of the Act respecting Public and Departmental inquiries. I agree with the First Minister that they do not come under part 2, and that if they come under any part of that Act they come under part 1, which provides :
Th Govenor in Council may, whenever he deems at expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter conneoted with the good government of Canada or the conduct o-f any part of the public business thereof.
Under that section the government could have investigated the concessions referred to, the abuse of the license system, the character of any of the officials of the government so far as it affected the good government of Canada. If there was any right to investigate at all, there was only one proper form of investigation, for an obvious reason. Does any sensible man in this House think, with the character of the material on which these charges are based, that any one would voluntarily come forward and give testimony before the commissioner ? They would not do so, for two reasons : they would have no protection at the hands of the court, and they would lay themselves open, whether they were

telling the truth or not, to a charge of slander ; and that Is what has happened, for an action for libel has been brought against the Rev. John Pringle. Furthermore, you could not compel witnesses to come forward and give evidence. It is years ago that some of the events charged took place. Witnesses to these events might not be in the Yukon at the time of the investigation ; their conduct money would have to be paid, wherever they might be, and they would certainly have to be subpoenaed and if they gave their evidence under compulsion, it would have to be before a tribunal that could give them ample protection. If the Minister of the Interior really desired an investigation, he was in duty bound to have a proper investigation under the Act, as Mr. Pringle demanded. Well, what happened ? Mr. Henderson, on the 8th of November, 1907, wrote to Mr. Oliver as follows :
Dear Mr. Oliver,

I am inclosing herewith a copy of the correspondence relating to the charges of the Rev. Dr. Pringle against Messrs. Grirouard and Litbgow. You will see from Dr. Pringle's letter to * of the 23rd ultimo, he declines to appear as a party in what he calls an informal investigation. I would suggest, if agreeable to you, that I be appointed a commissioner to investigate the charges under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter 101, Revised Statutes of Canada. 1906.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Commissioner.
In that connection, I want to call attention to a further letter written by Mr. Henderson to the Rev. John Pringle, as follows :
Dawson, Yukon Territory, October 30, 1907.
Sir,-Pn reply to your communication of the 23rd instant, in which you inform me that you must adhere to your decision contained in your letter of the 11th instant, not to take any part in the informal investigation into the charges against Messrs. Laihgow and Girouard, I beg to say that I am requesting from the government that authority be given to me to investigate the charges on the lines of a commission, which will enable me to issue summonses and to take the evidence of witnesses under oath. I trust this course will be deemed satisfactory.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Commission, Yukon Territory.
That was -a letter from the commissioner of the Yukon and a lawyer to the Rev. Mr. Pringle, conceding his position that an informal investigation could not be satisfai? tory, but that the proper course was that Mr. Henderson should be appointed a commissioner under the Act. He writes to the minister suggesting such an Investigation, and the minister says, no, I will not have Mr. BRISTOL.
it. And so, as the Minister of the Interior and the government did not desire any real investigation, but wanted to bury these charges in oblivion, the minister goes back on bis original promise to have an investigation, and they do nothing at all but endeavour to cover up and conceal one of the worst scandals that disgraces the administration of this government.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) desired to avail himself of this matter as a convenient opportunity to occupy another day and thus prevent the progress of the very urgent and proper business of the House, the passage of the supplies which are necessary for the carrying on of the King's government, I must admit at once that he has quite achieved his purpose. But if he had any other object in view, I confess that I am utterly unable to discover it. Why the hon, gentleman should bring this matter up at all at this moment, if he had any other purpose in view, is difficult to understand. The matter is not new. This story of V uIcon difficulties has been before the country a considerable time. My hon. friend has suggested that the Rev. Mr. Pringle is the first man who has had the courage to refer to these dreadful things that occurred in the Yukon. That was hardly just to a very distinguished mem-l)6r of this parliament who a few years ago made a speech of seven hours in "making accusations of a general character with reference to Yukon affairs, and, finding that he had omitted one or two things, made another speech of eight or nine hours to make up the deficiency. Perhaps the fact that that gentleman, though a very able man. failed to accomplish very much by his attack, may have been the reason that from time to time we heard less and less about these Yukon scandals.
Nor do we forget that, in connection with a discussion of that kind, the distinguished leader of the opposition of that day, making charges of a general character, such as those made to-day-in which my hon. friend wandered over the whole history of tile ^ ukon-went so far as to mention the name of one of the citizens of Canada and accused him of graft. But when that citizen took action in the courts of the country to vindicate himself and bring his accuser to account, Sir Charles Tupper, promptly climbed down and made a humble apology to the person aggrieved. And I am inclined to think that if we were to pass from generalities and come down to particulars, the same experience would follow to-day as did then. In this matter one or two gentlemen, whose names are freely mentioned, are personally known to me. I refer particularly to Messrs. Congdon and Lithgow.
9685 JUKE 2, 1908 9686	
There is really little against Mr. Congdon although his name figures in Mr. Pringle's correspondence pretty extensively. When we come down however to specific statements, we do not find any accusation against him. What we find are statements of a personal character against Messrs. Lithgow and Girouard. If I heard the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) rightly a moment ago, he considered that there was nothing to investigate. I understood him to say that the Minister of the Interior could only have the right to investigate matters affecting the official conduct of persons in his employ, and that it would be no part of his duty to have an investigation into their private character. Unless, therefore, there is a charge made against them in their official capacity, the Minister of the Interior had no right to order an investigation at all. Mr. BRISTOL. I was not expressing an opinion on the charges but was simply commenting on the fact that the minister had ordered an investigation, and I was pointing out that the investigation would not be into charges merely of a personal character but into charges with respect to conduct in the performance of a public duty. Mr. FIELDING. That is quite right. If the charges were of a personal character and had no relation to public duties, the Minister of the Interior had no right to order an investigation at all. Mr. BRISTOL. But he did order one. Mr. FIELDING. I am giving the view which the hon. member for Centre Toronto expressed. The public records show that although there were general charges and statements covering the whole administration of the Yukon, when we read the correspondence and sift the whole matter down, it resolves itself into mere personal charges against the private character of these gentlemen and nothing more. And according to my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), those are not proper subjects for an official inquiry. I have here the letter of the 2nd October, 1907, written by Mr. Pringle to Mr. Henderson, in which he specifies his charges against Mr. Lithgow and Mr. Girouard. Mr. Pringle says : I am prepared for the investigation which you have been instructed to hold into the charges which I have made of scandalous living on the part of J. T. Lithgow and J. E. Girouard, prominent public servants in the Yukon. I am prepared to prove	 And then he goes on to state his charges in clauses 1, 2 and 3. These clauses I do not wish to quote because I am not anxious to needlessly advertise the very improper charges made. But every one of these paragraphs has reference to the	personal and private life of the two gentlemen named. Mr. BRISTOL. But if the personal character of au official of the government was such as to create the conviction that he was unfit for the position, would not that be a matter for investigation ? Mr. FIELDING. I am not discussing the purely legal question as to whether these accusations would come under the term of any particular Act. But what right would the Minister of the Interior have to appoint a royal commission to investigate unless the matter to be investigated were one affecting official conduct ? Mr. tBRISTOL. But he did. Mr. FIELDING. I do not think he would have any right to appoint a royal commission and in my opinion the demand for such a commission was most absurd. Mr. BRISTOL. The commissioner of the Yukon and an ex-judge thought it very proper. Mr. FIELDING. I have known eminent judges to differ in these matters. I would not set my own opinion as a layman against that of a judge, but judges like doctors often differ. I take my hon. friend's opinion that the Minister of the Interior had no right, as a matter of common sense and reason, to investigate a mere charge against the private character of any man. Suppose that in Montreal or Ottawa some good citiezn-even a Christian (minister of the high rank of Mr. Pringle-should write a letter to the Minister of Customs in which he expressed his belief that a certain collector of customs or other customs official in some district was leading an immoral life, would it be reasonable to demand that a royal commission should be appointed to investigate into such a charge? It may be a question whether the minister would be justified in taking any notice of such a letter. If he thought the matter sufficiently serious, he might send some official down to call on the man accused and give him an opportunity to explain and then make a report, but no one would seriously contend that it was a proper matter for an investigation by a Royal Commission. Suppose some Toronto officer-especially a good Conservative appointed many years ago-were accused of improper conduct in his private capacity, and the government were to appoint a roval commission, on the strength of such ail accusation, to investigate into this man's private life, my hon. friend from Centre Toronto would be the first to complain that the investigation was a case of political persecution. Putting aside for a moment this idea that there is something extraordinary about this Yukon affair, and treating it as we would any other case that

might arise any time in the public service, it will be at once seen how unreasonable was the demand for a royal commission. The curious part of it all is that what Mr. Pringle tells us was so notorious does not appear to have been notorious in the mind of anybody else. He says that the conduct of these men was for years a matter of public notoriety. Well, the commissioners of the Yukon have been men of undoubted high character, honesty and repute, and they have not reported anv such terrible condition of affairs. The Minister of the Interior himself went out to the Yukon to ascertain the facts and find out for himself what were the conditions existing there. Surely if this matter were of the great notoriety described by Mr. Pringle, when the minister arrived at the government office or his hotel in Dawson city, he would have been met by men in that city who would have told him the true condition of things. But while he receievd complaints concerning a good many other matters, not one word did he hear against the reputation or the conduct off these men, whose conduct Mr Pringle says was a matter of public notoriety and great scandal to the community. Do not imagine for a moment that I am questioning the zeal or the good motives of Mr. Pringle. But we know that often well meaning men, animated by the best intentions, allow their zeal to outrun their discretion. Any one who reads Mr. Pringle's letters will find that, whether he was influenced by personal motives or not, he has made remarkable statements and used very strong language. For instance, in one of his letters he takes the trouble to repeat the story that one of the Christian ministers of the city of Dawson accepted contributions from the dance halls and other places of ill repute upon the condition that he would keep his mouth closed.


George Eulas Foster: I would like my hon. friend to give the quotation. I have read that letter carefully and I do not think it bears that interpretation.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Pringle states : I have not the report but I made the extract -that one of these disreputable people told him that
A gift bestowed upon one of our Christian churches was given by him with the under-sroanaang that it was to close the minister's mouth; that the church should not disturb the gambling den and the dance hall.


George Eulas Foster: That is just the reverse of the way the Minister of Finance put it at first.	'


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Stevens Fielding: An understanding requires two parties.


George Eulas Foster: I merely wish to call attention to the difference in the statements.


William Stevens Fielding: It does make a difference. I quote again from Dr. Pringle. He repeats the statement that one of these infamous people to whom he refers told him that
A gift bestowed upon one of our Christian churches was given by him with the understanding that it was to close the minister's mouth; that the church should not disturb the gambling den and the dance hall.
An understanding implies agreement between two parties. I cannot have an understanding in a matter of that kind alone. If my hon. friend and I engage in a certain transaction on an understanding that is an understanding between us and therefore the Christian minister must have accepted the gift on the understanding, otherwise this has no meaning.


George Eulas Foster: The Finance Minister says the two had an understanding and that a Christian minister received the gift on that basis.


William Stevens Fielding: No, no.


George Eulas Foster: And that Dr. Pringle quoted the statement of one of these people that it had been so.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not quote it tts Dr. Pringle's statement.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend said the Christian minister received the donation oli the understanding that he was to say nothing about the gambling den.


William Stevens Fielding: I say that is the only inference. I did not quote Dr. Pringle as the author of the statement; I said he repeated a story which had reached him and to which he attaches sufficient importance to include it in his letter to the Prime Minister. In that letter he repeats that story that he was informed, and evidently believed it and thought it so important as to put it in his letter, for if it was a mere passing report and he did not believe it, what shall we say of his discretion in inserting it in a letter to the Prime Minister?


George Eulas Foster: There was enough in it to show what an interested party thought he had done and thought he could do


William Stevens Fielding: There can be no understanding except between two parties and when he says that


George Eulas Foster: He said that a Christian minister of one of the churches had accepted the gift on the understanding that he was to say nothing about the dance hall.


William Stevens Fielding: A gift bestowed upon one of our Christan churches was given by him with the understanding that it was to close the minister's mouth; that the church should not disturb the gambling den and the dance hall.
JUTSTE % 1908
I say that was an accusation that the Christian minister accepted it on that condition.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for East Grey inquired eloquently : What will the ministers of the gospel think of these things. I would like to ask what the ministers of the gospel in Dawson and throughout the Yukon will think of the wisdom of Dr. Pringle in sending that accusation against them, for it is against them, in a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Dr. Pringle in that letter had a good deal to say about concessions and mentioned particularly what is "known as the Bronson and Ray concession. He said that in the Bronson and Ray concession none of the conditions upon which it was granted have been fulfilled. He said it was easy to cancel it. I do not know whether Dr. Pringle's information was what influenced my hon. friend but when the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) came into office his attention was drawn to some of these concessions in the Yukon, he thought the conditions had not been fulfilled and he cancelled the very concession to which Dr. Pringle here refers. I regret to say that the Minister of the Interior has not been sustained in that. Dr. Pringle says the conditions were not fulfilled and it was a great scandal that these concessions were not cancelled. That con-session was cancelled but the Supreme Court of Canada decided yesterday that the cancellation was improper and that there was not sufficient ground for it.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me, I think he had better give a little of his advice to the Minister of the Interior. He had exactly the same information and he expressed the same view with a great deal more force because he absolutely cancelled the concession. You must not find fault with Dr. Pringle for having no better information about the legality of the cancellation than the minister himself who was familiar with all the circumstances.


William Stevens Fielding: There is this difference that Dr. Pringle brings it into his letters and makes a great scandal of it; he says that every one knew in the Yukon that the conditions were not fulfilled and the Minister of the Interior, acting I am sure with the best of his judgment, decided to cancel the concession.


George Eulas Foster: He must have been led away by Dr. Pringle.


William Stevens Fielding: And the Supreme Court of Canada according to the report in the newspapers, yesterday, has decided that the Rev. John Pringle was wrong and that the Minister of the Interior was wrong.


George Eulas Foster: Did the Minister of the Interior have the legal advice of the government before he cancelled this ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know. For my present purpose it is not very important. I simply want to mention it as another illustration that my friend Dr. Pringle is zealous in making rash statements about matters as to which he has no better information than the rest of mankind.
I repeat that the interest I feel in the matter is largely a personal interest as respects the gentlemen concerned. I have already said that there is no accusation against Mr. Congdon, although his name is frequently mentioned. He was a very eminent barrister among the younger bar of the province of Nova Scotia, a man of undoubted ability and the highest character, and whatever may be said about his conduct in political matters in the Yukon, I must say that no man who ever knew him in Nova Scotia would have the slightest doubt that in everything that makes for a clean life and for a high moral standard and integrity of character he sustained his reputation in the west.
With regard to Mr. Lithgow I feel an interest because I had something to do with his appointment. In the early days of the Yukon, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) came to me to discuss financial arrangements for the Yukon and we agreed that it was necessary to have a very capable and strong man in there to deal with that branch of the public business. Mr. Sifton suggested that I should recommend a man who would be satisfactory to the Finance department. I took time to consider it and selected Mr. Lithgow. In view of the suggestions that there is some political end to serve,' that there was some favour to be done for our political friends, it is worth mentioning, although it is not important, that Mr. Lithgow was no political friend of mine. I have known him from boyhood and he has always been a Conservative. His father, a very eminent citizen of Halifax, who has recently passed away, was not only a Conservative, known to be warmly in sympathy with the Conservative party, but in one of the political campaigns of which I have a very lively recollection, he was one of the leading writers in the public press in the support of the Conservative party. The Lithgows, father and son, and every member of the family, so far as I have ever known, have belonged to the Conservative party. John T. Lithgow came into the service of the government when the Conservatives were in power. He was appointed to the Halifax branch of the Finance Department by Sir Leonard Tilley. He has been twenty-eight years in the public service. He had served there under several ministers and when I came into office I knew enough of him to value his character, capacity and service. When I had an opportunity of either promoting a man, for it was a promotion, or * bringing a man from the outside, I selected

him, notwithstanding his known Conservative proclivities and recommended him to the Minister of the Interior, and he was sent to the Yukon. So I felt an interest in the matter. I am bound to say that notwithstanding all that has happened, I have never found a shadow of reason for regretting that I recommended the Minister of the Interior to appoint Jack Lithgow, as everyone knew him in Halifax. He is a man well known throughout the maritime provinces and I believe wherever he was known he was respected, irrespective of all consideration of politics or anything else. He went out to that country at a time when there were very great difficulties. He passed through that period when officials on all sides were being accused of wrongdoing- most frequently I hope without just cause -and Mr. Lithgow passed unscathed through all the stormy times of the Yukon administration. I never met a man, until this letter of Dr. Pringle's was presented, who knew anything about the Yukon who did not bear testimony to the value and faithful services of John T. Lithgow. I want to say that for him now. I believe that Mr. Lithgow has had his faults; I believe that, so far as I have been able to make inquiries, on one occasion he permitted himself to stray from the path of sobriety. I believe that on one occasion he did himself discredit. But it is but fair to say that there are but few men who can submit to have applied to them the severe standard that never on any occasion shall they have allowed themselves to depart from the line of propriety. Notwithstanding the fact that, on that occasion, the man was at fault, I say he has been a most faithful, useful and valuable servant of Canada, and it would be a scandal and a shame if he were dismissed for that one fault. And I want to emphasize the fact that this is purely a matter affecting Mr. Lithgow's personal character. Even Dr. Pringle does not allege that Mr. Lithgow has failed in his duty. True, he did, in one passage, make a reference to Mr. Lithgow, which, I am sure, he could not sustain and which, I am equally sure, will not be accepted by any friend who has known Mr. Lithgow. He spoke not only of Mr. Lithgow's personal character, but in a passage which I thought I had at hand, he stated that Mr. Lithgow had been working in the interest of the gang of thieves who had been having both hands in the public treasury. Mr. Pringle is the only man I have ever heard who would make any such accusation against Mr. Lithgow. The universal testimony of friend and foe is that, through all these troublous times, this man proved himself exceptionally qualified for his duties and performed his duties with great ability and fidelity.
Reference is made in the papers to a resolution said to have been passed by the Mr FIELDING
Young Men's Liberal Club of Dawson, opposing a movement said to be on foot for the appointment of Mr. Lithgow as commissioner. If that Young Men's Liberal Club did pass such a resolution, it was pretty good evidence of the fact that the government were not dealing with the matter in a partisan way, for, whatever favour and consideration they gave to Mr. Lithgow, they did not give through the influence of the young Liberals of that territory. But there is this further communication:
Dawson, November 15, 1907. Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurder, Ottawa. _
Sir,-A resolution was passed last evening at a meeting of the Young Men's Liberal Club, at which seven members were present, and of which I am president, strongly condemning Mr. John T. Lithgow, controller, as being unfit to occupy the position that he now holds. I beg to state that I am not in accord with said resolution and have refused to sign it.
1 have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
So, the meeting to which reference has been made appears to have been a very small meeting, and the very chairman who presided over this deliberations took the trouble to write this letter to the Prime Minister explaining that he did not approve of the resolution and had refused to sign it.
Now, I want to press an argument referred to by others and to which In a word by the way this afternoon, I alluded. Hon. gentlemen have quoted from Dr. Pringle the statement that the election of Dr. Thompson iu the Yukon was brought about as a vindication of the rights of the decent people of the Yukon and as a protest against dance halls, gambling hells and that sort of thing. If we accept that as true, then Dr. Thompson, when he came to this House was to be recognized as the interpreter of that sentiment. That bon. gentleman sat here year after year; he was personally familiar with this matter and was chosen especially to represent it; and yet not on one occasion did he venture to rise In his place and make any such accusations concerning any official as have been made in his absence by the hon. member for North Toronto. I think the public mind will regard that fact as important. It is only reasonable to suppose that, if the public conscience in Dawson had been so shocked, if these matters were of such public notoriety, if a great wrong had been done and the public service had scandalized the community, and if no remedy had been afforded for these things, surely the man elected by the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, elected and sent to the House to remedy such abuses, would have stood up in this House, explained and denounced'the

abuses and demanded a remedy. Yet that hon. gentleman sat in his place here year after year, even long after these papers had been brought before the House, and never raised his voice in condemnation. I venture to draw the conclusion that that hon. gentleman, who knew Mr. Lithgow and knew the facts, was satisfied that the public interest was best served, and would continue to be best served, by keeping Mr. John T. Lithgow in the office which he has filled so ably and so successfully.
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Cavil government-Department of the Interior, $190,012.50.
George Eulas Foster: Will the Minister of the Interior give us a statement of the increases and changes that have been made in the officers of this department?


Frank Oliver: The vote asked for civil government, salaries, is $190,012.50. The vote last year was $182,050, there being an increase of $7,962.50. This is made up bv statutory increases, $4,925 ; promotions, $5,000 ; difference in estimating for the salaries of three third-class clerks, $137.50 ; then there is deducted $2,100, decrease in salaries occasioned by promotions and changes, and the $7,962.50 is accounted for.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has fourteen chief clerks whereas last year he had twelve. Have two been promoted to chief clerkships?


Frank Oliver: Mr. J. M. Roberts and Mr. P. Marchand have been promoted from the position of first-class clerks to be chief clerks. Mr. Roberts is in charge of the registration branch and Mr. Marchand is deputy or assistant to the chief accountant.


George Eulas Foster: Have these chief clerkships been created yet?


Frank Oliver: Yes, these offices have been created by order in council and we are now asking for monej to meet the salaries.


George Eulas Foster: What is Mr. Roberts' sal-arv at present?


Frank Oliver: $1,500, and we desire to make it $1,900.


George Eulas Foster: How long has Mr. Roberts been in that branch?


Frank Oliver: Since 1900.


George Eulas Foster: In what position and at what salary?
Air. OLIA7ER. He came in as a temporary clerk at $900. He was employed at first in the timber and mines branch, afterwards removed to the registration branch and finally promoted to the chiefship of the registration branch.


George Eulas Foster: When was he made a permanent clerk?


Frank Oliver: In 1903.


George Eulas Foster: At what salary?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: That would be a second-class clerji?


Frank Oliver: A senior second.


George Eulas Foster: When was he promoted after that?


Frank Oliver: He was made a first-class clerk in 1906 at $1,500. I was in error in saying that his present salary is $1,500; it is $1,550.


George Eulas Foster: What does he get as chief clerk?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister not think that has been pretty rapid progress?


Frank Oliver: Yes, it is rapid.


George Eulas Foster: What have been the influences which have been at work to make this rapid progress?


Frank Oliver: The influence is the ability of Air. Roberts. I am not aware of any other influence.


George Eulas Foster: Where did Air. Roberts come from?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will see that this is a very rapid stride forward. Here is a young man who, seven years ago, was not in the service at all ; he comes in as a temporary clerk in 1900 and gets $900; in 1903 he is made permanent as a second-class clerk at $1,100, not at the minimum of the second class ; in 1900 he is up to $1,500, and now, in 1908, he is to go in as a chief clerk at a minimum of $1,900. He increases from $900 to $1,900. There must be some very pressing reason why Air. Roberts has such rapid promotion as that over a great many clerks who have been in that department for a much longer period and who must have a great deal more experience without doubt. As to whether they have more ability will be for the minister to say.


Frank Oliver: We are not removing Mr. Roberts to any other position but we want to make him of higher rank in proportion to his work and responsibility.


George Eulas Foster: His work will be just the same and this is a way the minister has of adding $400 to his salary and giving him a chance to get $500 or $600 more.


Frank Oliver: That is the idea.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is bound to tell the House what are the superior abil-

ities of Mr. Roberts which entitle him to this galloping speed upwards. There is no superhuman ability required to do that work. Can the minister say that the clerks in the department who have experience added to their abilities are not able to do that work and that Mr. Roberts must be jumped up ? His rapid promotion must be for some other reason that the minister has given.


Frank Oliver: I know of no other reason. Any one who is familiar with the operation of such a department knows that upon careful and reliable registration depends the proper transaction of the business. While the registration seems to be a matter of mere detail, in practice it has not been found so. Mr. J. J. Henry had been in charge of the branch for twenty years when his health failed, not because of his age but because of the onerous character of the work which broke him down, and it became necessary to give him some other employment. There are some forty clerks in the branch and there has to be most careful management and the work of the department depends on the work of these men being properly done. After Mr. Henry ' we tried one or two of the staff and found they were not able to cope with the work and at last we selected Mr. Roberts. Since his appointment we find the work is well and promptly done, that there is order and promptitude where formerly such was not the case. Mr. Roberts is in the full vigour of life and he seems to have special aptitude for organization and management. We recognize that it is due in a very considerable degree to the proper management of this branch that we have been able to carry on so well as we have the stupendously increased business of the department. It has already been brought to the attention of the House that men of higher abilities and higher responsibilities are not as a rule paid wages equal to what they could earn outside and we have lost several men from the department because of that. It is a fair business proposition that when we have a man who is able to take a responsible position and is in the full vigour of life we should pay him according to the work he does. It is on that principle I have asked parliament to increase Mr. Roberts' salary.


George Eulas Foster: Did Mr. Roberts become a civil servant through the regular door or was he made a civil servant by Act of parliament ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Roberts came In as a temporary at first; he afterwards passed his civil service examination and entered the permanent service in the usual way.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: But not at the minimum of the second class.


Frank Oliver: He was made permanent at the minimum of the second class.


Mr. MONK.: In what year did he pass the civil service examination ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that.	.


George Eulas Foster: You say you want to keep this official and give him a good salary but you must recollect there are at least thirty men in the department who are ahead of him and you may be doing a great injustice to some of these. Will the minister say that not one of these thirty men has the method and habits which would enable him to do the work of the registration branch ? Has there been any examination to test the ability of the others ?


Frank Oliver: When Mr. Henry unfortunately had to give up his position. I think attempts were made to fill it with one or two other gentlemen, but they were not able to meet the requirements. We did not go through the whole list, because when Mr. Roberts got the opportunity he filled the bill, and I admit that it was of more interest to us to get the work well done than to go through the whole list of employees to find out if more than one of them could do the work.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but the opportunity was given to the newcomer and the old hands were not given the opportunity. Then, what reason has the minister for making Mr. Roberts, who has been only a short time in the service, a chief clerk, where he is doing no more efficiently the same work that he has been doing since 190G, and adding $400 to his salary? Could he not have done the business just as well on the lower salary? Have his few years of service in the department earned him that promotion and that high salary, while others have been twenty years in the department, and have been doing faithful and honest and efficient work during that time, and do not yet receive as much? Is it not a fact that Mr. Roberts has been the nominee of the chief whip of the Liberal party, and that he owes his rapid promotion to that influence?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say what connection there may be between Mr. Roberts and the chief whip of the Liberal party; but I can say certainly that I have no knowledge of any such connection-that the chief whip never spoke to me about Mr. Roberts, and certainly Mr. Roberts never spoke to me about the chief whip. In fact, he has never spoken to me about his position. What has been done has been done upon the representations of the

deputy in the ordinary way and upon my own knowledge of Mr. Roberts' efficiency in the transaction of business. I might say that Mr. Henry, the previous occupant of the position, was receiving $2,300 a year, and I do not think it is unreasonable that Mr. Roberts, who is doing the same work *-in fact, a great deal more work, because the business has increased very much- should be put in the position to ultimately get the same salary as Mr. Henry got. I do not wish to disparage Mr. Henry's work, but I am bound to say that the work is being better done now than it was under Mr. Henry.


George Eulas Foster: What has been Mr. Mar-chand's course?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Marchand entered the service in 1899 as a second-class clerk at $1,100 a j'ear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did he pass the civil service examination?


Frank Oliver: He informs me that he passed the civil service examination in 1S99.


George Eulas Foster: And when did his first promotion take place?


Frank Oliver: He was made a first-class clerk in 1901 at $1,500.


George Eulas Foster: And he is now receiving $1,650?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: These are two examples of extremely rapid promotions, one of the men having been brought into the service in 1899 and the other in 1900, and in the short space of seven or eight years they have risen to be chief clerks. I am not in a position to rate the merits of either of these men, but it seems to me somewhat peculiar and somewhat unfair that employees of that department who entered the service at the minimum rate find after a service of twenty or twenty-five years that men are brought in and put right over them, commencing at high salaries, and being now chief clerks. It does not seem to me to be right or fair. Surely the minister is not going to make the confession that amongst all the horde of clerks that he has in the Interior Department, good and capable servants I believe, he could not find any two fit to be made chief clerks. There does not seem to be much incentive to a spirit of work and enterprise amongst the body of the civil servants if the prizes are to be bestowed in this way.


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer for the reasons for the previous promotions of these two gentlemen; but for the present promotion, for which, of course, I am responsible, directly and indirectly, I may say that it is simply due to the recognition of efficiency. and a desire to retain that effi 308
ciency in the service by paying such wages as are in accordance with the service rendered. It is to be regretted that all cannot be at the top, and I am not prepared to say that there may not be other men in the department just as competent as the two mentioned.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister ought to be able to say that before he makes the rapid promotion of these two men.


Frank Oliver: I think the House will realize that in dealing with a department having 585 employees in the city of Ottawa, if the minister or his chief officers were to occupy the time that would be necessary to see that no injustice was done by promotions amongst all that staff of officials, they would hardly be giving that attention to the public business for which they are paid and which the country expects from them. It is an unfortunate situation, but I do not see how it can be avoided. When we are able to say that we have secured the men who can do the work, and do it well, I think we are fairly entitled to ask parliament to pay those men according to the work they do and the responsibility they have assumed. As to the other men who may have equal qualifications, it is to be hoped that in due time their turn will come.


George Eulas Foster: That is small consolation.


Frank Oliver: It may be; but we think that the recognition of merit by rapid promotion does not tend to inefficiency in the service. I would think quite the contrary, and it is efficiency in the service which the country is particularly desirous of securing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it tends to great inefficiency. Within the past few years we have had in this House frequent inquiries, in passing the estimates, why certain appointees have had their salaries increased in abnormal proportions and have been promoted over the heads of those much older in the service, and we have never had any other reason given than that advanced to-night, namely, that the men are efficient and that the object is to secure the services of efficient men by promotions of that kind. And we will never have any other reason until our civil service is reorganized on a proper basis, and the public are awaiting with much interest the Bill which is to provide for a reform. They are waiting to find out whether that Bill will incorporate the valuable suggestions and proposals of reform contained in the report of the Civil Service Commissioners, which has been so universally condemned by the friends of the government and the Liberal press. In the city of Montreal there are efficient civil servants, but examples are



frequent beyond number of appointees of the present government being promoted over old employees, not appointed by the preceding government particularly, but whose nominations frequently date back to the; time of the Mackenzie administration. As a consequence our postal service in Montreal, which gives the second largest revenue of any city in the Dominion, is very largely disorganized. It is not because the men are not as a rule good men. They are of course very insufficiently paid, but the disorganization is due to the system of promotions, for which no satisfactory reasons can be given. Within the past few months a system has been inaugurated of putting comparatively recent postal employees- friends no doubt of the Postmaster General -thtrough a sham examination, and then promoting them over men who have given faithful service during a much greater number of years. That is one of the reasons why the postal service in Montreal is not at all satisfactory, and it never will be until we have the system established which 1ms been in force in England since 1857 and is also in force in the Post Office Department in the United States. Appointments are there only made by a commission after an examination, and the question of patronage is eliminated altogether, and promotions are only made .after examination and under certain conditions. I do not mean to say that the two men, to whom reference has been made, are not efficient, but they have been promoted over the heads of men who have been far longer in the service, whose salaries remain comparatively stationary and who get no chance to compete for the higher grades. The Minister of the Interior thinks that that system promotes efficiency, but the experience of the. civil servants themselves and the public is absolutely in the contrary direction.


Mr. KEMP.: What are the duties of Mr. E. H. Wright and what is his salary?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Wright is the chief assistant commissioner of Dominion lands and his salary is $1,550.
Mr. FOSTER, When did he get that? $1,250 is what is down here for the last year and that with the annual increase would mean $1,300 now.


Frank Oliver: I am informed that he was made a first-class clerk in 1906.


Albert Edward Kemp: What was his salary in 1901?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say. He entered the service in June, 1893, and was made permanent in 1894.


Albert Edward Kemp: He advanced very rapidly. I think his salary was $600 in 1901. Has he special aptitude for the work?


Frank Oliver: The Commissioner of Dominion Lands is of course the most respou-Mr. MONK.
sible official in the department and Mr. Wright is his chief assistant. Mr. Green-wray, the commissioner, handles a large number of land matters and requires some four or five men to assist n!m. Mr. Wright is the chief of those assistants.


Albert Edward Kemp: He went ahead very rapidly.


Frank Oliver: I need not say to the House how very important is the work he does. It is not routine w ork in any sense, but work that requires the exercise of the very best judgment and decision, as well as thorough familiarity not only with the Land Act, but also with the actual operation of homesteading upon the land. It seem that in the stress of work Mr. Wright has been able to show that of Mr. Green-way's assistants he was the better man.


George Eulas Foster: How does he show it?


Frank Oliver: By reason of his ability in arriving at correct decisions promptly, I presume.


George Eulas Foster: You presume?


Frank Oliver: I say by reason of his arriving promptly at correct decisions to the satisfaction of the commissioner and the minister. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that Mr. Wright had been appointed in 1903.


William Erskine Knowles: As a member who perhaps has as much to do with that branch as any other member, if not more, I wish to take exception to what the member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) says. I think that the salary should be more. In the first place after fifteen years' service $1,500 is not out of the way when expenses have increased so.


Albert Edward Kemp: I was not taking exception to the amount of the salary, I was inquiring to the reason for the rapid advance.


William Erskine Knowles: I have a great deal of correspondence with that department as well as personal intercourse, and I find that Mr. Wright has a wonderful grasp of its affairs, he has an ability for doing his work with great accuracy and I would consider that the government secured his services very cheaply at $1,550.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The difficulty is that there appears to be no principle upon which these rapid advances are made, which does not tend to the efficiency of the service. It is absurd to suppose that men who have been long in the service are inefficient, as they must have been efficient when they entered, for they passed the examinations, and they have since added experience. The explanation is that those who have recently entered the service through political influence have their friends still alive and influential and able to secure their advancement.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend's suggestion is absolutely gratuitous. The explanations that have been given are absolutely correct. These men were promoted because of their efficiency in the service and that was the only reason, not because they had any political pull. Length of service in a department does not necessarily tend to efficiency any more than in a private business. It must be apparent to any one that the man who has had to fight the battle of life in the world at large, has to take his chance with competitors in all lines on entering the department, other things being equal, is more likely to be efficient than the man who knows nothing except what he has learned within the four walls of a department. The suggestion that a commission should regulate the advancement of these men is another means of arriving at the same result. Working in the interests of the public and for the efficiency of the service they would take the responsibility of picking out the efficient men and passing them to the head of the list. The only difference is that now the minister takes that responsibility and so far as these men are concerned I accept the fullest responsibility.


George Eulas Foster: That is a very pretty theory of the minister, but it does not hold in this case. I watched the whole process, how it resolved itself


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman say that what I said is not true?


Mr.   POSTER@: I am going to say what I think is true and we can compare the two. He says take a man in the vortex of life, thrown hither and thither, his muscles toughened mentally and otherwise and when you get such a man you must promote him quickly. Let us take these two paragons.	Here is Mr. Wright. Howmuch of a vortex had he been in before he entered the department and became old and moss-covered? He entered the department as messenger in 1893, he was a third-class clerk in 1901, a second class clerk in 1905, a first-class clerk in 1907 and is still going upward. The fine theory does not fit in with this particular case. Mr. Wright was the nominee and favourite of a minister, the late Hon. Mr. Sutherland had him made a messenger and during his life carefully shoved him upwards.
In the case of Mr. Roberts, Mr. Calvert carefully shoves him upwards. Who is the good genius behind Mr. Marchand?


Frank Oliver: I wish to have this question settled first. I did not suggest that there was no way of getting good service except by taking men from the outside. I said that, other things being equal, you were more likely to get capable and efficient men from the outside. I did not suggest that you could not get good men with-308J
in the service. Mr. Wright is one who has acquired his experience within the department but yet has proven himself efficient.
I do not understand the suggestion that Mr. Wright entered the service as a protege of Mr. Sutherland, the minister. Mr. Sutherland was not a minister in 1893.


Mr.   POSTER@: But he became a minister afterwards, he was a member of parliament. He had a great deal of influence.


Frank Oliver: Then he must have had a great deal of judgment in the selection of a messenger in this case at any rate. I think the argument of my hon. friend falls to the ground in the case of Mr. Wright.


Mr.   POSTER@: And is entitled to promotion ?


Frank Oliver: That may be. The House has the evidence that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) that in the position which he occupies to-day-and I wish to say the same emphatically and from my own knowledge of the case-he is a thoroughly efficient employee.


Mr.   POSTER@: I am not saying he is not.


Frank Oliver: The proposal placed before the House is thoroughly warranted in liis case. Mr. Marchand is assistant accountant of the department. The accountancy is held by Mr. Beddoe. The branch, of course, is a large one. I need not say to the House that the question of accounting is a very important question. There are nineteen officials in the accounting branch. The Department of the Interior has business scattered all the way from Ottawa to Dawson city, and, in the proper conduct of that business, it has been found necessary, ever since I have been minister, to employ the services of the chief accountant, Mr. Beddoe, at distant points on several occasions. At the present time he is in Winnipeg, attending to the accounting in connection with the seed grain. It seems to me necessary to the service that there should be not only a chief accountant, but, when that chief accountant is necessarily absent, there should be some one to take his place-there should be an assistant or deputy


Mr.   POSTER@: And he should be a chief clerk ?


Frank Oliver: -and he should have rank and pay according to his abilities and responsibilities. I have stated that point before; it does no harm to emphasize it; if we are to have efficient service aud to retain men who have proven themselves efficient, we must pay those men fair and reasonable salaries. It is on that principle that I ask for the promotion of Mr. Mar-

chand to the rank and position and salary which I have asked.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: For my part, I think that the observations of the minister about the ' vortex ' and about the results of this ' vortex ' and its qualifying effects upon the new appointees, is not taken seriously by anybody. For, the presumption is that those who have served faithfully for many years, are entitled to promotion and advancement rather than to have men taken out of the ' vortex ' who have not had equal experience. Until we get a reform of the civil service, such as many people of this country have been looking for for many years-and we seem to be on the eve of it, if the government


William Stevens Fielding: How long have the people been looking for that reform ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: For my part, I have combatted in favour of that reform since I have been a member of this House, and I have been a member as long as the Minister of Finance has.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I have not heard my hon. friend (Mr. Monk).


Mr. MONK  N.@: -ot a single session has passed in which I have not pointed out the enormous difference between what is going on in this country and what goes on in every other civilized country of the world. As far back as ten years ago, I pointed out the improvements wrought in England and have named the books in which these improvements are clearly shown. I have shown the immense work, which, since 1882, has been going on in the same direction in the United States, while we have been steadily retrograding since twelve 1 ears. And a few days before the report of the commission was brought in, I used strong expressions in this House. I stated that our civil service at the present moment was rotten, worthless, and I hoped that the report which was then being worked out-and which, I fancy, was then a subject of some anxiety to the Minister of Finance-would give us relief. But this government, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, resemble the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. Under those kings, messengers who brought bad news were condemned to death, while those who brought good news were covered with flowers. Take this very instance; when cases of this kind come up the minister blames those who criticise the estimates as though they were trying to prevent the promotion and advancement of the particular civil servant whose case was being considered. Nothing has been said by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that would imply that. I do not know that these parti-Mr. OLIVER.	I; . J *
cular men whose salaries are up for consideration are unfitted for promotion. But I say it is strange that, in every case, in the last twelve years, where anomalies of this kind have been pointed out, the answer of the minister has always been that the officer was promoted for efficiency- ' How is that efficiency as compared with that of other men in the service -' I am the judge of it ; I take the fullest responsibility for what it is proposed to do.' And that is all the satisfaction we get. I think that the only way to bring about this urgent and absolutely essential reform is to point out the conditions in every case until the government finds itself obliged to promote instead of retarding that very essential reform. This Mr. Pierre Marchand was appointed on 12th of December, 1899. He came in at $1,100. At the present moment, he is first-class clerk and assistant accountant at $1,000. I find in the civil service list two other first-class clerks appointed before Mr. Marchand. There are Mr. Peter Robertson, appointed on February 27, 1877; and Mr. Geo. Dalrymple Pope, appointed March 31, 1884. There are also second-class clerks: Mr. James Dunnet, appointed April 1, 1878 ; Mr. Samuel J. Willoughby, appointed January 12, 1886 ; and Mr. Henry Hamish Turner, appointed June 20, 1883. These are old civil servants. Are they inefficient as compared with the more recent appointees ? Does it not seem to the members of this committee that these men, if equally efficient, on account of priority of appointment ought to receive promotion, or ought to be given the chance which any properly organized civil service should give of obtaining promotion, rather than promote more recent appointees ? My hon. friend would lead the committee to believe that, taking a new man and advancing him rapidly over the heads of old employees-whom we. must presume to be efficient and capable men-is a valuable method of insuring the efficiency of the service. I think we are approaching a period of reform. I regret very much to see the spirit in which the government has received .the most valuable suggestions made under the most favourable circumstances for the government by the commissioners. I await with anxiety the measure which has been proposed and in which I hope to find the valuable suggestions referred to carried out. But, until that point is reached I will take every opportunity of pointing out to the committee and of making known to the public what I consider to be the cause of the insufficiency, as I find it, in the civil service in the province of Quebec in order to hurrv up that reform.


Mr. WARD.: The minister is not altogether consistent in this matter for at one

moment lie pleads that the large number of employees in his department is some excuse why justice should not be done in all matters appertaining to these promotions. The next moment he pleads that it is owing to the efficiency of these particular clerks that they are promoted. I do not see what the enormous number of employees has to do with this question at all because the minister only has to consider seventeen men in attending to the promotion of these two clerks. You will find there are two of these first-class clerks who are already in receipt of a salary of $1,900, and there are two already in receipt of a salary of $1,850. It does seem rather hard that gentlemen receiving the lowest salary of first-class clerks should be promoted over those who have been so much longer in the service as to be entitled to larger salaries. Mr. Marchand is receiving $1,600 and Mr. Roberts is receiving $1,500. They are selected and placed above other clerks who are in receipt of larger salaries. These men of large experience are at the top of the tree, in so far as first-class clerks are concerned and can receive no more salary, while Mr. Roberts is given an immediate advance of $-100 with the probability of next year receiving $2,300. It does seem to me that there is ground for the remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto, and there must be some reason why this rapid advancement is taking place in the matter of these two promotions.


George Eulas Foster: Are there any other promotions ? I see there are 26 second-class clerks, while last year there were 25. Who is the 26th?


Frank Oliver: This is to give promotion to the second class of Mr. A. R. Mor-risset of the accountant's branch.


George Eulas Foster: Where is he now?


Frank Oliver: He is a junior second-class clerk at $1,050.


George Eulas Foster: When was he appointed, and at what salary?


Frank Oliver: He was appointed a tern porary clerk in 1898 at $400.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has he undergone the civil service examination?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: When was his first promotion?


Frank Oliver: He was appointed on the 1st of July, 1898, and he was appointed to the permanent staff on the 1st July, 1901. He is attached to the accountant's branch as a junior second-class clerk.


George Eulas Foster: What was his salary in 1901?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: What salary will he get as a second-class clerk?


Frank Oliver: $1,200. He was appointed on the 1st July, 1901, at $600 as a junior second-class clerk and in 1903 the salary of iuniors was raised from $600 to $800.


George Eulas Foster: We find in this case an exact parallel if not a little more than a parallel. In 1898 Mr. Morrisett was appointed a temporary clerk at $400; in 1901 he was appointed a permanent clerk at $600, and in 1903 there was an increase in his salary. He then got $1,050 and under this vote he will get $1,200. In less than ten years he has gone from $400 to $1,200. Here are four samples that we have unearthed by a little process of questioning, every one of these have been placed in office by the government at low salaries and have been rushed forward, two of them to be chief clerks and one to be a second-class clerk. The remarks made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) are altogether to the point in this respect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister if Peter Robertson, George Dalry-mple Pope, James Dunnet, Samuel J. Willoughby, Henry Hamish Turner, who are older employees than Mr. Marchand or Mr. Roberts are good and efficient employees ?
I do not know these men, but I would like to get that information from the minister. They have quite considerable salaries ranging from $1,300 to $1,600, and they occupy positions in the service as first and second-class clerks. Are they good and efficient men?


Frank Oliver: I will have to ask the deputy in regard to the qualifications of these men. It is impossible for me to have knowledge of the qualifications of all the members of the service. But while these men may be perfectly competent, trustworthy and reliable in every way in the positions which they occupy they still may not be competent to take part of the supervision of the transactions of the accountant's branch as we expect the assistant accountant to do. These gentlemen are being paid for work which they are able to do aud do well, but that is no evidence that they are fit for a position of supervision.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It all goes to show that these promotions ought not to be in the hands of the minister but in the hands of a commission who would make promotions under certain changeable rules.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: As it was before 1896.


Mr MONK.: That is a very small idea. There is no doubt this system has existed since confederation and like all rotten

systems it has become aggravated year after year. X do not care what was done previously, this is a question of essential reform that ought to be carried out. The Minister of the Interior is not able to tell us whether older and efficient employees are fit for the position, and yet he says this is an excellent mode of carrying on the civil service.


Frank Oliver: I said I thought this was an efficient way of getting an efficient service, but I did not say there could not be a better mode. Even if we had a most conscientious Civil Service Commission there would sometimes be occasion for such appointments where men would get rapid promotion because of special efficiency and there would be the same grievance on the part of men who were longer in the service, who were doing the work they were at efficiently, but who were not specially qualified for the more important duties. I am aware of the propriety of the appointments we are asking the House to sanction, I admit I am not aware of how good other appointments might be.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is frank but it shows this is the worst possible system that could prevail. The effect of that system is to keep out of the public service good men and to chase out of it some of the very best men in the service.


George Eulas Foster: Have the civil servants in the Interior Department been paid for the past month?


Frank Oliver: Sixty per cent of their salary was paid on the 10th.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What appears to be a little strange is that when the difficulty supervened which I regret had been caused by the government in regard to the voting of supplies, some method should not have been made to place in a distinct column separate from the rest of Supply, the necessary vote for the payment of civil servants. It is a great pity that is not done every year and it is a great pity it was not done this year when these grave difficulties at first appeared. For my part I think the civil servants should all be paid regularly and I would have raised no objection to that. The estimates have been made up in this form for years and I will admit for the benefit of my friend from Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) they were made up in that way before his party came to power, if he thinks that is any reason why we should check all progress. I regret very much that we are not in a position to vote the salaries of the civil servants as they should be voted, without difficulty, and I attribute that to the careless way in which the estimates are made up. When these difficulties first arose a division of the estimates should have been made so that the salaries of the civil servants would have been voted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman is so zealous for these civil servants why has he been opposing this vote for the last half hour?


George Eulas Foster: That remark is childish.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am surprised at the Minister of Finance making such a statement.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Monk) professes zeal for the passage of the civil service estimates, but on the other hand he has been delaying them.


George Eulas Foster: Does the Minister of Finance in this age think he can induce people to believe that we are to pass estimates without the fair and reasonable questioning on them that we have had to-night?


William Stevens Fielding: The estimates have been held up all day.


George Eulas Foster: Here is $190,000 being voted and we have spent 25 minutes asking proper questions, and the Minister of Finance rises in a temper to lecture us because we have dared in the face of his high mightiness to ask for information with reference to these inordinate galloping promotions. If the Minister of Finance takes that line he is most foolish.


William Stevens Fielding: I am responsible for what I said and not for what the hon. gentleman attributes to me. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier was indulging in sympathy for the civil servants who did not get their money, and I pointed out that the reason for that was because hon. gentleman opposite had been delaying these estimates, not for to-night, but for weeks and months.


George Eulas Foster: And I have to state to the Minister of Finance that I pleaded with him and with his chief to take up these civil government estimates three weeks ago but he stuck up the Minister of Public Works before the civil servants and the opposition and voted hundreds of thousands of dollars for public works which are not necessary at the present time. That is what was done and that is what is on record on ' Hansard.' The minister has been playing to the gallery long enough. He is played out, perfectly played out. Small boys in debating societies play that sort of game ; the Minister of Finance ought to have wisdom enough not to play it.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall not undertake to speak of what took place between the leaders; I only speak of that which I know, and when the hon. gentleman says he offered to give the civil government estimates, I venture to say that the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


George Eulas Foster: I venture to say that he is right, and * Hansard ' will prove it.


William Stevens Fielding: ' Hansard ' will prove nothing except constant obstruction. If the hon. gentleman wants to give the civil service estimates, why does he not give them, instead of spending all day on a matter that has no bearing on the business of the House ? The hon. gentleman must remember that the civil service is not confined to civil government at Ottawa but is scattered all over Canada.


George Eulas Foster: And if the Prime Minister and his first lieutenant had shown ordinary political diligence, they would have had their large measures down before the sixth or seventh month of the session, and they would have had the estimates which they do not have now, from that very speeding of the business which they might well have done. The Minister of the Interior has all his civil government, now, including the Indian Department?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: What is the business for to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Supply, with the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


George Eulas Foster: When are we going to have the Civil Service Bill explained ?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot give my hon. friend any definite statement.


George Eulas Foster: Is it on account of the necessary absence of the Minister of Agriculture ?


William Stevens Fielding: The absence of the Minister of Agriculture is as necessary as that of many other hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House.


George Eulas Foster: But he is a minister ?


William Stevens Fielding: We are all members here, and we speak as members more than as ministers, and the absence of one member is not to be censured more than the absence of another.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Wednesday.
cancellation of the resolution adopted the 20th of May last, by which the House adopted the fourth report of the committee appointed to supervise the official debates of the House. I beg to move :
That the resolution adopted by this House on the 20th of May last adopting the fourth report of the committee appointed to supervise the official debates of the House, be reconsidered and rescinded; that the said fourth report of the said committee be referred back to said committee with instructions to inquire into the necessity of and demand for said additional translator and the qualifications of said E. Charlier to act as such translator and to be appointed to such new position and to inquire also as to such additional measures as may be necessary to ensure the prompt and efficient translation of the official documents of this House.
I would have given notice to my hon. friend, the member of St. James division (Mr. Gervais) who is chairman of that committee, but he has not been in the House lately. In fact, I do not think he has been here since the adoption of the fourth report in question. Nevertheless, with the unanimous consent of the House, the motion may be disposed of now. I do not think there is any doubt, from what has transpired since that fourth report was adopted, that the report must be reconsidered. It was adopted under the erroneous impression that it involved no additional expense. 1 shall present the motion, if my right hon. friend consents, or leave it as a notice of motion.
Rt.   H@: I would prefer that it should stand as a notice. I can talk with my hon. friend during the day and perhaps, fix a day for moving it.


Mr.   MONIC@: As the matter has been some time in abeyance, it is urgent that the motion should be presented to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps. I shall see my hon. friend during the day.


RELEASE OF 'AGNES B. KUN.'
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: At the request of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I beg to lay on the table a copy of letter written by me to the city clerk of Sydney, N.S., with reference to the release of Agnes B. Kun.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 3, 1908.