1908-05-22

PETITION IN BEHALF OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.

Mr. A. LAVERGNE (Montmaguy).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition addressed to the honourable ministers and members of this House and which reads as follows:
To the Honourable Minister and
*Members of the House of Commons.
Considering that the French and English languages are on the same footing, especially in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, he is reading the petition.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Do I understand that the hon. member is reading the petition? That is not customary.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am stating the object of the petition.
Considering that, in fact, the public utilities, the companies and their employees do neglect to use the French language to the great annoyance and detriment of the majority of the citizens in many oases.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Nobody has called me to order.
Considering that the expostulations and the complaints often expressed by the newspapers about this said condition of things have been ineffective.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What is the point of order?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member, I understand. is reading the petition, and that is not in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not reading the petition, but stating the object of tbe petition.
Considering, in fine, that to remedy the evil an appeal to the courtesy of the companies will not suffice, but that a tew must be added to it by which they will be bound.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand the bon. gentleman says he is not reading tlie petition.


Hon. Mr. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: He says that-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not. I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) understands that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.

Mr. ARMANI) LAVERGNE. I am glad. That is something new in the House.
The undersigned do ask .that:
1.	In the province of Quebec the railway companies


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. TALBOT.: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the acceptance of your ruling to be a sham? We want to see some respect shown for this House. I do not care from what part of the country the hon. member (Mr. Armand Lavergne) comes, he should show respect for the authority of the chair and for the courtesy due to hon. members.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) wishes to show respect for the rules of debate of this House, he should not rise when another member is speaking without that member's permission.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member (Mr. Armand Lavergne) will please state shortly the object of the petition.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is what I am going to do. The petition follows and I am stating the object of it.
1.	In the province of Quebec the railway companies, the street railway, telegraph and telephone companies and the public utilities be bound to use the French and English languages in all their relations with the public.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I was simply reading the motives of the petition. This petition bears the signatures of 433,845 French and English Canadians.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: (Translation.) How many children in that number?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: (Translation.) It has been signed by people who have all reached the age of reason, which I could not say my hon. friend from Bellechasse has reached. I moved that this petition be laid on the table of the House.
I desire to present a petition signed by 433,845 Canadians of French and English speech, asking that, in the province of Quebec, public utilities shall be required to put the French and English languages on the same footing in their transactions with the public.



STANSTEAD ELECTION PAPERS.

Itt.   H@: That the committee on Privileges and Elections be directed to make inquiry into the loss from the office of the clerk of the Crown in Chancery of certain papers relating to the recent election in the electoral division of Stanstead; and that for this purpose the committee be authorized to send for persons and papers.


Mr.   BRODEVB@: 


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton).: The committee, being a general committee of this House, already has that power.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: That is what I understand.


Robert Laird Borden: That might be omitted, perhaps.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. WILLIAM JACKSON asked :: 1.	What amount did the Montreal harbour commissioners spend for the cleaning, sweeping and watering of Montreal wharfs for the season of navigation, 1907, and was the work done by contract or day work?
2.	Have they asked tenders for this work for the coming season of navigation, 1908? If so, how many tenders have been received, what is the name of each tenderer, and the amount of each tender ?
3.	Was the contract given out? If not, for what reasons?
4.	What is the salary of each commissioner ?
5.	Are they supposed to give all their time to the commission? If so, is the government aware that the three commissioners still give most of their time to their respective businesses ?
6.	Is any one of the commissioners a relative to Mr. Peter Lyall, the contractor for the new wharf sheds?
7.	What amount was paid by the Montreal harbour commissioners to said Peter Lyall & Sons, contractors, for extra work since the formation of the new board, and what was the nature of this extra work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The following answers have been prepared by the Harbour Commissioners :-
1.	In view of the fact that the commissioners may in the future call for tenders for cleaning, sweeping and watering the wharfs, it is not considered advisable to make public the cost in 1907. The work was done by day work.
2.	Yes, tenders were asked for this work for 1908 and four tenders were received. It is the rule of the board not to give out the prices quoted in tenders or names of tenderers.
3.	No tender was accepted as the commissioners now have a well organized cleaning department equipped with the necessary plant to carry on the work, and are of the opinion that they are in a position to carry out the work at a less cost than the lowest tender received.
4.	The salaries are fixed by order in council and are payable out of harbour revenue. The president's salary being $7,000 per annum and the other two commissioners $5,000 each per annum.

5.	They are not supposed to give their whole time to the commission. They give the time necessary for the proper administration of the trust and meet daily.
6.	No.
7.	The amount paid to Peter Lyall & Sons for extra work since the formation of the new board, was $56,134.19. Of this amount, $25,000 was for the laying of the concrete floors in winter so as to make five sheds available on the opening of navigation, 1907, the expenditure being authorized by order in council. The balance, $31,134.19, was for sundry extras, for changes in towers and galleries of the conveyor system, for cutting the overhang to make provision for a railway track along the front of the sheds, increasing the height of doors and sundry minor changes, all decided and authorized by the former board of commissioners to meet the views of the shipping companies. Since the new board of commissioners have been conducting the work, not a dollar of extra work has been authorized or claimed.


TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND REFUNDS.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What advances for travelling expenses have been charged to the ice-breaking steamers' vote for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1908, at what dates and to whom issued?
2.	What refunds have been made to date by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Mr. Wiallard on account of travelling expense advances made since January 1, 1907?


Mr.  R. L.@: 1'. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :
1.	Advances issued to R. A. Wiallard:-
July 2. 1907	 $1,000
July 30	 1,000
September 3	 1,000
September 5	 500

Less amount credited to this vote from the amount voted for negotiation of French treaty. . . .	2,500

C. Dugald, for salary, living and travelling expenses :-
September 6, 1907	$ 243 33
February 17, 1908	 250 00
March 25, 1908	 500 00
October 30, 1907	 2,433 33
2.	Refunds by minister:-$877.94, $307. This last amount was refund of an account paid in error by the department. Refund by Mr. Wiallard, $45.30.
The advances above-men I ioned as having been made to Mr. Wiallard, on the 30th July, the 3rd and 5th September, 1907, and amounting to $2,500, were expended by the minister in connection with the negotiation of the French treaty and when the money for the negotiation of the French treaty was voted by parliament in the further supplementary estimates 1907-8, and available, the
ice-breaking steamer vote was credited with the said sum.


PAYMENTS TO K. FALCONER.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What sums have been paid to K. Falconer since September, 1907, and at what dates?
2.	What is the total cost of the services rendered up to date?
3.	Was Falconer's full claim allowed, and is the account finally settled?


Lieutenant Colonel W.   P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine
and Fisheries):
1. September 10, 1907	$ 177 71
September 10	
74	01October 1	
1,000	00November 2	
124	002.	The total cost of the services rendered is $42,315.89. Out of this amount $0,810.34 is still held by the department.3.	The account is not finally settled.


WHARF AT ST. JOSEPH, ONTARIO.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	Were tenders asked for building a wharf at St. Joseph, Ontario? If so, when were tenders asked, and in what papers were the advertisements placed?
2.	Does the government intend repairing the wharf? If so, when will operations commence?
3.	What part of the original wharf is now intact ?
4.	Were plans and specifications prepared before commencing operations?
5.	If tenders were nut asked for, what reasons does the government give for not requesting same?
6.	What amount of material, plant, tools, &c., did Mr. Corry receive from the Department of Public Works, as appears in Mr. Gray's letter of June 3, 1904, and what amount did Mr. Corry pay the department for same?
7.	Did Mr. Corry complete his contract to .the satisfaction of the department, did he receive payment for same, aiid in what condition did he leave the pier?
8.	What is the date of the contract between this government and Mr. Corry?
9.	If this contract has not been carried out, what reasons does the government give for not compelling Mr. Corry to carry out the contract of completing the work?
10.	What amount of money has been paid
H. F. Lamb, engineer in charge of 8t. Joseph wharf * for his services in inspecting said wharf?	i


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No.
2.	Wharf is now being repaired.
3.	The eribwork portion.
4.	Yes.
5.	1 am unable to state accurately the reasons which made it, In the judgment of the then minister, better to do the work by day's labour.
6.	The contractor, as appears from letter of resident engineer Gray to the chief engineer, of May 19, 1994, was to have the use of the materials, &c., on hand.

7.	8. and 9. Mr. Cony agreed to complete the work for $3,957. lie was paid $3,950.50, on July 16, 1904, on the certificate of the resident engineer, Mr. Gray, now deceased. At or about the time of the alleged completion of the work, part of it was washed a way by a storm. I have called upon Mr. Corry for payment of $1,500, the amount required to rebuild the portion so washed away, and the department is retaining this amount out of rent accruing due to him. Mr. Corry protests against this action, claiming that he expended more than twice the amount agreed upon as payment for the work.
10.	Mr. Lamb was not paid anything beyond his salary and travelling expenses as engineer in charge of the district of western Ontario.


IMPROVEMENTS IN POSTAL SERVICE.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	What improvements have been made in the postal facilities for handling mail during the past six months that will reduce the mutilation of envelopes, delays and mis-state-ing of mails?
2.	Did the government ask for tenders for carrying mail out of Sandy Cove, N.S.? If so, how many tenders were received, what was the amount of each tender, and the names of those tendering?
3.	Did the government accept the lowest tender? If not, why not?
4.	If the government did not ask for tenders, what reason does it give for not doing so, and when will the present contract expire?
Hon. ItODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :
1.	There Is no mutilation of envelopes in the mails other than that caused by the necessary handling of the mails from post office to station, and station to post office, and the natural wear and tear caused by huge sacks piled one upon another in the trains en route. All eases brought to the attention of the department have been immediately investigated, and in no case has the department been able to ascertain that there was any intentional or wanton mutilation of mail matter or mutilation that in any way exposed the contents of the letters to observation, or that there was any mutilation whatever, except such as arose from the causes mentioned above and which are unavoidable.
All cases of delayed and mis-sent letters receive the prompt attention of the department aifd a return was lately made by the department to parliament, the perusal ot' which the department is confident will convince the most skeptical of the truth of this assertion.
2.	Tenders could not be asked for carrying mails out of Sandy Cove inasmuch as no independent route from Sandy Cove exists, Sandy Cove being a way office supplied on the existing service between Digby and Westport. The second part of the question is answered by the first.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: All information as regards the contract for the mail service between Digby and Westport, and on which Sandy Cove is situated, was given in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Lambton on the 117tli of April last.


PIER AT GRAND BEND.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	Is Mr. Eugene Lafleur Chief Engineer of Public Works?
2.	Did said Eugene Lafleur personally see *the pier at Grand Bend when completed? If not, who furnished him the information on whih he made the final estimate as furnished in a letter dated October 10, 1905, to the Department of Public Works, and what are the contents of reports to the chief engineer relating to the said pier?
3.	Has the pier at Grand Bend been completed according to contract?
4.	Were tenders called for under the con-iract given to John D. Warwick? If not, why not?
5.	What reason does the government give
for paying extras over and above the contract price?	.
G. Is the government aware that the pier at Grand Bend is in need of immediate repairs?
7. Does the government intend to dredge the river alongside of said pier? If so, when will the work commence?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No.
(b) The engineer in charge who forwarded file final estimate duly certified.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	No extras allowed.
6.	The necessity for repairs has been brought to the attention of the department.
7.	Matter under consideration.



MONCTON SHOPS-PAYMENTS TO E. A.


Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1.	What amount has been paid to date to E. A. Wallberg on account of his contract for the construction of the new Intercolonial Railw-ay passenger car repair shop, paint shop, office and stores building at Moncton?
2.	What amount has been paid -to date to Mr. Wallberg for work and materials over and above that shown on the plan and specifications on which tenders were invited for the construction of said buildings?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Amount paid on bulk sum contract, $138,656.74.
2.	Amount paid on account of schedule for additions or deductions, $9,079.34. Total amount paid, $147,736.08.



TIFFIN-TENDERS FOR DREDGING.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: What tenders were received for dredging
besides that of the Owen Sound Dredging



SS93 YAY 21. 1908

[Stage Direction]
Company for dredging at Tiffin in the year 1907, and what in each case or cases was the price for rock and for other material?
William Pugsley: Price per yard, scow measurement.
Other
	Rock.	Materials.
First call (Midland-Tiffin): Dominion Dredging Com-	$ cts.	cts.panv	
Canadian Dredge and	2 50	30Construction Co	
Penetanguishene Dredg-	2 40	53ing Company	
Second call :- Owen Sound Dredge and	3 00	57Construction Company.	2 00	27R. Weddell	2 50	31R. Macdonald	33



MIDLAND-TENDERS FOR DREDGING.

William Humphrey Bennett: What tenders were received for dredging besides that of the Canadian Dredge and Construction company for dredging at Midland in the year 1907, and what in each case or cases was the price for rock and other material?


William Pugsley: Price per yard, scow measurement.
	Rock.	Other Materials.
	$ cts.	cts.
First call - Dominion Dredging Company	2 50	30Canadian Dredge and Construction Co	2 40	53Penetanguishene Dredging Company	3 00	57Second call - Canadian Dredge and Construction Co..	2 25	20R. Macdonald	33R. Weddell	2 50	33



VICTORIA HARBOUR-TENDERS FOR DREDGING.

William Humphrey Bennett: What tenders were received for dredging besides that of the Owen Sound Dredging company for dredging at Victoria harbour in the year 1907, and what in each case or cases was the price for rock and for other material?


William Pugsley: Price per yard, scow measurement.
Other
Rock. Materials. $ cts. cts.
2 00	8
2 25	9



HATCHERY OF SHAD AT WINDSOR, NOVA SCOTIA.

[Stage Direction]
ilr. BLACK asked :
Has the government anv intention of undertaking the hatching of shad at the fish hatchery at Windsor, Nova Scotia?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Matter stands for consideration.



SHAD FISHERIES ON ATLANTIC COAST.

Mr. BLACK asked :: 1. Does the government propose to appoint a commission to make inquiries and gather information in regard to the shad fisheries on the Atlantic coast of Canada?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The subject is at present under the most serious consideration.



EMPLOYMENT OF MESSRS. ALONZO, LOUIS AND CHARLES L. CHILVERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLEMENTS-by Mr. W. J. Rocheasked :
1.	Is one Alonzo Chilvers, Louis Chilvers and Charles L. Chilvers, recently from Essex county, in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, in what capacity, what is the date of each appointment, and the amount of salary received by each?
Itt.   H@: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clements) could give an idea of what department these men are supposed to work in perhaps I could answer it. At present we have no information that such men are employed by any of the departments.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Stands.



ADJOURNMENT-EMPIRE DAY AND ASCENSION DAY.

Itt.   H@: That when this House adjourns on Friday next it stand adjourned to Tuesday, the 26th instant; and that when it adjourns on Wednesday, the 27th instant, it stand adjourned to Friday, the 29th.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: There is a matter which was brought up in the House a day or two ago of sufficient importance to demand a reply.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman can only bring this matter up at this stage with the consent of the House.


George Perry Graham: It is in reply to a question asked bv the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden). Writh the con-
Owen Sound Dredge and
Construction Co	
Windsor Dredging Co..

sent of the House I wish to make just a few observations. The other day the hon. leader of the opposition read from a despatch in one of the newspapers, which I noticed afterwards had very large headlines over it, that a portion of the Transcontinental Railway in the vicinity of La Tuque had been badly damaged by flooding and that it would probably be necessary for the location of the line to be changed or for the roadbed to be very materially raised. I immediately inquired into the matter and I have a memorandum from the district engineer in charge which, I think, in view of the publicity that has been given to the statement, should be read. This is a letter which ,has been placed in my hands by the chairman of the commission. It was addressed to him yesterday by the district engineer.
Ottawa, May 20, 1908. Hon. S. N. Parent, Chairman.
Dear Sir,-In answer to your inquiry concerning the despatches published in the newspapers as to the flooding of the Transcontinental Railway in the vicinity of the St. Maurice river, I have to confirm the reports in so far as they allude to the exceptionally high water experienced this year, not only on the St. Maurice river, but also on all the other rivers and streams in my district, and to give the most unqualified denial to the reported damages caused to our railway by these same floods. There is not one foot of track under water in my district extending from the New Brunswick boundary to Wey-inontachene on the St. Maurice river. The reports seem to have originated through the flooding of an embankment at La Tuque which had been built temporarily, and which was not within seven feet of the grade laid down on our profiles. Owing to the extreme floods this year, it might be prudent to build concrete substructures of some of our bridges higher than we originally intended to protect our steel superstructures later on from possible damages bv ice and log jams, but I am glad to say that not one dollar's worth of damage has been done so far to the structures and culverts in district ' B,' neither will it be necessary to change one foot of our adopted location.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) A. B. DOTJCET, District Engineer, ' B.'
QUEBEC	TERCENTENARY-POSTAGE



STAMPS.

Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) if the souvenir postage stamps to be issued in connection with the tercentenary are still under consideration and if any decision has been readied especially with regard to the question as to whether the stamps are to be printed in both languages.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: It is not customary in matters of this kind to give to the public, before tlie day of Issue, the nature of the Mr. GRAHAM.
stamp to be issued, but soil I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. A. Lavergne) that I will be in a position to make a statement very shortly. I intend that the stamps shall be issued the very day the tercentenary begins. Otherwise I would have no objection to give my hon. friend and the country a description of the stamps.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not want a description of the stamp. But I put two questions to the minister lately and I want to find out if the two languages are going to be used. Am I not entitled to an answer ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just answered my hon. friend.



BUSINESS OP THE HOUSE-CONSIDERATION OP REPORTS WITHOUT NOTICE.

Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, might I make inquiries as to the necessity of notice of motion to confirm reports of an important nature which are presented to this House before these reports shall be confirmed. I observe that one was moved yesterday without notice, a report of the Committee on Debates of Ja rather important character, and in order that the practice may be known in future I would venture to bring the matter to your attention that you may lay down, for the information of the House, the correct practice for the chairman of these committees to observe in making such motions. I am not doing this for the purpose of finding fault with the particular report confirmed in this instance but merely to safeguard notice to the House in order that there may be a proper discussion, if discussion is necessary, of these matters.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps I may be permitted on this point to say shortly that when I was Speaker of the House it had been established as the practice that when reports came from committees they should not be concurred in on the same day, but that notice should be given that upon some future day a motion to concur in these reports would be made. If it were possible to adopt this practice I think it would be very much better for the members of this House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I found the practice to be very much as is laid down by Bourinot. On referring to past proceedings of the House I found that it had been followed almost systematically. The practice is laid down by Bourinot at page 555 as follows :
Many motions for concurrence in reports of select standing committees are brought up without notice and allowed to pass by unanimous consent.
That is frequently the case. Usually I pause for a moment to see if there is any

objection and if there is I intimate to the House that a proper course to adopt is that the matter should be allowed to stand as a notice of motion. The sentence immediately following the one I have just read is as follows :
But in all cases objection may be taken, and it is the regular course to give notice.
It certainly would appear to be the more proper course that notice should be given in all cases.


Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed, on the same subject that was brought up by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden) and in reference to which you, Sir, made some remarks, I desire to say that there was a report of a committee made yesterday. The committee was called in the morning at ten o'clock after the House had adjourned at three o'clock on the same morning. Some of the members of the committee had no notice of it. Some action was taken by the committee and the report was moved in the House at two o'clock in the afternoon. We all know that very few members are here at two o'clock on Wednesday afternoon as they have not yet become accustomed to the House meeting at that hour. The report was carried immediately-on the very same day upon which it had been adopted by the committee. Without discussing the merits of the report it seems to me extraordinary that it should be carried so quickly when there has been a report of the same committee before the House for three weeks which has not yet even been considered by parliament. It seems to be somewhat irregular. I understood that the chairman would to-day bring up the report adopted at the previous sitting of the committee. He did not happen to be in the House when the Speaker called for the reception of reports and as a matter of fact this report has not been discussed yet. It certainly looks extraordinary that a report of the same committee and upon a similar subject should be passed hurriedly in the morning and adopted by the House at its opening in the afternoon, while this report which has been before the House for three weeks has not yet been considered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was my hon. friend informed of the sitting of the committee yesterday morning ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I found my notice in the box when I got here in the afternoon. The post office was closed when I left the House late the previous night and I suppose my notice was there, it having been delivered very late apparently, and I got it in the afternoon. What strikes me as most peculiar is that the Minister Finance, when the report was moved yesterday, should have asked the chairman of the Debates Committee : Is that the report my 283	[DOT]
hon. friend called my attention to, and the chairman of the committee said : No. There seems to be something strange in that. Why not discuss the prior report of the committee as soon as possible and let the House get rid of it ? The right hon. the Prime Minister has always been very strong in his attitude in supporting the reports of the committees of the House unless there is something extraordinary in them ; he has always maintained that these reports should be respected, and yet here is a report made by a select committee of the House three weeks ago and it is not yet adopted. The powers of this committee are delegated by the House and it is a slight on the House not to adopt the report. I do not say anything against the report the committee made yesterday as to the merits of the case, but I trust that this report of the same committee made three weeks ago will be considered by the House as soon as possible.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: As to the report of three weeks ago to which my hon. friend refers, when In the House the chairman of the committee proposed that that report should be adopted some time ago, the right hon. the Prime Minister suggested it should stand over. The reason for asking it to stand over is that the report-I am not speaking of the report of yesterday, but the prior report- proposed to increase salaries and make payment for former years, both of which were matters which we thought should receive the consideration of the government, and that the government should have to take the responsibility of approving or disapproving, on the general principle that appropriations of public money should receive the assent of the government. It was for that reason the report was allowed to stand over. That was a good reason and it is only for that reason. It is fair to the chairman of the committee to say that the report of the committee which was adopted yesterday was not open to the same objection as the report which was presented a few days ago.


Mr. FOSTER.: Does not yesterday's report involve a charge on the revenue ?


William Stevens Fielding: No ; the chairman of the committee told me of the report of yesterday before it was presented and I said at once : Are you proposing to increase any salaries. He said, No ; we are proposing to fill a vacancy, this adds nothing to the expenditure ; and I said : If that is the case the objection which was taken before would not apply, and the assurance was given me that it was not a proposal to create any new vacancy or to create any in crease of salary.


George Eulas Foster: But it adds to the expenditure ?


William Stevens Fielding: The information given me was that it was to fill a vacancy.


George Eulas Foster: If the vacancy was not filled there would be no money expended for it.


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever may be said as to the powers of the committee to select officials to fill vacancies and to make a choice of them, it seems to me there would be a distinction between such a proposition and a proposal to increase the expenditure. At all events that was the line of difference in my own mind between the two reports. The one proposes to fill a vacancy at an established salary, so I was informed, and the other proposes to add to the salaries and to make payment for the services of past years.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The statement of the Finance Minister shows how useful and necessary it is to discuss these matters. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is entirely mistaken in his understanding of what was said to him. There is no doubt that the report of the committee yesterday created a new office and a new expense. It was to appoint a new employee altogether and that at a certain salary and that is the report which was adopted. I do not object to it. It is a report made by a committee of the House and I am ready to stand by such a report. Now as to the other report of three weeks ago which has been delayed at the demand of the government, it again shows how useful it will be to discuss these matters, because there are any number of precedents to show that such reports have been adopted by the House time and time again. I hope therefore that for the sake of the proper conduct of the business of the House that the adoption of this report shall be moved as soon as possible and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss it.


William Stevens Fielding: There is some room for difference of opinion as to the method of procedure by committees under such circumstances. There are precedents to show that the work of the ' Hansard ' staff-because it relates to these gentlemen-comes under the direction of the Committee on Internal Economy.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is entirely new.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend will find it is not entirely new. But, there are also cases where a committee without objection has been allowed to deal with these matters. There is room for honest difference of opinion as to what is the proper channel and I am not offering any decided opinion as to which is the better' way. It is only fair to say that was the reason why this report was laid aside for consideration.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: If I understand .vour ruling now, Mr. Speaker, it is that Mr. FOSTER.
nothing of this kind shall occur again and that although there is no objection to a motion, the only way you can possibly put it to the House would be by suspending the rule. Last session I objected again and again to reports of committees of the House coming up for consideration without the necessary notice required by the rules of the House appearing upon the Votes and Proceedings, and as I understand you now, Mr. Speaker, you will in future strictly enforce the rules of the House and that unless there is unanimous consent on motion for the suspension of the rules of the House, none of these motions will be allowed.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would seem to me that if the principle laid down by my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) is adhered to it would impede the proceedings of this House. Many of these committees are simply formal and require no debate, and they are adopted whenever presented, such for instance as a report from a committee that it should have power to take evidence under oath and employ shorthand writers. Mr. Speaker has stated that yesterday he waited to see whether any objection was taken to the adoption of this report and no objection was taken. When the report was brought in I inquired from the chairman of the committee and I understood from him that the report did not involve any new charge on the revenue, but simply filled a vacancy, and I understood under such circumstances there would be no objection at all. I may say to my hon. friend and to the House that if the good faith of anybody has been infringed upon, we will reconsider it. I do not want to have the matter passed in that way. There is no reason why this report should not be debated if it is to be debated at all.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: The Minister of Finance must have either misunderstood the chairman of the Debates Committee or the true state of the facts was not represented. There was a meeting of the Debates Committee in the morning at ten o'clock and I was present at that committee with four others, just enough to form a quorum. The chairman of the committee stated there was a demand for a new translator, an additional translator. I took exception to it and I moved-but I did not get a seconder-that we should have the work done by tender and contract. There are some nine or ten men there now doing the work that two men with two stenographers ought to do. The member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) moved, seconded by the member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and supported by the member for Calgary that the appointment be made and I voted against it. However it carried and the report was presented to the House and rushed through yesterday. It appeared to be a rush thing altogether. It was the appointment of a new member to that translation staff

without any doubt in the world. I have not the slightest doubt but that the staff is now overloaded and that half the number of them could do the work. One of the proofreaders was appointed to the translating staff at a salary of $2,000 a year and there was a new man appointed to fill the position of proofreader. There is no doubt there was a new appointment and an increasejn the public expenditure.


Mr. FIELDING  I.@: est I should mislead the Mouse. I want to say at once that I have not the slightest doubt that the chairman of the committee acted in good faith, but from what he said I certainly did understand that this was not creating any new office, but filling a vacancy. That is why there was in my mind, whether properly or improperly, a distinction between this report and the previous one, this report not adding any obligation, but the previous one adding a considerable sum. It may be that I misunderstood the chairman of the committee.


George Eulas Foster: It may be as well to read the report, and it is necessary to read more than is on the face of it to get the understanding which the Finance Minister said he received :
Your committee recommend that E. Char-lier, who has been employed in the capacity of proofreader on the staff of translators of the Debates be appointed as translator at a salary of $2,000 per annum, and that Rodolph Girard be appointed to replace the former as proofreader at a salary of $1,500 per annum.
It does not say that the proposed appointment is to fill a vacancy or anything of the kind. On the face of it, it means a new position, and my hon. friend says it is a new position. I most certainly would like to discuss the matter of adding translators before the report goes through, and I think the suggestion made by the Prime Minister should be carried out, to have this report reconsidered and committed to the House to be discussed when the next report comes up.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not like to take this position to-day in the absence of the chairman of the committee, but, certainly, if there is not a proper understanding of the report, there is room for explanation.



INQUIRY FOR TAPERS.

George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he will bring down the original papers with reference to the fire extinguishers on which we had a little mild discussion in the House. It was supposed to he exigent at the time that the papers should be copied to get them into the hands of the commission, but the commission is now at leisure, great leisure I may say, and I suppose the minister will now lay them on the table of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say tt>at some of the papers were personal. I suppose the hon. gentleman does not ask that these should be brought down?


George Eulas Foster: I think the file as used and quoted from by the minister should be brought down. I have a great suspicion of personal communications. We had an example yesterday of things marked private which were absolutely public. I think that whatever was on the file should be brought down.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that the papers quoted by myself were not marked personal. But I find that a paper which was quoted by my hon. friend was marked personal.


George Eulas Foster: That does not make it not a public paper.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether my hon. friend was justified in quoting ill a file which was handed over to him a letter which was marked personal.


George Eulas Foster: It appears to me that you cannot change the value of a sovereign by stamping it twenty-five cents.



IMMIGRATION-ORDER IN COUNCIL.

Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to ask the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) if he is prepared to bring down the recent order in council with reference to immigration founded upon the recent amendment to the Immigration Act ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I am sorry that the order in council is not ready to be brought down. It is under reconsideration by council and as soon as the reconsideration has been completed it will be brought down.


Haughton Lennox: I presume the minister will lay it on the table of the House when it is passed?


Frank Oliver: Precisely.



SUPPLY-THE ROSS RIFLE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 173) restraining the use of tobacco by young persons. He said :\tThis Bill\nmakes an attempt to meet the call which, to a greater or less extent, seems to prevail iii many quarters for legislation upon the subject indicated in the title of the Bill, the use of tobacco by persons not of mature years. I cannot pretend to hope that the Bill I am presenting will satisfy those who desire legislation which would absolutely prohibit the manufacture and consumption of tobacco in some particular form which is supposed to be more than ordinarily deleterious. To try to meet in some part, at all events, the evil which is complained of,\nI am proposing by this legislation to make it an offence punishable by fine, to sell or to furnish to a young person of either sex under the age of 10 years, tobacco in any form for the consumption of that young person himself or herself ; and also to make it an offence on the part of any person to sell, or give, or furnish to a young person under the age of 16 years any cigarettes or cigarette papers for the use of that young person or otherwise. The prohibition accordingly will be upon the furnishing to a young person under 16 of cigarettes for any purpose, and equally upon the furnishing to such young person for his or her own consumption, of tobacco in any form. Then I propose to supplement that prohibition by inflicting a penalty upon the young person himself or herself who commits any offence against the enactments in this measure; a penalty in the first instance, upon conviction, of a reprimand; for the second offence, a penalty not exceeding $1; and for the third or subsequent offence, a penalty not exceeding $4. I thought that some form of money penalty of a comparatively small amount would be, possibly, as far as it would be proper to go in the way of punishing the child himself who committed an infraction of this statute. I have also inserted a clause in the proposed Bill giving any constable or policeman authority under by-law to seize upon and summarily forfeit any tobacco which he finds a young person under the age of 16 years about to smoke, or actually smoking, in any street or public place. There is a clause providing for the case of automatic machines for the sale of cigarettes or tobacco in any form which may be used by nersons under the prohibited age, and a provision exempting persons who may be employed in trade from the prohibitions of the Bill ; also a provision as to the presumption of age, throwing the burden upon the person accused, if he or she appears to be under the age of 10 years, to prove the contrary.\nThat is the outline of the Bill. I have this further to say, that legislation upon the subject already appears in the statute-books of the greater number of the provinces. I think there is no legislation on the subject in the province of Quebec or in the province of Manitoba ; but in each of the other provinces of the Dominion there is', "legislation of some nature with regard to this subject. With regard to age conditions, the provisions of the different provincial Acts differ among themselves. There is no provision in any of the provinces that I am aware of making it an offence on the part of the young person himself to purchase or to consume tobacco, although in some instances there is a provision for the summary seizure of the contraband article. There is, however, since the views expressed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the Lord's Day legislation in the province of Ontario, room for question whether legislation of this character may not be ultra vires of the provincial legislatures as an encroachment on the domain of criminal law, and in that view, as well as in the view of the fact that the legislation' is in the different provinces of such very diverse character, and that it is applied to different ages, it has been thought better that there should be some legislation of general application to the whole of Canada. For that reason this Bill has been prepared, and I now present it and beg to move its first reading."]
Mr. A. N. WORTHINGTON (Sherbrooke).: Mr. Speaker, I propose for a short time this afternoon to discuss the Ross rifle and to conclude my remarks with a motion. In bringing the subject of the Ross rifle before the House I would refer to my remarks of last session, In which I stated that it was not my intention to endeavour in any way to embarrass the Department of Militia, to injure the manufacturer or to impede the manufacture of the rifle in Canada. My object was to have placed in the hands of the militia of Canada a safe, serviceable and efficient rifle. With that object in view I urged the Minister of Militia to submit the rifle to such an inspection

at the hands of musketry experts of note as would result iu one of two things-in alaying the fear which existed in the minds of an already gun-shy militia, or in the rifle being perfected or a better rifle being placed in the hands of the militia of Canada. This the minister refused to do in spite of the criticism in the House and in the press, in spite of the absolute condemnation of the rifle by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, in spite of its more or less general failure in the hands of the permanent force and the militia, in spite of the refusal of the men to use it, and in spite of the severe accidents which have happened at St. John, at .Eastman and at Lethbridge; so that to-day, Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to offer for a strenuous criticism of the weakness of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House and his War Minister in placing in the hands of the militia of Canada an unsafe and unserviceable rifle-an action, Mr. Speaker, which, in the mind of any one who has read the report, is nothing short of criminal.
To begin with, I would refer to the raison d'etre for the rifle. It was a very commendable idea on the part of the Minister of Militia and the Militia Council to have a rifle manufactured in Canada-to have a factory established within our own borders capable of turning out a sufficient number of arms so that in the event of our being cut off from the mother country in the time of trouble we will still have our own source of supply. This was a very commendable idea, but we shall soon see, Mr. Speaker, how this idea failed, and how a contraband Yankee rifle came to be placed in the hands of the militia of Canada. The Minister of Militia started in search of a rifle and somebody to manufacture it. The manufacturer was soon forthcoming in the person of Sir Charles Ross, and the rifle adopted was the Ross straight-pull magazine rifle. A company was formed and incorporated. As to the personnel of the company it matters little, as we were told by the minister in the House that the original company never went into existence, but that Sir Charles Ross is doing business individually under his own name. The company was given a free site on the Plains of Abraham. It might be well to inquire why the Ross rifle was adopted ? How it came to find favour in the eyes of the Minister of Militia and the government ? It is very hard to say, but we were told in the Public Accounts Committee by the solicitor of the company that the Ross rifle was an exact reproduction of the Manlicher rifle with which some 250,000 men of the Australian armv were armed.
We were also told that the commission had sat upon and adopted this rifle as being one of the best and most up to date. But in the event of the rifle having been adopted on the strength of its being the Mr. WORTHINGTON.
same ns that used in the Austrian army, that army has not been rearmed since 1S96 so that we are not getting a very new or up to date weapon. As no very favourable opinions were given at that time, it would be only reasonable to ask if the rifle had been reported on' by the war office or any particular commission up to then. We have been told by the Minister of Militia that the War Office had never reported upon or criticised the rifle for the .simple reason that it had never been submitted to the war office. A fairly comprehensible alibi. But a statement I would be inclined to take with a grain of salt considering the fact that the hon. minister has told us that none of the component parts of this rifle were manufactured in the United States. For that reason I would be inclined to doubt that statement, but, in any event, about the time the rifle was adopted, or shortly afterwards, Lord Middleton, then secretary for war, in a despatch to Lord Minto, regretted that while the Ross rifle would take the same ammunition as the Lee-Eufield, the different parts of the two rifles were not interchangeable, which would be a great drawback.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Whose report is that ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Mr. Brodrick, who was then secretary for war.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman aware that no two parts of the Lee-Enfield are interchangeable, and there are eighteen different sections ?
Mr. W'ORTHINGTON. The hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity to speak his little piece when I am through. This despatch also says that two of the Ross rifles had been tested by the officers of the Musketry School .at Hythe in connection with two Lee-Enfield rifles, and the report showed the marked inferiority of the Ross rifles. This, of course, has been denied by the Minister of Militia. There is therefore good reason to suppose that the Ross rifle must have been adopted for some and good and sufficient cause.
We are told that the Ross rifle was tested at Springfield and New Haven and other places and passed very creditable examinations. The test of the earliest date of which we have cognizance is to be found in the report No. 5 of the Public Accounts Committee on the Ross rifle. I take the following from the report of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) page 197, after stating that he had visited the United States of America arsenal and factories at Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Pratt & Whitney and other works in Hartford, Connecticut, and expressing his appreciation of the courtesy extended to him, he reported as follows to General Otter :


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. member (Mr. Worthington) read that again? 1 What blew back, the cartridge, or the rifle?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The primer blew out of the case.
The remainder of this test was discontinued for the time.
Test No. 5-Defective cartridges.
Defective No. 1.
The bolt shield was bent up and the forward end broken off. The slot in the bottom of the bolt sleeve at the rear end in which the lug of the cocking-piece slides was contracted and bound the cocking-piece slightly. This was remedied by filing out the slot until the movement was free. The shield was removed before the next round.
Defective No. 2.
The cartridge missed fire. As it appeared that without the bolt shield the firing piii might be released in the act of closing the breech, the rifle was withdrawn for alteration. The possibility of the release of the firing pin as noted was due to the fact that with the shield removed the bolt sleeve is not supported by the guide groove on the right side of the receiver and can therefore rise at the rear end sufficiently to disengage the cooking piece from the rear.
The inventor then submitted for a continuation of the defective cartridge test a second rifle which differed only in length of barrel and a few similar details from the one withdrawn and the test was recommenced.
Defective No. 1-The bolt shield was entirely blown off the edge engaged in the receiver groove, being stripped and remaining in the groove.
In both these rounds the cartridges were so placed in the chamber that one of the cuts in the head pointed up and the gas escaping upwards struck against the under edge of the front of the shield with the results noted. It was evident that the shield was not strong enough to withstand the blow and that some modification in it was necessary. The second rifle was accordingly withdrawn and further trial discontinued pending changes to be made in the shield.
The next test, No. 6, was a test with excessive charges. As before, cartridges were used giving a chamber pressure of 75.000 pounds to the square inch-five rounds used.
1st round.-No remarks.
2nd round.-The firing pin appeared to move stiffly on examination, after this round, apparently from fouling due to the previous rounds with defective cartridges.
3rd round.-The action of the firing pin same as after previous round. The bolt was cleaned before the next round.
4th round.-A blow back occurred. The firing pin moved with greater difficulty. On examination it was found that the rear of the cocking-piece slot in the bolt sleeve was slightly burred, binding the movement of the cocking-piece and tiring pin. This portion of the bolt sleeve had not been hardened. The burrs were filed off and test proceeded with.
5th round.-A partial blow back occurred. The case could not be extracted hv hand, hut on the second trial using the foot to move the bolt back the case was extracted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the test of the rifle as made in the Springfield armoury.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: What Is the date?
Mr. WORTHINGTON August, 1903.


Samuel Hughes: And what is the date of mine?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I do not see any date. Possibly this report is made after that of the hon. gentleman.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia).: I would like to ask for some definite information as to this report-as to where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) got It; whether he knows that the rifles supplied were of the same kind that Sir Charles Ross is delivering to the Canadian government, and so on. I think we are entitled to know something about this report.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: This report, I believe, emanated from the Springfield armoury in Massachusetts, and I believe it was made on rifles submitted to that board by Sir Charles Ross himself.


Frederick William Borden: Can the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) give us any evidence-the names of the board?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I have already read the names of the board. I will read the first part of the report:
The board met at 10 a.m., August 6, 1903, pursuant to the verbal instructions of the commanding officer. Present, all the members. Meetings -were continued from time to time until the tests were completed.
Sir Charles Ross appeared before the board and presented liis magazine rifle for examination and test.
So, I presume, this was an authentic test made of the rifle.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose this is taken from a printed document?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: This Is a typewritten copy.


Frederick William Borden: If I may be allowed to interject a word here, the papers which have been brought down to this House are given with full authority from the Department of Militia and Defence. It seems to me that the House ought to be seized of the origin of this report, and ought to have proof of its genuineness.


Samuel Hughes: There is nothing
seriously wrong with it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: 

Frederick William Borden: Surely my bon. friend knows that these are steel forgings and not completed parts. That was proved in the Public Accounts Committee, and he knows it very well.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Then there are a number of items during March, which I believe to be fixtures and which no doubt came in quite legitimately, amounting to about $10,000, which I shall not read.
I have here another statement of payments to Billings & Spencer amounting to $17,681.92, the items of which are as follows :-
BILLINGS & SPENCER.
1903.
Feb. 9, Gun barrels, $7,582. Bolt sleeves, 427.
" Bolts, $12,382	Butt plates, 8,045.
" Trigger guards. $3,600.
" Rear banks, $9,370.
" Receivers, $5,038.
" Sears, $15,038.
" Triggers, $4,857.
I wish to quote from the ' Hansard ' a few questions and answers showing the minister's denial of the fact that any parts were made in the United States. On May 14, 1906, at page 3246 of 1 Hansard,' I asked the following question and received the minister's answer :
Is any part or parts of the Ross rifle manufactured in the United States? If so what parts and by what company?-A. No.
The minister's answer could not have been more explicit. On January 14, 1907, the following questions and answer appear :-
1.	Are any parts of the Ross rifle manufactured by Messrs. Billings & Spencer, of Hartford, Connecticut? If so, what parts?
2.	Are these parts dutiable? If so, under what clause do they come?
3.	Is it the intention of this company to establish a branch factory in this country? If so, at what place?
4.	Is this company incorporated in the Dominion of Canada? If so, under what statute or Act?
5.	Who are the members of the company?
6.	What contracts, if any, exist between this firm and the Ross Rifle company?


Hon.   S@: We have no information in the Department of Militia with regard to any of these questions. I have made inquiries at the Customs Department and find that nothing is known about the matter there. I
I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Customs was not going around with concealed arms, as well as the Minister of Militia. Wo have these invoices from Billings & Spencer amounting to many thousands, and yet this firm is unknown at either department. At this very time Billings & Spencer had incorporated in Canada and were hunting for a suitable place to establish a factory. Tliey are situated now, I understand, at Welland, Out., where they are manufacturing forgings. Some of their
Mr. WORTHINGTON
drop forgings are manufactured there but some are imported from the United States, at least three of the most important parts of this rifle. At page 1107, Vol. II., 1908-7, I find the following
Is it true that parts of the Ross rifle manufactured by the Ross Rifle Company at Quebec are imported into this country from the United States; if so, what parts?-A. Yes, flat springs.
Q. Have any parts of said rifles been manufactured by Messrs. Billings & Spencer, of Hartford? If so, what parts?-A. No, but some rough drop forgings had been supplied by Messrs Billings & Spencer.
Then the Minister of Customs gave the importations of component parts as follows: For the year ending June, 1904, parts had been imported to the amount of $38,116 ; 1905, $28,939 ; 1900, $38,314. '


George Taylor: Were duties collected on parts?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Everything comes in free for this company. The fact seems to have been established in 1906 that the Ross Rifle Company were manufacturing the component parts of their rifle largely in the United States. This fact has been more recently brought out by the Montreal ' Star ' and the Boston ' Herald.' The Montreal ' Star ' seems to have taken a trip into the interior of the Department of Militia, with the result that one of their agents visited the United States and found the Frank Mossberg, of Attleboro', Mass., in his bicycle bell and manicure factory, was manufacturing seventeen or eighteen parts of the Ross rifle. Although these facts were published and were brought before the government in the Montreal ' Star ' and the Boston ' Herald ' under large headlines, there does not seem to have been any denial of them in this House, or any denial by any authority of the Department of Militia anywhere. The Montreal ' Star ' of March 4, 1908, publishes an article under the following heading :
Essential parts of Ross rifle are to-day being made by United States factories.
Canada's national rifle factory would have to stop operation if communications with the American republic were broken. Seventeen important parts turned out by one manufacturer in Massachusetts. New national enterprise inaugurated six years ago is still dependent upon foreign makers.
Then it goes on to state that a representative of the * Star ' visited Mr. Frank Moss-berg's bicycle bell and manicure factory and found that, behind closed doors, all' these component parts were being manufactured under contract with Sir Charles Ross for Canada's great arm of defence, and for the factory at Quebec. This rifle was to have been manufactured in Canada.
The Boston ' Herald,' in a tone of blasphemy, described the Ross rifle factory as

being as useless as a cheese factory. The Boston ' Herald ' of March 5 contains the following headlines :
Canadian army rifles mostly American. Seventeen leading parts of Ross weapon made in Attleboro. Contract calls for manufacture in Quebec.	.
This paper enters into a description of the component parts of the rifle that are sent here. I will read a part of it:
The rifle is turned out by the Ross Rifle Company, of Quebec, a firm made possible by its contract with the Crown, and subsidized by the Canadian government. The head of the firm is Sir Charles Ross, a Scotch baronet. The contract under which he was granted the right to manufacture the standard military arm specifies that it shall bo strictly a Canadian product.
However, all the Canadian workmen have to do is to assemble the pieces, and hand over the finished product. Only one principal part of the work do they attend to-the boring and rifling of the barrels.
The steel from which the barrels are made comes from Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
The wood for fashioning the stocks is ordered through a New York firm and is carried up the St. Lawrence in ships from Europe.	[DOT]
The forgings from which trigger guards, receivers and bolt sleeves are manufactured, are made by the Spencer-Billings Company, of Hartford, Connecticut. The springs are made in England.
The metal punchings and the pressed, stamped or dyed steel parts are made by the Prank Mossberg Company, of Attleboro, Massachusetts.
In case of war or any national emergency requiring the immediate supply of arms, the Ross rifle factory, quietly reposing behind the big guns of Quebec's impregnable citadel, would be about as much use as a cheese factory.
That is what the Boston ' Herald ' says.


Frederick William Borden: That is conclusive.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Yes. In what condition were these parts brought in ? Many of them were brought in from the Mossberg factory ready to be put into the gun, in a finished condition. I have a letter from a man who served four or five years in the Mossberg factory, and it is as follows :
Dear Sir,-I got your letter yesterday. In reply would say that I have worked for the Frank Mossberg Company, of Attleboro, for over five years in two different times. The first time was seven years ago. Worked for them four and a half years, and left their employment for about six months and went back for them for another year and left them the last a little over a year ago.
Now, about the manufacturing parts of the Ross rifle, I can't say how many parts are made, and name them as there are many parts that I don't know by name, but I can show them on the rifle.
As for the parts that I remember I can give you a list of them that were made just a year ago.
The pawl.
The sear.
The trigger.
The stock plate.
The lifter is made in two parts and assembled in the Mossberg shop.
As near as I can remember there must be between 15 to 20 parts made there, and all sent ready to be put in the rifle, except a few parts that have to be case-hardened, as eve)' part is made of machinery steel, cold rolled. Find inclosed a few sketches of narts made there that I made some of the tools myself.
Hoping this will help you a little.
I remain, yours,
(Sgd.) X. T. DELORME.
Here is a drawing of the parts which he has made from his memory after having been engaged in making these parts. On March 5, 1908, the Montreal ' Star ' comes out with another big sensational column, headed as follows :
How Mr. Mossberg, of Massachusetts, came to make seventeen essential parts of Ross rifle. Visit to the factory at Attleboro where, behind locked doors, force is working hard on ' Canadian rifle' contracts. Make every effort to keep visitors from seeing the work in progress. In interview with ' Star' reporter, Mr. Mossberg says he joined hands with Sir Charles Ross on a purely business basis. One asks for goods, the other sells them.
Then on March 10, Mr. Mossberg pays a hurried visit to Ottawa, and the Montreal ' Star ' reported the visit under the following heading :
Sir Charles Ross issues hurry up call to Mr. Mossberg to explain.
Massachusetts manufacturer in Montreal this morning alter session of Ross rifle authorities makes interesting statement.
Mossberg goes on to say in this paper that although there are certain alleged affidavits produced may be he is still doing business at the old stand and manufacturing most of the component parts of the Ross rifle.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: He denied that the next day in the Montreal ' Star.'


Arthur Norreys Worthington: He did not deny it in the ' Star.' The ' Star ' confirms the report that his previous statements were practically correct.


Frederick William Borden: Is my lion friend (Mr. Worthington) aware of the fact that Sir Charles Ross has specifically denied this whole statement and that this Mr. ' Mossbaclt,' or whatever his name is, also made a denial?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I don't quite understand what the minister has said.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose the hon. gentleman is aware, or perhaps he is not aware, that Sir Charles Ross has
i

specifically denied the allegations made in that paper and that this Mossville ' or ' Mossback,' or whatever his name is, also denied that he made such statements as are attributed to him in the ' Star ' or to the 'Star' reporter?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I know there are a great many ' Mossbaeks ' connected with the rifle, but if your Mr. ' Mossback ' was not guilty of manufacturing parts of the Ross rifle why did he come up here on Sir Charles Ross' suggestion ? What call had Sir Charles Ross on Mr. ' Mossback ' and why did he respond so quickly to the call ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who says he did? You don't know. That is a newspaper statement.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Mr. Mossback was here for two or three days and he confirmed every statement he made previously. He says he personally made a number of these parts until a year ago, and if the hon. gentleman will inquire at Welland, Out., where the Billings & Spencer Company are now doing business, he will find that although they are making some drop-forgings, and very good drop-forgings, they are still importing at least three of the essential parts of the rifle from the United States to-day.


Frederick William Borden: I am glad the hon. gentleman approves of the drop-forgings.


George Eulas Foster: It would be a mighty poor case if he could not find something good in the whole thing.


Mr. LANCASTER.: It is a proper thing for a committee to investigate.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Now as to the contract between the government and the Ross Rifle Company. This contract was one of the most ridiculous and unbusinesslike contracts ever entered into by any business like government and a totally one-sided affair. According to the terms of this agreement the Department of Militia and Defence was to purchase from the Ross Rifle Company a number of Ross rifles at the rate of 10,000 a year at the price of $25 a piece, the company to receive an advance payment of 75 per cent oil the selling price of the rifles on advance estimates. The company also is allowed to import the machinery and raw material free of duty. This means that the government actually became the bankers of this company which had previously received a free site on the Plains of Abraham at Quebec for the nominal fee of $1 for 99 years with the option of extension. It is needless to discuss the manner in which this site was obtained. The lease in its present form is simply a subterfuge to alienate portions of the Plains of Abraham. The reasons advanced by the government for locating at this point, as we were Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
told by Mr. Nesbitt in the Public Accounts Committee, was that the factory would be under the guns of the fleet. Which fleet is not stated. Possibly it is the fleet which the right hon. gentleman and his government have accepted the protection of since they came into power, but towards which they have refused to contribute one cent. It is certainly not the fleet of vessels which might be giving us protection on our Atlantic and Pacific sea-board, had the right hon. gentleman and his government contributed towards instead of putting the money into the pockets of the British ratepapers through the British preference. However, one thing is certain in the granting of this site, and that is that there must have been a straight pull on the site as well as on the gun. There the Ross Company has been assembling the component parts of this rifle and putting them together at a prince of $25. which is more than the cost of the Lee-Enfleld or the new Springfield, the American rifle.


Frederick William Borden: That statement is incorrect.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Which statement?	.


Frederick William Borden: As to price.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The $25?


Frederick William Borden: The statement as to the price of the English rifle and as to the price of the American rifle is incorrect.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: As to the price of the American rifle I am going to take the word of one of the Minister's own Rifle Commissioners, and that is Colonel Anderson who in writing to the ' Militia Gazette ' concerning the Palma trophy and the respective merits of the Lee-Enfield and the new, states that the price of the Springfield rifle is $15. Possibly some of these commissioners do not know anything about rifles, but I am willing to accept Colonel Anderson's statement that $15 is the price of the rifle.


Samuel Hughes: Possibly he took the erratic figures of the hon. member for Sherbrooke last session.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: 
George Taylor: That included the bayonet ?


Frederick William Borden: No. The Lee-Enfield rifle cost delivered here $20.40. bought from the trade.


George Taylor: Does that include the bayonet.


Frederick William Borden: No. it includes the cost of inspection.


George Taylor: And duty added?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly the hon. gentleman is a protectionist.


Mr. FOWLER.: And you are bringing all the parts of the Ross rifle free into this country.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I think the hon. minister has stated differently elsewhere, which I will try to show before concluding my remarks. Practically the difference in cost between the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield rifle is in the vicinity of $10, which would make a difference on 100,000 rifles of $1,000,000. A man prominent in the United States Small Arms Manufacturing Company states that the Ross rifle could be made at a profit for $15. But when discussing the cost of the rifle, the minister says we have to take into account the' cost of the factory, the rent of land, the interest on capital and all that sort of thing. I do not know why we should in this case. The Minister and the late deputy minister of Militia have stated, and it has been sworn to by many in the Public Accounts Committee, that the Ross Rifle Company is a private concern doing business with the government. 8o these things should not be taken into account. When the minister buys boots for the militia, he does not take into account the rent of the Slater Shoe Company, lie buys boots in the open market. So in buying uniforms for the militia, the minister does not take into account the cost of the Sanford factory.
As regards the record of the Lee-Enfield rifle, which we are casting aside, I would refer to the remarks of Lord Roberts made at the close of the South African war. He said it had been brought to his attention on more than one occasion that when the Boers picked up a Lee-Enfield rifle on the line of march they so preferred it to the Mauser that they threw away the latter and took the Lee-Enfield. Sir. Haldane, late Secretary for War, in his report, stated that the Lee-Enfield had been subjected to many hardships in South Africa and the northern parts of India and had proved a most satisfactory arm. In addition to these recommendations may be added the significant fact that it is still retained by Canadian marksmen in all international contests at Bisley, and almost entirely in the Dominion and provincial rifle matches. In fact, it is seldom that a Ross rifle is seen .on the ranges in competition unless in the hands of some marksman of note who has been employed by the company to exploit the gun.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. gentleman how is it that the English people are so obtuse as not to use the new Lee-Enfield rifle ? Why do they stick to the old Lee-Enfield on the ranges at Bisley ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: (Because they think the old rifle the best, I suppose. I might ask, why don't they take the Ross rifle ? Now, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has introduced the subject of the new Lee-Enfield rifle, I may say that the Loudon Small Arms Company are prepared to supply 10,000,303 Lee-Enfield rifles, at 80 shillings each, packed in tin-lined cases, and delivered f. o. b. at a British port, subject to 10 per cent discount for cash, which bring it to about 75 shillings. The new Lee-Enfield rifle is quoted in their catalogue at several dollars more than the old Lee-Enfield.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman, I suppose, knows that the upright view is a very inferior rifle, It is not the War Office test at all. I would like to have the date at which that quotation was made.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: It was made this month. In regard to this contract, what the public of Canada wants to know is how it is that the Ross Rifle Company have been able to get such an amount of coddling from the government. A site for a nominal rental, free Importation of machinery and raw material ; 75 per cent advance on working estimates, and estimate of the estimate paid on orders, months and even years before the delivery of the previous orders. Most industries would never dream of asking a

government to provide them with capital upon which to start their enterprise. They would be satisfied to get a protective duty upon their output. Even a contractor working entirely for the government is expected to supply his own capital and live up to the terms of his contract. But the Ross Rifle Company, it appears, has been required to do none of those things. The government openly becomes its bankers, pledges itself to advance the money for the purpose of enabling it to purchase raw material, and even for the payment of wrages up to 75 per cent of the value of the completed rifles ordered. This was a very generous proposition-


Frederick William Borden: If it were true. But the hon. gentleman surely knows better than that. Why should he persist in misrepresenting the company and the government in this way ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Am I to understand from the minister that the government are not advancing 75 per cent on the working estimates ?


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman will understand from me that the government are not advancing capital to the Ross Company, and he knows it. Why should he persist in making that statement ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The government are paying the Ross Rifle Company 75 per cent advance on the working estimates, which amounts to $18.25 or thereabouts, which is several dollars more than the price of the Lee-Enfield or the new Springfield rifle ; so that I think I am practically right in saying that the government is supplying working capital to the company and even becoming responsible for the wage account up to 75 per cent of their orders.


Frederick William Borden: Not at all. The hon. gentleman knows that Colonel Wurtele's evidence before the Public Accounts Committee proves that out of $1,-
100.000	which had been paid over to the Ross Rifle Company, the Ross Company had expended on the work alone of manufacturing the rifle $100,000 more than that, besides the cost of the building and the cost of the machinery, and that $90,000 out of the $1,200,000 had gone to pay labourers in the city of Quebec. The hon. gentleman knows that, and why should he persist in making these statements ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I am stating practically what is in the contract.


George Eulas Foster: Is not the money that Sir Charles Ross pays his labour working capital ? If the government had not advanced it, would not Sir Charles Ross have had to get it elsewhere ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Sir FREDERICK BORDEN'. What the hon. gentleman means, I take it, is that the government advanced to the Ross Rifle Company its entire working capital. What he knows is that Sir Charles Ross constructed his building and put in his machinery, and he must have had capital in order to do this, because he did not get the money frotn the government until after the work was done.


George Eulas Foster: I understand the hon. gentleman said that the government provided the capital for working the concern, and it absolutely does.


Frederick William Borden: But it did not buy the machinery.


George Eulas Foster: Nobody said it did.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: This proposition was of such a generous nature that the government felt itself obliged to limit it, and so required that the rifle must be delivered within the year in which these advances were made. But, after having made this proposition, the government soon proceeded to ignore it. It made its first advance, on this first order of 12,000 rifles, in March, 1003, and did not get its first delivery until August, 1905.


Samuel Hughes: Whose report is that'


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I am reading, as far as I can figure it out, from the blue-book.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the contract require that these rifles must be actually delivered into the possession of the government before the advances are made?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I am not saying whether it does or not. I am stating what happened until the intervention of the Auditor General. The government made its first advance on this first order of 12,000 rifles in March, 1903, and did not get its first delivery until August, 1905. It had made all its advance payments up to the full 75 per cent of the selling value of the whole order by July, 1904, when there were still
3,000	of these rifles to be delivered. This is an example of the manner in which the agreement was kept. The advance on the second order of rifles began in February, 1905, though the delivery of the first order had not then commenced, and the second order was then 3,000 short.


Frederick William Borden: I know how anxious the hon. gentleman is not to mislead the House. Does he not know that the balance of 3.000 which were short on the first order of 12,000, was delivered in the form of Mark II., and there was no shortage on that 12,000 order?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What difference does it make whether they are marked one or two?


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman is trying to create the impression that this government advanced 75 per cent on 3,000 rifles and never got anything for it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I do not say that. I say they got them later, hut the delivery was three years behind. I say that the government had made all its advanced payments up to the full 75 per cent of the selling value of the whole order by July, 1904, when there were still 3,000 of these rifles to be delivered. The advance on the second order of rifles began in February, 1905, though the delivery of the first order had not then commenced, and the second order was then 3,000 short. Advances were made in February, 1906, on the third order, and though for a long time no delivery was made, advances began on the fourth order.
This question of advances and delivery then assumed vexatious proportions. The company was usually two years behind in the delivery of the goods, although their contract called for delivery the same year as that in which the advance payments were made, and it was only when attention was called through the press to the fact that Mark I. rifles, on which the whole advances were paid three years ago, had not then been delivered, and that the company was two years in arrears on some later contracts, that the advances were stopped, and for three or four months there was nothing doing in the way of payments. This was largely due to the fact that the Minister of Militia was absent in England. During his absence the Auditor General and the acting minister, Sir Richard Cartwright, had stopped these payments, and it is understood that there were some hot times trying to finance the company, and some pretty warm discussions in the Militia Council. However, on the return of the hon. gentleman, the financing of the company was a very easy matter.


Frederick William Borden: Will the hon. gentleman inform me where he gets his information about what goes on in the Militia Council?


George Eulas Foster: He got it from one of your own ministers, wThen he told us that you fought like blazes.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: This question of advanced payments and deliveries culminated in the refusal of the Auditor General to sanction any more advances, and he suggested, as one of his reasons, that we might find ourselves in possession of a lot of material only fit to be sent to the junk heap and on which we had made large advances. Does the hon. minister dispute that statement ? He has disputed nearly everything else.


Frederick William Borden: The Auditor General was new' then. It was just after he got office.


George Eulas Foster: \ou have him broken in by this time.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The correspondence makes it clear that a deadlock occurred until an order in council was passed extending the time for delivery of the rifles. On Slay 13, 1907, the Auditor General wrote to Colonel Fiset, Deputy Minister of Militia, as follows :
I notice that you paid to March 31, 1907, on account Mark II, 1906, order, $272,141.01, and $11,250 on Mark III, although apparently no rifles have been delivered. Paragraph 8 of the contract allows 75 per cent of the advance of the costs of only such rifles as are to he delivered in that year. Pending your explanation of the non-observance of this part of the contract in connection with the payments made on account of the rifles. I would ask that no further payments be made to Sir Charles Ross on account, out of your letter of credit.
To this letter Colonel Fiset replied :
I attach herewith the statement called for in paragraph 2 of the above mentioned memo, showing the payments that have been made to the Ross Rifle company up to date. Up to the present date, the department has paid to the Ross Rifle company, $329,743.55 in advance on progress estimates. My predecessor, Col. Pineault was of opinion that the Ross Rifle company in accordance with the terms of tho contract, were entitled to 75 per cent progress estimates on all orders received, independent of delivery, and acting on his advice, my minister had always authorized these payments.
Then comes a statement of the payments;
The statement attached showed that up to May 14, 1907, the following payments had
been made:
Total advances	$872,243 55
Twenty-six payments (final) at.. ..	6,250 00
Twenty-six thousand rifles received. 162,500 00

over 15,000 completed rifles; and judging by the rates of delivery so far, it will tax the energy of the company to complete and deliver that number during the year.


Frederick William Borden: Would the hon. gentleman give the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice? The department was acting under the advice of the Department of Justice.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The Auditor General suggested, in conclusion, that an examination of all the stock on hand and represented by progress estimates should be made by an expert competent to judge the value of the stock. ' Otherwise,' he said,
' the department may find itself in possession of material to be consigned to the junk heap, for which large advances have been made.' Now, there's a prophecy which possibly may be soon fulfilled. On May 28 the Deputy Minister of Militia wrote to the Auditor General, inclosing the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice as to the advances made, as follows ;
I see no reason to doubt that your department is liable to pay the accounts in question. It may be that you had a [DOT] remedy against the contractor for breach of his contract to supply the rifles within the stipulated time, but you would have to proceed accordingly, and cannot yourselves break another term of the contract as a sort of setoff against the contractor's breach of contract, which I suppose to be what your proposition really amounts to.
Referring to the ruling of the Justice Department, the Auditor General said, after repeating his former argument :
If this ruling is accepted and acted upon, whither are we drifting? Does your department intend to advance seventydive per cent on 10,000 rifles for 1907 delivery and receive no rifles, seventy-five per cent on 10,000 rifles for 1908 delivery and receive no rifles, and so on ad infinitum? I am not credulous enough to believe that the government would enter into a contract containing any such possibilities.
All I can say there is that the Auditor General did not know the government. The correspondence continued at intervals until August 6, 1907, when the Auditor General wrote to Colonel Fiset a letter which is explanatory of what progress had been made towards the settlement of the dispute. He said : I
I received a copy of the order in council of Julv 27 last, extending the time for delivery of the balance of the Ross rifles ordered, viz.:
15,000	to be delivered before January 1, 1908, and 10,000 before June 1, 1908.
The Department of Justice having reported that under contract the company is entitled to advances on progress estimates on orders for rifles to be delivered up to 75 per cent of the cost of the rifles, and your department having agreed to appoint an officer competent to examine the books and accounts of the company and certify to the expenditure made on the rifles, and having had an interview Mr. WORTHINGTON.
with Sir Charles Ross and Colonel Wurtele, the proposed inspecting officer for the purpose, when it was agreed that a certain form of certified statements would be furnished this office, a copy of which statements was handed to me to-day and afterwards transmitted to you, I therefore withdraw the restriction placed on your letter of credit in connection with the payment of these advances.
Thus we find that, through the intervention of the Minister of Justice the restrictions placed upon the letter of credit were withdrawn and the ruling of the Auditor General as to the payments for advance estimates was overruled. Now, before going on with my remarks as to the efficiency of the rifle, I would like to read letters' from two of the former employees of the Ross Rifle Company, in order that the House and the public may see what was transpiring in the factory at the time. The first is a letter from Mr. R. Henry Burns, of New Haven, Conn. He was employed in the. Ross rifle factory in the latter part of 1903 and the early part of 1904. He said ;
I have made a specialty of the manufacture of guns for several years. I realized at that time that it was and would be impossible to manufacture guns under the systems they h ad adopted. I understood the condition of affairs throughout when I was with this company, and as I was somewhat interested, I have kept in touch with the conditions that have existed ever since. I can safely say that the Ross Rifle Company has made no progress towards manufacturing their rifles since 1903, and I can positively say that they never will, under the present arrangements. From the general manager down to the men in charge of the several manufacturing departments, there was not a man that had had any experience in the manufacture of guns until he entered the employ of the Ross Rifle Company. I should judge that there_ is a strong feeling that an A1 rifle should be manufactured on Canadian soil. The United States government manufacture their rifles and bayonets very satisfactorily. There is no reason why your government cannot do likewise. $25 is not too much for the Ross rifle, manufactured as it is under the present management. It can be manufactured for the same price as the Springfield or the modal 90 Winchester.


Samuel Hughes: What is the date of that letter ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The date is torn off. I can give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) the original. Another employee is Mr. J. H. Stanton, who wrote from St. Catharines as follows :
St. Catharines, December 11, 1905. Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G.
Sir,-I trust you will pardon me for taking the liberty to write you and ask a simple question. Are the shops now running in Quebec and known as the Ross Rifle Factory, being run as a private enterprise or are they being run as a government concern ? My one

idea in asking this question of you is to get at a few simple facts.
He goes on to state, at the conclusion of his letter :
I have been advised to take this course by Mr. E. J. Lovelace, our defeated member for the county of Lincoln.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Lovelace never wrote. He never supported that letter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He is postmaster there now.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The deputy minister wrote back telling Mr. Stanton that the Ross rifle factory was a private concern. Mr. Stanton wrote the following letter :
St. Catharines, December 28, 1905. Department of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-Your favour in answer to my inquiry regarding the Ross rifle factory at Quebec received and fully noted, and in reply to same will say:
From authority gained in the factory the Ross Rifle Company is a false face, and the factory is a government concern, and a veritable sink-hole, as bad as the Curran bridge or Langevin block.
It is needless to comment on these-all Liberals know how bad these two deals were said to be. We heard a great deal about them, and they were supposed to be very rotten.
The rifles they are turning out are useless and -worthless as a military arm and for several reasons, too, and would not be accepted by any country wanting a first-class military arm.
Many of the arms now being turned out will not stand 100 shots in succession without becoming a complete rattletrap, and a danger to any one using them, and will be pitched in a scrap heap.
He has anticipated the Auditor General there.
While I am a thorough supporter of the present government, the country is being robbed by aliens, and there must be a thorough investigation. Perhaps the government can afford to wink at this, but the evidence will be pie to the opposition. If this develops into a McGreevy, Curran bridge or Langevin block scandal, the government must stand pat, as a warning note i9 sounded.
In another letter in January, 1906, he said :
I have no object in view except to protect the land of my birth and born of United Empire loyalist stock. I may say as a prelude I was not popular, because I found fault with the drawings furnished for men to work from. It was the remark of the men without exception that they were the crudest attempt at drawings they had even had put in their hand to work w-ith.
And further on :
I have not said anything regarding the construction of the gun they are now turning out. The original Ross rifle was a fairly serviceable arm, but the one they are now building I would prefer to have it reported on by a thorough expert in military arms.


Frederick William Borden: That would be Mark I then ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Mark I.	-


Frederick William Borden: You will not have a good opinion of Stanton after that?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: If you would care to satisfy yourself on one point alone, write to either the Winchester-Arms Company, New Haven, Conn., or the Marlin Arms Company, same address, Remington Arms Company, Ilion, N.J., or the Savage Arms Company, N.J., or any company in Great Britain building military arms, and ask them if they approve of using a thread, four to the inch, or a four pitch, to join the barrel to the receiver and you will get a prompt reply. I have it from the Winchester, Mariin and Savage people, saying we do not approve of such a coarse pitch for a rifle using such heavy charges.- Just say the arm is to use the heavy government charges. Another serious defect: the action is not fastened to the stock in any way except by the three bands around the barrel and stock. The wood under the action is cut away to receive the magazine till there is no strength left to it and many of them will not stand one hundred shots fired from them without the stock becoming a complete wreck. The working mechanism is complicated with a number of small parts and spring and very easy to go wrong in the hands of a novice, and the arm is useless.
I read this letter because the remarks continued in it are practically substantiated by the reports [DOT] of many of the Militia Board of inquiry later assembled to pronounce on the rifle.
In order to understand the quality of the rifle in relation to stability and efficiency it is necessary for us to take a sort of transcontinental tour from Halifax to Vancouver, for really the rifle has been condemned from one end of the country to the other. A hoard was held at Halifax. The report of that board was forwarded by Col. Cotton, and read as follows :
Headquarters, October 8, 1906. From the Master General of the Ordnance,
To the Inspector of Small Arms, Ross Rifle Factory, Quebec.
Board of Officers Ross rifles.
Inclosed herewith is a copy of the proceedings of a board of officers on Ross rifles held at H.M. Gun Wharf, Halifax, by order of the officer commanding maritime provinces.
Most of the defects are those of which we are aware, but some further rather -startling weaknesses have shown themselves.
Will you please be good enough to note them carefully and report progress being made in

the line of improvin'? these weaknesses and defects.
(Sgd. W. H. COTTON. Col.
, Master General of Ordnance.
This was forwarded to Col. Drury and In due course Col. Drury commanding the maritime provinces, reports as follows :
1.	That a large proportion of the mechanical defects and the defects in sighting reported would he remedied by greater care in details of manufacture and in testing for accuracy at the shorter ranges.
2.	That the construction of the back-sight and bolt of the rifle require reconsideration with a view to strengthening.
3.	That the butt trap should be strengthened
i.	That the foresight should not be white.
5. That the sling should be altered to permit of its being used for steadying the rifle w'hen firing.
I would also suggest for consideration that the magazine should be fitted for clip ammunition which might overcome the present tendency to jam which is to some extent due to the cartridges not lying true when inserted one by one in the magazine.
The report of the proceedings is as follows :
Proceedings of a board of officers assembled at H.M. Gun Wharf, Halifax, N.S., on August 2.3, 1906, by order of officer commanding fortress of Halifax, N.S., for the purpose of reporting on the defects found in the Ross rifle, Mark II by units which have lately undergone their annual musketry courses.
President, Lieut.-Colonel R. L. Wadmore, R.C.R.
Members, Major H. C. Thacker, R.C.G.A., Captain P. H. French, R.C.E.
In attendance. Nil.
The board having assembled pursuant to order proceed to record evidence :
First evidence, Lieut. R. B. Willis, R.C.R.,
states :
I have been acting as musketry instructor to the Royal Canadian Regiment at their musketry training at MoNabs. I have been five years and seven months in the Manchester regiment as lieutenant before joining the Royal Canadian Regiment. I was three years assistant adjutant (musketry) in the fourth battalion and am in possession of the Hythe certificate.
On the morning of May 15, 1906, I commenced the instruction of the recruits of four companies of the Royal Canadian Regiment, in table A, and immediately defects were reported as under mechanical (a) foresight. In many cases I find the fixing screw comes loose, and in a few cases, when the screw is firm, the foresight will still be loose.
(b)	Lower band-Being riveted, in some cases becomes loose and consequently the hand guard drops off.
(c)	Back sight-The leaf of back sight easily bends to right or left. In two cases the wind gauges broke completely off, in a great many cases when the rifle is fired the back sight jumps 100 to 200 yards..
In a great many cases the projections to back sight leaf which hold it in its place are too short and do not retain their grip so that the leaf flies over on to the hand guard. The gooseneck of the slide in some cases is Mr. WORTHINGTON.
too high, and one cannot see the foresight in the V of back sight.
The wind gauge leaf has a tendency to work loose.
Bolt stop-In a great many cases the bolt stop when pressed down remains down and the consequence is the rifle cannot be pressed down.
Bolt-In a great number of cases, the projection on the left slide of bolt breaks oil, this also renders the rifle useless for magazine fire. This frequently happens in opening the bolt.
Extractor-The hook of the extractor in a few cases has broken ofi (about 2 per cent). This renders the rifle useless.
Main spring striker-In a great many cases the main spring is too weak, the striker leaves an indent on the cartridge but does not explode it.	,
Striker-In a very large number of cases the striker breaks off inside the bolt head.
Safety catch-In a great many cases the safety oatch does not go home, but gives a click leading a man to think it has gone fully home. The consequence is that the rifle goes off when the safety catch is pushed home, and on releasing it again, the rifle sometimes goes off. In one case the safety catch blew right away and was never found.
Magazine-In a few cases the magazine cutoff will not remain down.
Butt trap-The slide is too thin, when arms are ordered and it strikes a stone it gets indented and cannot be opened.
Barrel-In a few cases the barrel can be taken by the hood of foresight and twisted i ight round until hood is underneath.
Piling swivel-If this gets broken, a new one cannot apparently be put in.
General-Very frequently on ordering arms the bolt slips open.
Special defects active service.
(a)	Foresight-Being of white metal militates against accurate and rapid sighting.
(b)	Sling-There is no means of slinging the rifle properly, nor is there any chance of steadying the arm for firing by using the sling.
(c)	Bayonets-None yet issued for the rifle.
(d)	Micrometer thimble-When at zero, leaves a space open with three of the threads which the screw works on exposed to sand and dirt, which would choke its efficient action.
(e)	Bolt action-The space in rear of the bolt being exposed is easily clogged with dirt or mud, and would quickly render it impossible to fire the rifle by stopping the action of the sear.
(f)	General-Between May 15, 1906, and July 1, 1906, forty-five rifles were reported as defective from various causes, that was about 25 per cent of the rifles now in use.
The weakness of the striker spring as above mentioned in miss-fires is a most serious defect on active service.
(Sgd.) R. B. WILLIS, Lieutenant, Royal Canadian Regiment.
I propose to read all of these reports because they are most convincing and every one of them is equally as damaging as that. The magazine is useless, the side of the bolt breaks off, the back sight on the rifle


MAT 21. 1908
[Stage Direction]
jumps when fired from 100 to 200 yards. One would think to read these reports that these were rifles picked up on a field of battle and reported on after a severe scrimmage. But it is not so. These were rifles shipped direct from the Ross Rifle Company to the regiments, issue and taken from the racks, taken down, to the ranges, used carefully and brought back.
Samuel Hughes: Are they not inspected before they are sent down ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: My hon. friend ought to know.


Samuel Hughes: I say they are inspected.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Second evidence. -No. 105 Armourer Sergeant Edward Billings, Ordinance Stores Corps, states :
I was a professional gun and rifle manufacturer for about eight or nine years before joining the service. I joined the Imperial service in 1894 in what was then the corps of armourers and I completed 21 years in the Imperial service, in the armourers section of A.O.D. I have been about six months in the O.S.C. I am attached to R.C.R. for duty as armourer sergeant, and in that capacity, have been repairing damages and defects to the Ross rifle Mark II since it was issued to the R.C.R.
Mechanical.
(a)	Foresight-A large number of rifles have been sent in with loose, foresights. These have been adjusted by tightening the foresight screw, after this has been done I do not know if they again work loose.
(b)	Lower band-This is so thin that there
is no thickness for a screw thread to be properly made, the consequence is that the screws fall out. In the Mark I Ross rifle, there was a good sound lower band .with a sling swivel on it, which in my opinion was much better.	.
Back sight-The projections to back sight leaf which holds it in its place, are simply riveted in. Both these should be screwed in. When necessary to repair the spring of back sight, one of these pins has to be knocked out. and then knocked in again. This is a faulty system.
The wind gauge in some cases when screwed right over to extreme limit, cannot be screwed back to centre. This is due to the milled head not being properly fixed, it is only driven on to a cylindrical shaft. When screwed right over, the backsight side of the milled head gets burned up and jams.
As regards to backsight jumping, the spring which engages the slide on the toother gearing is very faulty and does not act in some cases; it can hardly be called a spring.
Bolt stop-Is made of iron, case hardened. There is not sufficient bearing surface to give the necessary resistance.
Bolt-Is of iron, case hardened. The resisting lug frequently breaks off, the metal being extremely brittle just surrounding it.
The bolts should be numbered, with the rifle, in order that the right bolt goes in the right rifle.
Extractor. The hook sometimes breaks off. It is not strong enough.
Main spring striker-This spring is defective, and misfires are due to the defects. It is not powerful enough, and a certain amount of the force of the spring is lost due to friction on the channel of the bolt. There should be little or no friction there. The outside diameter of the spring should fit the channel, and the inside diameter should fit the shaft. Owing to fit not being good there is too much side play of the spring.
It is very difficult to take out the spring striker and to replace it.
Striker-The point frequently breaks.
Safety catch-The milled head for attaching safety catch falls out in some cases. This renders rifle useless. Some of the bolts open when the safety catch is home. The trigger sometimes jams when the safety catch is home and on the catch being released, the rifle fires.
Magazine-The bottom plate to magazine drops out in some cases. This cannot in some cases be replaced without using undue force.
Barrel-Frequently the barrels have not been fitted properly into the body. The browning is very inferior.
Filing swivel-If broken, a new one cannot be put in, in any way whatever.
Butt-Inadquate protection for the butt when arms are ordered.
Magazine platform spring - Frequently breaks.
General-Interior parts are not oiled when put together. To the best of my recollection, I have repaired defects in at least 150 rifles since May 12, 1906.
(Sgd.) E. Billings.
Sergeant Billings demonstrated each point fully and practically to the satisfaction of the board, using a Ross rifle Mark II. in which a number of damages and defects had been collected from other rifles, for the purpose of demonstration.
Third evidence.-Capt. M. St. L. Simon, R.O.E., O.O., 1st Fortress Company, R.C.E., states :
My company is armed with the Ross rifle and commenced table B for R.C.E. on July 16, 1906, at McNab's Island. During the course, I noticed the following defects in the Ross rifle :
Mechanical (a) foresight-is too blunt and band holding foresight is shrunk on, which oauses uneven expansion of a heated barrel.
(b)	Lower band-Should have a swivel for sling.
(c)	Backsight-Too delicate. Leaf is too flimsy, the micrometer screw has been reported to move on firing and sometimes cannot be moved at all. The slide of backsight sometimes jumps 100 or 200 yards on firing, the V of the backsight is too small. The centre line on leaf is very badly marked in some cases.
The backsight leaf in some cases jumps right over, owing to projections to backsight leaf being too short.
At low elevations, the V of backsight is sometimes hidden by the wooden grip.
(d)	Bolt stop-in some cases the bolt stop, when pressed down, remains down.
(e)	Bolt-The resisting lug has been found to shear off sometimes.
The striker will go forward with the bolt open one inch.	.
Extractor-Sometimes fails to extract and ejector sometimes fails.



Main spring striker-Misfires were very-frequent due to weakness of main spring, or wrong adjustment of striker.
Striker-In one or two eases head of striker was broken.
Safety catch-Sometimes goes apparently home when it is not truly so, giving a false impression and leading a soldier to think that on pulling the trigger, the rifle will not go off. On replacing the safety catch to danger position the rifle has been found to go off without pulling the trigger. I consider this a most dangerous defect.	.
Magazine-The magazine cut off is not easy to work, the feed of magazine is bad.
Barre}-There has been a case of a loose barrel.	.
Chamber-Numerous cases of split cartridges, all split at forward end. This may be due to defective ammunition.
Piling swivel-has not been used yet.
General-The parts have the appearance of being loosely fitted together.
Special defects active service and musketry.
Foresight.-Bad colour.
Sling-Is too short.
Bayonets.-None issued.
Backsight.-Would be easily put out of action by sand and dirt.
Bolt.-Would be easily put out of action by sand and dirt.	_
Sighting-Under 100 yards the sighting is inconsistent.
In one rifle, firing at 200 yards, backsight was at zero, and man was aiming below the bottom of target, and was getting hits. In another, firing at 200 yards, backsight was at 250 yards.
In another, the rifle threw 3 feet to the left at 200 yards. This would appear due to want of adjustment of foresight before issue. At 300 yards, the elevations varied between 80 to 6 yards, and 340 yards the deflection varied from zero to six feet in practically still weather; this latter would also appear due to faulty adjustment of foresight before issue.
General remarks.-I found 35 rifles defective out of 79. I can get the numbers to identify the defects as above noted, if required. The company have not done much parade work with their rifles, but it has been noticed that the bolt opens sometimes in ordering arms.
(Sgd.) M. ST. L. SIMON, Capt. R.C.E., O.C. 1st Fortress, E.C.E.
Fourth evidence.-Capt. A. C. B. Gray, R.C.R., states :
I am of No. 1 company, R.C.R., at present at McNab's island during musketry table B. My company started on August 1; and defects were reported as follows:
Mechanical.
(a)	Foresight.-One rifle burst at muzzle. This occurred while man was firing standing, at third or fourth round, he had previously fired some 60 to 70 round. This may have been due to a stripped bullet, but nothing was found in barrel.
Foresight is very loose, moves about from side to side.
(b)	Loiver band.-Rivetted on. In one case it has come away, causing handguard to come off.
(c)	Backsight.-Sometime firing at 200 yards, Mr. WORTHINGTON.
the foresight is obscured by gooseneck of leaf of backsight. In one case the left band 6ide of ratchet band was loose.
The windgauge is frequently very loose. The backsight slide jumps sometimes on rifle being fired.
The leaf of backsight frequently gets out of projections to backsight leaf, and goes right over on to the handgaurd.
Bolt stop.-Sometimes will not go down, and frequently when down will not come up.
Bolt.-The resisting lug, in many cases, shears right off. This has occurred particularly in rapid fire. Difficult to replace in fire.
Extractor.-No faults so far.
Ejector.-Has sometimes broken off, and sometimes when not broken, does not eject.
Main spring of striker.-Misfires were very frequent.
Striker.-No case of broken heads.
Safety catch-In many cases the safety catch appears to be home, when it is not so, and the rifle can be fired. When catch is put to danger the rifle goes off. I consider this a most serious defect.
Magazine.-The feed is bad, and jams were frequent. The cut off is faulty, and sometimes does not stay down.
Butt trap-Liable to be bent on ordering arms.
Barrel-One case of a loose barrel.
Piling swivel.-If broken, a new one cannot be put in.
General-The trigger guard .appears to be very soft metal and bent easily.
Active Service and Musketry Defects.
(a)	Muzzle of barrel is cut off flush, and the interior is more liable to accidental damage.
(b)	Foresight. White sight is objectionable, gives bad definition.
(c)	Sling-No rise as at present attached.
(d)	Bayonets-None issued.
(e)	Backsight-Micrometer screw very liable to get choked with dirt.
(f)	Bolt-Liable to be choked with dirt.
(g)	Sighting-Backsight generally is flimsy and liable to be bent. Little consistency in sighting. In elevation, in one case, firing at 150 yards, the man was at zero, firing low, and made good shooting.
(h)	General-No oil bottles issued. Up to date (27-8-06) I have sent in twenty-four defective rifles out of about seventy, but have not yet completed my practices, and have at least two more defective rifles on hand.


Sgd.  A. C. B.@: GRAY, Capt.
No. 1 Company, R.C.R.
I know my hon. friend from Victoria and Halibnrton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) does not like to listen to this tale of woe. This may appear to him to be the abomination of desolation, but I wish he would keep quiet while I am reading.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, yes, but I want to put some life into this thing ; it is very dead.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Well you can't put much life into it; its a dead dog.
Fifth evidence : Captain A. P. B. Nable, R.C.R., states :
I am in command of No. 6 Company, R.C.R., now going through table B at McNab's island.
8933 MAY 21, 1908 8934	
My company is armed with Boss rifle, Mark II. I started table B on August 1, and defects have been reported as under. Mechanical. Foresight-No oomplaint. Lower band-In many cases, worked loose. Backsight-In one case, leaf bent. The clamp (or slide) of backsight sometimes moves when rifle is fired. The micrometer thimble in many cases moves when rifle is fired. Bolt stop-In many cases slides down, will not come up, in others will not go down. Bolt-Resisting lug frequently breaks off. Is difficult to replace in rifle. The striker and bolt will go forward on pressing the trigger, when bolt is open one inch. Main spring striker-Very large number of misfires. Striker-Frequently broken off. Safety catch-I ti very many cases it goes in and appears to be home when it is not so. A man is led to believe that the rifle is safe when it is not so. Oil pressing the trigger, the rifle fires. Also when safety catch is put back to danger from this half-way position, the rifle fires. I had to stop firing from the magazine in field practices, on account of weakness of safety catch. I consider this a most dangerous defect. Magazine-Large number of jams, especially when cartridges are put in hurriedly, as they generally would be. The cut off sometimes does not work. There is not sufficient distinction in position of cut off when open and closed. There should be no doubt whatever on such a point. Butt trap-No complaint so far. Barrel-One loose barrel. Piling swivel-Was easily bent, preventing arms being piled. . Trigger guard-In one case, a man was skirmishing, his rifle got knocked on a stone. This bent in the trigger guard, and the trigger could not be used. The trigger guard was not strong enough. Active Service and Musketry. Foresight-White colour is objectionable, does not give clear definition. Sling-Cannot be used. Bayonets-None issued. Backsight-Very liable to be broken. Very liable to get out of order from dirt. Generally too flimsy for active service. Sighting-The sighting is inconsistent, the variations in elevations of different rifles at same range being considerable. General-No oil bottles. Out of my company, firing seventy-eight, I have sent in thirty defective rifles from one cause or another; and have not yet completed table B. The barrel is cut off flush at the muzzle. I consider this renders the interior more liable to damage. Sgd. A. P. B. NAGLE. Captain R.C.R. Sixth evidence ; Captain E. H. Robinson, A.O.D., (Inspector of Ordnance Machinery) states : I have noted the following defects in the Ross rifle, Mark II: Mechanical. Foresight-Screw of foresight works loose due to the plate being too thin, causing only about 11 threads to be doing the work. Lower band-Not sufficient number of 2844	threads in the band to take the threads of male screw. Backsight-Hinge pin of back of backsight leaf is too small in my opinion, and also the boss where it passes through should be solid and not hollow as it is. Tbis would add very little to the weight. Micrometer screw jams occasionally. Wind-gauge screw jams occasionally. The projections from slide of backsight which hold leaf down are too short, or the lip of leaf too narrow. Bolt stop-Material is too soft. If made of wrought iron, it should be case hardened. Bolt-Resisting lug broken in several cases. Main spring of striker-Is in my opinion weak. It starts compressing at four and a half pounds to five pounds instead of seven pounds to nine pounds, as it should do. Striker-The striker protrusion varies in all rifles, and no gauge is yet available to correct these. If the strikers were all one protrusion and that the correct one, misfires would not be so frequent. Magazine loading tray-Sometimes found to throw to one side more than the other. Barrel-The -072 inch gauge goes into the chamber and allows the bolt to shut, whereas the -64 inch gauge should only be able to go in and allow the bolt to close home. One barrel was found to be loose in its attachment to the body. General remarks-All these defects can in my opinion be overcome. The backsight can be strengthened, the stop to bolt can be made harder still, the broken lugs on bolts appear to be more difficult to overcome, but even this with some alteration in manufacture can be made good. (Sgd.) E. H. ROBINSON, Captain, I. 0. H. Seventh evidence : Lieutenant R. F. 0. Horetzky, R.C.R., No. 2 Company, R.C.R,, states : I was with No. 2 Company, Royal Canadian Regiment, during its musketry training at McNab island, table B. Captain Caye, who commanded the company is now on leave. I noted the following defects in the Ross rifle, Mark II: Mechanical. (a) Foresight-I found the foresight in many rifles loose. ' (b) Lower band-This works loose in a few cases. Backsight-When the leaf of backsight is up, in numerous cases, it jerks from right to left. When at short ranges, the V of backsight is obscured by wood of hand guard, in some cases. In firing, sometimes the slide of backsight will alter 100 yards. The wind gauge screw in some cases is very difficult to work. Bolt stop-No remarks. Bolt-Several of the resisting lugs were broken off. Extractor-In some cases the extractor would not work. Main spring of striker-During the course there were a number of misfires. Striker-There were about 8 strikers broken out of a strength of 98 men firing. Safety catch-Most of the men were not aware when the safety catch was on, as it

would appear to go home without actually being so. I consider this a very dangerous defect.
Magazine-The cut-off is too small, and does not always work. There is not sufficient distinction between its two positions.
Butt trap-In my opinion is of too thin metal, and would quickly get damaged.
Special defects, active service and musketry.
(a)	Foresight-The white foresight does not give clear definition. Hood protector spoils shooting.
(b)	Sling-No swivel on lower band.
(c)	Bolt action-Liable to be clogged with sand.
(Sgd.) R. F. C. HORETZKY, Lieutenant, R. C. R.
Eighth evidence : Captain J. D. Doull, R. C.R., states :
Sling-Cannot be used.
Bayonets-None issued.
Micrometer thimble-Liable to get out of order quickly on service due to sand and dirt.
Bolt action-Liable to be clogged with sand and dirt. Hand to be put in quickly.
Loading tray-Attachment liable to be easily damaged.
General-No oil bottle. About 40 defective rifles sent in for various repairs out of 120. 18 were beyond the work of the armourer sergeant.
The barrel gets extremely hot very rapidly. Sighting is very erratic.
(Sgd.) JOHN D. DOULL, Captain, R. C. R.
Then I will read the following resume of defects :
I am in command of No. 3 Company, Royal Canadian Regiment, which commenced the musketry training, table B, about June 7. 1 found certain defects in the Ross rifle Mark II, as under:
Mechanical.
(a)	Foresight-Works loose in many cases. The adiustment of a foresight is a very delicate matter at any time.
(b)	Lower band-In one case the screw came out.
(c)	Backsight-In some cases the gooseneck of leaf of backsight is too high, and covers the aperture in the backsight.
In a number of cases the projections to backsight leaf works out and leaf springs right over on to the hand guard.
The wind gauge slide sometimes works loose. The sight is one that takes a great deal of teaching to recruits and is at times very slow to adjust.
Bolt stop-In one case when pressed down it remained down.
Bolt-I have seen several cases where the resisting lug had broken off..
Extractor-It failed to work once on account of a split cartridge.
Main spring of striker-A large number of misfires have occurred.
Striker-One the head flattened, and a number were broken.
Safety catch-I consider dangerous. It catches twice as it goes home, a man hears the first catch and imagines it is home. If the trigger is then pressed and safety catch put to danger, the rifle goes off.
Magazine-Jams are liable to occur. The loading tray jammed in one case. The cutoff is not sufficiently distinct in its two positions, and it is not easy to tell when it is on or off.
The screws on under side of magazine plate occasionally drop out.
Butt trap-Liable to damage from stones.
Barrel-The chamber is too large for the cartridge, a very large number of split cartridge cases was observed, which I consider due to too large a chamber.
One case of a loose barrel. This is dangerous.
Special defects, active service and musketry.
Foresight-The white sight does not give clear definition. I consider the band objectionable from a shooting point of view.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: A.-Mechanical defects.
Foresight.-1. Works loose in very many cases.
Lower band.-1. Works loose in many cases;
2.	No swivel for sling.	_
Backsight.-1. Leaf. Too flimsy, hinge pin weak. Flies over on to handguard frequently;
2.	Windgauge. Works loose or screw jams in many instances; 3. V. Gets obscured at short ranges frequently; 4. Slide. Jumps on discharge frequently; 5. Micrometer screw. Moves on firing, or jams, in many cases.
Bolt stop.-1. Works inefficiently in many cases; 2. Considered weak.	*
Bolt.-1. Resisting lug. Breaks off frequently; 2. Extractor. Occasionally fails, and occasionally breaks off; 3. Ejector. Occasionally fails; 4. Main spring of striker and striker. Misfires extremely common. Strikers frequently break.
Safety catch.-1. Works inefficiently and is a source of danger.
Magazine.-Cut off occasionally faulty ; 2. Little indication to a soldier, between cut off open, and cut off closed; 3. Feed generally poor and jams frequent; 4. Loading tray occasionally jams ;	5. Platform springs occasionally break.
Barrel.-1. Several cases of loose barrels: 2. Cartridge cases frequently split, chamber considered too great a diameter for -303 inches ammunition; 3. Muzzles cut off flush exposes interior to accidental damage.*
Butt trap and butt plate.-Metal too thin, liable to injury from stones; 2. Inadequate protection to butt or rifle.
Piling swivel.-1. Renewal very difficult.
(Sgd.) R. Lyndhurst Wadmore, Lt. Col., President of board.
(Sgd.) H. C. Thacker, Major, R.C.R.,
(Sgd) P. H. French, Captain, R.C.E.,
Members.
B.-Special defects active service and musketry.
Foresight.-1. White foresight gives bad definition.
Sling.-1. No practical provision for use of sling.
Bayonets.-None issued.
Backsight.-Liable to be easily choked with dirt.
Bolt.-Liable to be choked with dirt.
Sighting generally.-Shows want of adjustment before issue.

Generals . remarks.-No oil bottles. Bolts occasionally drop out on ordering arms. Trigger guard of weak material. The bolt is difficult to replace in the rifle.
(Sgd.) E. Lyndhurst Wadmore, Lt. Col., President of board.
(Sgd.) H.' C. Thaelcer, Major, R.C.A.,
(Sgd.) P. H. French, Captain,
Members.'
That, Mr. Speaker, concludes the evidence of the board of inquiry on Canada's great national arm of defence, held at Halifax in October, 1906.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: When the House rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had completed reading the report of the inquiry into the Ross rifle held at Halifax. From that report it would seem that every one of the witnesses examined concurred in four or five particulars. They were all of the opinion that, as a magazine gun, it was deficient; that, in a great many instances, it jagged. Every witness said that the back sight jumped when the rifle was fired from 100 to 200 yards ; that the bolt lugs frequently broke off and were of improper material. These are practically the main points upon which they all agreed. In summing up their evidence, I find that every witness said that out of his particular company there was from 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the rifles issued damaged during target practice, so that it would seem it is hardly a weapon which the people of this country would care to have put into the hands of their brothers and sons who go out to defend Canada and the empire.
While discussing the experience in handling the rifle in the maritime provinces, 1 would like to read a report from the camp of instruction at Sussex in 1906, page 280 of the Public Accounts Committee report on the Ross rifle :


SUSSEX CAMP OF INSTRUCTION, 1906.
[Stage Direction]
Defects reported in certain Ross rifles (Mark I) produced for inspection at the above named camp:
Four rifles-extractor failed to work.
Two rifles-went off as bolt was closed.
Nine rifles-screw head (top of block) broken off.
Four rifles-loose foresight.
One rifle-catch for locking bolt failed to engage.
Two rifles-bolt falls out when rifle is ordered. (Screw top of block) split. Stiff action.
One rifle-stiff action.
Three rifles-piling swivel fallen out or broken off.
Then follows a list of the casualties more or less serious, which are as follows :-[DOT]
Cartridge sticks in breach, extractor failed.
Two screws fallen out from trigger guard plate.
Screw (top of block) deficient when issued.
Cut-cff broken. Striker does not touch cartridge.
Extractor fallen out.
Interrupted screw, head of cocking piece, badly made. The head of cocking piece flew out when firing blanks.
Magazine platform fails to work.
Bolts sometimes jam when pressed home.
Piling swivel deficient. Fails sometimes to extract.
Micrometer timble jammed.
Defective elevating back sight spring.
Stiff bolt action. Protruding striker. Very dangerous.
Cocking piece comes out when drilling. Inferior thread to screw.
Screw deficient from trigger guard plate.
That is a list of the casualties at the Sussex camp, and with each casualty is given the number of the rifle, but I have not thought it necessary to read the numbers. As I said this afternoon, in summing up the weaknesses and general deficiency of the rifle, it was necessary to go from one end of the country to the other to ascertain its defects. We are next billed for St. John, N.B. This is the report sent in by Beverley R. Armstrong, major commanding the 3rd Regiment of Canadian Artillery :
The rifle practice of the Unit under my command for the annual training in 1906 has not been carried out owing to the fact that the regiment is armed with Mark I Ross rifles, which, in consequence of accidents to two of these on the 24th May last, when being used by No. 2 company, the officers and men are afraid to use them.
The following is the report on those two accidents. This is from the officer commanding 3rd Regiment Canadian Artillery and the district officer commanding Militia District No. 8 :
There have been casualties in the way of explosion of parts of two rifles but no casualty to the men however resulted.
Frederick William Borden: When did the alleged explosion occur ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: On 21th May.


Frederick William Borden: And it was not reported until the end of December.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: That shows lack of discipline on the part of the militia.


Frederick William Borden: It shows that they did not think anything about it until reminded by somebody here.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: It was reported to the district officer commanding on the 3rd December, 1906, in reply to a request for annual rifle practice returns ;
That in consequence of two accidents having happened to rifles when in use by No. 2

Company, such practice had not heen carried out.
There was aji accident on the 24th of May, when the breech block of two rifles exploded, but no men were injured.
In one case the milled thumb pull at end of firing pin was burst in at least three pieces, on discharge of the cartridge, and blew in different directions. Two pieces were afterwards picked up. In the other case, a cylindrical piece of steel, about three-quarters of an inch long, from in front of the milled thumb pull, flew over the rifleman's shoulder and was picked up in rear. The thumb pull in this case was blown away but not found. This accident is thought to have been caused by premature explosure, due to the fact that the firing pine had worked forward, the closing of the breech caused the firing pin to strike the cartridge before the breech was properly closed. It was only by good fortune that the men handling the rifles, in these cases, were not injured.
The annual rifle practice of the 3rd Regiment Canadian Artillery was not carried out this year because, as stated on December 3, on aocount of the accidents mentioned, the men would not voluntarily use the rifles, and the officers did not care to take the responsibility of ordering them to do so.
This practically confirms what was said at the Halifax board-that even when the safety catch is set, the rifle may still go off; so that the soldier who puts down the safety catch is never sure but that his rifle may go off when he least expects it.
Now, we will take the report made on tire rifles at Quebec, where, on the Plains of Abraham, the component parts of this rifle are assembled and put together. This report is from Major Fages. I will read only the most important parts of it:
I may add that a few of the rifles when firing from the magazine (rapid fire) twice or three times out of five shots it will be a misfire.
The musketry is only starting and I have no doubt that by the time it is completed other defects may be found out and a further report will then be sent.
The retaining pin that prevents the back sight from flying forward is also loose and liable to come out at any moment.
The leaf of backsight is of light material and is easily bent. At this morning's practice there were several misfires and when using the magazine the cartridges jammed in it and did not work properly.
The extractors also in many cases failed to respond. The ten rifles referred to above have been handed to the Master General of the Ordnance for inspection at his request, and should said rifles not be returned to the depot instructions to remove them from our books will be required.
At the board of inquiry held at Quebec, a great many witnesses were examined and gave testimony as to how they considered the rifle to work. None reported favourably on the rifle.
One man, No. 823(5, Pte. R. W. Bell reported :


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I was firing at the 500 yard range on the 18th instant. After firing several shots, I placed another cartridge in the chamber and fired it, whereupon the bolt blew open, the dust-plate in the bottom of the magazine blew out and the hand-guard blew off. The cartridge knocked around the base.
Then, we come to St. Johns, Que. And I attach a good deal of importance to this report because it was sent in with an accompanying letter from a man who now holds the position of Adjutant General in the minister's department.
Ottawa, January 29, 1907. From the Officer Commanding the Royal Canadian Dragoons to the Master General of Ordnance.
Sir,-I have the honour to state from reports of the officers commanding ' A ' and ' B ' squadrons, Royal Canadian Dragoons, relative to the Ross rifle at present on their charge, it would appear that ' A ' squadron is in possession of the Mark II Ross rifle, but did not put in its annual musketry practice, 1906, with that rifle for the reason that there is no rifle range at St. Jean, Quebec.
2.	The Mark II, Ross rifle was used by ' B ' squadron at its annual musketry practice and no serious accidents happened during the practice.
3.	About 20 per cent of the rifles were damaged during practice, the following being the principal defects :
(a)	The retaining lugs on the bolt are very weak, and a number of them were broken off (about four or five).
(b)	The magazines were useless, in almost every case when the magazines were ordered to be used the cartridges jammed at the second shot. There seemed to be a weakness at the platform spring.
(c)	The leaf of the backsight in nearly every case, had to be adjusted after each shot, and seemed to be very easily injured.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. LESSARD, Brevet Col.


Commanding R.C.D.: Accompanying this report is a long list of defective rifles, in which it Is said that the projections on the left side of the bolt broken off ; foresight and backsight became loose; magazine jammed ; strikers are broken, and a long list of other casualties.
Then, at Eastman, in the province of Quebec, it was found necessary to hold a board to examine into the casualties that occurred there last fall. It appears that two rifle associations, one from Mansonville and one from Eastman, met to have a friendly shoot and, incidentally, to test the merits of the Ross and Enfield rifles. I happened to be in the vicinity at the time, and perhaps know the facts as well as anybody else. Seeing a young man about the hotel with his head swathed in bandages, and blood spots oozing through the bandages, I asked what was the matter. Ilis reply was that he had been fool enough to get behind a Ross rifle. He said that during the contest he was selected to shoot with one of the opposite party, Captain Seale, who was using
a Boss rifle. The young man objected to shooting beside it, stating as his reason that on a previous occasion at some shoot an accident had happened to a Ross rifle while he was shooting with an opponent at the butts. They rather laughed at him and said that his fears were due to the fact that he was a Tory and had nothing good to say for the Ross rifle. So he got down beside his opponent. They were at the 500 yard range. Captain Seale put his cartridge into the chamber and pushed back the bolt. The magazine exploded.


Frederick William Borden: Will_the hon. gentleman tell-


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I will tell what I


Frederick William Borden: Have you the photographs there ?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: As the hon. gentleman does not feel inclined to take my word, any more than I would his, I think I had better read the evidence, which is as follows :
I am the captain of the Eastman Civilian Rifle Association, which was formed about a year ago and is composed of forty-two members. We received ten Ross rifles, Mark 1, last fall for use of the members. We had a practice with them almost every Saturday during the summer. We also received a free issue of ammunition about the same time, but as we were out of it on the second October instant, we borrowed two hundred and forty rounds from the Mansonville Civilian Rifle Assocation. It was ' cartridges S.A. Ball 303 Cordite, 24-1-05, Mark IV/ which we were using as far as I know on 2nd October. On that date we were having a friendly match at Mansonville with this association twelve men a side. We had all finished firing at the 200 yards range and I was firing at the 500 yards firing point, when my rifle exploded. We were shooting in pairs, and my mate was a Mr. Peabody, of Mansonville. We had each fired three sighters and five shots on our scores when the accident happened.
I was on my sixth shot. I had pressed the bolt home pretty hard, but can't swear that it locked. I produce the damaged rifle, which is numbered E923, and all the broken parts which I could find in the field near me, some may be missing-I was not aiming, and ii was just when I pushed the bolt home that the explosion occurred; my fingers were not on the trigger, and my right hand was on the bolt sleeve knob.
Both my hands were numbed by the shock and I could only use the first finger of my right hand. One of the pieces hit Mr. Peabody on the right temple, and must have gone horizontally as he was lying down as I was. I cut an artery, I think, and Dr. Painting attended him.	.
There is a part of the cartridge case still in a barrel of the rifle, but I cannot produce the wrapper of the ammunition, because we were not in the habit or keeping them...I
always used the same rifle and looked after it in my own house. I also allowed others to shoot out of it, but always cleaned it myself.
In this case the board came to the conclusion that,-
From the evidence so far adduced it is impossible to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the immediate cause of the accident, and recommend that the broken parts, exhibits and proceedings be sent to experts for their examination and report.
The men composing that board were Lt. A. McMillan, Royal Canadian Dragoons, a man who has seen considerable service; W. L. Carey, Royal Canadian Engineers, a man who holds a prominent position in the Militia Department, so prominent in fact that he has been entrusted with the inspection of the fortresses in course of construction at Quebec, and J. S. Dunbar, Lieutenant-Colonel and Deputy Adjutant General for the province of Quebec. I understand that after these broken parts were sent to the Ross Rifle Company, the cause of the explosion was found, that it was stated, although this is heresay, by the experts of the Ross rifle factory that the trigger had been filed.


Frederick William Borden: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman but he knows, he heard Major Pym state in answer to his own Question, that that rifle had been tampered with. The rifle was sent to Major Pym, not to the Ross rifle factory, it was sent to the inspector. The inspector was present at the meetings of the board and the hon. gentleman himself asked Major Pym the question in the committee and elicited the information which 1 have just given.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps he could tell us more about it if he chose, about the photographs and all that sort of thing.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is very much worried about my advocacv of the' Lee-Enfield rifle. I do not know whether it is because the commercial instinct is so strong that the hon. gentleman thinks I have some interest in the Lee-Enfield.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I may tell the hon. gentleman that I am doing this because this is my own, my native land.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Possibly he does not understand that.


Samuel Hughes: No, I know nothing about it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I would not if I were you. As to the statement of the min-

ister I have no objection to telling him that Major Pym was present at the board of inquiry. He did not state that the rifle had been tampered with, did he ?


Frederick William Borden: No, but in answer to a question put by the hon. member in the Public Accounts Committee he did.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I do not remember that.


Frederick William Borden: It is not convenient.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Major Pym was present at this inquiry. This tale of woe seems to excite the minister and my hon friend.	'


Samuel Hughes: No, it amuses us.


Frederick William Borden: It is a misstatement.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I am going to read a report now from no less a man than the Brigadier General who commands the forces in Caniada to-day. I presume that both my hon. friends have some respect for the opinion of this officer. In sending in a report of a board of inquiry he addresses the secretary of the Militia Council and in reference to a rifle on which he was specifically reporting he states :
1. I found in each instance that the retaining lug upon the bolt had been broken off, so that in the action of extracting the empty shell the bolt would come out.
2. It was impossible to tell whether the break was wilful or accidental, nor was 1 able to tell whether the break was caused by a flaw in the metal or not, owing to the time that had elapsed between the break and my examination.
3.	Upon returning to the armourer's shop I tried six of these rifles, using no unnecessary force m extracting; two of the retaining fcame off. An immediate examination of the break showed that there was a flaw in the metal at the butt of the lug. I did not try any more of the rifles.
4.	I compared the retaining lug of the mark I rifle with the lug of the mark II rifle, and imd the lug on the former to be over half an inch m length, while the latter is a J inch in length.
5.	I have not known a mark I retaining lug to break as the mark II has done. In order to more closely describe the part affected, I am to-day forwarding by express
the, ri26s complained of, viz, Nos. 12d, 130, 372 and 378.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) W. D. OTTER Brigader-general.
He incloses with his report a resume of the list of casualties which is as follows : [DOT] Mr. WORTHINGTON.


STATEMENT OF ISSUE AND CONDITION OF THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
jp © QC	©	so © CC	o B c 5 .	0 O ©'E	sE	° oV,	¥To whom	Date of	O)	-w	* [DOT]- CD	aissued.	issue.	ll	"3 o	V Ti	O 0.5	= oi3 aa sS "	p	o © *<	b © © Pi	IsApril	144	R.C.E	-	May	20	J une	33	V34	132	12940	Corps of	August...	18	J	Guides..	July.. ..	5	1	1	1271 R.C.R	114	4	i	34	21-49- 122-
123
3 R.C.R	140	1	1	0 7 38	53 19-40-5 R.C.R	April	800	31	44-1189th R.C.R..-[	June	
September	85 29	}48	1	42 0	4-31- 103R.C.R	{ R.C.M.R . ..	180	}* 5	28	30	11120	41	2-17 23-24-R.N.W.M.P.	Nil ....	Nil.	33	25-26 14-15- -16-17 18-19- 20
There are two more reports from London, where boards were held, and which show very much the same defects and deficiencies as were found in, the other rifles which were issued to the other companies of the Royal Canadian Regiment. Lt.-Col. J. Vance Graveley, in one of his reports, says :
Twenty-three were more or less damaged, many of the complaints being that the rifles were oversighted and that they missed fir9. It was impossible to test these faults.
About this time the acting Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, Mr. E. F. Jarvis, writes to the Ross Rifle Company a confidential letter, as follows :
Ottawa, July 18, 1906.
Confidential.
Gentlemen,-I am desired by the Minister of Militia and Defence to forward for your information the inclosed lists of defects which have been found to exist in rifles, both Mark I and II pattern, manufactured by your company.
Without attaching undue importance to these lists; it will be seen that they afford sufficient grounds for the conclusion that serious defects have developed in both patterns of the Ross rifle, while in the hands of the troops, indicating, in one form or another, defeotive workmanship in its manufacture, and possibly also, insufficient inspection before the rifles are accepted by the Militia Department.

This being the ease, the minister directs me to give your company immediate notice of these reports, as it is clearly necessary that some radical change must be introduced in the system of inspection, both during manufacture and by the inspection staff before the rifles are taken over by the department.
Mr. Jarvis seems to have struck the nail on the head when he said that:
Some radical change must be introduced in the system of inspection, both during manufacture, and by the inspection staff before the rifles are taken over by the department.
Within a week, or within a day or two, I asked the minister about the inspection, and his answer across the floor of the House was that the component parts of the rifle were inspected, and that then an inspection was held of the assemoled parts, that is an upright inspection. Whatever the inspection is, or however it is carried out, certainly it must be defective, because it is hardly credible that anybody would accept these rifles unless they were reported as being thoroughly satisfactory and as having passed a creditable inspection. The minister incidentally told us also that this inspection costs something like 90 cents per rifle, which, any one will see, adds $1.90 to the cost of each rifle, making the price $26.90, to say nothing of the other charges, which, when added, bring the price of the rifle up to the vicinity of $30. Now, I think enough has been said as to the unsoundness of the rifle and as to the fact that it is an unsafe rifle. As the rifle is not in use on the ranges of this country, either in the provincial or Dominion matches, or in the matches at Bisley, it might be well to inquire why the marksmen of this country have not taken kindly to it.
Frederick William Borden: That is not quite correct. The rifle is in use on this range now, and on all the principal ranges.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: It may be in use every day now, but not during matches.


Frederick William Borden: It has been.


Samuel Hughes: It happened to win the first prize last year at Toronto.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The hon. gentleman gave us an exhibition of what he could do with it last year at 500 yards, and he did not hit the target.


George Eulas Foster: The target was not big enough.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I may say that it was a 9-foot target.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is just as fair in that as he is in everything else. He is absolutely unfair, he does not know how to be fair, but we will teach him when our time comes.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Some members of the Bisley team have won such honour and distinction in these competitions that their names have come to be household words with the militia, and perhaps one whose name is as well known as any other is Sergeant Hayhurst, of Hamilton. Sergeant Hayhurst has made a report upon this rifle. I consider him a most competent person and one able to report from an impartial standpoint, because he has received many favours from the Militia Department of this government. His statement is as follows :
Hamilton, December 20, 1907. Lieutenant Colonel E. E. W. Moore,
Commanding 13th Regiment Infantry, Hamilton, Ontario.
Sir,-In reply to your communication asking for a report on the improved Ross rifle issued to me during the summer, I have the honour to say that:
Shooting-I have given the rifle a fair test under favourable conditions making the following scores:
July 20-
200-4 4 3 5 5 4 5=30 500-3 2 3 4 4 4 5=25 600-5 5 4 5 5 5 5 = 34
__QQ
July 26200-3 4 3 4 5 4 3 = 26 500-3 3 4 5 5 3 4=27 600-4 3 3 5 5 2 5=27 -80
August 3-
200-4 4 4 4 5 4 5 = 30 500-5 4 5 3 5 2 4=28 600-5 4 4 5 2 5 3 = 28 -86
August 15-
800-4 4 4 4 3 5 5 0 5 3= 38 900-3 02532232 4=26
1,000-3 55330352 2=31 -95
Giving an average of 85 at the shorter ranges and of 95 at the longer compared with 93 and 124 respectively in all my shoots this year with the Lee-Enfield.
You will notice in all my scores with the Ross some very wide shots, more particularly at the longer ranges. I also used the improved Ross in practice for one week at Bisley in 1906 and had a similar experience.
Sights-The above wide difference of results I place by far the greater part to the imperfect state of the rear sight, which is much too weak in its parts to stand the strain of even careful usage, and any service^ rifle must necessarily be subjected to a certain amount of strain.	.	.
The sight consists of too many working parts all of which must have some play, the aggregate of which make a serious disturbance of aim.
I consider the worst features of this sight, the range locking plate with its square recesses instead of V-shaped, and the light sheet metal leaf. Of the foresight I do not look upon the hood as of any advantage except to protect the barley corn, the possibility of adjustment is a decided advantage as a

true shooting rifle is most necessary to the soldier.
Given a rigid sight hed and firm strong removable leaf, of which there are several excellent examples of Canadian make, and I mention three in the order in which I consider they come, from a mechanical as well as a rifleman's view. The Reardon, Mitchell and Sutherland. With any of these sights the shooting and serviceable qualities of the rifle would be much improved.
Barrel-Of the barrel there is not much to say, if greater care were taken in selection of material and workmanship in rifling, as it is an almost exact copy of a well proved barrel which has given splendid results. Extreme accuracy in long range target shooting has been somewhat sacrificed for less weight and shorter length but this does not materially detract from its usefulness as a general service rifle barrel.
Breech mechanism-Of this there are many excellent features, particularly the head locking. with its strong durable lugs, preventing any lift of the bolt at the discharge and less liability of wear. Also the straight pull. There is a weakness in some of the smaller parts as instanced by the breaking of the shell ejector at the first shot. I fired from rifle No. 69. The long drag pull can and should be eliminated.
As to the magazine there is no question but that it would be much improved by the introduction of the clip feed in place of the hand feed. I found after careful practice that more cartridges go on the ground than into the magazine, and this would be much worse under the excitement of even rapid fire, not to speak of action.	.
Stock.-There is much that could be improved in this feature particularly the fitting, selection of material and strength.
Of the many rifles I have examined the fitting was very bad, and the wood was frequently crossgrained and spongy where it should have been straight and sound especially at the small of the butt, a weak point.
In conclusion I would say that with all of the bad faults and many of the weak features removed and strong durable parts introduced in their place a very fine serviceable rifle would result, but which for a fine accurate target shooting rifle would still be inferior to the present Eee-Enfield barrel with good sights and ammunition.
I remain, sir,
Yours obediently,
(Sgd.) F. H. HAYHURST, Sergt. Instr. Musk., 13th Regiment.
That is signed F. H. Hayhurst, sergeant instructor of musketry, 13th regiment. You will notice that he says that with all of the bad faults and many of the weak features removed and strong durable parts introduced in their place ia serviceable rifle would result. Well, that would be like buying an old horse on the market and after removing his spavins and ringbones you would make him perfectly sound. I shall now read the following report from Major M. S. Mercer, second regiment Q. O. R., president of rifle club, to H. M. Pellatt, commanding the same regiment:


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Headquarters, Toronto,
January 10, 1908. From Major M. S. Mercer, 2nd Regt., Q.O.R., President of Rifle Club,


Lieutenant Colonel F.   M.@: Pellatt,
Commanding same Regiment.
Sir,-I have the honour to report as follows on the Ross rifle issued in 1907, to the 2nd Regiment for test purposes, being Nos. 37, 62, 72 and 80, 1906.
The rifle is of the Mark II. pattern.
The woodwork is still rough and unfinished, badly fitted and permits too much dampness remaining underneath the barrel
The toe is too long.
The magazine still occasionally jams. *
The backsight is useless for service purposes, the ' V' is too shallow, and the elevated sight too liable to injury. I used this rifle in wet weather, thoroughly cleaning all parts, but the sight, after leaving it standing for fifteen hours, the sight was unworkable, and required several hours work to restore it to its original condition.
TJie hands are entirely too light.
The bolt arm is too long, result in skirmishing is that the least touch of arm releases bolt from position and shot is lost. The discharge returns the bolt to the proper position but force of spring is so diminished that cartridge is not discharged. To further test this feature I used rifle in hunting and lost several shots through bolt arm being slightly released by coming in contact with twigs and light underbrush. The bolt action is eminently superior to that Mark I. rifle, which should never be permitted to be used as it is dangerously defective.
The shooting qualities of the rifle I found fairly good, from 100 to 500 yards for five or six shots. When barrel became heated, shots were wild and uncertain. At longer ranges, results were more satisfactory. I attribute this somewhat to the lightness of the bands, and also to the lightness of the barrel. I have tested a number of Mark II. rifles with like results in this respect. This rifle has not the merit that would justify me in recommending it for sharpshooters or to expert riflemen for match purposes.
In many respects I like the Ross rifle. It is light, simple, has a good foresight, well hooded ; is easily cleaned and easy of adjustment, but many improvements are yet required before it can be said to answer the requirements of a national service weapon. Troops armed with this rifle in its present condition would be at a terrible disadvantage against forces equipped with other well known national arms.
If permission were given to apply the test of ' rough usage ' even to the destruction of one of these rifles, with a view to ascertaining inherent defects, if any. I would be pleased to continue my investigation, as I believe this test necessary to any complete judgment on the merits of the rifle.
I have the honour to be, sir,	.
Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) M. S. MERCER, major, President Q.O.R., R.C.
The following report which I shall read was sent in by a man who possibly knows

tlie Ross rifle as well as anybody who has been connected with it since it was brought to the attention of the public. This report is from Major E. Helmer who at one time held a responsible position on the commission which reported on the rifle and this is his report to the chief staff officer at Pete-wawa :
Petewawa, August 14, 1907.


To C.S.O.: , Petewawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to report that in accordance with instructions contained in H.Q. 314-15-28, the necessary arrangements were made to carry out the tests of the Ross rifle requested by the M.G.C.. and beg to submit the following:
The men selected to carry out these tests are experienced instructors, excellent rifle shots, and altogether reliable. The rifles used bear the ' S ' inspection mark (as well as one Mark III) and had not been previously issued to any corps. The tests carried out, together with results, are as follows:
1.	Accuracy.-One sighting shot and seven rounds were fired at each of the following ranges: 100, 200, 500, 600 yards, and while there were cases of over undersighting the rifles tested were found for all practical purposes to be accurately sighted.
2.	Magazine fire.-The magazines were used for one minute rapid fire at 100 yards. There were a number of jams due to two cartridges lying side by side in which cases the cartridges had to be released from the top, the lifter finger piece being of no assistance. Bad extraction and ejection caused jams in other cases preventing a reasonable number of rounds from being fired.
In connection with the above there was no attempt made to fire a large number of rounds as each shot was carefully aimed so that ' troubles ' were not due to undue haste on the part of the firers.
3.	' Handling of sights when rifle is hot.'-
Magazines 669 were charged at 350 yards and 5 rounds fired. The squad was advanced 50 yards at a time firing 5 rounds from the magazine at each halt adjusting the sights to suit the distances. At the fourth halt the men complained so much about the heated sights that the firing was stopped although it had been intended to advance to 100 yards as per instructions. The shots were deliberately aimed as the appended detail of hits will show. Both the finger clamps and micrometer rings were so hot as to be unbearable even to hardened fingers. Some of the ' rings' were ' bound' so tightly that they could not be turned at all.	.
(This applies also to Mark III sight as well. See report S. M. Duncan herewith.)
4.	The O.C. cavalry was requested to test the buckets supplied and to report on the suitability of the rifle for mounted units.
Appended hereto will be found reports and details of the shooting as well as the impressions of the different men engaged in carrying out these tests.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant.
(Sgd.) R. A. HELMER. Major,


D. AA. G.M.
[Stage Direction]
The last report I have to read, although really it was the first report that came in,
Is from the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. It contains a list of casualties similar to the others and it was stated by Major Perry who was in charge of the force that the rifle practice had to be discontinued for fear of accident owing to the dangerous nature of the rifle. At the present time we find that the Royal Northwest Mounted Police force which is under the charge of the right lion, the Prime Minister is armed with rifles of any old pattern and vintage dating away back to the Winchester 1876, Lee-Enfield, Lee-Metford, and Martinis. All these rifles have no component parts interchangeable and all take different brands of ammunition. That is a very deplorable condition of affairs and we find that during the practice in one instance the bolt flew back and resulted in an accident by which Sergeant Major Browbridge almost lost his eye. This report is sent in by Assistant Commissioner McUree to Commissioner Perry. The reference-to it is as follows :
I got a telegram yesterday evening that Bowbridge's eye injured, bolt of rifle flying back at target practice.
Mr. Speaker, any one criticising this rifle is subject to the imputation that he is disloyal and unpatriotic, and that he is prejudicing the minds of the militia. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you are a militiaman ; probably all of us at some time or other have borne arms for our country ; and I would like to ask you whether you consider a discussion of the defects of that rifle to be prejudicing the minds of the militia ? Would you rather experiment with the rifle or run the risk of having your mind prejudiced, or would you require an ocular demonstration of the carrying qualities of the rifle similar to that which Sergeant Major Bowbridge received ? I do not think we have to look very far to see why, when these reports came in from the Northwest Mounted Police, a halt was not called and the rifle improved or perfected. This body of men is under the direct charge of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, and has been under his charge for a number of years. Report after report of a damaging nature reached his department, so that the right hon. gentleman has not even the excuse of having been asleep at the switch. He knew from the first, that the rifle was bad, and yet we do not find him giving the benefit of the doubt to the man behind the gun. to the men directly under his control, to the riders of the plains who have preserved order in the west since the inception of the provinces, who have served their country with distinction at home and abroad; but he gave the benefit of the doubt to the war minister's little manicure gun which is warranted to do business at both ends simultaneously. The benefit of the doubt had to go to the gun with the straight pull, and at a very serious time.
[Stage Direction]
We heard some nights ago of the unerring instinct which guided the right hon. gentleman in settling the affairs of his party and of the country ; but this unerring instinct does not seem in this case to have been at work. For the right hon. gentleman, the other night, according to 'Hansard,' said this-I hope he will excuse me if I do not read all the speech :
Yes, I see signs of war-
Frederick William Borden: This is out. of order.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: If the right hon. gentleman went into action with a gun such as the hon. gentleman who controls the Militia Department sees fit to put into the hands of the militia of this country, I am afraid that it would be worse than another catastrophe which the right hon. gentleman mentioned in a discussion on the census in connection with the Immigration Bill, when he spoke of the angel of death visiting the first-born throughout Israel. I would like to tell the right hon. gentleman, and I tell him frankly, that I think his angel of deatli is but a kindergarten angel of death in comparison with the angel of death which he has put into the hands of his war minister. My hon. friend from Victoria and Halibur-ton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), of glorious and immortal memory, seems to be distressed more or less. About the time the discussion was going on in the ' Star ' and other papers regarding the importation of parts of the Ross rifle from the United States, an article appeared in the ' Herald ' saying that the Norwegian army was about to be armed with the Ross rifle : but a cable despatch shortly afterwards admitted that the commander-in-chief of the Norwegian army did not contemplate re arming the Norwegian army, and had not even heard of the Ross rifle. Now, these reports of a very unflattering and uncomplimentary nature have been coming in, in one continuous stream, to the Militia Department. So it has been found necessary to do something to brush up this gun ; and working on the assumption that what cannot be cured must be endured, a whitewash board was held at Quebec and a number of friends hied down to the ancient capital, where, on the historic battlefield and under the guns of the fleet, they proceeded to subject this rifle to some most serious tests. One was in regard to disassembling and putting together the motor parts of the rifle. In this engagement a Tommy was taken from the citadel and an expert from the Ross rifle factory, and the test went on, and it naturally resulted in the component parts of the Ross rifle being reassembled in a few seconds quicker than the component parts of the Lee-Enfield.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member is such a fair-minded gentleman that I am Mr. WORTHINGTON.
sure he would not like to deceive or mislead the House in any way; but he should know that the sergeant who took down the parts was the most experienced army sergeant in the Dominion of Canada.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear; that is correct.


George Eulas Foster: Did he put them back again ?


Samuel Hughes: No, he eould not get it together at all.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: However, that test is of little moment, because nobody is allowed to take apart the Ross rifle; it is forbidden in the instructions of the hon. gentleman who controls the department. Militia order 98 says :
All tampering with small arms or the stripping or removing of any part of the arm (not intended to be used in the ordinary use of the weapon) is strictly prohibited unless carried out by the district armourer or by a regimental armourer who has been through a course of instruction at an ordnance depot, and. who has received a certificate that he is capable of executing minor repairs.
You can see very readily that was a very unfair test.
This is practically the history of the Ross rifle. Canada's national arm of defence, the rifle which passed such creditable examination at the hands of Canadian musketry experts and with which the minister intends arming the defenders of this country-a rifle, which placed in the hands of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, was discarded by them because they considered it dangerous and were forced, by reason of that danger, to discontinue their target practice; a rifle which has been more or less a failure when placed in the hands of the permanent corps and the militia; a rifle which resulted in several serious accidents at St. John and Lethbridge; a rifle which is not used by the sharpshooters of this country for the simple reason that they cannot make good scores with it and prefer the old Lee-Enfield. But the manufacture nevertheless goes on just the same.
The minister tells us that no government ever perfects its first rifle, that it must run through successive stages of development from the cradle to maturity. Well, I hope my hon. friend is not going to assume the parentage of the dozen or so brands of vintages of the Ross rifle. I should recommend that he be guided more by a little incident which occurred in the history of a young curate who had a yearly stipend of only 880, but who had a sanguine temperament and high ideals and married for love. He christened his first child-Mark I- Alpha ; the second Omega, but, alas, for the judgment of the reverend gentleman, he was obliged at the expiration of some time to call his Mark III. * Errata.' I would suggest that the right hon. gentle-


MAT 21. 1908
[Stage Direction]
man instead of calling his last rifle * Mark III.' should call it ' Mark Time,' and then take the means to obtain a perfect rifle which would be a credit to himself and the country and which could be safely placed In the hands of our militia.
But according to reports which we hear from time to time possibly all our difficulties in the way of the Ross rifle will be brushed away. A ' peace at any price ' park is to be established on the historic Plains of Abraham, and it is rumoured that possibly that will entail the removal of the Ross rifle factory, which now defaces the ancient battlefield and /stands there as a tribute to the monumental egotism of the right hon. gentleman and his War Minister. Those gentleman know more about rifles than the officers of the Musketry School at Hyde or the commission which reported on the Ross rifle at Springfield or the officers of the permanent force who sent reports from all points from Halifax to Vancouver, and who persist in the idea of placing it in the hands of the militia of Canada. It does not seem that the people of Canada wish to have their militia armed with a rifle such as the one I have described to-night. It is not safe, it is unserviceable, and it comes to grief on the slightest provocation. The reports are unanimous in condemning it and in condemning almost every component part of it. However, there is one thing on which we may congratulate ourselves, and that is that the only Canadian product of the Ross rifle factory, namely, the noise it makes when it goes off, has been omitted from this category of defects, so that we have at least one feature which we may be proud of. I have nothing more to say in connection with the reports as to the efficiency and desirability of the rifle. I trust that the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of War will see fit to reconsider their determination to place this rifle in the hands of the militia. It will be a very serious thing to send troops into action, or even to keep them during peace, armed with a rifle which is not absolutely the best that can be obtained in the world's markets .today. I beg, therefore, to move :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following substituted instead thereof:
The dealings of the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with the adoption and manufacture of the Ross rifle as an arm for the defence of Canada have displayed deplorable inefficiency, have been characterized by gross extravagance and improvidence, and have impaired public confidence both in the alleged efficiency of the rifle and in the management of the department.
Hon.   S@: It can scarcely be truly said, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. gentleman's performance that he was ' all things by turns and nothing long.' He was all things
by turns, but always very long. It would be difficult to say in which roll he was most interesting-whether as a Heaven-born patriot, as he declared himself in the opening of his speech, or as a humorist, in which mood he seemed disposed to close his remarks. But though his peroration may have been really genuinely humorous and amusing to himself, I doubt if any one else in this House fairly appreciated it. The hon. gentleman has succeeded at last in carrying his point with his party. He has apparently been strong enough to convince his party that it is a desirable thing-


Samuel Hughes: Pardon me, please.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-a portion of his party-that it is a desirable thing in the interests of that party and in the interests of the country that this question of arming the militia should be brought down to the level -the low level from the hon. gentleman's point of view-of party warfare. The hon. gentleman talks about patriotism. He says that he is actuated by a strong patriotic desire-and by that alone-to benefit his country and to benefit the militia, of which he is an officer. But I doubt very much if he will be able to convince right-thinking men, right-thinking officers of the force to which he belongs, that this is the truest and best way of exhibiting his love for the country and his love for the militia force. He may feel that his efforts have been rewarded to some extent. I think they have. If the desire to throw doubt upon a weapon with which the army of this country is to be armed, if that, in his mind, is the highest thing to be sought after, the thing which a member of parliament and an officer occupying a prominent position in the militia, should work for above and beyond everything, then I think the hon. gentleman may congratulate himself upon a certain measure Of success, because, with the aid of certain newspapers

which, in some cases, he has inspired, and which, in more frequent instances, have inspired him-the hon. gentleman has been able to cause a condition of doubt to exist among the militia force of this country ; a condition, however, which, I am happy to be a Die to say, is very rapidly disappearing since the reports of the investigation which has taken place before the Public Accounts Committee during the past year and a half have been thoroughly circulated among the people. The hon. gentleman has taken a long time to get his courage up to the sticking point. He spent all last session asking questions-every day


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Will the hon. gentleman (Sir Frederick Borden) allow me to say just here : the reason of the delay is due to his usual length of time in bringing down the reports we asked for, and the

length of time the Public Accounts kept the report before them.


Frederick William Borden: I am not responsible for the Public Accounts Committee. I was willing to have the question reported here long ago. No, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) is entirely responsible.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The hon. minisister did not bring down these reports until within the last two months.


Frederick William Borden: Well, two months. Here is an hon. gentleman burning with a desire to save his country. He was lamenting over the dangers which beset the people of this country, and especially the militia-and here he has allowed, according to his own statement, two months to pass, during which he should have been on his feet with the kind of impassioned eloquence we heard to-day, warning the House and the country of the terrible disaster awaiting us.
I do not propse to follow this line of argument any longer. The hon. gentleman has occupied three hours and a quarter, and I shall try not to emulate him in this respect at least. I propose, in view of the seriousness of the resolution which is now before the House, to address myself to two or three points connected with this matter which I deem to be of importance. I do not, for a moment, intend to follow the hon. gentleman in his meanderings among the reports of all sorts of committees which are of more or less consequence-and generally of much less consequence than more. However, before I take my seat, I shall refer specifically to the only three cases out of the whole number he has referred to in which the Ross rifle has been seriously attacked. And I propose to show that in each and all of these cases the statement that any accident occurred, any blow out or anything that might have seriously menaced life, is absolutely without any foundation in fact. And I propose to do that by the record, and not by reading such papers as the hon. gentleman did, a paper the authority for which he could not state, purporting to be a report from the United States government as to the test of certain rifles from the Ross factory-


Arthur Norreys Worthington: If the hon. gentleman (Sir Frederick Borden) will pardon me. Somewhat like his little manicure rifle, he is going off at half-cock. This report came from the Springfield Armoury, and is signed by competent and credible men, and they state that Sir Charles Ross was present and asked to have his rifle inspected.


Frederick William Borden: I say that this House has no evidence before it beyond the hon. gentleman's statement, and.-to re-


Arthur Norreys Worthington: turn him the compliment that he paid me- I do not value that statement one single particle ; it is not good enough. Now, if the hon. gentleman is going to bring down ordnance reports, let him bring them down with the proper seal upon them, as has been done by the Militia Department in every case; every paper is there to speak for itself, and it bears upon its face the authority from which it emanated. I do not come here, as the hon. gentleman did, with a typewritten paper which he tells us may have come from the Springfield Arsenal in the United States, but concerning which he has given us no proof that it came from there.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Does the hon. gentleman deny the accuracy of the report?


Frederick William Borden: I am not denying it or ardrming it; I say that that paper has no business to be brought into this House, because the hon. gentleman is not able to say -where it came from.


Samuel Hughes: I may say that the report of the Springfield committee on the Ross rifle is infinitely better than the Springfield report on their own rifle, as I shall show in due time.


Frederick William Borden: I would like, at the earliest moment, to set the mind of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) at rest with reference to the dangerous character of this rifle, which he so hates, and in connection with which he has become a sort of monomaniac; because he has done nothing else for two years, he has thought of nothing else, spoken of nothing else, apparently knows nothing else-and very little about that. But I want to make a statement at once, which I hope may have a soothing effect upon his mania, and that is that I will undertake to bring the evidence of men competent to judge to prove that there is not a single rifle which has been delivered and accepted by the Department of Militia from the Ross rifle factory- except the rifle which his friend tampered with at Eastman at a meeting at whicu the hon. gentleman was present and-


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I was not present ; I was not within twenty miles.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman said he was.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I said I was in the vicinity.


Frederick William Borden: He knew It
had been tampered with, and did not like to go. I say that with the exception of that one rifle, which was tampered with in that way-and I will show in a few miutes what was done with that rifle so tampered with-there is not one single rifle of the 42,000 which have now been delivered that

is not a service rifle and is not fit and safe to use in the Canadian army if it were necessary to use it. I make that statement here and accept full responsibility for it. I make it upon the report which I hold of those who are competent to advise me as to matters of that kind. I shall read the particulars necessary to show that of those rifles which are not now serviceable there is not one which cannot be made serviceable with a very slight expenditure. Yet we have this hon. gentleman trying to terrify the militia, trying to persuade the House that we have purchased 52,000 rifles which are only fit to be placed on the scrap heap. I assure you there is not one word of truth in it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The Auditor General said it.


Frederick William Borden: The Auditor General did not say it-and the Auditor General, anyway, is about as good an authority as the hon. gentleman himself upon the usefulness of a rifle. I would ask the House to consider with me one or two questions that I propose to put to myself. First, what justification was there for adopting the policy of securing a rifle manufactory for Canada? I propose, in that connection, to read two or three short extracts from the proceedings of the Colonial, or Imperial Conference as it is now called, of 1907. I have here a paper which was laid before that conference, having been brought down by the Secretary of State for War. I shall quote from it briefly, giving only the salient words of each paragraph :
1.	No review of the strategical conditions of the British Empire, even when such a review is limited to the purely military aspects of the question, can be undertaken without admitting as a first and fundamental principle that the maintenance of the (empire rests primarily upon supremacy at sea.
2.	The second great principle which must govern the military organization of the empire is that each portion of it should, as far as possible, maintain sufficient troops for self defence.
3.	The third principle to be borne in mind in this consideration of the military requirements of the empire is the great one of mutual support at a time of emergency. It is evident that under certain circumstances the land forces of the various territories of the empire may be impelled by considerations both of safety and sentiment to act together in some great conflict which may imperil our national existence. Should such a situation arise it would be impossible to overrate the advantage of having in every case a system of military organization capable of being readily assimilated to that of the many other contingents which would compose the Imperial army.
Under the heading :


PATTERNS AND PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT AND STORES FOR COLONIAL FORCES.
[Stage Direction]
It says :
It is essential that the small arms supplied to any force which may have to act side by side with troops from the United Kingdom should fire the same ammunition as that supplied to the latter.
And again :
It is most desirable that the area of supply of the warlike store under reference should be as wide as possible, and, therefore, the colonial governments should be urged to arrange for local manufacture and provision, rather than to rely on the resources of the United Kingdom.
It seems to me, taking the highest point of view, that we have in that paper evidence that it was the duty of this country to undertake to manufacture for itself the small arms required by it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthingtou), in a sneering way, referred to the alleged fact that the right hon. the Prime Minister had refused to contribute to the imperial navy. The hon. gentleman did not say whether he himself would be prepared to advocate the voting of a large sum of money to support the navy. We on this side of the House have taken the view that it is our duty in Canada to assist the mother country, at least to the extent of being able, in the first instance, to defend ourselves on our own soil; and we have taken a further step, and said to the mother country that we do not wish her over-burdened taxpayers any longer to pay for supporting garrisons in Canada, and that we in future, as we are doing to-day, will continue to relieve her from all expenditures of that kind; and while we are not able at the present moment to construct a navy, and while we are not disposed to pay any money to support a navy, in the control of which we have no direct interest, we are prepared to do our full duty so far as concerns maintaining control of our own territory and being able to defend that territory. One of the ways in which to do that is to be prepared to manufacture for ourselves our own small arms. This is the first step then, Mr. Speaker, and the first ground I give in justification of the policy which we have adopted.
In February of last year, on a similar occasion to this. I made a statement, and I shall trouble the House by reading very briefly from that statement to show other reasons which moved me and which influenced the government to undertake the responsibility of manufacturing our own small arms or having them manufactured in this country. ' Let me tell him that in the year 1900, when this government wanted to purchase rifles through the imperial government, it was impossible to secure a thou-
[Stage Direction]
sand rifles in Great Britain.' It will be remembered that this was during the South African war, at a moment when we wanted 30,000 rifles. We had sent away to South Africa a large number of the rifles we had -and we had all too few-and it was desired to purchase 10,000 yet, not 1,000 could be procured In the whole United Kingdom.
It was impossible to secure a thousand rifles in Great Britain during the time of the South African war, and I thought that it was the duty of this government, under the circumstances, to make as soon as possible some arrangement by which our rifles could be manufactured in Canada. I was in England in 1900 and went to the Birmingham small arms people and tried to induce the company to come to Canada. I quite recognize the desirability of our having, if possible, precisely the same rifle in Canada as is used by the British army, because if the militia of this country should ever be called out for war, it would be better that we should have the same rifles. We have one, however, which differs so little from the Lee-Enfield that there will be no trouble on that score.
It was found impassible to prevail upon the Birmingham Small Arms Company, or any other small arms manufacturer in England, to come out here and start a factory. About that time Sir Charles Boss happened to be here. He had not then come to Canada for the first time, but, as the hon. gentle man must know, had been living in British Columbia, and had spent a great deal of money there in developing water-powers and establishing electrical works. He was introduced to me, I think, by Mr. Mackenzie, of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, and brought other letters from the most reputable men in Canada. He explained to me that he had a rifle factory in the United States, and was selling sporting rifles, rifles similar to what are being manufactured here now. He said that he would be willing to establish a factory to manufacture rifles for Canada with the same bore and to use the same cartridge as the Lee-Enfield rifle. It seemed to me that it was a patriotic thing on my part to recommend and on the part of the government to accept this opportunity to secure a factory which would turn out rifles for Canda.
These are the grounds then, Mr. Speaker, upon *which I justify the adoption of the policy of manufacturing, or having manufactured in Canada, our own rifles. Somebody may say : Why did you not construct a factory yourself ; why did you not become your own manufacturer ? I frankly admit that that may be a question fairly open to argument. We took the view that it would be better to allow Sir Charles Ross to manufacture his own rifle and so we adopted that policy. We knew that he had the capital to do it, we thought that the better course, we made a contract with him, as I shall show presently, and he proceeded to construct his factory. What was the rifle that we agreed to adopt ?
I have already said that it was a rifle of the same calibre or the same bore as the Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
Lee-Enfield. It had a slightly different action but the difference was not serious. Of course the parts of that rifle would not be interchangeable with those of the Lee-Enfield, but that is not a serious drawback.
Samuel Hughes: There is no Lee-Enfield that is interchangeable with its neighbour.


Frederick William Borden: So I believe. What was this rifle ? It was known as the Mannlicher rifle, the rifle with which, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) told us to-day, the whole Austrian army is armed. He said that that army was armed with that rifle in 1896. The British army was armed with the Lee-Enfield before 1896 ; so that, that is not a very grave or serious complaint against it. The Mannlicher, I believe, is considered to be as good a rifle as there is in the world. At any rate, Austria is a warlike nation and I think we may fairly assume that the rifle that is good enough to satisfy the generals of the Austrian army may be good enough to satisfy the militia of this country. What did I proceed to do ? Knowing this, I proceeded, after consulting my colleagues, to bring together a committee of the best men I could find in Canada, as I believed, to examine this rifle and report to me as to whether it was a fit rifle to adopt in this country. Whom did I appoint on that committee ?-General Otter, now the chief of the general staff, one of the most distinguished Canadian soldiers, a man whose name is honoured not only in his own country but in England as well, a man who was offered, the other day, one of the best commands in the gift of the War Office in England ; Colonel Gibson, for many years an active militiaman, a man who took his part in repelling the Fenian invasion and a man who was for years and years the president of the Dominion Rifle Association. Colonel Hughes, who is well known in this House and the country, was the third man whom I appointed on that committee.


George William Fowler: Colonel Sam ?


Frederick William Borden: Colonel Sam There is no other Colonel Hughes.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, pardon me; there are two more in the same family.


Frederick William Borden: When you speak of Colonel Hughes in this country every one knows who is meant. Colonel Anderson of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, a distinguished engineer, and Major Gaudet, at the head of the Dominion arsenal, a man of great experience and possessing technical knowledge, were also members of this committee. Those gentlemen met, the Ross rifle was handed to them, they reported, and I suppose I will have to trouble the House, very briefly, with an

extract from their report. I am going to read the whole of the opinion expressed ; I am not going to follow the example given us to-night of simply picking out things that suit my case and omitting those that do not. This is the opinion :
On the whole, the board find that the Ross rifle has features which in their opinion, afford advantages over the Lee-Enfield. All agree ' that the straight pull is a very important advantage over the Lee-Enfield action. The sample mechanism is- evidenced by the fact that the breech can be taken entirely apart and put together again without tool other than an ordinary knife, and the operation of taking apart and assembling the parts, takes considerably less time than the Lee-Enfield. Another important advantage, is in the strength of the breech mechanism, while the limit of the Lee-Enfield is restricted. It may be said that any increase of velocity which is ever likely to be required, can with absolute safety be obtained in the case of the Ross rifle.
The Ross rifle is approximately a pound lighter than the Lee-Enfield.
The chief objection or difficulty which was found in connection with the tests to which the Ross rifle was subjected, was brought out in the ' endurance test.' While in firing 1,300 rounds out of each of the rifles, the Lee-Enfield stood the test quite satisfactorily. It was found that after heating, the breech of the Ross rifle closed with more or less difficulty, the action being very stiff with occasional jamming besides which a possibility of ' double loading ' exists.
Were this an inherent objection to this rifle, independent of details of mechanism, the board would regard it as a very serious matter, but Sir Charles Ross states, that any difficulty in this respect can be effectually obviated, and the board submit herewith a memorandum (exhibit ' D ') from him in reference to this point which in his opinion, affords an explanation of the unsatisfactory result of this test, and the manner in which the same may be overcome.
Speaking generally the board believe that the Ross rifle has features which are a positive advantage over the Lee-Enfield, while it is contended by Sir Charles Ross that he can easily remedy any of the drawbacks which have been pointed out.
The rifD has been on the ranges during the week of the Dominion Rifle Association meeting

And yet the hon. member for Sherbrooke said that it was never on a range.
-and has been examined and fired more or less by many riflemen of experience, and while it is not suggested that any conclusive testimony has been afforded from such desultory examinations and tests, it is significant of the favourable impression of riflemen, that no adverse comments were known to have been made, and all seemed to be pleased with the action of the rifle.
Here is what Sir Charles Ross said in that connection.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the minister leaves that, there seems to be a good deal left out of this report, a good deal of res-285
ponsibility left for the minister before adopting the rifle. Because, while they say that certain defects exist, they do not themselves point out that they can be remedied, but merely declare the opinion of Sir Charles Ross to that effect. There is one paragraph which the minister did not read ; it is rather significant :
The board do not profess to pronounce upon the question of a complete remedy of this objection, but having called attention to it, assume that due precaution and provision with reference thereto will be taken in the event of the rifle being adapted.


Frederick William Borden: I see I left that out and the clause following also.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a very Important clause. I would like to ask what was done along that line before the rifle was adopted?


Frederick William Borden: Well, the officers of the department were consulted and Gaudet, who was an expert and had taken a course in England just before that, was consulted with reference to the matter.


George Eulas Foster: Gaudet is the ammunition man ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Is there any written report?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think there is any memorandum on the subject. If there is it has been brought down.


William Barton Northrup: It has not been brought down.


Frederick William Borden: Well, then, there is not any. A great deal of the negotiations, a good deal of the advice obtained directly from the officers of course was verbal. it was the result of consultation between Gaudet, Cotton, my late deputy, myself and others.


Samuel Hughes: The chief trouble at that time was because of cartridges sticking in the chamber.


Frederick William Borden: Yes. There is one thing which was pointed out to me and I might mention it now since the question has been asked. The rapidity of fire of the Ross rifle is very much greater than that of the Lee-Enfield, and for that reason there is a great deal more liability to heating of the barrel and jamming. I wish to call the attention of the House, however, to Sir Charles Ross' statement, and I will only read the concluding part of it with reference to this matter, because it has a bearing upon the question of remedying all the defects :
We particularly draw attention to the fact that the trouble is only a small detail of manufacturing owing to the difference in the shells, not having had the advantage of test-



ing with government cartridges and we undertake to meet all the necessary requirements on this point. (Sgd.) Charles Ross.
(Sgd.) J. A. BENNETT.
Bennett was his manager.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that report in the printed evidence?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, you will find it at page 204. Then, of course, there are letters from Colonel Hughes and from Colonel Anderson which I will not delay the House by reading. The hon. member (Mr. Worthington) read to-day certain alleged reports from the Springfield arsenals. I have already referred to them and given my opinion that they are not of much value until their authenticity is proven. So far as I am concerned I am not prepared to accept their authenticity. The hon. member also referred to what lie called War Office reports and Hythe tests, and he ventured to say that when I was asked a certain question I had denied that any communication had been received from the War Office with reference to the Ross rifle. If the hon. member had been fair enough to read my answer he would have seen I had done nothing of the kind. I said there had been a communication and that it was marked ' secret,' and I referred to the nature of the communication. The communication points out that it might be undesirable to adopt a rifle which was not precisely like the Lee-Enfield because two forces fighting together in the field might require different parts and their armourers might be serving out parts for only one kind of rifle. That is a difficulty that no doubt would exist, but so far as the Ross rifle is concerned there was no very great difficulty about it. As I pointed out in 1902 when this matter was discussed in the colonial conference, the rifle is so simple that it is quite easy for a man, or at any rate for a sergeant in each company or in each regiment, to carry with him the necessary spare parts. That was pointed out and it was not denied; in fact, it was affirmed. What was denied was a statement which appeared in a newspaper in this city, and which the hon. member (Mr. Worthington) seems disposed to adhere to notwithstanding my contradiction, and which was that the Ross rifle had been tested at Hythe. I gave the specific statement on that head :	That
neither Sir Charles Ross nor his agent nor anybody for him nor any one on behalf of this government had ever handed over to any of the authorities at Hythe any rifles whatever for the purpose of testing them. In that connection I was practically charged and this will illustrate the animus which actuates the opponents of this rifle- I was charged with having purloined from the parliamentary library a book which was said to have been there and to have mysteriously disappeared. I was able to produce here from the librarian a distinct Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
statement that no such report from the War Office had ever been in the library and that every report of the year mentioned or of recent years that ever had been in the library was there still. I mention this again to show the animus behind all this and the unfairness of this crusade, for it is nothing else. A newspaper stated-inspired I believe by the hon. member-the Ottawa ' Citizen,' stated that I had refused to bring down a report sent here by the War Office with regard to this rifle and that such report had been kept off the files. And I was able to bring here to my desk the next day the return as I laid it on the table as long ago as March, 1907, and showed to this House the full report of the War Office just as it was sent to the Department of Militia, and I was able to show further that I had in the speech which I made in this House in January, 1907, referred to this very report as having been received and stated I was going to bring it down to the House. It is just as well perhaps to take note of these things so that the House may discount a little bit the professions of patriotism put forward by the hon. member who moved this motion.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this report of the War Office the report of the alleged trial or experiment at Hythe?


Frederick William Borden: No. I am speaking now about the report made at the Woolwich Arsenal on rifles which I sent to the War Office for the purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the Hythe investigation?
'Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. I said that neither the department nor Sir Charles Ross nor anybody for him ever sent any rifle there, and Sir Charles Ross assured me that it is an entire mistake to say that his rifle has ever been sent to Hythe or reported upon there.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it might
have been tested there although it was not sent by Sir Charles Ross. Does the hon. minister know whether the Ross rifle was tested although It was not tested under his auspices ?


Frederick William Borden: I would not say that it was not. It was about the time that the original rifle was handed to the government to be submitted to the committee which I spoke of a moment ago. I do not think there could have been such a test.


George Eulas Foster: How many rifles have been accepted for that report of the Woolwich test?


Frederick William Borden: I could not say, but my impression is that there were very few. The report, I think, was received from the War Office in the autumn of 1906.


William Barton Northrup: There were 14,000 rifles up to the end of 1906.


Frederick William Borden: I may say that the rifle sent was the Mark II, and that was the rifle reported on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, another question which I would like to answer is: Was due care exercised in making the contract ? Recently there has been a report, somewhat famous now, by a commission known as the Civil Service Commission, and in that report: I find some more or less complimentary references to the Militia Department, which I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with some day before long. But incidentally, as a slight instalment of the good things given out to the Militia Department by that commission, it is stated that the contract was drafted by the contractor's solicitor. Now, in order to elicit information upon that point, the chairman of the commission, when he was examining the deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, with reference to the conduct of the Department of Justice, put certain questions; and I would like to read what took place:
Q. You prepare all contracts entered into by the several departments which you are asked to put into legal form, I suppose?-A. We draft them all or revise the drafts prepared in the departments.
Q. We had before us this morning the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, and we were asking him some questions about the Ross rifle contract. Was that contract drafted in the Department of Justice?-A. I do not know where it was drafted, but we had a great many conferences over it. It was, I think, drafted preliminarily by Sir Charles Ross' solicitor.
This is all the reason apparently that the Royal Commission had to jump at that conclusion.
Q. Had he a solicitor acting for him ?-A. Yes.
Q. In drafting these contracts, if it should appe&r they contained something that might be detrimental to the interests of Canada, would it be your duty to go on with the drafting or call the attention of the department to the matter?-A. I would call the attention of the minister, or the officer from whom I was taking instructions, to any situation of that sort and ask him what was intended. As to the substance of the contract, I would not interfere with the policy, but would endeavour to see that any deficiencies that suggested themselves to me or any supposed provisions that I thought would not work with adequate security to the government, were called to his attention. Then, that being considered, I would take the policy of the contract from him and give effect to his intentions.
Q. You have nothing to do with the policy of the government-A. No. so far as concerns the business of the departments.
By Mr. Fysche:
Q. I suppose there is such a thing in the government service as cultivating a habit of doubt or suspicion about everything?-A. As far as I am concerned I have no suspicion. I point out to the government, or the minister or the officer who is instructing me, what I 285i
suppose to be reasonable or what may work unreasonably, but the policy in regard to that is a matter for him to consider and settle.
I think it is abundantly clear from tills that the deputy Minister of Justice would have considered himself in duty and in honour bound to call the attention of the minister to anything which he thought would not work well, but would work to the disadvantage of the country. He had nothing to do with the policy. Whether we should have a rifle factory or not was none of his business. But when a contract was to be made with Sir Charles Ross, the Deputy Minister of Justice stated that he felt it to be his duty to see that the government's interests were protected in every way. And yet in the face of that statement, we have the spectacle of a royal commission trying to stab and injure the department and the government by the casual statement, the unjustifiable statement, to which I have referred, that this contract was drafted by the contractor's solicitor. Now, I have a very definite recollection of what took place in connection with that contract. There were eight or ten or twelve different drafts, and time after time I took to council a draft to consult with my colleagues about; and in my room over and over again, there were present Sir Charles Ross, my deputy minister, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and on one or two occasions Sir Charles Ross had with him his solicitor. The idea was to get at a contract which would be fair; and I was determined, so far as I was concerned, to enter into no contract until I had the advice of the Department of Justice upon it. I got that advice, and I got it in the view expressed by the Deputy Minister of Justice that it was his duty to warn me if he saw anything in the contract which was unjust or improper.
Now, the contract provides :
The contractor is to establish, at or near the city of Quebec, in Canada, a factory for the manufacture of rifles, with the necessary plant.
It is to be a Canadian factory, established at Quebec. The contractor undertakes to deliver a certain number of rifles in a certain length of time-only 12,000. He wanted to make a contract for a much larger number, but it was pointed out to him that that would be impossible without taking a vote of money. He said : Well, if you cannot give me a contract for 100,000 or 60,000 or whatever it might be, then you must undertake to buy from my factory all the rifles you may require. Therefore the third provision of the contract stipulates that the government shall buy from the contractor. Surely there was nothing improvident or unfair in that. Here was a man going to invest half a million dollars or more in the manufacture of rifles in Canada, and you could not expect him to do

that unless he had some guarantee of continuous patronage for a reasonable time at least.
In this third section there is a provision that, in case of war or a sudden necessity for a larger number than the contractor will be able to manufacture, he shall be given notice of the large requirements of the government and if unable to fill them, then the government would be at liberty to buy wherever it chose. I should not think that this was an improvident arrangement.
Then as to inspection, we have heard something about inspection and no doubt will hear more about it.
The said rifle hereby contracted for shall, previous to delivery, be inspected by the inspector of small arms of the government, and if, after such inspection, the rifles be found up to sample, delivery will be taken.
All sorts of absurd statements have been made as to the want of proper care in this matter of inspection. Any one can understand that the inspection would be according to the custom and usage in such matters, and so it has been. This of course was a new undertaking in Canada, and it is possible that the inspection in all cases has not been so rigid as it ought to have been. But I can say without hesitation that during the last two years there has been no failure in that regard. I do not wish to blame anybody ; I am here to take full responsibility for any mistake or error that may have been made by any officer in my department. But it was a new work they were undertaking and those errors, if there were any, were of the head rather than of the heart. These officers were undertaking new work, and I would not think of saying that every rifle which came out of that factory, any more than I would say of the Lee-Enfield or any other, had been thoroughly inspected and that nothing had been overlooked. There have been undoubtedly some defects discovered but they were only trifles and can be easily remedied. I am inclined to believe that a more rigid inspection-such an inspection as we are giving to-day-would have practically prevented the issue of any rifle which would show defects under ordinary usage. I am not claiming that this rifle is perfect or that every rifle we have received is absolutely perfect. There is no perfect rifle in the world. I know more about rifles to-day than I did four or five years ago and not very much yet, but I have read enough to have learned that there is no perfect rifle in the world and that there is not any country to-day absolutely satisfied with its rifle. There is no rifle which satisfies every rifleman. Why, you will not find one rifleman in fifty satisfied with any rifle you may give him. Show him a rifle whether Lee-Enfield,
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
Mauser or Ross or what you like, show him any variety of sights you choose, and I venture to say he will want this to be changed or that and tell you that if this or the other thing were done, it would be an absolutely perfect rifle. But these are small things and things which are not material. It is not a target rifle we have been buying. It is a rifle with which to arm the forces of Canada, and I repeat that every one which has been accepted is a rifle fit for service.
The next clause to which I want to call attention provides that if any changes are required, they can be obtained on giving notice. Clause C provides that if a new rifle be invented^ the government shall have the right to have that rifle. It goes so far as to say that, in laying down his plant and machinery, the contractor shall provide the best facilities to enable him to manufacture any such new rifle.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the system of inspection in Great Britain ?


Frederick William Borden: There is the upright view, which is the simplest form.


George Eulas Foster: Give it to us colloquially.


Frederick William Borden: The upright view is taking the rifle completely finished, without any reference to its component parts, and testing it. The other is the government view, as it is called in England. That means the inspection of every part of the rifle or of the important parts, and that is the inspection which has been followed here. The rifle is inspected during the process of manufacture in all its essential and important component parts and marked by the inspector, so that he will know, if that rifle is refused and sent back, whether he has seen it before or not. That is the inspection followed to-day and it is a fairly good inspection-perhaps not quite as good as or up to the government view inspection in England, but Major Pym who knows his business fairly well, thinks it is absolutely satisfactory.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the British government inspect as to the interchangeability of parts ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


George Eulas Foster: Are you sure of that ?


Frederick William Borden: Unless very recently. The Lee-Enfield rifles, which we have, are not interchangeable in their parts. The Ross rifle is inspected as to interchangeability. That is one of its strongest claims but Major Pym has reported that it would not be safe to rely entirely on its interchangeability.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difficulty about interchangeability ?


Frederick William Borden: When you are dealing with the two-thousandth or five-thousandth part of an inch in the circumference or thickness of a part, you see how difficult it is.


Robert Laird Borden: I have understood that in large manufactories of watches, for example, the parts are made interchangeable. One would suppose that a watch would have as minute parts as any in a rifle. So if this can be done in watches, I do not see that there should be any great difficulty about it in rifles.


Frederick William Borden: 1 agree with the hon. gentleman in that. I think they ought to be interchangeable, and I think any difficulty that exists in the way of making them so will be overcome. I am stating the facts as they are. I have no desire or intention


Robert Laird Borden: I was only asking for information.


Frederick William Borden: 
George Eulas Foster: Does that include inspection?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, it includes inspection, which is 6 per cent. The same rifle, if purchased from the trade, would cost approximately $6.25 more, or $33.60. Now, that is absolutely authentic information.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that include duty?


Frederick William Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? The way he deals with the duty is a little confusing to me, though there may be a perfect explanation of it. As I understand, in making the computation he takes into account the duty on rifles coming from Great Britain, but in considering the case of the Ross rifle, as it is to-day, he does not, as far as I can understand, take into consideration the duty on materials brought into this country for the manufacture of that rifle.
Sir	FREDERICK	BORDEN.	I	have
not done so.


Robert Laird Borden: It would seem that if you add the duty in one case you ought to add it in the other. I would suggest that.
Sir	FREDERICK	BORDEN.	I	think
the duty would be very small, because notwithstanding all that has been said here today, there are no finished parts imported.


Robert Laird Borden: But to make a fair comparison, I should think the duty, whatever it is, should be taken into account.
Sir	FREDERICK	BORDEN.	I	could
have the computation made in that way. It would not materially change the figures. I want to show how the price at which these rifles were bought in 1896 happened to be very favourable. I have discussed this matter with General Lake, who, I think, was employed to purchase these rifles, and I have from him this memo, which I have liberty to read :
Ottawa, January 29, 1907. The Hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence.
You asked me to-day what reduction in price of the Lee-Enfield rifle had followed the decision of the War Office to revise, in 1896, the contract rates paid to the trade m England, upon the ground that the primary cost of installing machinery to manufacture the


S9T1 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
magazine rifle had by that time been recouped by the trade.
Speaking from memory, I said it was about 10 shillings, but that I could not be certain.
I find that in the priced vocabulary of stores, 1893, the charge for the Lee-Metford rifle is £4 10 2.
In our contract with the War Office, March, 1896, the price for rifles supplied by the trade was to be £4, plus five and one-half per cent for inspection and departmental expenses, and for rifles made in the government factories, £3 12 0. The prices for the Lee-En-field and Lee-Metford are given as the same.
Hence the 10 shillings reduction which I mentioned is probably an understatement; while it is clear that there was certainly a large reduction.

[Stage Direction]
Chief of the General Staff.
Headquarters, January 29, 1907.
So that if the low price was due to the fortunate moment at which General Lake arrived in England to purchase this rifle, when the initial price given to the small arms factory had been reduced-for there is always a special allowance made in England in cases of that kind, where any new lot of war material has to be manufactured. That unusual additional price had been taken off so that under the ordinary course of procedure if General Lake had gone there a year before he would have paid 10 shillings more for the rifles, which would make the comparison very much more favourable to the price of the Ross rifle.
Something has been said about American rifles. I have not been able to get the cost of the Springfield rifle, I do not suppose it would be possible to do so. Even if you did, it would not be of much value because it is a rifle, made by the government and you would have to add 40 per cent to 50 per cent in order to get the price at which the trade could sell such a rifle. I find that the price of the Winchester rifle is $32 delivered here, less 10 per cent or $3.20, so that it is something like $29 without a bayonet. Thus we have the price of the English rifle as it was in 1896, the price of the English rifle to-day and the price of the Winchester rifle to-day. Of course the Winchester price does not include inspection, they would have to be inspected after delivery here.
I shall now read the clause of the contract governing the price, because it is important ;
8. The government shall pay for the said 12,000 rifles mentioned in the second clause of this contract at the rate of $25 for each such rifle. The government shall pay out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament for the purpose for all rifles subsequently ordered as herein stipulated the same price of $25 for each of such rifles, unless one of the parties hereto shall upon the occasion of any demand for further rifles_notify the other of such parties that the price of such rifles in similar 8ir FREDERICK BORDEY.
quantities in the markets of Great Britain has relatively to the present price increased or diminished, in which case the aforesaid price of $25 shall no longer govern, but the price for the rifles so ordered and to be thereafter ordered shall depend upon a futher agreement of the parties, and in default of agreement the price to be fixed as provided in the ninth clause hereof.
I now come to the payment of money before the actual delivery of rifles, payment on account of progress estimates :
The price for all rifles herein contracted for or to be supplied pursuant to the provisions of this agreement shall be payable upon delivery; provided, however, that after the establishment of.the said factory and supplying of the plant for the running of the same the contractor shall be entitled to payment in advance of delivery of moneys actually expended upon the rifles or parts thereof or fixtures therefor to be delivered in that year upon a statement certified by him of the amount so spent upon establishing the fact of such expenditure to the satisfaction, testified by his signature of such statement, of the government inspector of small arms, such payments in no case to exceed 75 per cent of the price of such rifles, the contractor undertaking whenever such advances are made to insure and keep insured the said rifles, parts and fixtures against loss or damage by fire for the benefit of the government to the extent of such advances.
A statement was made to-night with reference to this clause of the contract which was misleading, though of course not intended to be so. It was stated that the present Auditor General had discovered somethin"- very loose or undesirable in the way in which this business was being done by the Militia Department, had held up the department and had practically brought about a new system. It is only fair to the department, to the memory of my late friend and deputy, Colonel Pinault, that I should say that if any such impression as that were given it would be entirely unjust, entirely erroneous. I have read the provision by which this advance of 75 per cent was to be made :
Upon a statement certified by him of the amount so spent upon establishing the fact of such expenditure to the satisfaction, testified by his signature of such statement, of the government inspector of small sums.
Under this provision there seemed to be a difficulty at once. The then inspector of small arms did not feel disposed to certify upon the statement of Sir Charles Ross or anybody else and said he was not In a position to verify the statements.
George Eulas Foster: Did he not say it was im-Xiossible to do it?


Sfr FREDERICK BORDEN.: I am speaking now of Gaudet. He may have done so. A good deal of correspondence took place, and there were several meetings between my late deputy and Major Gaudet and Sir
8973	MAY 21. 1908	8974
Oliarles Ross, with the result that Sir Charles Ross, or perhaps iny late deputy, made the suggestion that a chartered accountant, a man of the highest character and standing, should be appointed to verify and certify to these accounts instead of the contractor. This was entirely satisfactory to Sir Charles Ross and it was satisfactory to Major Gaudet, who proceeded after that to certify all accounts so long as he was there. I do not know that there were more than one or two of these accounts. The point 1 wish to bring to your notice is that the chartered accountant who was selected to do this work and who has done it from the day that factory was started is Colonel Wurtele, and that the so-called change in system is a change between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee-it is not even that, it is no change, except that to-day the government of Ganada is paying Colonel Wurtele and that before the change Sir Charles Ross paid him. The Auditor General said that, technically, under the Audit Act, the conditions of the Audit Act were not met by having that work done by an employee of the contractor. He satisfied himself that Colonel Wurtele was an absolutely reliable man and agreed to the change, which was simply this, that for the future the Department of Militia would pay him, whereas in the past Sir Charles Ross had paid him. My late deputy was something of an economist, he was always making the best bargain he could for the department. I suppose he thought it was j under the contract, Sir Charles Ross' privilege and duty to do this, and that he should pay for having it done. This Auditor General takes a different view, but if any hon. gentleman wishes to satisfy himself upon that point, let him turn up Books Nos. 1 and 4 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of this session, and let him look at Colonel Wurtele's testimony and read all the ^evidence of the Auditor General, and he will find what I have stated set forth fully. So that all this talk about a change in the system of accounting is moonshine. There is nothing in it. The accounts have been carried on properly from the beginning. We pay the accountant now; Sir Charles Ross paid him formerly. Colonel Wurtele was recommended by the Bank of Montreal as the best man to do this work, and no man who knows him will dare to insinuate, no one has, that it made any difference to Colonel Wurtele whether he was paid by the governmient or paid by Ross.
Now, we come to another point in this contract, as to the change with reference to the way that prices would be determined in the event of a new rifle-
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Before leaving this I would like to inquire whether or not it is reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions of that section. How could
the government inspector of small arms determine that so much money has been spent upon the rifles which are to be delivered to the government ?


Frederick William Borden: As a matter of fact the Auditor General relies entirely upon the accountant and the accountant takes stock every time. The departmental accountant, Colonel Wurtele, goes to the Ross rifle factory for the purpose of reporting upon progress estimates. He takes stock of everything there is there and makes a complete report to the Auditor General. The Auditor General is entirely satisfied with that method; so that the inspector has nothing to do with it until he inspects the finished rifle and then he give his report upon it.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the money expended must be represented by a great number of very small parts ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: How does the inspector, assuming, of course, that he is diligent, faithful and capable-and I am not calling that in question-know whether or not, when he goes to make another similar report, that he is not embracing some of the material that has already been reported upon ?


Frederick William Borden: The inspector does not report; the accountant reports,


Robert Laird Borden: How can the accountant report upon a thing of that kind ?


Frederick William Borden: Well, he
does it and he satisfies the Auditor General.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the report would be made by some one familiar with the process of constructing the rifle.


Frederick William Borden: Not necessarily, but he has access to everything in the factory, he goes through it thoroughly, he audits the accounts and he is given all the vouchers and bills of every kind and makes his report upon them.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it is capable of explanation if one had sufficient time to go into it, but how does the accountant know when he goes through these books that a part of the material which has been paid for has not gone into the rifles already paid for? How does he know that when he reports on what is in the factory at that tirnle?


Frederick William Borden: Well, I heard his evidence before the Public Accounts Committee and I think he satisfied that committee that he was able to do that.


Haughton Lennox: Is the minister satisfied that it has been done ?


Frederick William Borden: I am quite satisfied if the Auditor General is satisfied.


George Taylor: May I ask the minister how often the employees are paid ?


Frederick William Borden: I think once a month or once a fortnight,-certainly once a month.
'Mr. TAYLOR. If it is once a fortnight it would take a fortnight to take stock. I know what taking stock is.


Frederick William Borden: These progress estimates are not paid every fortnight or every month. They are paid perhaps once in three months. It is only when progross estimates are made that this is done. At page 187 of book 4 the Auditor General gives evidence upon this point:
Mr. John Fraser, Auditor General, called.
By Sir Frederick Borden:
Q. I would like to have you state, Mr. Fraser, whether you consider the present method of guarding the interests of the public treasury in the matter of advances to the Ross Rifle company under the terms of the contract are sufficient, and if you will describe what they are, roughly ?-A. In the first place Colonel Wurtele examines the books of the company to ascertain the amount they have expended, the books, vouchers and cheques for payment. At least these are the directions given to Colonel Wurtele, and I presume he carries them out. He examines the books, pay-lists, and vouchers for the purchase of material, etc., to ascertain the amount that the company is expending on the rifle, and he also is instructed to make an inventory once a month and a variety of statements in connection with it to satisfy us that all this labour and material is expended on the Ross rifle and not on any other rifle that may be manufactured in the establishment. Also, that the amounts included in the certificate do not include anything for-I do not just exactly know what you call it-but for the guns that do not pass inspection-
The very point that my hon. friend raised.
*ythe guns that may have to go back-the rejected guns that may require some work aone on them. His instructions are not to include money expended on them, but that the expenditure he certifies to should be absolutely the first expenditure, 75 per cent of the cost of the first process of turning out the guns.
By Mr. Nesbitt:
Q. That is what he does?-A. I presume he does.
Q. You are talking about it from the gov-ei nment standpoint, I would like to go into the box and tell my impression of it-we get the worst of it every time.
By Sir Frederick Borden:
Q. Do you know anything of Colonel Wurtele, his character or qualifications?-A. I never heard anything against him; I believe his qualification is all right, and I am satisfied with Colonel Wurtele's certificates Q. You are satisfied with the work he has done?-A. Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a question by Mr. Hughes.


Frederick William Borden: |


Frederick William Borden: By Mr. Hughes:
Q. In regard to the 75 per cent is it all paid in one sum or is it paid on estimates as the work progresses?-A. It is paid on progress estimates.
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. Have you any check at all, Mr. Fraser, as to whether or not the arms as to which advances are made will be delivered during the year?-A. We cannot tell what will be delivered during the year.
Q. You have no check at all that they will be delivered?-A. That is not necessary at all under the interpretation of the contract.
Q. I am not asking you that, I am asking you whether or not there is any check that they will be delivered during the year?-A. As soon as they expend 75 per cent on account they are entitled to 75 per cent.
I think that is practically all. Then Colonel Wurtele goes into that quite fully, but I think this evidence of the Auditor General ought perhaps to be satisfactory on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is a correct interpretation of the contract, it is different from the progress estimate conditions as they are usually found in a contract. The usual form of progress estimate contract is that 75 per cent of the amount of work done and material used, or a certain proportion, shall be paid over. But this seems to prove that everything shall be paid over up to 75 per cent; so that, for example, when 50 per cent of the amount has been expended the contractor gets everything and there is nothing left as security to the government.


Frederick William Borden: So far as 1 know, except the insurance. There is a provision in the contract that the material shall all be kept fully insured. Clause 9 provides that in case of the new rifles being invented the government has the right to demand that the rifle shall be made at this factory on giving proper notice, and then it states how the price shall be reached. An important paragraph at the end of this clause is the following :
It being the intention of this agreement that the price of the rifles furnished hereunder shall so far as it is possible be the same as that of similar rifles in like quantities purchased by or for the government, from British manufacturers in the open market in England and delivered in Ottawa.
So that the price of the English rifle is the basis of the price paid, and it is the basis of comparison in the future :
The contractor shall be permitted to import into Canada tools and machinery not manufactured in Canada up to the required standard necessary for the said factory and also all material or parts in the rough unfinished to be used in rifles to be manufactured by him for the government, free of duty, or in case cf payment by the contractor of any duty on

any such tools, machinery or material or parts as aforesaid, the contractor shall be entitled to a drawback or remission of duty paid in respect to the finished parts to ho used in any such rifles, consisting of screws, nuts, bands and springs.
Now, this is a clause about which a good deal has been said, and I regret to say that a great deal has been said that is absolutely unfair and untrue. It is not an unusual thing, Mr. Speaker, to give to a new industry special consideration of this kind, and particularly, I think, should that be so when it is one which can practically have only one purchaser. The government are practically the only customers who will require the products of this factory, and surely, with all the risk that this contractor was taking, it seems to me not unreasonable that he should be allowed to bring in, what?-machinery that is not made in Canada, material that cannot be procured in Canada, and unfinished parts and parts in the rough that cannot be procured in this country. The changes have been rung from Montreal to Boston-and Sherbrooke-about certain parts that were imported into Canada of this Ross rifle, and the hon. member thought it not beneath his dignity, shall I say-his patriotic dignity, perhaps I had better say-to call this arm a contraband Yankee rifle. That is the kind of thing we have to submit to, and the kind of thing Sir Charles Ross has to submit to. There is nothing in all this to justify any such statement as that. The parts are not imported completed. They are not completed parts. There may be one or two screws and two or three springs imported from the United States or imported from England ; but, Mr. Speaker, this factory could not go on without permission to import materials out of which the rifle should be made. It is absolutely untrue to say that this factory is simply a factory for assembling parts. I would refer again to the evidence given by Colonel Wurtele, and what did Colonel Wurtele say on that point? Colonel Wurtele is the man who makes up the accounts, progress estimates ; the man who sees every charge that is made in that factory, who is absolutely acquainted with every voucher and all the books of the company; sees every labourer's account, knows everything about it, so far as the premises are concerned, from beginning to end, and what does he say?
Q. How many men are employed ?-A. From 300 to 500 men. There is something here I notice in the evidence with reference to a sporting rifle made there.
Q. What is the selling value of the sporting rifle?-A. $35 to $40.
Q. Have you taken an inventory?-A. I took an inventory in September.


Samuel Hughes: Were not some affidavits published about these parts in the Montreal and Quebec papers?


Frederick William Borden: I think there were, but I never took any stock in the reports in the newspapers.


Samuel Hughes: There were afli-davits by the workmen.


Frederick William Borden: I think so.
But the government itself sent down experts to take an inventory of every screw and everything else in the factory.
General Cotton went down there and spent three weeks, and found there was an immense amount of value over and above any claim that the government might have against the Ross rifle on account of advances in the event of their not going on and delivering the rifle.
Q. Speaking generally, from that information, are you able to say that the balance of the rifles are substantially completed ?-A. Well, of course, taking it on the average I should say the contract is complete because they have got a great number of parts finished and complete, over and above the 52,000 contract.
Q. Now can you tell me the amount that has actually been paid out in wages up to date, in actual wages that has gone into the work in the city of Quebec by Sir Charles Ross ? A. Roughly ?
Q. Yes ? A. Over $900,000.
Q. Over $900,000 ? Can you tell me how much has been expended in actual material and shop expenses ? A. Over $300,000 shop expenses and material.
And yet we are told that all the principal parts are brought in from the United States. What have these 500 men been doing there? Can any one suppose that Sir Charles Ross is so stupid and unbusinesslike that he brings 500 men there to look at the parts which he brings in from the United States?
Q. Right in the city of Quebec ? Of course, some material is purchased outside. That has nothing to do with the building, plant or anything of that kind ?-A. Absolutely nothing.
By Mr. Reid (Grenville):
Q. Does that include the building ? A. Nothing.
By Mr. Nesbitt :
Q. Then assuming that the rifles that are there in the inspection department are ready to be taken over when there is room for them, that would practically mean 38,000 ? A. 38,000 rifles.
Q. Better than 38,000 rifles. Then that would mean that there has been expended in actual wages in the city of Quebec and on materials and so on, over $100,000 more than the total advances of the government to-day? [DOT]-A. About that, yes.
Q. And a lot of that material was purchased in Quebec ?-A. Lots of it, yes.	.
Hon. Mr. Foster.-By wages and material 'yon mean wages employed on, and material used in, the manufacture of rifles.
Mr. Nesbitt.-Yes. .
Hon. Mr. Foster.-Simply that?
The Witness.-Yes.

Q. As to these sporting rifles of which there were 150 but you say 200, you have allowed for these?-A. Yes.
'By Hon. Mr. Foster :
Q. I want to find out if any portion of that is for purposes outside of this contract, if it is for material and labour to make rifles, not to make plant for the manufacture of rifles or to get in water supply?-A. I understand thoroughly; it is for the manufacture of rifles and not capital. It is entirely independent from the capital of the company.
That is what I ventured to assert this afternoon, although my hon. friend was doubtful.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me for a moment. This is all a play upon words. The capital spoken of there in one respect was what went into the buildings and machinery ; that is, the fixed capital. But after a man has scraped up all he can and put it into his buildings and machinery, he cannot do anything unless he has working capital.


Frederick William Borden: Precisely. Nobody denied that the object of this contract was to assist the contractor reasonably. A man who puts half a million of money into buildings and machinery and gets ready to operate and pays for them all before any money was handed over to him by the government, is surely entitled to some consideration. The hon. gentleman this afternoon was endeavouring to lead this House and country to believe that we were supplying all the money the Ross Rifle Company expended.


George Eulas Foster: He meant working capital.


Frederick William Borden: He did not say so.
Q. It has absolutely nothing to do with what is chargeable to capital account?-A. Nothing.
Q. This suggestion lias been made to me among older things: have you been through the factory very recently?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you seen any boys employed on machines?-A. I have not noticed any boys on machines, no, sir.
Q. The tool makers, for instance, are a very highly paid class of mechanics?-A. Yes, Sir, they are more of experts.
Q. Do you know whether or not there was an understanding between the Ross Rifle Company and the government that the balance of the 12,000, assuming that only 9,000 of Mark I were delivered, that the balance of the 12,000 order of Mark I should be made up by the delivery of Mark II?-A. My recollection is that they supplied the deficiency in Mark II.
Q. So that there was no loss to the government in any particular as regards the 3,000 rifles which were not delivered, there was no loss to the government in those parts?-A. No, the company had to make good.
Mr. Northrup:
Q. When you came to look over the pay roll, if you found any Mark I rifles upon which 75 per cent had been advanced, and those rifles were afterwards turned into Mark II, would there not be double payment


Frederick William Borden: on them?-A. I do not see how you could exactly keep that labour separately.
Q. I do net think so either. As a matter of fact, you say you certified 75 per cent of the labour on Mark I, and if those rifles were afterwards used as Mark II, would there not be double labour upon those rifles?-A. Of course there w ould be some labour involved in the change.	_
Q. Then, when you came to estimate on Mark II, would you not be estimating a second time?-A. No, I could only estimate on 75 per cent of the total, all over and above that would be a loss to the factory.
Notwithstanding this evidence, a grossly unfair attempt has been made in the press and in this House to make It appear that the Department of Militia and Defence had advanced 75 per cent on 12,000 rifles, and had only got delivery of 9,000. and that the balance of 3,000 had been thrown somewhere into the dust-heap and the country was out that much-an assertion for which there was not the slightest foundation. So much for the contract. I do not think there are any other portions of it that I need deal with.
With regard to parts imported I would like to say a word. I suppose it will be generally admitted in this House that it would be reasonably good policy to encourage an industry of this kind, an Industry which employs 500 men and which means the manufacture of our own rifles in our own country. I would expect at any rate that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House would be extremely anxious, in accordance with their professions, to encourage a new industry of this kind. But I am beginning to think that they are going back on themselves ; for we find them criticising this factory for doing in a small way what nearly all the great factories in this country are doing in a large way. There is not a factory engaged in the manufacture of similar articles which does not import largely from the United States steel and various other raw materials. Take agricultural implements, the manufacturers are constantly obliged to bring in from the United States articles that go into the manufacture of these implements. Why, my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who is engaged in the manufacture of carriages, imports largely the material that go into his carriages. He would have to shut up his shops to-morrow if he did not import from the United States.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman is mistaken with reference to carriages. With reference to the wheels


Frederick William Borden: Well, the wheel is a part of the carriage. I never knew of a carriage that could run without wheels.


George Taylor: The wheel is simply the timber we have not in the country.
8981			MAY 21. 190S			8982


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps the					Per cent		
hon. gentleman	does	not know as much			Imported.		
about the way	his carriages are manufac-						
tured as he thinks he does. I have here				nr. [DOT] ,	aj		
from a carriage manufacturer a statement							
of the things brought in			from the United			c	
States :						If	
					&	W	
	Per cent						
	Imported.			Car Fittings and			
				Parts.			
Materials.	oc	Reason.	Glass	100	-5	*d	Headlights	100	Not made in Canada.3 $	5	Trucks	ICO	Variety called for notmade in Canada.Brass tubing	20	so	Not made in Canada.
Brass catches, come			
and go	100	H IILumber, all kinds.	r>o	Stan wood steps.. .	100	M IIGongs, foot	100	II IIMahogany, cherry,	Heaters, car, elec-	W. oak, cotton-	trie	100	II II* wood, gum, yel-	Heaters, car, water	100	II IIlow pine	too	Door checks ....	100	11 IIV eneer	100	Not made in Canada.	Couplers, car	1* IICar funders	100	Braided copper	Upholstering.	Electric fixtures,	Rattan	100	M ||	Benjamin	15	II IICarpet	50	Quality not good	Steel for springs	enough, made here.	Paints and Var-	and crucible steel	100	Not made in Canada.	nishes.	Pantasote	100	100	00	Not made in Canada,Curtain fixtures. .	1O0	n ii	Lacquer for metal	Curtain rollers....	100	M ii	goods	100	H it100	100	
50						
Plush	50	Pumice stone	Ribbon gold	100	ii iiGilders'gold 	100	ii iiCarriage and	Wagon Hardware.	40	Miscellaneous.	Iron and Steel.	in Canada.	Springs 	25	H ii	Angles, beams,	Carvings, hearse. .	100	ii ii	channels, hoop,	Carriage lamps.. ..	100	bullet-proof	50	Malleable hard-	Machinery	50	Specials, not made inware including	Canada.whiff!etree irons,	Tripoli and brass	neckyoke irons,	polishers' supplies	75	Not made in Canada.spring shackles	Tarred rope	ioo	Quality not made inwrenches, hold-	Canada.80	30	Special, not made inHinges, landau,	Canada.&c	40	ii ii	Bolts, spec, hd	5	Landau, top props	Tools, drills, &c ..	50	ti iiand nuts	100	ii ii	Hard and smithing	Landau toilet sets.	100	ii if	coal	100	Landau top fasten-	Sand and flint	ers	100	ii ii	paper 	100	Landau speaking	Emery cloth....	100	ii iitubes	100	ii ii	Wicker baskets... .	100	Curtain fasteners.	100	ii n	Wicker wheel	Steel skeins	100	guards, umbrella	10	Special rd, edge not	baskets	100	H "made in Canada.	Rubber cord step	Whip sockets....	20	Special not made in	pads	100	i MCanada.	Arc lamps	100	
Materials.	Per cent Imported.		Reason.
	United Stases.	England.	
	50 100		Special, not made in Canada. ii ii it ii ii ii H ii it ii ii it
Phosphor bronze			
Time clocks and			
Roller b e a r i n g wheels and axles Cloth for carriage			
	50 100	100	
Lace for carriage work	 Steel tubing, weldless				
			
When special screws, spring or special fixtures are required, it becomes necessary to import or make them ourselves.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman has enumerated a great many articles that do not go into the construction of a carriage.


Frederick William Borden: Of carriages and care.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman mentioned tire steel. We purchase it all in Nova Scotia, and do not get a bar outside this country. Nearly everything except-tlie wood is made in Canada.


Frederick William Borden: Since how long?


George Taylor: For years. I have been manufacturing twenty years and we purchase nearly all our supplies in Canada.


Frederick William Borden: We have factories making motors in Canada. There is one which boasts that it makes an all Canadian motor. Well, of the various materials which go into that 50-H.P. motor, $1,900 worth are imported out of the $4,500. And for an 18-H.P. motor, $136 of materials out of the $1,600 price, come from the United States. I do not object to this, but I do object to applying to the Ross rifle a rule which hon. gentlemen are not prepared to apply to other manufactures in Canada. The time will come no doubt when all these things will be manufactured in- Canada, the time will come when the steel will Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
be manufactured here, and Sir Charles Ross has told me that the moment he can get the suitable steel in Canada for the manufacture of the parts of his rifle, he will buy it here. I am told that at Peterborough there are three or four most important industries which would have to close their doors to-morrow if they were not allowed to purchase from the United States, not raw materials, but finished products. Take door bells, the springs are imported ready to put on the bell. Take an auger or bit, the point is imported from the United States; it cannot be made in Canada. Take the manufacture of shovels, the wood and I think the steel must be imported. Surely we are not going to go back on our policy, surely the importance of having the labour done in Canada is something, when we find that out of $1,200,000 expended in the factory $900,000 were spent on labour alone. That one statement should put an end forever to these vain imaginings-for they are nothing more-begotten from a diseased mind


George Eulas Foster: Order; go it easy.


Frederick William Borden: I would like to have said a base desire to injure a Canadian industry-I shall not say anything about the government and myself.
Mr. FOSTER, The government is beyond injury now.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will find that out to his cost.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He is thinking of the old government.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the good old days. We have heard a good deal to-day about defects of rifles. We hear of the defects of the Ross rifle. Now, I am not here to make damaging or injurious statements about any other rifle. I am here to give the facts. And I am here to show this House that there are at least other rifles besides the Ross rifle to which accidents may happen. The Lee-Enfield rifle is, in my opinion, a good one. I would have been quite content to have had it manufactured in Canada. I gave the manufacturers in England the first chance and tried on more than one occasion to prevail upon them to come here. They would not do so. I have here a report of some damaged Lee-Enfield rifles :


REPORT ON DAMAGED LEE-ENFIELD RIFLES.
[Stage Direction]
Place.
Toronto.
Ottawa.
Winnipeg.
Quebec
Kingston	
St. John, N.B.
Halifax.. Montreal.
Calgary..., Esquimalt.
Year.
1905	
1905	
1905		
1906		
1906	
1906	
1906	
1897	
1899	
1903	
1901	
1905		
1906		
1907		
1903	
1903	
1905	
1905	
1905		
1906		
1906	
1906	
1906	
1906		
1907		
1907		
1908		
1908	
1908.
1901..
1903..
1903..
1903..
1906.
1906.
Corps.
C.M.R ... 9th T.L.H 10th Regt.
Fenwick, R.A
21st Regt....
9th T.L.H....
G.G.F.G	
74th Regt
Renfrew R.A.. ..: 3 Coy F. G....
G.G.F.G	
LaRiviere R.A


Fort Saskatchewan R.A.: 


Springfield R.: A


Cannington Manor R.   A..@: 


Saskatchewan R.A. ..: C.M.R	
LaRiviere R.A


Franklin R.: A	
15th L.H .'	
C.M.R


Nose Creek R.: A


Cannington Manor R.   A..@: 


Snow Flake R:: A	
S.O.O. reports	
General report.
8th Hussars, ... Moncton R.A..
73rd Regt	
C.C.R. Ass'n..
5.0.	0. reports.
5.0.	0. reports
15th L.H . ... 5th Regt. C.A. S.O.O. reports.
Nature of damage.
Barrel burst.
Barrel bulged.
Breech burst. Barrel bulged. ((
Bolt blown out. Barrel burst.
Muzzle of rifle expanded.
Broken bolt.
" Barrel twisted,
Barrel burst.
Bolt broken. Barrel bulged.
Barrel burst.
Bolt broken. Kink in barrel.
*<
Cocking piece broken.
Bolt broken.
Butt plate broken.
Two bolts broken. Bulged barrel.
Barrel loose.
About twenty repaired annually lost swivels, loose butts, bolt blown out, bolt heads blown off cases of burst barrels.
One or two barrels bulged. New striker required in one case.
Breech damaged.
Barrel, body and chamber burst.
Breech damaged.
Stock broken off.
Two barrels damaged. One bolt blown out.
10 repairs, owing to defective cocking pieces, sears and springs; 150 repaired, loose butts and covers ; 25 repaired, hand guards broken barrels unserviceable, bolts broken.
Bolt broken.
Bullet jammed.
Repairs owing to defective material, handguards, 2; springs, 10 ; catches, magazine, 5 ; strikers, 1; bolts, breech, studs, 6 ; sears, 5 ; extractors, 2 ; stocks, foreend, 1 ; swivels, 5; breech bolt blown away, 2.
S.O.O. also reports 4 bolts blown back. In some case 'bands'were found to be 'loose'. Stock butts, some found loose. Piling swivel screws some lost owing to short screws.
Eye of magazine, about 1 per cent pull out owing to defective brazing.


Samuel Hughes: Were there any big headlines in the newspapers about these ?


Frederick William Borden: Not yet ; there may be to-morrow. Now, what a terrible thing for my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) to have armed the volunteers with such a rifle as that. I am not going to trouble the House by following the long weary reading which the hon. member (Mr. Worthington) made of certain reports which he wanted to place on ' Hansard,' but I have here a statement giving the whole thing boiled down. What it took the hon. gentleman two hours of our valuable time to read is here. It shows the number of damaged rifles, ranged under the headings ' Serviceable, Reparable ' and ' Unserviceable.' And in this whole list, there is not one rifle that is not put down as ' serviceable.' Of all the list that the hon. gentle-

man read, every one is mentioned here by my officials, who take the responsibility for this, as being ' serviceable ' and ' reparable ' and not one ' unserviceable.' It happens- and a great deal was made of that-that there is a return of a large number damaged at Halifax, no fewer than 257. There are also 36 in Militia District No. 8 and 38 at Quebec. These are the only large numbers except at Halifax. The rifles were issued to all the districts throughout Canada and subjected to the same tests. I cannot account for it. I shall make further investigation. Whether it is due to the fact that there are in Halifax a lot of old English soldiers who had been accustomed to using the Eee-Enfield and who were not properly trained in the use of the Ross rifle, or whether there were officers who were prejudiced against the Ross rifle and in favour of the other, I am not prepared to say. But I intend to find out. I shall make it my business to find out. It is certainly a remarkable thing that nearly all these complaints come from Halifax. And yet there Is not one unserviceable rifle, not one rifle that could not be repaired and put in proper shape of any armourer. Here is what appears at the end of the statement:
On receipt of these reports the inspector of small arms sends for such rifles or parts of rifles as cannot be repaired locally, or else forwards such spare parts as are necessary to enable the repairs to be made locally.
The general nature of the damage to these rifles is such that all are easily reparable.
In that connection, I wish to repeat what I said in the earlier part of my remarks. And I will read this so that there may be no doubt about it as to Mark I.
Although the details are not complete, there is every reason to believe that the complaints made against the Mark I rifle can be met and the arm put to very good use. For this purpose they have been recalled into stores and replaced by a later issue of March 11, and when the proper time arrives the necessary changes can be made, keeping the Mark I rifle as it is at present, and only remedying the complaint incorrectly described as to blow-back of the bolt. The very trifling expense of putting in a cross-pin will do all that is required.
As to Mark II.:
The majority of complaints have been made about the earlier issue of Mark II.
That is the Halifax issue.
And can be overcome in many cases, if not all

These are the words of the inspector endorsed by the Master General of Ordnance, and I am sure every one of them can be made right.
-merely by the issue of spare parts to be fitted by a competent local armourer.


Frederick William Borden: And this is the sum in toto of the indictment made by the hon. gentleman this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I insisted upon the Ross rifle being sent out to the troops all over the country, and in this respect the Ross rifle has been treated unfairly and differently from the Eee-Enfield. The Lee-Enfield was brought here about the time I assumed my present position and I wondered then what it was intended to do with it. When I asked :	Where is the Lee-Enfiel rifle, I
was told :	Oh, it was packed away carefully-apparently in cotton wool, you could not get it out, they would not issue it and it was years and years before that rifle was issued except to camps of instruction to allow the militiamen to see it and fire a few shots. That is the way the Lee-Enfield was treated. But the Ross was unfairly treated and I am responsible to some extent because owing to the unjust criticism that was being made and the prejudice that was being created all over the country in order to injure the rifle, I thought it desirable that it should be issued, and it was issued before it should have been. I wish to say now and at once that at the camps this year I intend that the Ross rifle and the Ross rifle alone shall do all the target practice. The Lee-Enfield will not be used in this year's camps and we will have a still better test than we have had of the qualities of the Ross rifle. We are not afraid to use the Ross rifle. The Ross rifle is not dangerous, and the statement that it is dangerous is a diabolical invention intended to injure the rifle, intended to injure the factory, intended to alarm the militia of Canada. A more outrageous campaign was never undertaken in Canada and such a campaign was never thought of in either England or the United States. You could not find a man in England or the United States who would abuse his position in the army of either of those countries and in the parliament of either country to try to strike a blow at the service rifle which has been deliberately adopted by that country. We know what troubles they have had in those countries. It is not a question of Mark I, Mark II and Mark III in the case of the Lee-Metford rifle in England, it is a question of Mark XII, and the story goes to-day that the latest rifle is by no means satisfactory. Those who have followed events in the United States know that the same thing has happened there and yet you will search in vain the records of congress and the records of the British parliament to find anything to compare with the treatment which has been meted out to this government and to this rifle.
A great deal was said to-day about blowouts or blow-offs. The hon. member said that this rifle was dangerous. He read for two hours from reports, but failed to find anything more than a screw loose in a

back sight, or a front sight, or some other sight and some little insignificant or trifling matters. He had to go back to the two or three cases upon which he rang the changes last year. He brought up a case at Lethbridge, another at St. John, N.B., and another at Eastman, the latter more or less made to order. I propose to say a few words about these three cases. Sergeant-Major Browbridge, of the Northwest Mounted Police, gave evidence before the Public Accounts Committee last year. I have the evidence here, but I do not wish to detain the House. After giving evidence for two or three days he came down off his high horse and admitted in almost as many words that it was not a blow-back, but some little nut on the end of the bolt had become loose and the spring had been forced back. That is what it came to.


Robert Laird Borden: There was some report by an official connected with the Northwest Mounted Police. Is that the same man?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, he gave evidence here. I would like to say a few words about the St. John, N.B., case. The hon. gentleman read some letters this afternoon from Major Armstrong. It seems that there was a rifle practice on the 24th of May by the 3rd Canadian Artillery and an alleged accident happened. Nothing more was heard of it, no report was made until some time in December, when from headquarters the question was asked why this particular corps had not done its annual shooting. Then some excuse had to be put forward, they had forgotten all about the accident that happened on the 24th of May. No board was held, no report was made, but at the end of December, when it was necessary to account for their not having done their annual shooting the report came In of this terrible accident which nearly took somebody's life.


Mr. CARVELL.: It came by telephone ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. Parliament was not sitting in May, or perhaps it was; at any rate it was sitting in December and the Ross rifle campaign had been begun. I am not going to delay the House, but I am going to read Major Pym's report of this accident. Major Pym was at once sent to St. John to look into the case, the rifles were secured and brought to Ottawa to see whether there had been one part of die rifle blown into three pieces or what had really happened :
Headquarters, March 12, 1907.


The M.   G.@: 0.
' The Inspector, Small Arms,
Inspection of Ross Rifles St. John, N.B. With reference to your minute of the 4th instant, I beg to report that I proceeded to St. John, 6th instant, to investigate the circumstances under which two Ross rifles, Mark I, were damaged on May 24, 1906.
1.	The case containing the two rifles in question was opened by me at the District Office. These rifles have been identified by the Officer Commanding No. 2 Company, 3rd Regiment,
C.	A., as those reported on by him.
2.	I obtained from this officer a statement as to what occurred on May 24, 1906, when one of these rifles was reported to have exploded and the other considered unsafe to fire.
The information he gave me when compared with the official report previous to submission (Section 514, 15, 19) seems to show some confusion of ideas as to what actually happened; but taking his latest statements in connection with those of other members of the regiment, together with a further examination of the rifle, I arrived at the following conclusions :-
(a) There is no evidence to show that any part of the rifle flew into three pieces.
<b) No broken part has been found.
(c)	No substitution of parts has been made.
(d)	The rifle bears no evidence of a premature explosion.
No official report appears to have been made to the D.O.C., M.D. No. 8, of the occurrence until January 19, 1907, when it was given for the reason for not having completed the musketry course.
A broken cover screw was the only defect in the other rifle referred to.
(Sgd.) J. BEV1LLE PYM, Major,
D. M.	Inspector Small Arms.
For the Ministers' information.
(Sgd.) W. H. COTTON, Col., M.G.O. 12-3-'07.
This is the terrible case of the blow back referred to. I think, we might call it a boomerang.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Or a roorback.


Frederick William Borden: Or a roorback. There is a more interesting and a more recent case-the Eastman case. That is an eastern townships case, and I propose to refer to that as briefly as I can. Something happened at a competition in the Eastern Townships. My boil, friend mentioned it to-day. He said it was a very narrow escape. There was a board held in connection with this alleged accident and at that board Major Pym was present. I think I will have his report a little later, but there are one or two questions and answers that I would like to read here.
By Mr. Barnes :
Q. Were you present at every practice when this rifle was used?-A. I may have missed two or three practices.
Q. Has the rifle been in your possession ever since the 2nd of October instant ?-A. It has -but on the 3rd of October, I think, any way shortly after the accident, I am sure now it was the day after, I was telephoned to by Sidney Longhurst at Mansonville asking me to send the rifle and parts there. There was a Conservative caucus there that night and my idea is he wanted it for that.
That is the way they are running the Ross rifle into politics. This is the sort of thing that my hon. friends are encouraging.

Q. Has this rifle always been in your possession?-A. No. Sometimes when I have been away other members of the rifle association have come to my house for it. I never took it to pieces and only put it together thus once when it came apart.
There are a number of questions and answers which X will not detain the House by reading but I have another little bit of evidence on this point which I would like to read. It will be found at page 142 book No. 4. Major Pym is giving evidence :
By Mr. Worthington :
Q. You have heard, no doubt, of the number of accidents that have been happening from the use of the Boss rifle throughout the country ?

A. I have.
Q. Have the rifles injured been submitted to you for your opinion ?-A. Some of them have.
Q. As a rule what was the cause of the accident, what was the cause in most of these cases ?-A. I think it depends upon what the nature of the accident was. If you could state that, perhaps I could remember the details.
Q. Did you see a rifle sent from Eastman, Quebec ?-A. Yes.
Q. I believe it was previously investigated by a court of inquiry ?-A. I was present at the court of inquiry.
Q. I think there was one court of inquiry held at Eastman ?-A. I was at Eastman too.
Q. What was the verdict of that court of inquiry ?-A. So far as I recollect the verdict of the court of inquiry was that there was reason to believe that the rifle, or some part of the rifle, had been improperly used and, therefore, that the bolt might have closed ; that is to say that the rifle might have been fired in closing the bolt, but there was no evidence to show what caused an explosion, which is a very different thing.
Sir Frederick Borden :
Q. The rifle might probably have been tampered with ?-A. Well, tampered with inasmuch as that riflemen will always tamper with their cocking-pieces, or with the sear, to get what they call ' a sweet pull off.'
Q. Was there not absolute evidence that a certain part of the rifle had been filed ?-[DOT] A. Yes, it had that appearance. It bore that appearance. I
I think we may fairly assume that we have disposed of the only three serious cases that have been put forward out of all the thousands of rifles which have been distributed throughout the country and which have been in use for the last two or three years.
There were a good many other matters that I had notes of but I am not going to detain the House. I will only stop to say now that a committee known as the Small Arms Committee has been permanently established in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence. There is such a board or committee, I believe in every country in the world. In England it performs an important function, that function being of an advisory character to the War Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
Office. In the United States I believe there is a similar board. I thought the only safe way to deal with matters of this kind would be to establish by order in council a similar board and that has been done. Most of the gentlemen composing that board are well known throughout Canada although they were contemptuously referred to this afternoon, as a whitewashing board, by the hon. member who entertained us so long. The proper title of this board is the Standing Committee on Small Arms, authorized by general order 36, 1968.
President-
Brevet Colonel Sam. Hughes, M.P.
Members-	[DOT]


Lieutenant Colonel W.   P.@: Anderson, R.O. Lieutenant Colonel J. H. Burland, R.O. Lieutenant Colonel C. Greyille Harston, R.O. Major R. A. Helmer, D.A.A.G.M.
A. 0. Fages, R.C.R.
J. B. Pym, I.S.A., M.G.
W. H. Davidson, 8th Regiment.
J. E. Hutcheson, 43rd Regiment.
Associate members-


Lieutenant Colonel F.   M.@: Gaudet, R.C.A., Superintendent Dominion Ordnance.
J. W. Harlcom, R.O.
A. E. McIntyre, Esq., Ph.D.
A. H. Walters, Esq., M.A.
These last four are employed for their special scientific and general knowledge. Colonel Greville Harston is an ex-imperial officer, and was at one time employed by the British government in doing some work in connection with converting one type of small arms to another. I believe these men are able,' conscientious and determined to do their duty. Some of them are now at [DOT]Quebec testing carefully an improved, I suppose it might be called, or a modified Ross rifle. As the result of what has happened ; as a result of the reports which have been made, and information which has been gained, the contractor, with the assistance of members of the Militia Department, has thought it desirable to make certain changes, and before the manufacture of the new order for 10,000 rifles is begun this modified form of rifle will be thoroughly tested. Already many valuable tests have been made, but I shall not go into that; I am not an expert, and I know my hon. friend (Col. Hughes) will take that up when he has an opportunity of speaking. Suffice it to say that every effort has been made, as has been done from the first, to secure the manufacture of the very best rifle. I have been told by some men who were supposed to be somewhat critical of the rifle as first issued that they believe it is a remarkably good rifle. Certainly the shooting that has been done all over the country with the new rifle sent out by Sir Charles Ross himself (none have been issued by the department yet) has been remarkable. Most extraordinary shooting was made here a few days ago by the Ottawa member of the committee. I overlooked one thing

*which I would like to say before I conclude. The hou. member, in his speech to-day, referred to two friends of his, I suppose, who had been saying nasty things about the Ross rifle. He gave tne name of one as Luther R. Henry Burns, a former employee of the rifle factory, and the other he gave as J. H. Stanton, of St. Catharines, also an ex-employee. I know nothing about the former man. Mr. Burns, although I would think it somewhat undesirable for a member occupying such a prominent place as the hon. member does as an officer of the militia and as a member of this parliament, to read letters from a disappointed or dismissed employee.


Samuel Hughes: Without any date.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Stanton-I do not want to do him any harm- wrote letters to me, and they were sent to the Ross Rifle Company and were answered. 1 do not know whether the answers were published or not, but they are on the file of the return 1 brought down. He also wrote to the Prime Minister, and I find this letter in the return I brought down last session, and part of which has been printed in No. 5 of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee. But this letter seems to have escaped somebody's eagle eye, and so I shall read it. Mr. Boudreau, then the Prime Minister's secretary, had evidently written a letter to my late deputy, Colonel Pinault, who had sent him Stanton's letter, and this is Colonel Pinault's reply :
Ottawa, February 2, 1906.
Bear Mr. Boudreau,-With reference to the attached letter from Mr. J. H. Stanton, of St. Catharines, I would suggest that the premier should give very little of his time to this man. He has written several letters to this department, and for some reason perhaps known _to himself, he refuses to accept as true what I have told him as regards the Ross rifle factory being a private concern. He has been told that we have nothing to do with the management of the company, and that all that we are concerned about is obtaining arms up to the standard for which the company have entered into a contract with the government, as to which our inspector is the judge.
Stanton was an employee of the company, and as is not infrequent when a man has been dismissed, he is disgruntled. He is known to hare offered a bribe to have an invention of his own helped on, from which fact alone, he is hardly a man to be taken seriously when ho _preaches honesty.
The grounds I have taken in answering his letters are that such questions as the foreman's keeping the labourers waiting until he sees fit to give them work are for the company and not this department to deal with; that what we are concerned about is that the rifles they turn out are according to pattern.
Very truly yours,
' (Sgd.) L. F. PINAULT. Rodolphe Boudreau, Esq.,
Private Secretary to the Premier, Ottawa, Ontario.
In conclusion, I observe that the motion before you refers to ' the dealings of the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with the adoption and manufacture of the Ross rifle' and so on. Well, I have pointed out so far as I could the dealings. I do not quite know what the mover of the motion means by using that phrase. There were no dealings as to the adoption or as to the manufacture of the Ross rifle which were not absolutely straightforward and above board. X have given the reasons for encouraging the establishment of this factory in Canada. I have given the reason first of high policy, of imperial policy, and of policy which would properly safeguard the integrity of our own domain. I have stated that I did my best to persuade somebody in England-the Chamberlains, whom I saw more than once-to establish a branch of their great factory in Canada, but I failed. I am free to admit, and I will never deny the fact-there is no reason why I should-that I would have preferred the establishment here of the same service rifle as the imperial army is armed with. Not that it is a better rifle. I do not think it is as good a rifle. But I am not called on to make comparisons of that kind. As a matter of convenience I would have preferred it, and I did my best to bring it about ; but I did not succeed. I did what I thought was the next best thing, and I have been instrumental in encouraging the establishment in Canada of a great industry, and I wish to say that I am more proud of that act and that fact than anything else in my twelve years of administration. I am willing to stand or fall by what has been done. I do not pretend to say that no mistakes have been made. It would be utterly impossible that the introduction of a new industry like this could go on smoothly without some friction and some difficulty. It has never happened anywhere in the world, and it is not likely to happen here, because we have had less experience than other countries. But I repeat what I said, that the country has got value for its money, and that there are no rifles issued or to be issued or to be received by the inspector which are not good value and which could not be made serviceable in a very short space of time; and there are not many of them which are not at this moment serviceable. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must leave myself in the hands of this House. The House must judge as to my motives and my administration. If it will treat me fairly and consider fairly all the facts, I have no doubt what the result of this vote will be.


William Barton Northrup: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour not to emulate the preceding speaker in one respect at all events; because, when he rose at a quarter past nine to address the House, he referred in almost indignant and contemptuous tones to the fact that the hon. gentle-



man who had preceded him had held the House three and a quarter hours in making the attack, which of necessity should last longer than the defence, if the defence could be anything more than words, and yet the hon. minister has occupied within a few minutes of three hours in making his defence to the attack which he treated so contemptuously. The hon. gentleman, in beginning his remarks, said that the hon. gentleman who had made this motion had succeeded in bringing down the question of arming the militia to the low level of party polities. Now, sir, there are two ways of looking at this matter. The man who would wilfully and deliberately, in order to injure the soldiery of his native land, say one single word, would be a traitor of the deepest dye; but, sir, I think that a traitor of equally deep or perhaps deeper dye would be the man who, having been in the militia service, having left his native shores to fight for the old flag, having come back to this country has been honoured by the people by being elected as one of their representatives in this House, if he believed that there was being put into the hands of the soldiers of this country an inferior weapon, for which the money of the people of this country had been illegally paid, failed to bring these matters before this House. The minister contemptuously accused the hon. member for Sherbrooke of having excited discontent in the minds of our soldiers on this matter; and yet that hon. gentleman only took it up in 1907. It was in the year before, in July, 1906, that the complaint from all parts of this country were so numerous, so specific and of so unquestionable a character that General Cotton wrote, under the direction of the Department of Militia, because he swore that he did nothing without its direction, to the Ross Rifle Company, putting an embargo on the receipt of their rifles. Was the minister treating this House with proper respect when he made such a statement, knowing the facts as he did, and no one knows them better than he. Now, I think I can perhaps avoid following his example, and can discuss this question quietly and dispassionately, although I may differ with him in the conclusions at which I arrive. I agree with him that he must stand or fall by this question. It was mere braggadocio on his part to say that he must stand by what everybody knows he cannot help standing by. I hope he will take a broader view of his past career, and that the day will come when he can find some thing in that career on which he can look back with greater satisfaction than he can upon his connection with the Ross rifle. I think I am correct in saying that there has been no question before this country for years which has excited more widespread interest than this very Ross rifle. Perhaps it will not be out of place if I give a brief historical retrosnect of that question, to show how it came about and how it stands to-day.


William Barton Northrup: We have a very voluminous report here. Our examinations before the Public Accounts Committee lasted a considerable time last year and this, and I must confess I was astonished that the hon. minister should have had the assurance to stand up in this House, where practically every member of it knows the facts as well as he, and taunt my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) with delay in bringing on this matter. Does the minister not know that it is he who is the culprit and that every member of the House is convinced he is? Why, the very returns brought down in connection with this matter and laid on the table on April 9, 1908, was brought down in compliance with an order of the House passed on the 11th December, 1907. Does me hon. minister charge this delay of over a year in bringing down this return to my hon. friend from Sherbrooke? I would not be at all surprised if he did. Yet it is just delays of that kind which account for this resolution only having been moved to-day and for my rising to address the House at this late hour. The Public Accounts Committee sat on this matter last year and had not finished its investigation when the session prorogued. The minister knows that no debate could have been had on the subject last session because the matter was then before the Public Accounts Committee. The proceedings of that committee were continued this session from last year. Nothing could be said in this House while the matter was before that committee. Then take this whole volume, the report of the Public Accounts Committee, selected from 3,000 pages of correspondence and reports brought down-not more than three weeks at the outside have passed since this literature was put in our hands, and this is really the first opportunity we have had of discussing it. Every one knows that the peculiar circumstances of the last couple of weeks prevented our taking up this Ross rifle matter. I state here on my responsibility that no man could have been more anxious to bring the matter before the House than my hon. friend from Sherbrooke, and he brought it up the very first day he could.
Coming now to the history of the question, in 1901 Sir Charles Ross-I think I can discuss the question without referring to him in any other way than as a business man who came here and made a very successful contract, very unsuccessfully carried out-in 1901 Sir Charles Ross and the Minister of Militia met-in an unhappy hour I think for this country. Evidently the establishing of a rifle factory was then discussed, with the result that a meeting of officers was called in the city of Ottawa and took place on June 28. There were present Colonal Otter, Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson, Lieutenant-Colonel Sam. Hughes and Major Gaudet. Colonel Gibson was

absent. Sir Charles Eoss attended the meeting and presented his rifle for inspection. Major Gaudet had made some experiments with it in Quebec prior to that time. A discussion took place, and they agreed that a number of tests should be made in Quebec, after which some decision would be come to by the committee. But on that very occasion, when Sir Charles Ross appeared before the committee and when the committee decided to investigate the subject, the first thing they did, before making any special investigation, was to decide that six alterations would have to be made in the mechanism. So that we had this man who had never been in the business of manufacturing rifles before, this embryo contractor, going to the minister with a rifle of such a character that the board, on which the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) sat, declared that before they would bother making any test of the rifle at all six changes would have to be made in it.


Samuel Hughes: Sir Charles Ross carried the rifle all through Africa and did very good execution with it during the African war.


William Barton Northrup: Of course I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. No doubt Sir Charles Ross carried it through Africa, and it was so worn out that it required at least six improvements to make it fit to be tested in Canada. However, I presume these changes were made, though on that point I find no exact report. At all events the officers did meet in Quebec and then came back to Ottawa. Then they came to a decision and made a report. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia said tauntingly that he would not read this report in the way the hon. member for Sherbrooke read it. that he would not pick out only what suited him. Well, 1 accept the minister's statement, and no doubt it is because the opinion of the board, which I am about to quote, suited him so well that he omitted to quote it. The board, in its first report, points out that there was a tremendous objection to this rifle from the point of view of endurance. This they would regard as a very serious matter, but Sir Charles Ross promised to remedy it. They went on to say :
The board do not profess to pronounce upon the question of a complete remedy of this objection, but having called attention to it, assume that due precaution and provision with reference thereto will be taken, in the event of the rifle being adopted.
Is it any wonder that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia should have left this out? Had it not been so eminently satisfactory to him no doubt he would have read it. Then the board continued :
This is all the more important inasmuch as, in comparison with the Lee-Enfield, there is 286}
not the leverage in opening the breach which the mechanism of the latter rifle affords.
That is the report. Would any sane man, gviided wholly by patriotic motives, say that that was a report giving an unqualified approval of an unknown rifle? Colonel Anderson was unable to be present at the meeting of the board, but he wrote a letter in which he pointed out that if a contract should be entered into with Sir Charles Ross for a number of weapons, strict specifications should be provided. He wrote as follows :
If a contract is entered into with Sir Chas. Ross for a number of weapons, it should be under a strict specification and detailed drawings as well as a sealed pattern. The specifications should contain in full details respecting materials to be used for each part, tempering, finishing, etc.
There was something practical which would appeal to business men. Do not enter into a contract unless you have drawings and specifications as well as sealed patterns. Yet we find that the contract with Sir Charles Ross was drawn with such skill that it does not contain the slightest reference to drawings or specifications.
There is one letter and this letter is the only recommendation of the Ross rifle which was given up to the time the contract was made. I am not prepared to say that nobody ever said a word in favour of it, but after careful research I have been unable to find any trace of any individual who had a good word to say, much less give unqualified commendation, with the exception of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). That hon. gentleman, at the very beginning, when the other members of the committee were most reserved, when they pointed out that certain defects were very serious and trusted that the minister would see that Sir Charles Ross carried out his promise to remove them


Samuel Hughes: Where has the committee pointed out serious defects?


William Barton Northrup: I am perfectly willing to do my best to enable the hon. gentleman to understand, if possible, something about a rifle, but I do object being called upon to repeat what I have said two or three times, particularly at this hour of the morning. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in his letter said :
On active service in South Africa I chanced to take several straight pull action rifles from the Boers. Though the action was weak.
I presume the action referred to the rifle. My hon. friend went on to say :
The Sir Chas. Ross rifle has all the advantages of the other with none of its drawbacks. It locks its resistance lugs at the forward end of the bolt; it is the strongest rifle I have

seen; is least likely to get out of order and the simplest to dismount and put together.


Samuel Hughes: I asked the hon. member to point out where the other members of the committee had reported defects in the rifle.


William Barton Northrup: I suppose it would take less time to read the clauses over again to the hon. gentleman than to have him jump up and interrupt me so often. I was interrupted so often in the Public Accounts Committee by the hon. gentleman this session that I thought he would be weary by this time. Well, if he will kindly listen I will read, solely for his benefit, the words used by the committee.


Samuel Hughes: What page?


William Barton Northrup: Page 196 of the report of the Public Accounts Committee.
The chief objection or difficulty which was found in connection with the tests to which the Ross rifle was subjected, was brought out in the * endurance test.' While in firing 1,300 rounds out of each of the rifles, the Lee-Enfield stood the test quite satisfactorily. It was found that after heating, the breech of the Ross rifle closed with more or less difficulty, the action being very stiff, with occasional jamming* besides which a possibility of ' double loading ' exists.
Were this an inherent objection to this rifle independent of details of mechanism, the board would regard it as a very serious matter, but Sir Charles Ross states-

and so on.
The board do not profess to pronounce upon the question of a complete remedy of this objection, but having called attention to it assume that due precaution and provision with reference thereto will be taken, in the event of the rifle being adopted.
This is all the more important, inasmuch as in comparison with the Lee-Enfield, there is not the leverage in opening the breech which the mechanism of the latter rifle affords.
Now, at this hour of the morning, I trust the hon. gentleman will have a little regard for the feelings of myself and other hon. members. And I will be happy to explain unrevised ' Hansard ' to him, so that when he conies to address the House he may be able to say something of interest and profit concerning the Ross rifle. In the meantime, I ask him to have a little forbearance-


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES, ihe hon. member made a


William Barton Northrup: Mr. Speaker, I do not surrender the floor


Samuel Hughes: I wanted to show the hon. member up, and to show his utter distortion of the facts.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Nortnrup) has the floor.


William Barton Northrup: 


William Barton Northrup: We have later the report, which was wholly non-committal, of Colonel Anderson, with specifications and drawings, and the unqualified commendation of Colonel Hughes. What was done next we know nothing. The minister tells us that he revised the contract, making twenty drafts of it. And then we have the contract between the Ross Rifle Company and the Crown. Before coming to this, however, there were certain tests made in Quebec. And, in this connection, I think I may say that the counsel for the Ross Rifle Company did not help his case by his conduct before the committee. I do not think that his treatment of Major Pym and General Cotton was of a kind that should have been tolerated before a committee of this House. I do not think that in reference to the tests made before the contract he was altogether fair and correct in his statements. He referred to the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield being subjected to a charge of 35 tons. It seems that, hy the terms that were agreed upon by the committee, there was to be such a test, but when they got to Quebec they did not make such a test. Yet Mr. Nesbitt put it that, having agreed that such tests were to be made, and the fact that men of such standing as General Otter and Major Gaudet reported in favour of the rifle, showed that they must have been made. Whereas he must have known, if he knew anything about it, that such a test was not made. The report said :
A cartridge loaded with a charge of 10 grains of cordite, calculated to produce a pres sure of 22 tons per square inch was employed. Thermo. 70 P.
1st round.-Percussion cap blown out. Action very stiff ar.d considerable force exerted by haimmeniing with heel to open breeoh.
2nd round.-Same result. Sir C. Ross declined to allow rifle to fire further excessive charges. Locking lugs examined after firing and found unaltered. Total rounds fired 1,441.
Now, I want to be perfectly fair. The Ross rifle was subjected to a test of 22 tons, but the Lee-Enfield to only 17:69 tons. But the Lee-Enfield came through the trial prefectly unharmed. So, though a great deal was made in the committee of the additional strength of the Ross rifle, it proved nothing. It was subjected to a heavier test and went to pieces, and the Lee-Enfield was subjected to a lighter test and came out all right. This does not afford a basis for a comparison favourable to the Ross rifle.
Now, the contract was made, and I suppose that this is one of the things the minister is proud of, the record of which he would wish to have engraved on his monument when he is called upon to leave this world and pass to another where war is no more. There are just a few comments

I would like to make on the contract. First, there is the reason given for the contract being made, and that reason is set out on the face of the contract. Let us see if in this there is a justification for this expense. The preamble says :
Whereas, it is considered in the general interests of Canada that the rifles required by the government for the purposes of militia and defence should be manufactured in Canada, and whereas the contractor has proposed by himself or his assigns to undertake the establishment and operation of a suitable factory in Canada for the manufacture of such rifles.
Now, are they manufactured in Canada?
I do not propose to waste time discussing that. We may bandy words across this floor, but the fact remains that there is not a man in Canada but knows exactly whether those rifles are manufactured in Canada or not. Certain words have a certain meaning. When we speak of a rifle factory in Canada, in order to have our rifles manufactured within our own borders, the ordinary man knows what that ought to mean. It must mean that we can manufacture rifles independent of any foreign power.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As we manufacture cotton, for instance.


William Barton Northrup: My hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean), like the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), apparently cannot see the difference between a rifle factory and a cotton factory. I suppose that in case of difficulty cotton would not be contraband of war, and that we should be able to bring in cotton. But we certainly could not bring in arms. The government does not establish a cotton factory as it establishes an arms factory, in order that we may be independent of other countries. How can we be independent in this manufacture even if one essential part of the rifle is manufactured outside our owrn borders? It is all very well for the minister to say that the bulk of these things made outside came in in the shape of forgings. That makes no difference ; if you cannot manufacture your rifle wholly in Canada, there is no object, from that point of view', in having it manufactured here. The hon. gentleman says that we are not supporting the navy of Great Britain because we have not control of the expenditure, but we will help the down-trodden Englishmen by making a contribution by having arms manufactured in Canada instead of England. But I think it would pass the logic of the minister to show how the down-trodden Englishman is to benefit by having arms manufactured here instead of in England.


Frederick William Borden: The stock of the English rifle is imported from Italy, and, I believe, the stock of the American
rifle also. I think there are some other parts of the English rifle that are manufactured in Belgium.


Mr. NORTH  RTJP@: I can quite understand tnat it might be advisable, if England does not raise the wood necessary, to import the stocks. But I can understand also that it would be easy enough to have a sufficient quantity of them on hand. And, as an hon. gentleman beside me suggests, wood w'ould not be contraband in time of war. But when we have only one little factory for the manufacture of rifles, it must be selfevident that the manufacture in Canada is of no value unless practically every bit of the rifle is made here-and on that subject there wras no dispute before the committee. The gentlemen examined before the committee rather fenced as to the extent to w'hich the manufacture was carried on in icanada, but it could not be denied that, up to a certain point, the parts were manufactured and brought into Canada. But there is no part of the Ross rifle that is made in Canada.


Frederick William Borden: The steel
is not made in Canada.


William Barton Northrup: Then, if the w'hole rifle is not manufactured in Canada, literally or substantially, what is the justification or advantage of having a factory here at all ; what is the use of it, when the factory could be put out of business in twenty-four hours?


Frederick William Borden: The steel may be made here.


William Barton Northrup: When these articles are made here, and with another and a w'iser government in powrer, it might be well to start a factory. But until these articles are made here-


Frederick William Borden: Then the hon. gentleman w'ould have waited until every particle of steel and all the materials could be made in Canada?


William Barton Northrup: I would have waited until so much of the component parts could be made in Canada that there was a reasonable certainty that tne remainder could be made in a short time. I think then the establishment of a factory would be justifiable.


Frederick William Borden: And the hon. gentleman's own friends started a cartridge factory, and until this much-abused government came into power every single thing that entered into the manufacture of those cartridges was imported. To-day the shells and a great many other things, practically all are made in Canada.


William Barton Northrup: Quite possibly.


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: I quoted the prices of the rifle from the trade. The statement the hon. gentleman has just read is not correct.


William Barton Northrup: It is absolutely correct.
I have the honour to report, for your information, that I have carefully inspected the above rifle in all is details, and I find it
superior, in my opinion, in every way to the Lee-Enfield.
He had evidently been reading a lette from Col. Hughes, you see.
I consider the straight pull a decided ad vantage and the resisting power greater thai that *01 the Lee-Lii field. The magazine, bac and fore-sights are also a decided improve rnent; the pistol grip, too, an importan change; in fact the whole mechanism of th xifle is more simple in its construction fo cleaning and repairing purposes.
1 would consider this rifle might be mann factured in reasonable quantities for, say tb sum of twenty-five ($25) dollars, and wouid b a fair value. This rifle cannot be ohtainei in the English or any other market. Evei were this rifle placed in the open market to day, I am still of the opinion, in view of th< material improvements, it could not be sup plied at a less figure than above mentioned viz., $25.


William Barton Northrup: 


Frederick William Borden: It is not correct.


William Barton Northrup: My authority is better than that of the minister a good deal and I challenge the minister to go to his books in his department and disprove my statement.


Frederick William Borden: 
William Barton Northrup: 
Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman refused to distinguish them. I

say it is not fair to compare the price paid the Boss Rifle Company with the price charged by the War Office.


William Barton Northrup: I am going right on to give the two


Frederick William Borden: Not if I had not called the hon. gentleman's attention.


William Barton Northrup: 
Frederick William Borden: The average price is not fair, it is the price to the trade that must be considered.


William Barton Northrup: The average price is fair for this reason :	It would be most
grossly unfair for me to say the government should get rifles from the Ross Company as cheaply as from the War Office. It is equally unfair to compare the price to the Ross Company with the price paid to the trade in England.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no.


William Barton Northrup: Certainly most ridiculously unfair. If the minister will tell me of any private factory in England which the government furnishes with all the land it requires and all the working capital needed. I will admit that it is fair to compare the Ross prices with those of such a factory, but until he can do so I say it is unfair.


Frederick William Borden: The only difference in England is that the War Office pays in advance the whole amount.


William Barton Northrup: A letter was read this afternoon in which the trade offers to supply the rifle referred to with an advance of only 10 per cent of the amount.


Frederick William Borden: That is not correct.


William Barton Northrup: The letter was read and it is absolutely correct.


George Eulas Foster: I have seen the letter and it is absolutely correct.


Frederick William Borden: It is not [DOT]correct.


William Barton Northrup: It was read and it will not do for the minister to deny everything of which he knows nothing.


Frederick William Borden: I dispute that anyway.


William Barton Northrup: The minister showed how much idea he had of the price of rifles when he added the duty. He says that the rifle would cost $17 and he adds to the cost the amount of the duty. He knows that would not pay the duty and that it would not add to the price if it did. We only pay the duty to ourselves, from one department to anothex-. The question is what it would cost the country one way or the other, and if it would not cost the country any duty in one case then it is preposterous to add the duty in comparing prices. The American government has a rifle which some people think is quite equal to the Ross rifle. I have here a statement, and I think the minister will understand it, which shows the cost to the American government. This is an official letter to the Secretary of State stating that the cost of a rifle to the American government is $14.90, and if it only costs the American government $14.90 to make a rifle it seems to me that we can hardly be said to have secured a rifle on as reasonable terms as the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence has claimed, because we pay Sir Charles Ross $25 and you allow all his material free entry into the country, make him a present of the land and advance him heaven knows how much money. I will come to that later on. I think I have shown that the preamble of the contract has not been carried out, that the rifles are not manufactured in Canada and that they are not as cheap as they could be got in England. Whereas in England we bought our bayonets for 11 shillings-they only cost the War Office 7s 4d-but buying them from the trade we get them for 11s., which is a shade over $2-the Americans get their bayonets for $1.49 apiece.


Frederick William Borden: I thought 11s. was more than a shade over $2.


William Barton Northrup: It would be under $2.25.	[DOT]


Frederick William Borden: I think 11s. is nearly $3.


William Barton Northrup: Taking into ^consideration the minister's price of $5.12, 60 cents on the dollar would not be considered a very great difference. We find by the correspondence of Colonel Cotton that the Ross rifle is not adapted to the bayonet.


Frederick William Borden: That is not true. There is no rifle with a bayonet in England. The bayonets are made in a different place altogether-made by different people.


William Barton Northrup: I am not saying that the bayonet was made in England, but the bayonet goes with the rifle in England.


Frederick William Borden: If you choose to buy it.


William Barton Northrup: We did buy it 'with tlie rifle.


Frederick William Borden: We did not buy it from the same place.


William Barton Northrup: I never stated that *we bought it in the same place. I am pointing out that the rifle and bayonet can be made so that they can go together because they do go together. The correspondence of Colonel Cotton shows that the Ross rifle is not adapted to the bayonet.


Frederick William Borden: That is not correct.


William Barton Northrup: That is in his correspondence and I can show that.


Frederick William Borden: No, some one was stupid enough to ask if the Lee-Enfield bayonet would fit the Ross rifle.


William Barton Northrup: It was not a case of Lee-Enfield at all. I will find it later.


Frederick William Borden: I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) asked the question.
Mi\ NORTHRUP, I was speaking of the contract. Let me go a little farther n ith this contract. I have only got through the preamble. The contract provides that the government shall receive 12,000 rifles between the 1st January, 1903, and the 1st January, 1904. Then it is provided that subsequently any rifles that the government shall require shall be bought from this company. So that the contract is ah absolutely perpetual contract. The government were not bound to buy any number ot rifles from this company and that is the only defect in the contract as far as I can see from the contractor's standpoint. Every other thing that the contractor could conceive of was in the contract except that but I suppose that perhaps the minister thought that owing to the exigencies of parliamentary life he dare not put any specific quantity in the contract; so that fiom year to year the contractor would have to rely upon the goodness of the minister and have to stand in with the minister to secure the extension of his contract.


Mr. A. K.: MACLEAN, essence of the contract?
What was the


William Barton Northrup: Cash. I think.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I admit that was a very important part of it, but I would like to ask my hon. friend if he considers that the essential part of the contract was that the contractor was obliged to sell rifles or whether the essential part of the contract was that tlie contractor was obliged to manufacture rifles for the government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not an ordinary contract of purchase and sale?


William Barton Northrup: It is not an ordinary contract, I must agree ; it is the most extraordinary contract that I ever saw in my life.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do not be funny. It was not an ordinary contract of purchase and sale?


William Barton Northrup: No, nobody will claim that. To go on with this contract, it is admitted that the contract is a perpetual contract, the price being $25, but that may be raised as provided by the contract. Then there is another extraordinary clause. I wonder if this is the particular clause upon which the Minister of Militia and Defence bases his claim to bright, green recollection in the memory of his fellow countrymen after he is gone? It is as follows :
Provided, however, that in case of war, actual or threatened, or any national emergency, requiring, in the opinion of the government, the immediate supply of additional arms, the contractor, upon receiving any notice or demand from the government for any number of rifles specified to be urgently required in view of this proviso, shall, within thirty days after receiving such notice or demand, notify the government in writing of the number of rifles which he will undertake to furnish in accordance with such notice or demand, and the government shall not, under any circumstances, be bound to purchase from the contractor in respect of any such notice or demand any number of rifles in excess of the number which the contractor so notifies the government that he will be able to supply.
I think my bon. friend (Mr. A. IC. Maclean) bad that clause in his mind when he asked me if this was an ordinary contract. We might imagine the jester of a European monarch suggesting in his monarch's ear after the fifteenth course at dinner such an absolutely absurd provision as this. If war breaks out with the States and if we are short of arms the government has the right to call on the contractor to state how many rifles he can furnish and then, after he has thirty days to make up his mind about it, by which time in all probability the Americans will have swept the country, he is to tell the government how many he can supply and then the government are not bound to buy any more from him than the number he has named. No wonder the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence is proud of this monument he has erected in the hearts of his countrymen.


Frederick William Borden: That is very funny.


William Barton Northrup: The contractor was not obliged to manufacture rifles unless they were ordered. If the government ordered rifles he had to manufacture them Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.


William Barton Northrup: It is the funniest thing I ever saw in my life. Then there is the provision that the government has to pay $25 for each rifle. But here is another

extraordinary clause. I have not the faintest idea what it means, but it is here :
The price for all rifles herein contracted for or to he supplied pursuant to the provisions of this agreement shall he payable upon delivery; provided, however, that after the establishment of the said factory and supplying of the plant for the running of the same the contractor shall be entitled to payment in advance of delivery of moneys actually expended upon the rifles or parts thereof or fixtures therefor to be delivered in that year.
You have to give the contractor every dollar he has put in, only in no ease is the payment to exceed 75 per cent of the price of such rifles. The meaning is perfectly clear. The rifle is sold for $25, the contractor is entitled to 75 per cent of $25, which is $18.25. Looking at the reasonable profits on this rifle and looking at what it costs the American government to construct its rifle and at what it costs the English government to construct its rifles, we see that $18 would more than furnish the contractor with all the working capital he requires. How was this thing really worked out? Colonel Wurtele was examined and we found out from him. 1 told the minister that I thought the examination was perfectly absurd and I stand by it. Here is what took place. The contract provides that this 25 per cent is only to be paid on the certificate of the contractor who is to satisfy the government inspector of small arms. The contract, therefore, is dependent solely on the gov. eminent inspector of small arms. The government had an inspector of small arms there, Mr. Gaudet, and Mr. Gaudet was instructed to take charge of this inspection. Mr. Gaudet was sensible enough to know that he could not discharge the duties that were imposed upon him; he knew that no man living could. When Mr. Gaudet found he was charged with the duty of examining in order to certify the 75 per cent he objected, and at page 235 of the report it will be found that Mr. Gaudet says :
After careful consideration, it is found impossible, under this system to carry out the instructions received, in guaranteeing that the percentage laid down in the contract shall not be exceeded, for the following reasons:
2. The shipments of materials received consists of barrels, receivers and sundry components, far too numerous to mention; to comply with the contract, it is necessary to know the relative value of each component to that of the finished rifle. Similarly, as regards wages, it is necessary to establish the amount which should be expended on each component, in addition to materials, to produce rifles costing not more than $25 each. If the contractor pays more for materials or w-ages than is necessary, to produce rifles costing $25, the department will be paying a higher percentage than authorized by contract, and thus the invoices or statements produced are inadequate and of little value 'r) determining the amount of advances.
It was the same way about the labour; if the labourers were idle and did not earn 100 cents on the dollar of their wages the government would be paying too much. He says:
The result of this misrepresentation is that an unauthorized advance of $8,000 on fixtures [DOT] has already been made. What has happened in the case of this special clause, will unavoidably occur again, as I am not conversant with the law relative to the interpretation of contracts, nor have I the advantage of knowing what the parties intended by the present agreement, and repetition of such mistakes may cause trouble to the department. The surest way of precluding a recurrence of such errors, is that the contracting parties, who know the exact meaning of the terms to which they agreed, should themselves furnish interpretations and instructions for the guidance of those concerned.
8. It will be clear from the foregoing that the duties and responsibilities devolving on the inspector are greater than they appear at first sight, and are perhaps in excess of what was intended by the department. Tor reasons stated above, I beg to be relieved of the responsibility of recommending advances, and that these as well as the interpretation of the contract be dealt with at Ottawa.
There was an honest intelligent man who saw he could not follow out the conditions of this contract, and therefore he asked to be relieved. The government at once took a Col. Wurtele who was at that time In the employ of the Ross Rifle Company. He was not paid by the government it is true; he owed no obligation to the government, he was simply an employee of the Ross Rifle Company and he may be a worthy and excellent man, but according to his own evidence he took the invoices simply and whatever was on their face went. He never heard of a commission for cash, he never heard of trade discounts and Inasmuch as every one in business knows, it is as certain as the Ross rifle factory is in Quebec that Sir Charles Ross would never pay cash without getting his trade discounts. We have it as plain as can be that when the government advances 75 per cent on the value of the rifles which means 100 per cent of the value of the goods up to the 75 per cent, Sir Charles Ross is getting perhaps 100 per cent more than he should get if the real truth were known as to the trade discounts he receives. In the same way when Col. Wurtele looks at the wages account he simply sees how much wages is paid and if any man is idle the government loses, and if any man does inferior work the government is losing also. You have absolutely no check in the world either on the value of the material supplied or on the value of the work done. That would be bad enough in all conscience, and that went on for years until the Auditor General had his attention called to it and perhaps it would be interesting to see what the Audi

tor General did about that. Iu the Auditor General's reports for the fiscal year ending 1907, I find an order in council, which was passed in consequence of a letter from the Auditor General addressed to the Deputy Minister of Militia, dated, Ottawa, June the Sid, 1907, which winds up in this way:
Let me call your attention to clause 8, where provision is made for the certificate of the inspector of small arms as to the amounts expended by the contractor and upon which the advances have been made, and permit me to say that, wrhile the progress estimates are certified to by the inspector he has informed me that he is not certifying of his own knowledge but on the strength of a certificate made by Mr. Ernest Wurtele, a chartered accountant at Quebec. Now, Mr. Wurtele, may be competent to make the certificate on behalf of the contractor, but as he is not. in the employ or under the control of the government his certificate cannot he accepted under the Consolidatel Revenue and Audit Act. If this arrangement of certificates has been made with the consent or on the instrutions of the department and advances made on the strength of these certificates aggregating over $800,000 I must say, that it is not only unbusiness-like but also illegal and no certificates of this nature will be knowingly accepted by this office.
And so we have over the signature of the Auditor General of Canada that under this contract the Minister of Militia deliberately went ahead, overrode the terms of the contract itself and illegally, without any justification whatever paid out over $800,000 to Sir Charles Ross on the certificate of an employee of Sir Charles Ross. Was there ever such a business transaction in this or any other country? Here is this government first agreeing to advance 100 per cent of the value of the goods, all the goods cost, up to 75 per cent of the value of the rifles, and it leaves it to an employee-I care not how honourable Col. Wurtele may be-it leaves it to an employee of Sir Charles Ross who makes out a certificate: amount of material so and so; amount of labour so and so, and the government promptly paid on that certificate to the tune of $800,000.
'Sir FREDERICK: BORDEN. The same man is doing the work now'.


William Barton Northrup: Ah, yes, the same man is doing the work now, and the government is paying so much more and the same man is doing it because while your Inspector of small arms should do the work you drew your contract so stupidly that you gave that officer work that he could not do, and as a sane honest man would not attempt to do. Then, you put the duty on an employee of tlie Ross Rifle Company, and when you were held up by the Auditor General and you could not pay on his certificate, then iu order to carry on your


William Barton Northrup: payment to your friends you bring that employee of the Ross Rifle Company over to the government, give him $5 a day and he does the same work as lie did before, but this time he does it at the expense of the government. And that is considered a fair business-like way of looking after the interests of the country. And since the minister has been good enough to interrupt me let me see how Mr. Wurtele came over to the government. He came over under a memorandum from the Minister of Militia to council dated the 12tli September, 1907, which, after reciting tlie circumstances, reads as follows:


That Lieutenant Colonel E.   F.@: Wurtele, R.O., was consequently employed for the work and that officer has certified to all progress estimates, which have been paid to the Ross Rifle Company since the contract was entered into, before such progress estimates were authorized for payment.
That is, Col. Wurtele has authorized every single payment up to date says the minister in the order in council. Is that true? The first payment that was made was made on May 2Gth, 1903, and if we look at the report of the Public Accounts Committee, page 230, we will find Mr. Gaudet was the man who certified to that.
Ross Rifle Works, Quebec, Canada. Payment application No. 1.
On account of certificate of expenses No. 1 for $91,000, I hereby apply for the payment of $25,000 on account. I hereby certify that I have produced fixtures and material with du- _ plioates of receipted hills attached hereto, for the inspection of the acting inspector of small arms.
I also certify that I have insured the said fixtures for the benefit of the government and deposited the policy with the Bank of Montreal of this city.
(Sgd.) CHARLES L. ROSS.
I hereby certify the above to he a true and accurate statement and recommend payment of the $25,000 on account.
(Sgd.) E. M. GAUDET, Major,
Acting inspector of small arms.
Quebec, March 21, 1903.
On the 25th of March, 1903, Major Gaudet sends tlie certificate to the department, and on the 26th of March, 1903, as appears by the Auditor General's Report, $25,000 was paid. So, when the order in council states as the reason for appointing Major Wurtele that be signed every progress estimate since tne contract began, I have proved from the files brought down by my bon. friend that, at all events, the first $25,000 was not paid on progress estimates, and I do not know how much more. The reason why Major Wurtele was appointed is thus stated by the order in eouucil:
That before the payment of any such progress estimate, it became apparent that this

provision of the contract could not be satisfactorily carried out because it was undesirable that such payments should be made upon the certificate of the contractor and because of the labour verifying every item thereof, which would devolve upon the inspector of small arms, would seriously interfere with his usefulness as such.
So Major Gaudet made a report showing that the reason he objected to certiry was that no honest man could do it, and therefore he asked that the authority be taken at Ottawa for ordering the money to be paid. 1 say that the order in council brought in by the Minister of Militia recites, not the fact as set out in Major Gaudet's report, but another reason altogether. Surely, if there were nothing else in this contract, this in itself would be sufficient to justify suspicion-that we find in one minute of council two statements which are utterly foreign to the facts set out in the documents brought down by the Minister of Militia himself. The contract also provided that all' tools and machinery and raw materials could be brought into this country free of duty. It also recited that any finished parts used in such rifles could be brought in free of duty, showing that at the very time the contract was made the minister understood that finished parts would be imported. It seems to me that if the minister had been anxious to have the rifles manufactured in Canada as soon as possible, and had allowed the unfinished parts to be brought in free of duty, he would have required the duty to be paid on the finished parts to encourage their production in this country.
Now, how did the contract work out ? Advances, of course, were called for by the Boss rifle jieople almost at once. We have in the Auditor General's Keport, at page Q-104, a statement showing w7hat the advances were. There is one interesting statement, however, which I would like to give the House, and which, I think, will be surprising to some of the members. I spoke of the valuation being $25. In addition to the rifles we purchase, we have to purchase a great many component or multiple parts, and my information leads me to believe that a great many of these have to be purchased. By a subsequent contract between the company and the government it is arranged that the price to be paid for the component parts added together would be $31 instead of $25, but another inspection increases that to $32. Then advances were made, and for a long time not many rifles were produced. Up to the end of the year 1905 about $600,000 had been paid and only 136 rifles had been delivered. The minister may have thought that was a business transaction, but it seems to me that it would strike the ordinary man that there was something radically wrong wTith a contract which, made in March, 1902, required 12,000 rifles to be delivered in the following year, whereas the statement brought down by the department itself shows that up to the end of 1903 $600,(XX) had been advanced and 136 rifles had been delivered.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman will be glad to know that 41,200 have been delivered now.


William Barton Northrup: I would be glad if I thought that the rifles were what the minister tells us they are ; but, having the reports of officers and men all over the country who have suuered from the use of these rifles, I am obliged to conclude that hie less we get of them the better off we shall be. At the end of the next year 14,-Ooo rifles had been delivered and $800,000 had been advanced.
Something was said this afternoon about the immense amount of wages that wrere pant by the Ross iune Company. 1 am not in a position to say just what wages they do pay, because I have never been in their employ ; but I find a statement, on pages 101, 106 and 126 of the last file brought down, which shows that from the 14th of December, 1906, to the 8th of March, 1907, the total Bill for superintendence and labour was $40,140; from the 8th of March, 1907. to the 16th* of August, 1907, it was $42,421; and from the 16tli of August, 1907, to the 30th of August, 1907, it was $2,521, making altogether about $85,000 paid for superintendence and labour from the 4th of December, 1906, to the 30th of August, 1907. During these eight and a half months they were supposed to be manufacturing, and I give the figures for these months, because they are the only months for which the returns seem to be brought down. I wish just briefly to recapitulate two or three * other points which will show how this contract has been carried on. Very shortly after the contract was made it became necessary to decide what to do about drawings and specifications. They had neither specifications nor drawings, and any hon. member who will take the trouble to read the blue-book will find out how pathetically Colonel Pauet kept writing to Montreal to Colonel Gaudet, begging him to see the Ross Company and have them consent to supply drawings and specifications. The pleadings of the Militia Department were most piteous, showing how7 completely it was at the mercy of the contractor. Finally they agreed upon specifications, but conditional on the minister allowing the contractor to bring in what he liked free from the United States.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Would the hon. gentleman repeat the figures lie gave for the wages last year?


William Barton Northrup: On page 101 of the latest file brought down in April last, I

found the accountant's certificate to the order of 24th December, 1906, for superintendence and labour from the 15th March. It goes down from week to week from the 15th March to the 16th August, and the sum total is $42,421.32. On page 106 from 14th December to 8th March superintendence and labour $40,140.86. On page 126, from 16th August to 30th August, $4,474.18. That would be really three weeks. While this was $4,474.18 I only gave it at $3,528 because two of these weeks overlapped. At the bottom of one of these which I gave before, we find the week that comes up to the 16th August. It struck me as odd that the same week should be in the one place as $1,904 and the other as $2,258-apparently the same week.
After the difficulty about plans and specifications, there came the difficulty about gauges. The department wrote the Ross Company, as soon as they realized that difficulty, that the company must supply the gauges. Major Gaudet was of the opinion that the company should supply the gauges, but the company did not supply them, and after a time the government yielded and gave a contract to the company for these gauges. The contract price was $32,000, and that price ^vas given iu the face of the letter of Major Gaudet pointing out that, since there had been no test, he could not give any idea as to whether the price was reasonable or not. The gauges were contracted for on the 14th April, 1903, and they were to be supplied within eight months from that date and there was a clause providing as follows:
Terms-One-half in four months of the acceptance of this tender upon establishing to the satisfaction of the department that fair progress had been made in the manufacture of the gauges and furnishing certificates that the value of the material then in our possession to be used for this work, and the cost of labour in connection therewith, together amount to at least half the total cost of the gauges when completed.
It seems hardly credible, but not a single gauge turned up in the eight months. More months went on and then some material was supplied. Then apparently some 160 gauges were actually supplied. After this the rifle was changed from No. 1 to No. 2 and the gauges were of no use and so no more were got. Practically the result therefore was that the government paid for a lot of gauges which they never received, which were not even made. The total number was to be 489. Not one was supplied until months after the contract had expired. Eventually 162 were supplied. Then when the contract was put an end to, it was put an end to verbally so that it is Impossible to know the exact date, and for aught we know the company may have gone ahead manufacturing gauges after the rifles had been changed. They claimed Mr. NORTHRUP.
that they were to supply 489, they did supply 162, and said they had ready for delivery 197, yet the government never saw them. Then the company claimed that they had a number of gauges amounting to 130, for which the drawings were made and the material supplied, so that although the government only received 162 out of 489, they paid $26,000 on a $32,000 contract.
Then there was a dispute about some cocking pieces. The government as usual yielded and paid the company a couple of thousand dollars. Then there was a dispute about the sight. A new sight was asked for, the government yielded, and put up $15,000 for a sight. But perhaps the coolest thing of all was a letter from the Ross Company stating that they wanted to stow away some 9,000 rifles and asking for storage room. The government, desiring, of course, to be reasonable, said they would furnish storage room, but the cost of transportation each way would be at the expense of the company. Here is the letter which was written by Col. Cotton:
March 30, 1905.
The Ross Rifle Company made a proposition to the Militia Department to the effect that the department should lend storage room for about 9,000 incompleted rifles, Mark I, until brought forward for completion. These rifles to be transported to and from at the expense of the Ross rifle factory. To facilitate the movement of these rifles, it was decided by the minister to accept an offer of the company to make 400 boxes each to contain 10 complete rifles and to purchase such boxes at the price each of $1.50.
But after getting the minister to agree to buy 400 boxes at $1.50 each, the company came back and said the boxes at that price would not be satisfactory, but that boxes at $2 each would suit. So the minister paid $2 each for 400 boxes to transport 9,000 incompleted rifles for storage until it would be convenient for the company to complete them. That illustrates the way the business was carried on.
Let me call attention to this other fact. The government has spent enormous sums on inspection in addition to the purchase price of these rifles. It takes a great deal to have rifles inspected. You have to put up buildings, heat them, pay salaries, &c. By the time the 50,000 rifles are delivered, the government will have spent at least $150,000 for inspection alone. They have paid over $125,000 to date in connection with the inspection, in which I include the various items of salaries, heating, &c. Here are the details:
Travelling expenses	$ 1,500
Salaries of inspector's staff	 45,823
Materials for inspection	 3,390
Heating, lighting, rent,	&c.. ..	2,188
Extra parts, gauges, &c	 53,029
Total	$124,942

This is the expenditure up to last March in connection with inspection. So it will come to $150,000 by the time all the rifles are delivered, so that we must add $3 to the price of the rifles there.
Now, talking about heating and lighting, there was a rather odd occurrence in the committee. The Boss Rifle Company claimed quite a large bill for heating and lighting the premises. This was referred to Colonel Cartwright, and if you take the trouble to refer to pages 304-5 and 373 of the report, you will find in full what X will give only briefly. Sir Charles Ross said to the government, in effect : You have been occupying a part of my premises up to 1st May, 1905, and after that date, you occupied more. We have to heat the premises and we want you to make us some allowance. So he put in a claim for $1,740 up to 1st May, 1905-
I bring this matter up because it illustrates the way Colonel Cartwright did everything in Quebec in connection with the Ross Rifle Company. He seems to have figured up a certain number of cubic feet that were lying around loose, and, where the company claimed $1,746, he came to the conclusion that they were entitled to $2,247. They claimed for the period after 1st May, $2,614, and he found, by his method of calculation, that thev were entitled to $3,166. Their total claim was $5,233, but Colonel Cartwright thought that their bill should have been $6,604. And the government paid them $2,294 and they were mighty thankful to get it. And to make matters more humorous-as the minister seemed to like to look at things in that light, if you will look at the evidence of Major Gaudet before the Public Accounts Committee, you will find that he was asked when he left, and he said he was in the Ross rifle factory up to July 1, 1905. He was asked how much room the government occupied there, and his reply was that it was a little space, ' not bigger than this platform,' referring to the platform in the Public Accounts Committee. So. we have Major Gaudet, who was in charge, and must have known the facts stating that the space occupied was very small. And it must have been, because up to 1905, only 136 Ross rifles had been delivered. so that not much room could be required.
Now, there was another little matter to which I should refer in connection with the historv of this affair, and that is the test of rifles at Regina. It was rather an odd tiling, because it was done two or three months after the contract was entered into. .At PP-238. 239 and 241 will be found the record of the facts. There is a peculiar letter at page 373 to which I would call the attention of the House. This rifle whs taken up to Regina. Those who have read the report will remember what took place. Two rifles were taken there. One was taken for examination, but was blown up, and so they sent for another. It was clear that they found
fault with the rifle, but it was pointed out that ail they had done was to test it for accuracy and that they knew nothing about its endurance. They wanted a sample to be made and put into the hands of the troops, and they decided that it would not be satisfactory until tried by them. A letter appears from the Minister of Militia, of which the following is a portion :
May 16, 1904.
Dear Colonel White,-I am in receipt of a letter from Sir Charles Ross, dated 12th instant, from which I make the following extract :
In the summer of 1902, the Northwest Mounted Police made a test of my rifle at Regina, with the result that its adoption was decided upon. I inclose you a copy of the report. A pattern was then sealed, which met with their requirements.
The minister comes to the conclusion that the man must be crazy to write such a letter. The committee had not approved the rifle, there was no sealed pattern and he must be dreaming. The only explanation I can make of the examination in Regina was that it was done that some such letter might be written and some department might be induced to purchase rifles for the mounted police, because the contract was made in March and this did not take place until the following summer. And there is an odd letter from Sir Charles Ross at page 470 of the last file brought down :
Now the state of affairs I found would, if discovered by the attackers of the government, have given them unadulterated joy, and would have been a really effective weapon not only against the whole department but against the government itself.
What was the state of affairs, I wonder, that he found when ho came back?
Now, Sir, I have many points on which I would like to speak, but at this late hour I will be merciful to the House.
An bon. MEMBER. Hear, hear.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. gentleman need not be ' here, here,' unless he likes. Certainly, I should not if I did not have to. There was one matter that it seemed to me the government was singularly careless about, and that was particularly impressed upon me when Mr. Wallace Nesbitt was here. To my mind, nothing was plainer, in the examination by Mr. Nesbitt before the committee, than that the object was to lay the basis of a lawsuit against the government for damages in consequence of the way they had interfered with the manufacture of his rifle. The whole line of questioning, the suggestions to the witnesses, the line taken by Sir Charles Ross undoubtedly was : You agreed that I should manufacture a certain rifle, you agreed to a certain sample of a sealed pattern. The government had a sealed rifle, but they had no more than got it sealed than changes were

made. Sir Charles Ross requested the first change. If you look into the correspondence, you will see that quite plainly. He wanted a change of a sight and a change of a cocking piece and receiver. Changes were made by him and also by the government. And how did it work out practically'/ So many changes were made that Mr. Nesbitt gave us before the committee a list, which is printed here, of over eighty changes that were made. Changes were made oefore the rifle was adopted at all. Sir Charles Ross asked for the three I spoke of. Then the government made others. Then this committee, of which my bon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is so distinguished an ornament, made fifteen changes, and when these changes were communicated to Col. Cartwright he wanted another. And the changes made in 1901 to Mark I. made Mark II. They went on and changed Mark I, they made change after change. There is one report of Major Pym made in December, 1906. in which he gives about 11 different changes that the Ross Rifle Company had agreed to. There were 8 or 9 more that they thought good but they wanted to know who would pay for them. So we find that many changes were made. The exact circumstances under which the changes were made we do not know. The government contend it was the fault of the Ross Rifle Company and the Ross Rifle Company that it was the fault of the government. But it is clear that when so many changes were necessary the government was too precipitate in entering the contract. It is not necessary to accuse the minister of graft or the contractor of stupidity. It was simply that two men, one of whom had never been a manufacturer of rifles and the other a minister who did not know anything about the manufacture of rifles, attempted at the expense of the country to evolve something they did not understand. The result has been'what we might expect, comnlaint after complaint, and if the case ever got into the courts it would be difficult to say which should be blamed most, the government or the contractor. When they blundered in that way, they changed Mark I and they changed Mark II, change after change was made in Mark I and surely, seeing that, a wise minister would have sat down and decided the kind of rifle he wanted before giving further orders. And yet in March of this year an order was given for 10,000 more rifles. What are the terms of the contract ? The rifles are to be of such a kind as the minister may approve of on or before July 15. That was the contract, an order was given for 10.000 rifles and the minister himself did not know what kind of rifles he was going to have. That again is an illustration that justifies us in denouncing the management of the department in connection with these rifles. Just about this time in the month of May a contract is given to the company | Mr. NORTHRUP.
for 52,000 bayonets at $5.25 apiece. What is the House to think of a contract for bayonets at $5.25 that in England sell for 11s. while the Americans make them themselves for $1.49. Tenders were asked for. How ? Letters were sent to the Ottawa Car Company and the Ross Rifle Company to see if they would tender. Why were these letters not sent to the Chinese laundry companies? Then there might be a dozen peanut stands in the city that would have tendered. Every one knows that they are as likely to tender as the Ottawa Car Company and it seems to be in view of the experience of the government with the Ross Rifle Company, every promise falsified, nothing ever done on time, to make such an outrageous bargain as $5.25 for bayonets, practically without competition is but another illustration of the manner in which this whole contract has been carried out.
I shall yield to the hint of my friend and not occupy the time of the House further. I only wish to say in conclusion that no one can read the evidence taken before the committee and brought down to this House without being impressed with one fact at all events, that if the Minister of Militia or his department, I know not whom to blame, had deliberately tried to prevent any member of this House ascertaining anything about what is going on through a perusal of the files, they could not have adopted a rflore ingenious way of jumbling them up than they did. The first file brought down contained some 1,152 pages. The.first letter in order on that file might be dated 1900 and the next 1905, the next 1906 and the next 1903. A kindergarten could not have more completely jumbled up the files. A letter and the answer of the next, day might be 500 pages apart. It was almost an impossibility to ferret out anything from the file. I call the attention of the House to that fact and wish to have it understood by ministers that when files are brought down in compliance with an order of this House the'1- should be brought down in something like reasonable shape and in chronologic"! order. Those who have had occasion to look into the Ross rifle files have had to spend five times the time that should have been required, owing to the lack of order in the files. Any one could see from the files that there is more in this matter of the .Ross rifle than the minister would imply when lie attacked the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) as beinr>- disloyal because he is dissatisfied with this rifle. If the minister is right, if the rifle is the best that could be got. and is really a good satisfactory rifle, let us all join hands in making it a popular as well as an effcient rifle. But when I find reports, as I find them, for I have under my hand here 16 or 17 reports from military boards from Vancouver to Halifax, board after board, carefully meeting, taking evidence and sending

in their reports in every case condemnatory of the Ross rifle, I cannot but feel that ail honour must have gone out of Canadian life if all these men have been suborned or ail our influence used improperly, when they all attach the Ross rifle: and when I find the solicitor of the Ross rifle stating before the Public Accounts Committee that whenever he met an English officer he met an enemy of the Ross rifle, I think he made an unfortunate statement for the Ross rifle. It could mean only two things, either that he was rightly an enemy, because he should be, or wrongly an enemy because he had been imnroperly approached and biased. If every English officer is rightly an enemy of the Ross rifle, the sooner we get rid of it and blame the government for introducing it, the better, and if on the other hand, every English officer has been suborned, prejudiced and biased by improper means, so that he is what he should not be. an enemy of the Ross rifle, I for one would lose all confidence in the future of this empire, for I have always understood that an English officer was the synonym for a man of honour. I do not think that is the explanation, I believe that the English officers from their experience for the Ross rifle is well known in England and their knowledge of what has gone on in Canada honestly and conscientiouslv believe that the Ross rifle is not the rifle it is represented to be, not the rifle the people of this country want, and a rifle of which it may be said that the sooner we get rid of it. the better it will be for Canada.
On motion of Mr. Sam Hughes the debate was adiourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: We will go on with this to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.38 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 22, 1908.
Tlie SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 172) to incorporate the Dominion Lumbering and Power Company.-Mr. Hall.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 173) restraining the use of tobacco by young persons. He said :	This Bill
makes an attempt to meet the call which, to a greater or less extent, seems to prevail iii many quarters for legislation upon the subject indicated in the title of the Bill, the use of tobacco by persons not of mature years. I cannot pretend to hope that the Bill I am presenting will satisfy those who desire legislation which would absolutely prohibit the manufacture and consumption of tobacco in some particular form which is supposed to be more than ordinarily deleterious. To try to meet in some part, at all events, the evil which is complained of,
I am proposing by this legislation to make it an offence punishable by fine, to sell or to furnish to a young person of either sex under the age of 10 years, tobacco in any form for the consumption of that young person himself or herself ; and also to make it an offence on the part of any person to sell, or give, or furnish to a young person under the age of 16 years any cigarettes or cigarette papers for the use of that young person or otherwise. The prohibition accordingly will be upon the furnishing to a young person under 16 of cigarettes for any purpose, and equally upon the furnishing to such young person for his or her own consumption, of tobacco in any form. Then I propose to supplement that prohibition by inflicting a penalty upon the young person himself or herself who commits any offence against the enactments in this measure; a penalty in the first instance, upon conviction, of a reprimand; for the second offence, a penalty not exceeding $1; and for the third or subsequent offence, a penalty not exceeding $4. I thought that some form of money penalty of a comparatively small amount would be, possibly, as far as it would be proper to go in the way of punishing the child himself who committed an infraction of this statute. I have also inserted a clause in the proposed Bill giving any constable or policeman authority under by-law to seize upon and summarily forfeit any tobacco which he finds a young person under the age of 16 years about to smoke, or actually smoking, in any street or public place. There is a clause providing for the case of automatic machines for the sale of cigarettes or tobacco in any form which may be used by nersons under the prohibited age, and a provision exempting persons who may be employed in trade from the prohibitions of the Bill ; also a provision as to the presumption of age, throwing the burden upon the person accused, if he or she appears to be under the age of 10 years, to prove the contrary.
That is the outline of the Bill. I have this further to say, that legislation upon the subject already appears in the statute-books of the greater number of the provinces. I think there is no legislation on the subject in the province of Quebec or in the province of Manitoba ; but in each of the other provinces of the Dominion there is

legislation of some nature with regard to this subject. With regard to age conditions, the provisions of the different provincial Acts differ among themselves. There is no provision in any of the provinces that I am aware of making it an offence on the part of the young person himself to purchase or to consume tobacco, although in some instances there is a provision for the summary seizure of the contraband article. There is, however, since the views expressed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the Lord's Day legislation in the province of Ontario, room for question whether legislation of this character may not be ultra vires of the provincial legislatures as an encroachment on the domain of criminal law, and in that view, as well as in the view of the fact that the legislation' is in the different provinces of such very diverse character, and that it is applied to different ages, it has been thought better that there should be some legislation of general application to the whole of Canada. For that reason this Bill has been prepared, and I now present it and beg to move its first reading.


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

Mr. T. A. BURROWS (Dauphin).: Before the orders of the day are called, I feel it my duty to refer to certain statements in reference to myself that appear in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of May 20, more particularly as these statements were made after I had given my statement on the subject to the House. In the ' Telegram ' of that date I find several glaring headlines, this one at the top of the page :
Burrows' possessions.
Limits acquired by Burrows, 158G square miles.	_
Then at the bottom of the page :
The Burrows' possessions would span half a continent.
Below this there is a diagram showing a heavy red line on the north side of the Canadian Pacific Railway stretching from Winnipeg to Montreal. Below this there is the following statement:
As stated by H. B. Ames in the House of Commons yesterday, the selected timber limits secured by Theodore Burrows, M.P., brother-in-law of Hon. Clifford Sifton, would if placed end to end, form a continuous strip of thick timber one mile wide stretching from Montreal to Winnipeg.
In other words if Mr. Burrows' limits were flung out in a strip one mile wide it would take an express train two days and two nights to pass from one end to the other.
I want to characterize that statement as absolutely false. It is a slander. Any Mr. AYLESWORTH.
man who gives currency to it, be he a member of parliament or a private citizen is liar and a slanderer. I do not own half the area of timber stated above and which it Is alleged I own, and I have already proven that In this House. I intend to refer to only a few of the statements made in this paper. Here is another false statement:
Since June 6, 1905, Mr. Burrows does not appear to1 have tendered, at least not under any recognizable name.
I say that statement is false and if the man who makes it took the trouble to look at the records he would have known it was false. This newspaper gives my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) credit for having made that statement although I have not noticed it in the report of his speech, but if he did make that statement I have to say that it is absolutely untrue. I have tendered since that time in my own name on timber limits 1282 and 1312. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) was very diligent in hunting up the records and having done so he should be fair enough not to make statements like the above aill of which are untrue and have them published all over the country to my detriment and Injury. I feel inclined to apologize to the House for taking up time in referring to these slanderous statements and I would not do so were it not that an occasion of this kind is the only opportunity a public man has to defend himself. Although a great many very unfair and very untrue statements have been made about me during the last six months I have not taken notice of them, and hon. gentlemen will agree with me that I have not intruded on their patience by making personal explanations. Air these false statements are made deliberately to do me injury, personally and politically. However, here is another statement contained in an editorial in this newspaper of the same date, and which says :
His (Mr. Burrows') first method was to send in a tender in the regular form with a space left blank for the amount of money tendered, and two or more certified cheques, one large enough to cover the bids already in, and the other against the contingency of late tenders being received. This was the method usually employed by T. A. Burrows himself.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is absolutely untrue. In any tender which I ever put in, I inclosed the exact amount of my tender and no more. In any tender put in by me it will be found on examination that I specified the amount of my tender. Another statement in this paper is as follows :
On one occasion a berth of 500 square miles was knocked down to the Big River Lumber Company, in which Burrows owned a half interest, for $8,000.

That statement, Mr. Speaker, is also incorrect. The Big River Lumber Company never secured a limit of 500 square miles; they secured a limit of 250 square miles and paid $5,000 therefor.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC SUPPLIES BY AMERICAN ROUTES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ,T. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton). Before the orders of the day, I wish to call the attention of the government to an article published in the British Columbia ' Saturday Sunset ' under the title ' A question of vital importance to Vancouver and western Canada.' I wish to ask the government whether they have taken any action with regard to this particular matter and whether it is their intention to do so? The article says :	,
A question of vital importance to Vancouver and Western Canada.
Does the business community of Vancouver realize the seriousness of the situation which will confront this city from the policy which there are good reasons to believe, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will adopt in using Seattle as the port of departure for Prince Rupert ?
Has it yet been borne in upon Vancouver business men that this may become a most critical question for this city?
It is understood that Vancouver stands to lose all the benefits which should accrue to this city from the construction of that line and that we stand in imminent peril of losing the permanent trade of the territory that will be developed in the north.
We have already seen large orders for timber supplies placed in Washington and Montana, while our own mills and logging camps stand idle. No secret is made of the fact that Seattle will be used as the Pacific port of departure for all supplies originating in k&st-era Canada for Prince Rupert. Prom Montreal to Chicago is a haul of about 800 miles over the line of the Grand Trunk Railway. From Chicago the Grand Trunk Railway has traffic arrangements with the C. B. & Q. to St. Paul. At this point it will deliver its freight to the Great Northern for .Seattle. It should deliver it by Canadian lines through Vancouver .	,	„
Simply and solely because of the traffic and trade, the stimulus to business, that it would bring to Vancouver.	*
And now we are about to see .British. Columbia wing-dammed and the trade and other benefits all sluiced into Seattle. We have seen one such exhibition. We saw Seattle grow big and rich and prosperous out of our Canadian Yukon gold fields, while Vancouver beat time and awaited another chance. .	.
The special treatment which should be meted out to the Grand Trunk Railway should be a peremptory demand that the Grand Trunk Railway accord to Canada the same consideration which it receives from Canada.
That consideration should be the handling of every pound of freight for Prince Rupeit over as many miles of Canadian railways by Canadian workingmen as possible, and the Grand Trunk Pacific and its contractors 287
should be compelled to transport all their supplies entirely through Canada.
Canadian workingmen's interest.
To bring a train of twenty freight cars through from Montreal requires twenty-four crews of engineers, firemen, trainmen and switchmen, a total of 168 men, to bring one train to this port. That train will consume-
Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman will see that to read an _ article of that sort Is practically a discussion of the general question and that would not be in order. If the hon. gentleman has a question to put about the matter it would be proper for him to do so, but it is hardly proper at this stag.e to read a long statement from a newspaper.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I will not continue,
I was about finished. The article merely ,,-oes on to show the importance of the freight being carried through our own country.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: A question may be asked at this stage but no discussion can be entered into and the reading of a 1011=, newspaper article of that sort is practical y raising a discussion of the whole question. If the I1011. member has a question beai ing on the matter he should put it.


Mr ARMSTRONG.: I put the question in the first part of my speech.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Will the hon. member repeat his question?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would ask the government what they intend to do with regard to this matter, and whether the Railway Commission has sufficient power to control the shipping of freight so as to secure its going through Canada, for Instance by the Canadian Pacific RaUway. Do the government intend to take an\ action in the matter?


George Perry Graham: It is admitted with regret that Seattle has grown rich at the expense of Canadian cities owing to the fact that our friends opposite assisted in kiliing a project to build a railway on all Canadian soil to the Yukon.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Some hon. MEMBERS.
Hear, hear. Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid the minister is introducing a controversial question.


William Stevens Fielding: He is simply answering a question.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no controversy about that. .


George Perry Graham: There can be no dispute about that fact.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Oil, yes, there is.


George Perry Graham: As to the question of freight being shipped through on Canadian lines I imagine it is largely contractors' material that is being shipped and it is a difficult matter at this stage to control the route over which such freight shall be sent. It is hoped and confidently expected that when the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed and even before that, the facilities afforded by Canadian railways shall be so superior that people of their own accord will ship goods over Canadian lines instead of over - the American lines.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister observed the report of the Department of the Interior in regard to the Yukon in which it was announced that 80 per cent of the trade of that country is in the hands of Canadiians?



STRIKE AT BUCK STOVE WORKS.

Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) a question based upon a very short statement that I have and which it will be necessary for me to read. The statement is that :
There is a strike of workers at the Buck Stove Works in Brantford and recently forty workers were sent up for trial by Magistrate Livingstone for peacefully picketing. The evidence was that the men were in twos in the neighbourhood of the very extensive premises of the company. They spoke to no one, were perfectly orderly, moved on when told and had been advised by Mr. J. G. O'Donog-hue that they had a legal right to peacefully picket for the purpose of obtaining or giving information about the strike.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman is doing very much the same as the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) was doing. We have introduced rules to prevent controversial matters being taken up at this point. Questions of importance may be asked of the government but if the habit is going to be introduced in the House of reading statements, which is practically the same as entering upon a discussion, the rule would be an utter nullity.


Ralph Smith: These men have been placed in jail for picketing and the question is as to the opinion of the Minister of Justice on the matter. ,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr.   POSTER@: Without fee of course.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I think that I must disclaim any responsibility or duty in the premises to advise the gentleman in whose behalf my hon. friend has brought this matter to the attention of the House. I have no doubt that the law will be correctly interpreted by the coiirts before which they come and that any


George Perry Graham: grievance they will have will be adequately redressed.



SUPPLY-THE ROSS RIFLE.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding for the House to go into Committee of Supply and the proposed amendment of Mr. Worthington thereto.
[u'The company may build a branch line so as to connect it with any railway bridge which may be built. It is difficult to say what bridge they want to connect with, but it will be with whatever bridge is built.\n\xa9ill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster) what I am going to do now. My first step is to draw closer to my leader in the hope that I may be able to induce him to see the error of his way and later on induce the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr Worthington) to withdraw the motion which he has placed before the House or to turn around and support me in assisting to vote that motion down. With reference to mv leadex-, I may say at the outset that I wish to cori'ect a false impression which has been insidiously created, or attempted to be created, by gentlemen who have been supporting the views laid down by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. In fact, the hon. member for Sherbrooke himself stated that one reason why this important matter of the Ross rifle tragedy had not been brought by the Conservative party in a formal manner befoi'e this House and the country was that the leader of the opposition chanced to be of the same name and of the same family as the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). In so far as the coming First Minister of Canada, the present leader of the opposition is concerned, in his suggestions to the Militia Committee of the Liberal-Conservative party

a committee of which I have the honour to be chairman-his l'equests have invariably been to probe to the bottom any matter concerning the militia expenditure of this country, or concerning anything arising from the expenditure of public money or the conduct of public affairs in connection with that department. He has given the same encouragement to inquire into the affairs of that department as he has to investigate other departments. I shall have something to say upon that subject later on. There is one thing that the hon. member for Sher-broolte is noted for, in which he stands pre-eminent, and that is the magnificent smile that he has. He is smiling now, but before I get through I purpose endeavouring to show that smile on the other side o*' his face. I purpose endeavouring to show what his conduct has been in the treatment of this matter. He may say that the Militia Committee has never done its duty. It rests with the hon. gentleman or with any other hon. member who discusses this question fairly and squax-ely to show wherein there has been anything neglectful or improper on my part in looking after the militia interests

of this country. Long years ago, when the Conservative party went into opposition, the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Tupper spoke to me and asked me to take general supervision of the militia affairs of this country. I consented to do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: Lightened the task of the minister !


Samuel Hughes: I mean from an opposition viewpoint-as far as criticism bv the Conservative party is concerned, and I had the honour of being asked, when the Conservative party was in power, of occupying the position of Minister of Militia in this country. Sir Charles Tupper asked me, in opposition, to take general supervision of the militia affairs of this country and I consented to do so on the distinct understanding that, in so far as practicable, questions bearing upon the militia should be removed entirely from the arena of party politics. When Mr. R. L. Borden was appointed leader of the opposition I had the same understanding with him-that, as far ns possible, matters affecting the militia would not be thrown into the arena of party politics unless it were absolutely necessary. You may search the records of the United States in vain, you may search the records of Great Britain in vain, of France or any other civilized country on the face of the earth ; to the hon. member for Sherbrooke - belongs the unique distinction of having first brought into the arena of party politics the discussion of the weapon or the arm that we may be called upon to use. Millions upon millions of dollars have been expended in Great Britain in changing rifles, in testing rifles ; millions upon millions have been expended in the United States, as I shall show, in testing and changing rifles and I challenge the hon. member for Sherbrooke, with all his detective instincts, to produce one solitary instance wherein a member of parliament in Great Britain, or of Congress in the United States, or any representative of the people, has been found base enough to stand in his place, as this hon. gentleman has stood for two sessions, and endeavour to create personal animosities at the expense of the arm of the country. There are ways and ways of criticising these matters. The little defects-I use the term ' defects ' advisedly-that have cropped up and shown themselves in connection with the Ross rifle from time to time, were being removed one after the other and the report to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. the criticisms of those wiseacres in England and the criticisms of others in various parts of the country were not the means of calling attention to these defects, because they had been discovered and remedied by the Canadian committee before these reports were received in this coun-2874
try. However, the hon. gentleman told us last night how he had been sitting impatiently all session in order to get strewing the earth with the fragments of this Ross rifle and with the remains of the hdn. Minister of Militia and incidentally with those of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton. Well, Sir, the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse, stillborn. Whether it was due to the fact that the parentage and the medical attendance were one and the same person or not I give it up, but it is the sorriest object I have ever seen presented to the people of a free country. I regret very much that on the present occasion X have to take issue with the Conservative party, but it is not the first time X have done so. One thing that I do remember having heard the late Hon. Sir Oliver Mowat say was that next to the approval of his own conscience he regarded the honest opinions of his fellow men. That is exactly the position in which I stand. But much as I regard the approval of my fellow men, I regard the approval of my own conscience very much more. In matters of politics, I am prepared to follow my leader in non-essentials, but in essentials I claim the right to follow my own bent, and I am prepared to abide by the consequences. I do not deny that it gives me a good deal of tribulation not to have my friends in the Conservative party stand with me ; but on other occasions when I have differed from them, I have had the endorsation of the people of my own county. I have learned that my scalp remains on my head, not by grace of the hon. member for Sherrbooke or of any other set of men in this country.
On two notable occasions I have differed from my party. One of them was the occasion of the Manitoba School Act of 1896 when my good friend the present member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) sought with his mellifluous voice to induce me to give up the line of conduct which I had laid down for myself and take another line.
I did not choose, as some other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House did, to follow the bad leadership on that occasion of the present right hon. First Minister, nor did I choose to follow the leadership of the present member for North Toronto. I took the line that there should be no separate schools imposed on Manitoba either then by the Inberal-Conservative party or six months after through the instrumentality of the First Minister. I took the stand that the people of Manitoba should be left free to take their own course, and, Sir, I faced the best gentlemen that could be sent by the First Minister or by the emissaries of the Conservative party who wished to destroy me, and I had the endorsation of the people of my county, and to-day I have the endorsation of the people of Canada along that line-at least the endorsation of any whose endorsation I care to have.
Another occasion on which I differed from

my party was iu the year 1898, when the Yukon question was before this House. The Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, the leader of the Conservative party at that time, conceived the idea, the patriotic idea, of having an all-Canadian route into the Yukon. His idea was to have the road start from Kitimaat Harbour and pass up through Canadian territory behind that strip of Yankee territory and into the Yukon country, I will not be contradicted by Sir Charles Tupper nor by any other man later on, for I know whereof I speak. With a broad spirit of patriotism Sir Charles Tupper approached the Minister of the Interior of the day, the Hon. Clifford Sifton, and induced Mr. Sifton to make that a plank in the platform of the Liberal government of the day. The question came before the country. The proposition did not commend itself to the present member for North Toronto ; it did not commend itself to the Toronto ' World it did not commend itself to certain other gentlemen in the Conservative party. The agitation broke out and Sir Charles Tupper had reluctantly to bow in order to hold his leadership of the party and oppose his own project. I know whereof I speak. I chanced to be in Australia at the time. When I returned to Canada I found to my regret that Sir Charles Tupper had seen fit, in order as he thought to hold his party together, instead of breasting the storm, to turn around and oppose the project. The last time Sir Charles Tupper ever addressed a Conservative open causus in Ottawa-it is no secret, because he has himself told it publicly-in his own home down on the banks of the Ottawa, he stated that in the past the Conservative party had made two mistakes. One of them was a trivial affair, the other was that it had not loyally supported the Liberal party in pushing an allCanadian route into the Yukon. I have seen the country, Sir, both on the Manitoba school question and on the Yukon question. come to endorse the stand I took in differing from my party on those occasions, and I have seen the best men of my party acknowledge that in stepping out from my paity on those two questions I was right.
I have no fear, Sir, that in six months or a year from to-day, possibly a much shorter time than six months, the universal sentiment in the Conservative party will be that I have taken the right line on this matter and that the gentlemen who have followed the lead' of the hon. member for Sherbrooke misled by his little tittle-tattle of newspaper yarns throughout the country, will dis-eover their mistake. At any rate, I am not losing any sleep over the issue ; I am standing by the dictates of mv own conscience.
Now, Sir, the question of a rifle is before the people of Canada. The hon. member for Sherbrooke has been instrumental in various ways iu endeavouring to create Mr. SAM HUGHES.
sentiment against the government on this matter. If it were merely a question of creating a sentiment against the government, I think from my record in the past I could be trusted to do my duty for the Liberal-Conservative party to nearly as great an extent as the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Ask the Liberal-Conservatives in any constituency in the Dominion of Canada, and they will tell you that wherever my services could be of avail, they have always been at the disposal of the Liberal-Conservative candidate, and I can say without any egotism that the Hon. J. P. Whitney has on more than one occasion stated that I am possibly the only member of parliament who on all occasions has been ready in season and out of season to do his duty for the Ontario Liberal-Conservative party. What is the record of my hon. friend from Sherbooke? What has he done for the Liberal-Conservative party? In 1904 did he not bring members on the government side of the House and demand that the Minister of Militia give him the position of principal medical officer of the militia force of Canada ? Did he or did he not? He dare not deny it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What does the hon. gentleman say?


Samuel Hughes: I ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke did he or did he not demand of the Minister of Militia that he be given the position of principal medical officer of the militia of the Dominion of Canada?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I did not.


Samuel Hughes: All I have to say is that the hon. gentleman admitted it to me in the presence of Dr. Daniel, the member for St. John.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: That is absolutely untrue. He did not utter these words.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) also said the same thing publicly, namely, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) had demanded from the Minister of Militia the principal medical officership for the Dominion, and then when he could not get it, threatened he would go back to Sherbrooke and run in the Tory interest. Then there was a sort of bargain made, and he agreed to take the position of principal medical officer for the province of Quebec. But the Minister of Militia, with his usual lethargy, was so slow in getting the appointment through, that the hon. gentleman was elected about the time he got it. Then we all remember that the Minister of Justice of that day (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick) had an Act passed amending the Act relating to the independence of the members of parliament in order to allow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) to draw out his pay of $1 or $1.25 per day, every day of his life-

time, in the position he holds in the province of Quebec. This is the gentlemjan who t|as the assurance to cast an imputation on my loyalty to the Liberal-Conservative party. Would or would not the hon. gentleman have been prepared to accept another military medical position, one at Victoria, since he has had a seat in this House? We know he would. And he forsooth is the man who drags the Liberal-Conservative party through the mud and mire in connection with this question of the Ross rifle. Later on I shall dissect the causes and motives of his action.
I do not object to criticism of rifles or criticism of any kind. A man in public life who thinks he is above criticism had better retire. I am always ready to meet my critics and give them a Roland for their Oliver. But we find various classes of critics. As far as the Ross rifle is concerned, there is no doubt room for some criticism. In fact there has never been a rifle issued yet that was above criticism. And whenever there has been a change of rifles, there always has been criticism and hostility to the change. When Colonel Dennison of Toronto was down here with his little operatic company playing in a theatre, one of the comedy hits was a statement that certain soldiers, in firing at the enemy, had missed, and fortunately missed, for they happened to be firing on their own friends. And when the thing came to be investigated, it was found that they were armed with the new rifle which accounted for their fortunate bad shooting. The hon. gentleman was present and his mouth almost split open with laughter because he thought the joke was on the Ross rifle. But as a matter of fact when the piece was written, the change had been miade in the British army from the Martini to the Lee-Enfield, and the opposition was so strong to the change, that plays were written belittling it all over the British empire. I have never yet seen a change from one rifle to another which has not created wide dissatisfaction, unfair criticism and hostility. The soldiers, who have been accustomed to using the one rifle, will always find something to condemn in the new.
As a critic I myself am always anxious to get a crack at the enemy, but I am one of those who like to be sure of their data before going ahead. Nevertheless we cannot all examine into the details of every case, and in politics we have to be led by sentiment in many of these matters, and that is why the Liberal-Conservative party to-day finds itself committed to the motion submitted by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington). These men are absolutely honest and deserve every consideration, and I do not see why I should have the slightest feeling against any member of our party who deems it his duty to
vote for this resolution ? I know what their sentiments are and what their actions would be if this thing came up six months from to-day.
We have had the criticisms of the honest riflemen of the country, but taking the sum and substance of the criticisms which the hon. gentleman laid on the table yesterday, what do they amount to ? A lot of tu'pen-ny-ha'penny little things that would not be regarded as of any importance. Foresight screw loose, back sight out of shape and so on. Let me give the criticism of honest riflemen. They say that for rifle shooting, you must have a heavier barrel. Well, we have got that now. I shall not charge the hon. gentleman with dishonesty because I am not sure whether he knows that the United States have a short rifle and a long rifle. The English have a short rifle and a long rifle. And at not one of the important matches in England or the United States is the short rifle used. Why then should the short rifle of Canada be put in competition with the long rifle of other lands? At the Palma match at our range last year, which the right hon. the First Minister honoured with his presence-I was sorry not to have my hon. friend the leader of the opposition there-not a short rifle was used. The Yankees since 1903 have had the short rifle but they have used the long rifle. England uses the long Lee-Enfield, and so do the Australians. Why was the hon. gentleman not honest enough to say that for target purposes the short rifle is never put in competition with the long rifle ? I appeal to my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr, Fowler) who, thirty or forty years ago, knew something about rifle shooting.


George William Fowler: Before you were born ?


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: That is the time you won that Fenian medal.


Samuel Hughes: That is right. I appeal to my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) to state whether in those days he used his cavalry carbine In competition against the long Snider. These riflemen criticise the light barrel for target purposes ; they criticise what I may term the abominable back sight on the rifle, and very rightly. But the back sight is one of the fads introduced in imitation of the Boers. The Mauser rifle, which was used by the Boers, had this lever sight. The sight hinged and worked from a lever back. It seemed to answer for field purposes; and consequently it was adopted, not only in England, but for a time in Canada and the United States. In Canada it has been discarded and also in the United States and its life will be short in England. The honest riflemen criticise the fastening of

the barrel and the receiver. One of the criticisms made by a few of the critics has regard to the attachment of the barrel to the receiver and it is a very judicious criticism. The old attachment in Mark I was on fine thread. In Mark II it was changed to a large single coarse thread and that has been found in odd cases to work loose. It has been abandoned. Then the safety catch is another of the objectionable features. And speaking on this one thing, the hon. member for Sherbrooke said it was criminal on the part of the Minister of Militia to allow it to go before the people.
I wias pointing out what the people of the United States have been doing in rifle matters. In 1900 they modelled their first short Springfield rifle. In 1901 it was adopted ; in 1902 it was perfected. And in 1903 it was put into the hands of the troops. I have here their latest issue of instructions and I commend this to the Minister of Militia. These instructions were issued on March 3,1904, revised April 18,1906. and reissued on February 14, 1908. They are entitled : Instructions regarding the use of the United States service rifle. Although the rifle has been in the hands of the troops all these years, though It has been perfected from time to time, nevertheless we find instructions issued in regard to the safety catch in these words. I quote from the Instructions :
Precautions.
If it is desirable to carry the piece cocked with the cartridge in the chamber, the bolt mechanism should he secured by turning the safety lock to the right. In this position it is important that the safety lock be kept turned fully to the right, since, if it be turned to the left nearly to the ' ready' position and the trigger pulled it is possible that the sear may not engage the cocking shoulder. Should this happen the rifle will be discharged upon turning the safety lock fully to the ready position. Under no consideration should the cartridge be left in the chamber.
Identically what is pointed out if the safety catch in old Mark II does not engage properly. But, unlike the American rifle, the Canadian rifle-the Ross rifle-has amended this defective safety action. The English government have a safety action on the old long Lee-Enfield which is absolutely dangerous. And here is the instruction in the new work of the United States government, showing that on the 14th of April last, their safety catch is still absolutely unsafe, whereas as soon as we found any difficulty in the safety catch of the Canadian rifle we amended it, and it is as safe to-day as if the rifle were not loaded. So the only real criticism that was made against the safety of the rifle, so far as the safety catch is concerned, has been exploded. Let me point out that, before the safety catch in the Mark II Canadian rifle could do any harm, the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
rifle must be loaded, the safety-catch must be pushed in only half way, the trigger must be pulled so as to disengage the sear, and the safety-catch must then be released again. You must go through all these unlikely performances before an accident can occur in the Canadian rifle. In the American rifle they still have the danger, all must, and do, warn their soldiers against it.
Now, there is another criticism made, honestly made, and one worthy of note, and that is that the sights on the short barrel are so close together that one cannot get proper range in firing. That is known the world over.
But there is a critic of another class to whom I shall refer. He is a gentleman who is after personal preferment, possibly gain of some sort, or, possibly, after the scalp of his neighbour, with no fair justification. This is the class of critic you will sometimes find-whether in this case or not, we shall see later on. Before proceeding further, I desire to give a little history of rifles. And I may say that had this motion presented by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) been couched in somewhat different terms, if it were expressed in a little different tone or by any other man, It might have had some encouragement from me. For, I feel that the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is more or less open to serious condemnation for his apathy-not to apply any harsher term-in trusting, as he has done, in the past, to his ordnance officials to too great an extent. He failed to send out instructions, similar to those I have shown in the American book, as should have been done in the case of an issue of new rifles. At all events, as responsible head of the department, the minister must be held answerable for this. I think the minister should have given more personal supervision to this important matter; he should have made sure that his ordnance officers, of one class and other, knew their business. I do not think they did know their business. I have no desire to injure any man, but I have no hesitation in saying that the gentlemen who have been In charge of these matters have not always been up with their business. I will go so far as to say that many have strong personal animus and may have been endeavouring to kill this rifle. That should not be tolerated by the minster. Had I anything to say sabout the matter, the head of such an officer would soon drop in the basket. If I saw such work as has been going on here, such confidential reports given away as have been given away, and encouragement given to destructive criticism, drastic action would have been taken; and, if that had been done, the matter would have gone along much more smoothly. T condemn the minister for not giving out instructions when the rifles were issued. He is now issuing these instructions when it is practically needless. He

903S
should have done what was done in the case of the Lee-Enfield. When that rifle was put in the hands of our soldiers, as commander of a regiment, I received positive instructions that the rifles were not to he left in the hands of the soldiers even over night. The rifles were to be placed in the boxes, shipped to the central armoury of the regiment, and taken out by an experienced armourer, and placed* in the racks. We had to go to considerable expense, in our regiment, in order to carry out these instructions. Not a man, not even the compjany armourer- was allowed to take out one of these rifles. If anything went wrong with a rifle it was handled as carefully as eggs and sent to the official armourer sergeant. No such instructions as these were sent with the Ross rifle. At once the critics got after the rifle. Instructions were given by the Master General of Ordnance to have all the reports of faults sent to the department. The rifle was torn to pieces, the foresight was taken off, the backsight taken to pieces, the bolts dismounted and not put back properly, and so on. It was no wonder the rifles met with mishap in these minor matters.
Now, in justification of the few changes that have been made in the Ross rifle, I wish to run over some of the changes that have been m;ade in the Lee-Enfield-not to go back to the Enfield, or the Snider, or the Martini, all of which have been official in my own time. Mark I of the Lee-Metford rifle was adopted in December, 1888. If any hon. members are curious to get the full details, I have them here in the official Red Book issued by the British War Office. Then came the Lee-Metford Mark I* which wms issued in January, 1892. The Lee-Metford Mjark II was issued in April, 1892. The Lee-Metford Mark II* was issued in April. 1895. The Lee-Enfield Mark I, was Issued in November, 1895; Lee-Enfield Mark I* in 1898, about the end of the year. These are all long rifles, and all are practically different marks of the long Lee-Enfield. Then came out the short Lee-Enfield. There have been one or two marks of the long Lee-Enfield since. Then there was the Mark I short Lee-Enfield issued in 1903, and there have been two different Marks! since then to my knowledge, and I am told, three or four more. That is, in the long and short Lee-Enfield the official arm of the British service, we have ten or twelve distinctive issues and distinctive marks. The changes that have been made in some of these are shown in the official red book. In one change alone, that is from Lee-Metford Mark I* to Lee-Metford Mark II, the first issued in January. 1892, and the second in April, 1892, the changes made in the rifle, as tabulated here, item by item, at pages 314 and 315 of the red book of the British army, are no fewer than one hundred and twenty-five in number.
In other words, in that one change alone
from the Lee-Enfield Mark I star to the Lee-Enfield Mark II, there were more important changes twice over than have taken place in the Ross rifle from start to finish. The history of the Ross rifle is simple. A number of years ago Sir Charles Ross, a young fellow in the old country with more enthusiasm than judgment, to my mind-
I refer now to his risking his own financial interests in this rifle-an enthusiastic soldier, invented a straight pull rifle which is practically the same rifle as has been adopted by the Swiss and Austrian governments. We hear a great deal about the splendid service of the Swiss nation, and their rifle is practically the same as was first invented by Sir Charles Ross. I will not go into details of the rifles introduced here, but I will refer to the reports made on the Springfield, Lee-Enfield, and the reports made by the British War Office at Woolwich in connection with the Ross rifle, and show that the Ross rifle compared favourably with any rifle in the experimental stage of its career. Sir Charles Ross carried one of these rifles through the South African war. That rifle is to the front, and it is in splendid preservation, after having served through the South African war, just as the Ross rifles that are in the racks all over the country to-day are in splendid condition, and are ready to take the field at a moment's notice. I may point out here that the highest record for shooting that ever was made by any rifle was made by one of these rifles taken out of the rack in the city of Quebec the other day, taken out by the enemies of the rifle, and handed to a soldier. Lieut. Mortimer. He made with that rifle the magnificent score of 35 aimed shots to the minute, and every one of them hit the target, a thing that never was paralleled in the history of the world. The highest score up to that, I think, was 25 or 27.
I think Wallingford made 27 with the Lee-Enfield at one time. But Mortimer hit the target with the Mark II Ross rifle 35 times in one minute, firing Mark II, a score that has never been equalled. He made 34 in a minute with Mark III, when the rifle was on trial for adoption. Now let me give you the result of trials of the rifle for adoption, and if we can see that the Ross rifle has come nearly up to the standard of the test of other rifles, in its experimental stage, surely there is no great disgrace to the Ross rifle, and no great cause of condemnation. I have here the United States report sent me by the Secretary of War. the report for 1901. It speaks of the board having made a test of the new United States rifle, and goes on _ to say :
Rapidity with accuracy-At the third shot, a cartridge fed from the magazine, one cartridge going into the chamber and one partially out of magazine.
Then it speaks of jamming :
It was noted that the clips were a little weak and bent when the cartridges were be-

ing forced into the magazine. The second and third clips were hard to operate. At the fifth clip there was a delay, due to difficulty of operation, of about 10 seconds. During the firing of the sixth clip a jam occurred. The second cartridge wedged forward, the rim being out of the channel.
Now comes rapidity at will, that is, an unaimed fire from the hip:
Jammed after the second shot, one cartridge partially in ohamber and next wedged between upper cartridge and receiver.
That is the rifle which was officially recommended by the board of United States officers for adoption in their service. The first test was repeated on account of the failure.
Cut-off worked out almost entirely.
(a)	repeated; cut-off worked out again completely.
(b)	Repeated again; first shot caused cutoff to work partially out, allowing bolt to catch cartridge in magazine.
The cut-off was pushed in and another shot fired; this also caused the cut-off to work out.
After another shot, bolt just passed oyer head of upper cartridge. This was tried twice more, with the same result.
Now we come to the endurance test. Speaking of the firing:
At the first push of the bolt forward two cartridges started to feed forward, the lower cartridge being in advance with head out of guide groove.
During the firing of the second clip, when cartridges were pressed down, the next to the top cartridge clipped forward so that the head of the top cartridge was in rear of the head of the one below it, and when the bolt was pushed forward the two cartridges were carried forward together, causing a jam.
And so on page after page of this book speaks of the jamming and blockading of this American rifle. At the end of the report we find the following:
Conclusion-The board is of the opinion that the arm has successfully passed the test to which it has been subjected, the minor difficulties which wrere experienced being only what might reasonably be expected in the ease of a new gun that had not been previously tested.
There is the official report of the board of the United States government on their splendid new rifle, said to be the best rifle in the world. Next, I come to 1902 where we have another report. In 1903 we come to another official test. On page 11 of the report of the Secretary for War, we find section 26:
As a result of the tests a good many changes were embodied in the arm, the most important of which were the following:
Then come six important changes and several minor changes made two years after it had been officially adopted, but I will not trouble the House by reading them. Now we come on to the test after it had Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
been perfected for two years, and was found by thousands in the hands of the troops :
First lot of 100 cartridges fired from the magazine; time. 6 minutes. When charging the magazine with two of the clips the cartridges stacked; that is, the second cartridge remained directly above the first, along the right wall of the magazine, and all five cartridges could not be inserted.
Third lot of 100 cartridges fired from the magazine; time, 8 minutes. For the last 50 shots the bottom cartridge could not be fed from the magazine, as it was caught between the rib on the follower and the right wall of the magazine.
Then we find page after page of trials, and page after page showing defects in what is claimed to be the greatest rifle in the world to-day. In 1904 we find in the report of the Secretary of War a description of a change of the rifle, making the twist in grooving one in 10 inches, after various experiments. Coming down to 1905, four years after it had been officially adopted, what do we find there?
Changes made in four important features allowed only 34,000 finished arms to be assembled during the fiscal year.
He goes on to name them, four important changes, with several minor ones made in that year. On page 19 and following pages of the report of the Secretary of War for 1905, and even down to 1906, on page 20, we find this in the official report of the Secretary of War for the United States on this splendid rifle, the greatest in the world, that had been in the hands of the troops for five years :
Reports of the breakages have been received, but no trouble is anticipated from the parts made of the proper material. Other minor defects have also been developed, but corrective measures have been applied, and it is believed that the new musket will go into the service practically perfected.
Here is the report of the government of the United States and here is the line of conduct pursued by patriotic men in that country. They all settle together as to what changes should be made in the rifle, they agree as to the defects, and having determined these defects, they are properly remedied. They are laid before the board and they are remedied, but there are no pyrotechnics, no efforts to blast men's reputations or to drive men out of public life and no attempt to make political capital out of a question of this kind. In the report of 1907 what do we find ?
The minor defects mentioned in my report of a year since have been overcome, and, with the exception of the weapons in the hands of the troops, the greater part have been rechambered for the model of 1906 ammunition.
So that they had to rechamber every rifle that they issued in order to meet the requirements of the service in that country.

That, Sir, is the record of the United States rifle. What is the record of the Canadian rifle ? Mark I was issued ; certain improvements were made in it. Mark II was issued. Certain changes were made from Mark I to Mark II which did not turn out to be very advantageous. These were changed back again from Mark II to Mark III. The old lever backsight has been abandoned and a return has been made to the form presented in old Mark I. The thread attaching the barrel to the receiver in Mark II has been abandoned and a return made to the thread in the old Mark I. This is the Whitworth thread. When Sir Charles Ross presented his rifle to the committee it had a double trigger action, it had a gathering pull and a final pull. That was in the rifle which he presented for adoption. We have abandoned the single pull and returned to the double trigger pull as presented in the original rifle. We have also returned to the long barrel so that it may be better adapted for shooting purposes. We have also done what the United States people have not yet been able to do and what the English people have not yet been able to do ; we have an absolutely perfect safety catch which acts the moment the sear is released from the cocking piece bent and insures its safe reengagement. There are some small changes, such as screws, bands and swivel straps, which are of no account. Last year, in my address to this House, I went with considerable detail into the difference between the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield rifle. I do not know that it is necessary at this time to repeat that comparison. There are important differences but they are involved in the one great principle of the straight pull. That is only two motions, in loading and tiring, simply pulling the bolt back and pressing it forward again, as against four motions in what we call the lever or rotary motion rifles. The two nations that use straight pull rifles are the Austrian and Swiss nations. The other nations largely use the rotary motion. Fault was found by the hon. member for Sherbrooke yesterday with regard to the report of the United States government on the Ross rifle test at Springfield. I think I have made it absolutely clear that the report upon that rifle is satisfactory, taking into consideration the report of the same committee upon their own rifle. There have been fewer changes made in the Ross rifle since that date than in the American rifle. I have known a number of gentlemen high up in the Ordnance Department of the United States and had they not adapted, two years before, Sir Charles Ross appeared before them, the new Springfield rifle, the chances are a thousand to one that the United States government would have adopted the principle of the Ross rifle for their national arm.
I now come to the question of long and
short rifles. The question of the backsight is the crux of the whole situation and the cause of the whole dissatisfaction with the Ross rifle. There is, I am free to say, in the lever backsight, an abominable sight to the Ross rifle. No man can make good scores consecutively with it. The sight will jump four or five degrees when the recoil comes. With the lever sight there is a straight reaction and a shock which frequently jars the springs holding the sight in its position and a change of three or four degrees would make a difference of 200 or 300 yards in the sighting of the rifle. The South African war was responsible for the fad of the lever or Dutch pattern sight. After the South African war the British government changed to the short barrel, adopting what they call the Dutch pattern sight and discarding the bayonet. But, they have got over that. We have seen the effect of the short barrel. The Russo-Japanese war showed the effect of the long barrel on accurate shooting. They found out that the short rifle was no good for accurate shooting. In all the matches held in England last year, at Bisley and everywhere else, there was not one short rifle in use, and in the great matches of the United States last year there was not one short United States rifle in use, although the new United States rifle has an initial velocity of 2,700 feet to the second and in that way it is supposed to overcome the defect of the short barrel. The Lee-Enfield barrel (short) is twenty-five inches long, the American rifle is twenty-four inches long and the Ross short rifle twenty-eight inches long, a little longer than either and, to that extent, better adapted for good shooting. That it has been successful in making a good shooting rifle I might refer to the fact that last year in Toronto Mr. Mortimer took the first prize in the aggregate matches even with the old lever sight, and I might also state that at the Ottawa ranges Om-mandsen and Wallingford, the two noted English riflemen, made most magnificent scores. Ommandsen named his shot every time but he did not have the lever backsight on. He had the Sutherland sight. He named every shot. He said : I am going to make a bull at such and such a spot and he fired and made the bull. He hit the target in every instance at the exact spot that he had named. But, he admitted that holding the short barrel is much harder on the men. It calls for the exercise of much greater physical force to hold the short barrel down to position than if it were a more substantial and steadier barrel. There is a return in Mark III to the long rifle, first, on account of the accuracy of shooting, second, it is better adapted for the bayonet, and third, it has been shown that the important feature of warfare is no longer masses of men and troops but that the result depends largely on accurate

shooting. In warfare to-day the effort is made to fire at individual men when one sees them. You rarely ever get a chance to fire at large masses of men. The great advantage of a rifle of this kind is that a sharpshooter can get his position and pick the gunners off the guns as far as they can be seen, and they can do it at 3,000 yards without much trouble.
We have, therefore, decided to return to the use of the long barrel. One was sent to British Columbia and it has given great satisfaction. I have letters and telegrams from various parts of the Northwest urging that the long barrel, Mark III, be rushed through immediately so that it can be used at Bisiey and in the rifle matches this year. One of the highest scores ever made in Canada was made last Saturday at the Ottawa ranges, Mortimer scoring 102. Major Sutherland in the first shot made 97, and Major Hutcheson firing over the ranges first time of firing made 96 out of 105. It may be asked what use is this fast shooting ? I will tell you. The rule in warfare as regards the rifle is that you want to get the maximum of energy with the minimum of time and the maximum of effectiveness. The Ross rifle in the hands of Mortimer at Quebec a few weeks ago-when this whitewashing expedition was sent down there according to the member for Sherbrooke- was subjected to a public trial and the public trial was made because the ' Star ' and its satellites in Montreal would have described it as a hole and corner affair if the test had been private. The famous man of the Montreal ' Star ' stood there with his mouth wide open as if it were stretched when he saw four shells in the air at a time when the Ross rifle was being fired. Mortimer has made his record several times with a Ross rifle and he made it with this despised Mark II taken out of the rack there, and that record is 35 per minute aimed fire. The record of the Lee-Enfield with Wallingford, the most famous shot in the British empire, is 27, and the record of the United States rifle was 24, and this year it is 25. Here is the contrast :	Ross rifle,
35 per minute aim fire ; Lee-Enfield, 27 per minute aim fire ; United States rifle, 25 per minute aim fire. Then, firing at random, at the enemy in the dark for instance; from the hip or the side unaimed fire. The United States rifle has gone as high as 35 to the minute ; the English rifle, I believe, has never exceeded 27, while the Ross rifle has gone as high as 50 to the minute unaimed fire, showing that in every respect the Ross rifle is infinitely superior in its rapidity of fire. At Quebec the Ross rifle fired 150 rounds, made 147 hits,
34 of which were bullseyes and all the rest close around the bull, in five minutes and one second, and they started with the magazine empty. That has never been approached in rifle shooting before.


Samuel Hughes: Sir WILFRID LAUItlER. What is the meaning of the magazine being empty?


Samuel Hughes: If a man starts with the magazine full he has five shots advantage, and with the magazine empty he has to put in five shots or ten, as the case may be, to get ready to fire. I understand that the English and American records were made with the magazine loaded. I thought the British and United States tests were conducted with the magazine starting empty and accordingly we tested the Ross rifle with the magazine empty, but I have since found that the British and American tests were with the magazines full, which would have made a few points more in favour of the Ross rifle in the comparison. However, we need not bother about that, as the record of the Ross rifle is pretty good as it is. Another record is that a Ross rifle fired 300 shots recently at Quebec and made 294 hits, aim fire, at target, 101 being bullseyes, and that was done in 14 minutes and 11 seconds, a record which no two rifles together have ever approached before in the world, and half of them were single-fire.


Robert Laird Borden: What range?


Samuel Hughes: Close range. The supposition is that the enemy is rushing at close range and that was the object of the test. If an enemy should rush at close range then the effectiveness of a rifle is as to how many shots you can pump into the enemy when he is approaching you in the rush which commences from 50 to 100 yards. That is where the effectiveness of the magazine rifle comes in, or otherwise a single fire rifle would be just as good as any.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the time?


Samuel Hughes: 150 rounds, 147 hits, 34 bulls, in five minutes and one second, starting with the magazine empty. Then there were 300 rounds fired, 294 hits, 101 bulls in fourteen minutes and eleven seconds. The records of any two rifles in the world put together have never come up to that. The advantage of the Ross magazine is its great rapidity. The Ross magazine differs materially from any other magazine rifle. There are what may be called two types of magazine rifles, the clip and charger loader and the single cartridge loader. The cartridges are all placed in an iron fixture called a clip, and are put into the rifle and are fired shot after shot. The charger type slides them all into the magazine at once. The second class, or slow loader, places cartridge after cartridge in the magazine. One class is a quick loader and the other a slow loader, as in the British rifle where you load shot by shot. The Ross rifle differs from both in that by a lifter piece worked by the left hand you can depress the bed of the magazine and catch the cartridges all loose,

throwing them into the rifle, and by working the fingers on this lifter piece a couple times the cartridges are all placed in position so that it is not possible to have it jam. When the Ross rifle jams it is owing to the fact that the soldier is not sufficiently trained in the use of this lifter piece. 1 will explain how the jam occurs in the rifle. In the British and Canadian cartridges there is what is called the head of the cartridge, where the end of the cartridge projects out beyond the side. In the Mauser rifle the cartridges have not this projection. When the top cartridge head comes behind the head of the second cartridge and is shifted forward by the bolt, it pulls the lower cartridge with it. That often occurs. It occurred in the Lee-En-field at Quebec. We had the Lee-Enfield firing there, but I have not gflven the figures for it because the men who fired the Lee-Enfield at Quebec were experts only in the sense of ordinary listed men and not in the same class with Wallingford and Ormand-sen. who made the records in the British army. Therefore, in fairness to these men I am taking the standard rifle record made with the British rifle by these experts. When a jam occurs with a Ross rifle the only way it can occur is because the soldier did not arrange the lifter piece properly. Mortimer fired 300 rounds with the Ross rifle and there was no jam at all. Now, I want to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to this :	There was
Sergeant O'Brien, one of his own men with his musketry instructor certificate, and he had never been instructed in the proper use of the working of that finger piece until he fired in Quebec at the experimental tests. He did not understand the working of it and he got confused, and yet that man is a splendid fellow and I am told one of the best musketry instructors in Canada. The minister should see that his instructors all over the country are trained in the use of the finger piece, so that soldiers under them will have some chance to know the strong point of the rifle. I need not deal with the magazine further than to say it is well known that the Ross rifle has the most rapid magazine of any rifle. It is easy of manipulation and it is very useful in night attacks. I have on other occasions made a comparison of the Ross rifle and the Lee-Enfield.
Our good friend the member for Sherbrooke assumed an entirely different tone this vear from that of his last year's speech. ,1 do not know the reason of that. Possibly he has had uphill work all over the country ; for I know that the best men in the militia service to-day stand by the Ross rifle and are going to stand by it without any doubt whatever. Last year he had an air of confidence and assurance, and I may take the liberty of looking for a motive for his action. AVe knew that there were certain minor defects in the Ross rifle, and that
these defects were being remedied, just as our friends in the United States have been remedying the defects in their rifle. Let me point out the defects in the United States magazine rifle, which is famous as the most perfect rifle in the world. The official book No. 1923 'description and rules for the management of the United States magazine rifle,' issued on the 4th of February 1908, at page 41 mentions the parts which are most liable to require repairs.' These are the bolt-stop, the cockiug-piece, the lower band swivel and screw, the safety-lock, the stacking swivel and screw, the stock and the striker. It speaks of the stock being broken at the small of the butt. In the whole history of the Ross rifle there have been only two rifles broken at the small of the butt, and these were broken maliciously. There have been only two rifle stocks broken along the barrels ; and when the men who broke them were brought before the committee and stated that they were broken by a fall, they were laughed at. Then this United States report goes on to tell how to replace broken parts, mentioning the butt-plate, cap-pin, the front sight, the lower band swivel screw, the stacking swivel screw, the trigger pin. These are not fatal injuries. It then goes on to point out the injuries that do not render the parts unserviceable. These are : the bolt, the butt, the plate, the butt swivel, the cocking piece, the extractor, the floor plate, the guard. With regard to the bolt it says :
The entire flange at front end may be broken off, except a small portion on the opposite side from the extractor hook which is re'quired to hold in connection with the extractor hook the empty case while it is being drawn to the rear for ejection. If automatic ejection be not considered, the entire flange may be dispensed with.
Then it says :
The parts not essential, or only so to a degree, are the ejector, safety lock, cut-off, bolt stop, sleeve lock, floor plate, magazine spring and follower.
It goes on further to say :
Complaints have not infrequently been received that a main-spring was too weak to [DOT] perform its office, when the fault rested with the soldier, who in sighting inadvertently raised the bolt handle with his hand before pulling the trigger, and thus caused the force of the spring to be expended in closing the bolt, instead of in exploding the cartridge.
All cams and bearings should be kept slightly oiled to prevent wear.
When firing many successive rounds care must be taken that unburned grains of powder do not collect and pack in the locking lug recesses of the receiver, as this will Interfere with the perfect closing of the bolt. Such accumulations can be blown out from time to time, or, when packed, removed by a knite or the screw-driver.
If we had to do this with the Ross rifle, there would have been a rebellion in the

long ago. This book goes on to
country say :
Except when repairs are needed, the following parts will constantly he injured if allowed to be dismounted by the soldier for cleaning; and when repairs are necessary, they should be removed only by a company artificer, or some one familiar with the handling of tools and delicate mechanisms, viz.: bolt stop, cut-off, safety lock, sleeve lock, front sight, lower band and stacking swivel screws.
From start to finish the book gives details of breaks and smashes which are liable to occur in the Yankee rifle, which is regarded as the most perfect rifle in the world to-day. I have already indicated from this official book more defects in that rifle than are recorded in all this bundle of so-called expert reports on the Ross rifle. How are these reports furnished? The master general of ordnance issues to the various officers in the country an order for reports, and the officers pass on the order to the privates and tell them to point out all the defects they can find in the Ross rifle-a condition of affairs that is not to be found in any other country in the world. Most of these reports are reports of privates to their subaltern officers, and from the sub altern officers to seniors ; and when the seniors were brought before the committee last year, one after another said : ' I know nothing about the rifle ; I am only going by the reports made to me.' What are these reports ? They refer only to the class of defects regarded by the Americans as trivial.
Now, Sir, the reason I have been so persistent in following this matter up is this.
I could not conceive it possible 'that any man could start an agitation on so little data, and I have looked for the motive at the bottom of it all. What have we found? Mr. Nesbitt, before the committee on Public Accounts, made a solemn declaration that he had been approached years ago by representatives of the leading manufacturing firms in England who tried to show him the utter impossibility of conducting a manufacturing establishment like this in Canada, and that we must buy our rifles from the English factories or let them take this factory over. Other attempts are known to have been made on experts in rifle matters, in order to chloroform them to discard the Ross rifle and to bring pressure on the Minister of Militia to induce him to adopt the Ree-Enfield.
These efforts were made from time to time and in various ways. I might point out, in connection with so many of the defects discovered in the rifle, that it was rather strange how many came to the light in Halifax; and just about the time the news could be spread from town to town, the agitation against the rifle began all over the country, it was pointed out yesterday that Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
thehon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) was six months behind the General of Ordnance in pointing out the defects, but evidently they had been looking for someone to lead the agitation. I want to point out another matter. I did not learn this from the Minister of Militia nor did I ever ask him about it, but I ask him now whether the request was ever made to him, or whether a letter was ever obtained from him by a representative of a British rifle company, to the effect that in case the Ross Company chose to go out of business, the conditions of the contract with that company would be continued? Was the hon. minister ever asked to give such a letter or did he ever give such a letter or was he ever interviewed by any gentleman representing a rifle company in England in connection with this matter?


Frederick William Borden: I have no recollection of ever having given any such letter, but I have no objection to say that I was asked on one or two occasions whether, in the event of the Ross Company withdrawing from business and some other company purchasing it, the government would be prepared to continue the contract with the purchasers. I said that of course that would depend on who the successors were, but I could see no difficulty, if the new company were capable of carrying on the business, as the only object of the government wias to have its business properly done.


Samuel Hughes: I never asked the Minister of Militia that question before, but 1 received my data from across the water.
I was told that it was done by a gentleman who is supposed to have influence.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I presume the hon. gentleman Is referring to me. Might I ask him if he is?


Samuel Hughes: I referred to 'a gentleman who is supposed to have influence,' and not to the hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I am asking the hon. gentleman to reply. Let him either put up or shut up.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know that I am called on to do either. I do not know that I need reply to a gentleman who has been hawking around the department, showing the commercial instinct as strong as he has been showing it. He referred to commercial interests yesterday, but he himself is a man who has shown a very keen sense of commercial interest by hawking after the Minister of Militia and others for appointment from time to time. Since he speaks of commercial interests, I think it only fair to myself that I should say I had the honour of being offefed the highest military positions from the Conservative party in days gone by and that I refused. I was offered the Deputy Ministership of Militia and the Adjutant Generalship of Canada,

and I never had to hawk after these position.


Frederick William Borden: I think I ought to say that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) is not the gentleman to whom I referred. He never discussed with me the question as to the successor to the Ross Rifle Company.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no, the agent has a much greater man. I might as well be frank and say I understood it was a gentleman from Montreal, a multi-millionaire, the representative of the Vickers-Max ini Small Arms Company. I got word from across the water that that was done.


George William Fowler: By cable ?


Samuel Hughes: It came at all events. When this notice was put on the paper a year ago, I looked for a motive. I thought it very strange that an officer who had served with me in South Africa, fighting the battles of the empire, under the same commander, should not have come and spoken to me on the subject.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What have you got to do about it ?


Samuel Hughes: I am just coming to that. It was strange that a gentleman, a member of the great Conservative party, following the same noble leader, would not have come to me and said something to me about it. Now I come to what I have got to do about it. Soon after the notice was put on the paper last year, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) notified me that Dr. Worthington had something terrible against me. He is going to expose you, said Mr. Bergeron, and your grafting in connection with the Ross rifle. And he asked : Is it not possible for you to pay back the money?


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I thought you knew Bergeron better than that.


Samuel Hughes: What right had any member of the Conservative party to hint about graft?


George Eulas Foster: You are hinting at it.


Samuel Hughes: 
George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr Sam Hughes) who has just taken his seat has enjoyed the singular and unique experience of receiving the plaudits of the party to which he is usually opposed in this House. They have received him with ta good deal of enthusiasm. The right hon. premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself-has done him
the honour of remaining in the chamber_
contrary to his usual wont-during the whole of his speech.


Samuel Hughes: He knows a good thing.


George William Fowler: Then, either he does not always know it, or the hon. gentleman (Sam Hughes) is not always good, because the Prime Minister seldom remains in the House when the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton is speaking. Sir Frederick Borden has also remained during the whole of the remarks of the hon. member. We And, Sir, that a momentary gleam of intelligence, fleeting it is true, has lighted up the face of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), so greatly did he appreciate it. Among the rank and file, why, they were so enthusiastic that even the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Johnston) could scarcely forebear to cheer ; and when that hon. gentleman cheers Tory speakers we know that he has very strong party reasons for it.
Now the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam Hughes) has given us a historical sketch in which there may have been some fact, but there certainly was a great deal of fiction. I should judge, reckoning on a basis of a thousand parts, about one part fact to 999 of fiction, which after all. is about as near the facts as the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton ever gets. He has told us that so greatly was he honoured by his party, so much did they appreciate his services in connection with the militia of this country, that Sir Charles Tupper, when premier of this country, was anxious to obtain his services, not only as adjutant general but also as Deputy Minister of Militia.


Samuel Hughes: No, I did not say that, Deputy Minister of Militia in 1891, when Sir John Abbott was Premier.


George William Fowler: Then they recognized his tremendous services a little earlier than I thought they did. That of course will go to the country. He more than intimated that he could have been Minister of Militia, a much higher position, I assume, in 1890. Well, Sir, we have only the hon. gentleman's word for that, that is all we have for it.


Samuel Hughes: No, there are men in this House to-day who know it.


George William Fowler: I venture to say that there is not a man in this House who will say so, except the hon. gentleman himself.
Now the hon. gentleman has seen fit-I do not know why he did so-to make an attack upon the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington). It was not necessary, surely, for him, in the defence of his intimate friend, his bosom companion, Sir Charles Ross, and his rifle factory, which is largely the creation, I should say, of Sir Charles Ross and the member for Victoria and Haliburton-it was not necessary, in order to defend this rifle from the hallucination in the minds of the people that there was anything wrong with it, that he should attack the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Was the hon. member for Sherbrooke outside his rights as a member of this House, as a representative of the people of this country, in making a criticism of this rifle ? Has it come to this, that a man exercising what he conceives to be his public duty in the interests of his constituents, who criticises a rifle that has been put in the hands of the militia of this country, shall be charged with all sorts of improper motives because he makes this criticism, and because he happens to touch the feelings of my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton ? It is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to attribute motives to people. The hon. gentleman has a somewhat diseased imagination in attributing motives.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fowler) is the greatest expert in the House in that sort of thing.


George William Fowler: Then I will justify that statement of my hon. friend in a minute by attributing a few to him. I say it is easy for a man to attribute motives to another, but he should be very careful lest the circumstances surrounding his own case should make him particularly liable to reprisals. Now I do not propose to attribute any motives to the member for Victoria and Haliburton, because he has told us that he alone of all the men in this country is independent. He looks only to the welfare of his country. Party ties have no effect upon him, they do not bind him in any way, he is ready to snap them at a moment's notice. He looks only and solely to the welfare of the country.


Samuel Hughes: He has never formed a coalition with the enemy.


George William Fowler: We are not so sure about that, either. Now I want to show that the circumstances surrounding the hon. gentleman's case would lead a person who was not of a specially suspicious mind to Suspect some of the motives impelling the hon. member to give his most strenuous support to this Ross rifle. What do we find to be the fact ? What singular coincidence has occurred ? We find that not very long ago, in a previous session, the hon. gentleman took occasion most strenuously to endorse the Ross rifle. He was fierce in his denunciation of any one who would venture, who

would dare to criticise it. That was iu an evening session of this House when the militia estimates were under discussion. The next day there was a meeting of the Dominion Itiiie Association held in the city of Ottawa, and at that meeting the Minister of Militia rose, as I am informed-I was not there, the hon. gentleman may correct me it' I am wrong-rose iu that meeting and nominated the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton as president of the Dominion Rifle Association, and the hon. gentleman having the recommendation of the Minister of Militia, was elected by acclamation. That is one post that the hon. gentleman obtained through the recommendation of the Minister of Militia.


Samuel Hughes: How long had he been senior vice-president ?


George William Fowler: As long as his chances for being president were nil. He was' put in as vice-president just as Mr. Roosevelt was put in as Vice President of the United States, in order to shelve him so that he might never be president. But for the kindly recommendation of the Minister of Militia. lie would never have become president of the Dominion Rifle Association.


Frederick William Borden: I think it is only fair to say that when the then president of the Dominion Rifle Association, the immediate predecessor of the member for Victoria and Haliburton, was chosen, that was Colonel Gibson, he was nominated by the then Minister of Militia, a Conservative. Sir Mackenzie Bowell. I knew that to be the fact, and it seemed to be only a proper return for the Minister of Militia of the Liberal government to suggest the appointment of a distinguished soldier and member of parliament on the Conservative side. That is the way he was nominated, not in payment for support of the Ross rifle; because my hon. friend is the leader of that particular party, and I am his supporter.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Militia I have no doubt is quite correct in what he says, I am not imputing any motives, but I am pointing out these strange coincidences that have occurred. Here we have another fact, the fact that this lion, gentleman holds a considerable number of offices under this government, although he is supposed to be in opposition. Now I want to compliment the Minister of Militia on that fact. The Minister of Militia is an astute gentleman, and he realizes to the full the value of the services which the hon. gentleman for Victoria and Haliburton could render to this country, and therefore he made the pay proportionate to the value of the services. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton is a Brevet Colouel, no longer displaying those diminutive letters, Lieutenant, but C-O-L. It is full Colonel now, mark you. He is president of the Dominion Rifle Association. That is a position which is uot directly in the gift of the administration, Mr. FOWLER
but indirectly very much in the gift of the administration. Then, the hon. gentleman lias received, at the hands of his generous friend, the Fenian medal. There must have been an awful struggle in the hon. gentleman's mind when he had the opportunity of getting this medal because you know the Fenian raid took place a great many years ago and the hon. gentleman had been trying to convince his myriad of lady admirers that lie was still young, in the eligible ranks, that he had not become a veteran; but, you see that lie got the medal for service in the Fenian raid in 1870, an event which took place 38 years ago and he must have been more than a babe in arms at that time or he could not have done so much for his country.


Samuel Hughes: I will tell the hon. gentleman that I was entitled to the Fenian raid medal of 1866.


George William Fowler: Better still.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, if I had applied for it.


George William Fowler: Well, the hon. gentleman is very much older than l thought.


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


George William Fowler: One would think him about 45. If the hon. gentleman was at the raid of 1866 he would be very young at the time. He would be like a witness who said that he had been farming all his life and when asked what he did the first year he replied that he milked. The hon. gentleman is also a member of the committee-he is chairman, no mere, ordinary, one-horse member, but he is chairman of the committee on small arms.


Samuel Hughes: Why do you not say he is president ?


George William Fowler: Same thing.


Samuel Hughes: I want to keep the hon. gentleman absolutely right.


George William Fowler: I know how sweetly these high sounding titles sound in his ears and therefore I should not have minimized it by calling him chairman instead of pregi-dent.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Sherbrooke should have primed you better.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman is chattering so that I want to say something to him. He said that the mountain had laboured and brought forth a mouse. He was referring then to my hon. friend from Sherbrooke. It would seem to me to be fair to say that the mouse that was brought forth -was the hon. gentleman himself.


Samuel Hughes: How' clever.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman at length has come out in the open. He has been in hiding to some extent but at length

lie has been brought forth. He said that it was stillborn. That does not apply to the hon. gentleman because he is very far from being stillborn. It would be better perhaps and take up less time of this House if he had been. Not only is the hon. gentleman president of the small arms committee, but be is also on the general staff, on this top-heavy staff that we have. What was he put on for?-as a make-weight to keep it down? Again recognizing the fact that the hon. gentleman's real services were not of very much value. The hon. gentleman Is on as * unpaid ' getting full value for the services which he renders the country.


Samuel Hughes: I had the honour of being put on that staff by Lord Dundon-ald, and these words were placed in there in my own handwriting.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend would have us believe that Lord Dundonald had tremendous influence. He had not even enough influence to save his own head let alone put a crown on the head of the hon. gentleman.


Frederick William Borden: I may say that my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was not put on without my consent. Lord Dundonald did not run the militia of this country as is pretty well known.


George William Fowler: Pretty well known.


David Henderson: The Minister of Agriculture was running it.


Frederick William Borden: Occasionally he helped.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has enjoyed a very great number of honours at the hands of this administration and these have been chiefly dispensed by the Minister of Militia and Defence. He has been made a brevet colonel, he has been given the Fenian medal, although I fancy the hon. gentleman would be about a thousand miles away from the Fenians.


Samuel Hughes: I do not come from Kings and Albert.


George William Fowler: You never would have been allowed to come from Kings county here. They elect a better class of men. Better come again now.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman iust tell us how he got out of the militia ? I am sure it will interest the House.


George William Fowler: Well, the records will show. If my. hon. friend can find anything against my record in the militia he can produce it. I do not make nearly as much of it as the hon. gentleman does in the ' Parliamentary Companion.' where he takes up a page and a half, but in the official record he does not take up half so much space. I will give you the space that he takes up : 288



[Stage Direction]
A page and a half In the ' Parliamentary Companion' which he writes or supplies himself; a line in the official record. That is the position of the hon. gentleman with respect to his records. He has seen fit in this House to attack the record and throw insinuations upon the motives of a man who, as far as the official record shows, occupies a very much higher position in connection with the militia of this country. While I am on that point I might as well refer to ic. The hon. gentleman's record can be found at page 286 of the Quarterly Militia List of the Dominion of Canada, corrected to the 1st April, 1908, so that my hon. friend cannot say that it is not quite up to date. Here we have the following record :
Hughes, Samuel: Fenian Raid, 1870; general service medal with one clasp.
That is for the Fenian raid of 1870.
South African war, 1899-1900.
Now, is not that a shame ? The war would not have been ended in South Africa if he had not gone. And look at ail the obstacles that were thrown in his way ! Who threw these obstacles in the way ? It must have been the Boers ; they knew that he would end the war if he got out there and therefore they made it difficult for him. But, with that splendid courage that surmounts all difficulties, all obstacles, casts them saside as if they were mere chaff in his way, that hon. gentleman did at length arrive in South Africa and after he had convinced Roberts and Kitchener that he knew it all, they took his advice and the war ended. Let us compare the record of the hon. member for Sherbrooke with that of the hon. member for-I was going to say South Africa-Victoria and Haliburton. Let us compare the record of the hon. member for Sherbrooke as it appears in this same official record. It takes up ten lines of the record. Ten lines of the official record to show what the hon. member for Sherbrooke has done ; one line of the official record to show what the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton has done ! Oh, what an ungrateful country Canada is. What a cold step mother it has proved to the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton. not recognizing the tremendous, the splendid services which he has rendered to the country or the great honour and glory that he has brought upon Canada. Why ? It has not recognized the fact, although others have recognized it. that the hon. gentleman is the bosom f'lend of Chamberlain, the bosom friend of Roseberry. He gives them pointers. He devises Chamberlain's scheme of protection for Great Britain, of tariff reform. That scheme was framed solely upon hints which Chamberlain had received from the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton in the many interviews that he had with him. He was also on exceedingly intimate terms with the irreat poet Rudyard Kinling. and. just in that connection, I would like to read

[Stage Direction]
a little poem, said to have been written by Rudyard Kipling in which the hon. gentleman appears as the central figure. Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, I will read this poem :
The gallant Sam enjoys a fight,
At Fabre's farm his fame was bright,
He drew his sword and waved it high And yelled ' Now watch the Dutchmen fly.' The foe was frightened half to death And ran till he was out of breath.
No single moment did he lose,
He knew the voice of Colonel Hughes.
So you see that the hon. gentleman has been sadder
Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman pardon me? I want to correct him on one point. He has not told the House that all these statements in the militia lists are written by the men whose names appear there. I have never required to write my record in the militia list but now that my attention is drawn to it I may do so. I am not ashamed of my record. X do not need militia lists to show my record. X may say more than that. I was not hiding at Fabre's Farm.


Mr.   FOWI@: EIi. There cannot be a stronger confirmation of the hon. gentleman's statement that he did not write this in the militia list than the very fact that it only occupies one line. I think the House will agree with me that if that record were written by the person himself it would take at least two pages.


Samuel Hughes: Pretty nearly that.


George William Fowler: He says he was not in hiding at Fabre's Farm and I do not know what he refers to. I was not at Fabre's farm and therefore I could not hide there. But if there were some bales of hay there 

good hay from Three Rivers at $30 a ton warranted not only to keep out an ordinary Mauser bullet but a cannon ball-I would not have been able to get behind it you know-they say some people did. Now, I was speaking a while ago about the tremendous number of honours and dignities that have been conferered upon my hon. and gallant friend from Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). He seems to have had some what of a pull-whether a straight pull like the Ross rifle or a crooked pull it is not for me to say. Anyhow the result of his pull, whether it be straight or crooked, has been very much better than the result of the straight pull on the Ross rifle. He has told us that there are only a very few defects and these only trivial defects in the Ross rifle. Well, it seems to me that the accidents which have occurred would not be regarded ns trivial by the persons who suffered them. If my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) was shooting at a mark beside another man, and if a portion Mr. FOWLER
of the magazine of the other man's rifle blew out and hit him in the eye he would not consider it a very trivial thing. It is not very considerate of the hon. gentleman to speak in this light tone of accidents of that kind to the militiamen of this country. Of course the hon. gentleman has waded so much in bloodshed and gore ; he has seen so many thousands and millions of men slaughtered and has slaughtered so many himself, that a mere trifling accident of that kind would appear small indeed to him. He says there are few defects in the Ross rifle but we have spent a great deal of money on that rifle and we have put it in the hands of the militiamen of our country and we will see what these defects are. He spent at least half an hour of his speech in commendation of the magazine of this rifle, and here I want to say this : That I propose to give the report of Colonel Les-sard, Brevet Colonel Lessard, C.B., also a South African veteran and adjutant general to-day of the Dominion of Canada. Of course that is a position that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) contemptuously refused.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: Colonel Lessard was in South Africa. He also had a career there, he was mentioned in despatches, he was honoured by the British government with the title of Companion of the Bath. I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is such a democrat that he would have refused such a title ; probably he would refuse knighthood for his services, but he has said nothing about that in the autobiography he has given us in Parliamentary Companion. Colonel Lessard is making his report to the master general of the Ordnance and he says :
About 20 per cent of the rifles were damaged during practice.


Samuel Hughes: If you are honest you will read what goes before that and you will see it is not Colonel Lessard's own opinion.


George William Fowler: I am reading Colonel Lessard's report. He says :
I have the honour to state from the reports of the officers commanding ' A ' and ' B ' Squadrons, Royal Canadian Dragoons, relative to the Ross rifles at present in their charge.


Samuel Hughes: That is right.


George William Fowler: Every one knows he did not fire all these rifles himself. What has that to do with it any way? Did Colonel Lessard issue a false report ? I cannot understand the point my hon. friend is trying to make :
About 20 per cent of the rifles were damaged during practice, the following being the principal defects: the retaining lugs on the bolts

are very weak and a number of them broke off (about i or 5).
And this is what Colonel Lessard in his report says about the magazines that my hon. friend has spent so much time in lauding to the skies.
The magazines were useless.
Useless, and this was mark 11 rifle, not mark 1 which has been discarded. The magazines were useless although we had spent over half a million dollars for these rifles when only 136 of them had been delivered.
The magazines were useless. In almost every case when the magazines were ordered to be used the cartridges jammed at the second shot.
It was not a case here and there but as Colonel Lessard says in almost every case the cartridges jammed at the second shot.
There seemed to be a weakness on the platform spring. The leaf of the back sight in nearly every case had to be adjusted after each shot and seemed to be very easily injured.
There is the report of Colonel Lessard and it Is not dated back in 1905 but it is dated the 29th of July, 1907. It seems to me that it requires a tremendous amount of nerve both on the part of the Minister of Militia and the member for Victoria to stand up in this House and attempt to defend the character of the Ross rifle. Now, Sirs I have here the report of General Cotton. He was a colonel when this report was made but I guess he is a general since. These promotions in the militia take place so rapidly to-day that one hardly knows how to style a man when you meet him. It is generally safe to call him a general because it will never offend him but if he happened to be a general and you called him a colonel you would incur his everlasting antipathy.


Samuel Hughes: You should not forget that I promoted you to be major.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman had better not chatter so much ; he seems to be afraid.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton is not afraid of anything the hon. member for Kings and Albert can say directly or indirectly, and he might just as well understand that right here now.


George William Fowler: Who's afraid ? The bold and gallant soldier from Victoria and Haliburton. Who's afraid. I would not want the hon. gentleman to be afraid. To think that the gallant member is afraid. Of course not, perish the thought.
288J


Samuel Hughes: 1 may take the hon. gentleman for Kings in hand some day.


George William Fowler: This is what General Cotton says and this report is dated the 8th of October, 1906.
Most of the defects are those of which we are aware, but some further rather startling weaknesses have shown themselves.
That is strong language. The hon. member for Sherbrooke, in any denunciation he has ever made of this Ross rifle, has not used any stronger language than that of these two distinguished soldiers. General Cotton and General Lessard are both, I think, on the general staff, the same staff to which my hon. friend has been appointed in an unpaid position.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) enjoys a certain amount of distinction in this country as a marksman of notoriety

I was going to say of note. On one occasion he went down to the butts, bearing on his manly shoulders one of these Ross rifles. On his arrival there he undertook to show the ignorant militia men who did not appreciate a good thing when they saw it, the wonderful advantages of the Ross rifle as an arm for target practice. So he fired eight shots, and in doing so gathered up the nicest little nest of goose eggs one could imagine-eight good, full, round goose eggs; he never struck the target once. He fired at six hundred yards at a nine-foot target, about the size of barn door, and a double door at that. He;'e was the gallant soldier who had come from South Africa with a belt full of Boer scalps, but who couldn't hit a barn door at six hundred yards. Now, against the hon. gentleman's commendation of this Ross rifle I am going to put the statement of another marksman, a marksman of international reputation, a man who for the first time won for Canada the much-coveted Queen's prize-Sergeant Hayhurst. the sergeant instructor of musketry of the 13th regiment, with headquarters at Hamilton, a regiment which the Minister of Militia has described as one of the best infantry regiments in Canada. Sergeant Hayhurst gives an exhaustive report on the Ross rifle, practically every line of which is a condemnation of it. This is what he says of the magazine :
As to the magazine there is no question but that it would be much improved by the introduction of the clip feed in place of the hand feed. I found after careful practice that more cartridges go on the ground than into the magazine, and this would be much worse under the excitement of even rapid fire, not to speak of action.
Which, Mr. Speaker, would you prefer to take, the commendation of the goose-egg marksman or the commendation of the Queen's prize marksman. Sergeant Hay-hurst goes on to say :

Stock-There is much that could be improved in this feature particularly the fitting, selection of material and strength.
This report is dated when. ? The 20th of December, 1907, only a few months ago. They have been working at this Ross rifle since 1902, more than five years; and yet these are the criticisms made of it by one of the foremost riflemen of Canada. Still the Minister of Militia will stand up in his place and say that he wants no better monument to perpetuate his memory than the fact that he was the godfather of the Ross rifle, an honour which he of course shares with the member for Victoria and Halibur-ton. Sergeant Hayhurst says further ;
Of the many rifles I have examined the fitting was very bad, and the wood was frequently crossgrained and spongy where it should have been straight and sound especially at the small of the butt, a weak point.
Many people do not stop to consider how important it is that a good arm should be given to the militia for the defence of the country; for let us hope that it will never be used for anything but the defence of this country or of some other part of the empire, never for offence; because we are a peace-loving people, notwithstanding some statements made by the Minister of Militia at a banquet at Montreal; but we must take with a certain amount of consideration remarks made at a banquet, particularly near the conclusion of the banquet. Then, listen to this beautiful piece of irony by Sergeant Hayhurst, who is not only a clever marksmans but has a $ne command of English and a fine sense of humour, something which my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton entirely lacks. This is what he says:
In conclusion, I would say that with all of the bad faults and many of the weak features removed and strong durable parts introduced in their place a very fine serviceable rifle would result, but which for a fine accurate target shooting rifle would still be inferior to the present Lee-Enfield barrel with good sights and ammunition.
Take all the bad parts and all the weak features from the rifle, and introduce new, strong and durable parts in their place, and you will have a very fine and serviceable rifle. That is what Sergeant Hayhurst says.
Now, I want to refer to some shooting which took place at Eastman, where a certain accident occurred. I was surprised, absolutely surprised, to hear the Minister of Militia make the remark he did with respect to the tampering which he alleges had been done in connection with that rifle:. I was surprised because the Minister of Militia is usually not that kind of a man, he is generally a very fair man in debate, and therefore I was the more surprised when he went out of his way to make an insinuation against the hon. member for Sherbrooke and practically to accuse the hon. member of tampering with this rifle.


George William Fowler: 


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: Either by himself or at his instance. Does the hon. 'member says oh, no ? I am very glad that the statement ho made was in the heat of debate, when he warmed up on the subject, and did not quite measure his words. Are we to understand from him that he makes no reflection on the hon. member for Sherbrooke with regard to the tampering ?


Frederick William Borden: My words speak for themselves. I said that the file had been tampered with.


George William Fowler: He went much further. He said it had been tampered with by the hon. member for Sherbrooke and his friends.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: I think so.


Frederick William Borden: I certain ly did not intend to say it had been tampered with by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I may have said it had been tampered with by some of his friends.


George William Fowler: I am very glad to know that my good opinion of the hon. gentleman's fairness is restored. But I think the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) did make that assertion. He made the very strong insinuation that this tampering, as he calls it, was with the knowledge and consent of the hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Samuel Hughes: I have no doubt the hon. member for Sherbrooke is quite capable of knowing it.


George William Fowler: That is on a par with the statement the hon. gentleman made before. Having gained by reading, experience and observation some knowledge of human nature, I can understand how one man might be jealous of another man in the same profession, and how that blind unreasoning jealousy-because nothing is more blind and unreasoning than jealousy- should lead him to great lengths in the statements he might make trying to damage the character of the other. Here we have two Canadian soldiers going out to South Africa. We have one coming back with a splendid record, having gained mention in the highest terms in the despatches, having been commended for his gallantry under fire, and the other coming back accelerated by what is known as a kick. In a certain class of minds, you naturally find a certain amount of jealousy, but it is unfortunate that it should lead a man so far as to cause him to make the insinuation which the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) now makes.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman refer to me as having come back without having been mentioned in these despatches ? The record shows that I was

mentioned in tlie official reports of Lord Roberts and General Warren. I have had more mention in the despatches than any other Canadian in South Africa. All the hon. gentleman has to do is to go to the library and he 'will see it for himself. I characterize the conduct of the hon. gentleman as cowardly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; take it hack.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The expression is unparliamentary.


George William Fowler: I do not "want him to withdraw it at all because such a characterization coming from the hon. gentleman is rather an advantage. It is strange how people, who are so free in making unsinua-tions against others, will wince when they get a little hot shot themselves. With what equanimity the same person can make the meanest insinuations against another, but just let him feel a little of the gall himself, and see how he "winces. I was speaking about this accident at Eastman, and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam Hughes) said that my hon. friend from Sherbrooke would be quite capable of tampering with a rifle.


Samuel Hughes: I have every reason to believe it.


George William Fowler: Meaning what 1 That this gentleman would tamper with a rifle to be used by a rifleman at the absolute risk of the life of that man. It would mean that if anything serious resulted, if death should result, the hon. member for Sherbrooke would be guilty of murder. That is a pretty serious accusation to make, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Backed by the Minister of Militia.


George William Fowler: That this gentleman, directly; or indirectly, by himself or by friends at his instance, so tampered with one of these rifles that it would blow up the first time it was used and endanger the life, not only of the man who pulled the trigger, but of every one near this man at the time he was firing. The rules of parliamentary debate prevent me applying to the gentleman who would be guilty of that conduct the only term it would be proper to apply to him. What are the facts ? At the time this accident occurred, the hon. member for Sherbrooke was twenty miles away. He had not been to the place where the rifle shooting was done for months or years before. He knew absolutely nothing of the matter, and the evidence shows as well that there was no opportunity for any one to tamper with that rifle. The man who had possession of it was the man who used it. That man was Captain Seale, a strong Liberal in the county of- Brome, a supporter of the Minister of Agriculture. The unfortunate man who was injured was a Mr. Harold Peabody, who happened to be a
Conservative. And this man Peabody was lying down and firing alongside the man who was using the Ross rifle. He knew that this rifle was defective. He knew that there was danger. He knew that serious accidents had occurred before, ana he gave expression to his fears, but was laughed and jibed at, and told that the.reason he was afraid of the Ross rifle was because he was a Tory. Well, the sequel proved there were strong grounds for his fears. Lying down within five feet of where the Ross rifle was fired, while Captain Seale was pulling the trigger it exploded, injuring the hands of Captain Seale and the temple of Mr. Peabody. That is what happened at Eastman, and to say that this rifle was tampered with for the purpose of causing it to explode is the most outrageous statement that any member of this House could be guilty of. I am surprised that even the known recklessness of the gallant and hon. member for Victoria should have led him so far.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Crawford.
George Perry Graham: At the request of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennnox), I have agreed to allow this to stand. The hon. gentleman has gone away.


Mr. SPROULE.: He could not be here tonight.


George Perry Graham: I move that progress be reported on this Bill.
Progress reported.


BELLEVILLE, PRINCE EDWARD BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 20) respecting the Belleville, Prince Edward Bridge Company.-Mr. Porter.
George Perry Graham: AVhen this Bill was up the other evening the question was raised by me as to the provision about the road arrangement. It struck me that, possibly, that ought not to be legislated on here.


Mr. PORTER.: I take it that my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) refers to the last clause of the Bill, providing for an agreement between the city of Belleville and the Bridge Company. For many years an agree-

ment between these two has existed by which the city used for city purposes that part of the bridge between their gravel bed and the street, the city keeping that in repair, that is, putting the gravel upon it, for the use of it. That necessitated the making of a new agreement every year. At the city's request the company agreed to put in this clause to make a permanent agreement between them. It does not affect any other interest than that of these two, and both parties assent to it. Therefore, I cannot see that it can do any harm.


George Perry Graham: I was not objecting to the matter of it, but the question that arose in my mind was whether the province would not take exception to our legislating about an agreement concerning a roadway 5n a city which is a purely municipal matter.


Edward Guss Porter: It is the municipality that makes the agreement, and it is purely for the advantage of the city. I am sure the local legislature would not object. Personally, I would not have any objection to the clause being struck out of the Bill, except that I would ljke to protect the interest of the city of Belleville in the matter. All parties interested having consented, it seems to me there is no ground for objection.


George Perry Graham: I suppose there is really a question about the whole Bill being within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I think the mistake was in bringing the .original Bill here years ago. As all the parties interested seem to be agreeable, I do not wish to raise any objection.


Edward Guss Porter: I was absent when the Bill was under discussion before. But I have read the debate which took place on the two occasions, and in answer to the objections made as to this being a purely provincial matter-and not within the jurisdiction of this parliament, I would point out that, even if this Bill were withdrawn, we should still have the same legislation as now exists, which is legislation by this parliament. This does not add to what has been done.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) leaving the tolls as tliev are in the printed Bill ?


Edward Guss Porter: As they are in the last Bill. These have been agreed upon.


William Pugsley: It seems a pity to charge a boy or a bicycle ten cents, the same as an automobile.


Edward Guss Porter: The history of the bridge shows that there are very few bicycles passing. This was a compromise. The Bridge Company were asking for an increase of toll on single carriage, horse and driver. But there were so many of these going over the bridge, that it was thought that this would be too large an increase. It was thought that if thev were given an Mr. PORTER.
increase of five cents on a bicycle, the number of which going over the bridge was small, it would appease them to some extent. Everybody is satisfied, and. so far as the bicycles are concerned, it will not materially affect anybody.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


SASKATCHEWAN POWER COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House again in cdmmittee on Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there not an agreement to have this Bill stand ?


George Perry Graham: An amendment was suggested by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding).


William Stevens Fielding: The amendment was with regard to the clause providing for a hearing by the Governor in Council. I suggested that the hearing might more properly take place before the Minister of Public Works who might report to the Governor in Council, because it is not usual for the Governor in Council to give hearings. I called the attention of the promoter of the Bill to It, but did not present it as an amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood my hon. friend to say that he was communicating with some friends in Saskatoon to ascertain if they were quite satisfied with the Bill in its present form.


William Pugsley: It was not the mover (Mr. McCraney) who said that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, it was the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. .1. D. Reid) who objected to that clause allowing four years' to commence operations. And, he is absent tonight. But he could not have received word from Saskatoon in any case. Perhaps the Bill should be allowed to stand.


William Pugsley: The promoter (Mr. McCraney) stated that he had communication from the eity of Saskatoon agreeing to the terms of the Bill. They were quite satisfied, with the conditions surrounding it, that the provisions of section 3 would amply safeguard the city of Saskatoon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. member for Grenville thought that their attention might not have been drawn to the feature of it which practically locks up the enterprise for four years, during which,, it may be, nothing will be done towards the development of this power which would be a valuable one to the city if developed.


Mr. KNOWLES.: So far as the objections of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) are concerned, I would say that the dam of the river is in my own riding, and I am familiar with that part of it. But I am afraid that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) did not under-

stand on the previous evening that the Bill was going to stand until a reply could be received from the city of Saskatoon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was the understanding I had from his observations, I understood; that he would communicate with the city.
On section 1,


Mr. DYMENT.: This only provides lor an extension of time. It passed through the Senate Committee without any discussion at all.
On section 5-Amended to read as follows :


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Deeds and Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) had some communication, or sent some communication to ascertain whether the city council of Saskatoon thoroughly understood the Bill in the form in which it is now presented. He merely asked that it should stand until he received an answer.
I suppose no one would suffer any detriment in doing that.


William Stevens Fielding: My amendment is not on the record but I find it in the ' Hansard,' as an amendment to subsection 2 of section 3. It was proposed that at a certain time a hearing should be had before the Governor in Council. I proposed that it should read :
At which application will he made to the Minister of Public Works for his approval of such plans; and the Minister of Public Works, after hearing such application, at -such time or such other time as may be agreed upon by him, shall report to the Governor in Council, whether in his opinion such plans should be approved, and the Governor in Council may approve of such plans, &c.
I wrote the amendment hastily with the view of having the hon. member communicate with the law clerk of the House about it. I did not like to make this amendment in a hurried way at the table. Perhaps we had better let it stand, I call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to it.


William Pugsley: I would suggest that we simply strike out the words ' Governor in Council ' where they occur in section 3, and substitute therefor * Minister of Public Works.'


William Stevens Fielding: That would leave it entirely in the hands of the Minister of Public* Works with no reference to the Governor in Council. I have no objection to that.


Robert Laird Borden: It might stand until Tuesday, and in the meantime the law clerk could prepare the amendment.
Progress reported.


PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 138) respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
The company may build branch lines of railway so as to oonnect its line of railway with any railway bridge which may be built across the St. Mary's river at or near Sault Ste Marie in the district of Algoma.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The usual practice is to name the railways. There is no railway named here.


George Perry Graham: 
SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Phoenix Insurance Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonald.
Bill (No. 170) respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCool

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding for the House to go into Committee of Supply and the amendment of Mr. Worthington thereto.
Mr; FOWLER. Mr Speaker, I will only detain the House for a few minutes to finish the remarks that I was making on the amendment to the motion to go into Supply. The hon. member for Victoria and Halibur-ton (Mr. Hughes) seemed to think that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) had done a grievous wrong by making any criticism whatever of the Ross rifle and he said that in no other legislature in the world would criticism of this sort be permitted. The hon. gentleman has forgotten that in the mother of parliaments itself a vote upon the question of the character of cordite supplied to the army of Great Britain led to the defeat of the Rosebery government in 1895. That ought to be a good enough precedent for us to follow in this parliament. Of course I know that the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton has not a great deal of respect for Englishmen and what they do but still I thought that even he would admit that that is a fair precedent for us to follow in the Canadian House of Commons.
. COMMONS
['Supply.']
Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman mind quoting some authority?


George William Fowler: I have just quoted the authority; that ought to he sufficient. The authority is the fact that the Rosebery government was defeated on the vote which I have mentioned

	-


Samuel Hughes: Nonsense.
Mr. FOWLER-in 1895, which is the best possible authority. If a man who is a representative of the people felt that a rifle was being put into the hands of the militia of this country which would be dangerous for the militia to handle it would be a greater crime for him to keep silent than to speak. What are we here for? Are the Minister of Militia and the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton to be the only judges as to the arm with which the militia of this country shall be armed ? If so things have come to a pretty pass. To say that an expenditure mounting into the millions shall be made by this government aud that the members of parliament shall not have the right to discuss the subject of that expenditure is to take a position which is most extraordinary. I think that an argument of that kind needs only to be stated to be refuted; it carries its own refutation with it.
Now, Sir, the question of the cost of this rifle is a matter of some moment to the people of this country. It has been conclusively proved by the gentlemen who have preceded me in discussing this question from the opposition standpoint that the cost of the Ross rifle, even according to the data that we at present have, is about $33.25 per gun; whereas, the average cost of the rifle which it is going to displace, unless an indignant militia refuse to accept the arm, the gun which is supplied by the War Office and which is supplied by private individuals, is only $23.50 per gun. When I speak of the cost of the Ross rifle as being $33.25 I include the cost of the rifle, which is $25, the bayonet, which is $5.25, and the inspection which is $3 per gun, which is the amount according to the expenditure, although tlie Minister of Militia claims that the inspection costs $1.95 per gun. But, for 50.000 rifles they had a vote of $150,000 and almost the whole of that has been expended. Surely they will not deny that these rifles need a very great deal of inspection yet. The cost of the British rifle complete in all its parts, with bayonet and bayonet case, is $23.50, which makes a difference of about $10 on each gun. Some 00,000 of the Ross rifles have been ordered and this makes a matter of $600,000 of loss to this country. For what? For a sentimental idea For some sentimental ideas $G00.000 would not be too much to pay, but -what is this sentimental idea? Let us analyze it. That guns may be manufactured in Canada ? Are they ? It has been conclusively proved,


George William Fowler: it lias been admitted, that many of the component parts of this gun are not manufactured in Canada but are manufactured outside of Canada in a foregn country at that. Therefore, we are not paying out this $600,000 for a sentimental idea, but we are paying the $600,000 on account of a foolish contract that was entered into between the Minister of Militia and Defence and the Ross Rifle Company, or Sir Charles Ross, who, I believe, is the Ross rifle company itself. Is it worth it ? That is what the people of Canada will ask. Apart from the question of the danger, which is, after all, the most important question, because you cannot compare a human life with the mere expenditure of money, but, apart from the question of danger to human life from using the gun, because it has been proved to be more dangerous in the hands of the man using it than to the party against whom it is directed, although I believe it did manage to shoot a man the other day in London, is it worth it that we should spend $600,000 for this purpose? That is what the people of the country are asking of this government. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton has assailed the officials of the general staff. He insinuated that they have been false to their duty, that they have given out some information that was in the possession of the staff to members of the. opposition. I want to say, and I say it on the authority of the hon. member for Sherbrooke that it is absolutely untrue that any member of the staff, that any member of the Militia Department, has given out any information, any secret or private information whatever, to him with reference to this matter. What I say for my hon. friend from Sherbrooke is true also with respect to my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Nortbrup) who spoke on this question last night. It is a very unfair thing for any member of this House to make an attack of that kind on gentlemen who are not here to answer for themselves and on gentlemen who are of the character of those who compose the general staff of the Department of Militia. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton has told us that the best men in this country are in favour of the Ross rifle, are standing by it and will stand by it. Well, just let us see who are standing by the Ross rifle up to date. There is the Minister of Militia, one; there is the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, two; the manufacturer himself, three; aud I suppose, when the vote is taken, the majority of the members of this House. The Minister of Militia stands by it-why? He has entered into the contract, he has made this contract, he has to stand by it.
I think I have intimated fairly well the reasons why the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton is standing by it. It is very apparent why Sir Charles Ross, the manufacturer, is standing by it and the majority of the members of this House are

forced by political exigencies to stand by it. The government has entered into the contract.
Those members know in their hearts that it was an unwise contract, that it is an improvident contract, that the rifle is not a good rifle, that the rifle is a worthless rifle ; but they are compelled to stand by the party because the government they are supporting has made the contract and good or bad they must vote in favour of it. Let us see who are the people who condemn this rifle. They are the experts of the Woolwich Arsenal in England ; they are the experts of the musketry school of Hythe, England. These people ought to know something about whether a rifle is good, bad or indifferent, and they have in unmeasured terms condemned this Ross rifle. It has also been condemned by the experts of the Springfield armoury in the United States, who were asked to report on this rifle, and Sir Charles Ross was himself present in 1903 at the Springfield arsenal when the tests were applied to his rifle and when it was found to be wanting and defective. Thus we have the great experts of the United Kingdom aud of the republic of the United States condemning this rifle. Then, in Canada, it has been condemned by General Cotton, the master of ordnance and by Adjutant General Lessard, a member of the general staff, both of whom have reported against it. The officers and men of the militia of Canada have reported against it. The expert shots of the Dominion have reported against it and among others Sergeant Hay-hurst, one of the best rifle men in Canada. The Royal Northwest Mounted Police are opposed to it. On the one hand we have the Ross rifle condemned by the experts of England, and the experts of the United States, and the master of ordnance in Canada, and the adjutant general of the militia of Canada, and the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and the officers and men of the militia. And who have we in favour of the Ross rifle ? We have the Minister of Militia, the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) and the majority vote in this House which for the reason I have given, must sustain the action of the government in connection with the Ross rifle. I do not propose to detain the House any longer. I think the reasons given are amply sufficient why this resolution should be supported. I do not anticipate that those reasons will serve to convince bon. gentlemen opposite that they should vote against the government on this occasion, but when the great verdict of the people of this country is rendered and when the people have a chance to pronounce upon the question, I believe they will condemn the Ross rifle and the government in no uncertain terms.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to say a very few words on this matter.
Every one admits the absolute necessity of supplying the militia of Canada with an effective rifle, because our militia force without a proper arm would be absolutely useless. Therefore, the project to provide a proper supply of efficient rifles for the militia of this country ought to meet with the approval of all. The conditions which faced the Minister of Militia when he had to deal with this subject in 1902 were not free from difficulty. But, the very argument used by the Minister of Militia in support of his course and his explanation of the difficulties that have confronted him during the past six years, afford sufficient reason why he should have paused for a long time before he undertook to engage in the manufacture of a rifle and subject himself to the experience through which he says the English authorities have passed. It is asserted by the Minister of Militia that this was the rifle with which the Austrian army had been equipped since 1896, but the hon. gentleman did not make himself very clear on that point. Is the rifle Mark I which was selected by the Minister of Militia-which I understand to be practically the same as the sample rifle-is that rifle precisely the same as that which has been used by the Austrian army since 1896 ? That phint has not been explained by the Minister of Militia. Now, the hon. minister took a proper course when he called together a board of the best experts of Canada for the purpose of determining whether or not this was a proper rifle, but before doing that it wTas most important that he should have considered whether he could procure within reasonable time for the militia of this country a proper supply of the Lee-Enfield rifles w'hicli are used by the British army. It has been admitted by the Minister of Militia that if it were possible to secure these rifles from the war department in Great Britain or to establish a manufactory in this country for their production, that would be the best course to pursue.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think the minister admitted that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I understood.


Samuel Hughes: He stated that was his desire, but I do not think he admits such is his intention now.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say so. I said he admitted that if it were possible, there were certain advantages in having the militia of Canada armed with the same rifle as that supplied to the troops of the United Kingdom.


Samuel Hughes: I thought you used the present tense, and said the minister ' admits.'


Robert Laird Borden: I did not observe that the minister madie any distinction

between the present and the past tense. The argument has been made by the Minister of Militia that there was great difficulty in perfecting the Lee-Enfield rifle in Great Britain, and the same argument was very properly put forward by my hon. friend from Victoria,, who says that in Great Britain they have Mark I, Mark II, Mark III, and Mark IV for all I know.


Samuel Hughes: Up to Mark X.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister therefore had before him the fact that a great deal of experimenting was necessary before any new arm to be adopted for the Canadian militia could be brought to a state of perfection. I should have thought that very circumstance would have caused the Minister of Militia to pause. He was embarking upon the manufacture of a rifle in Canada which his own board on inquiry had declared to be defective in certain respects, and notwithstanding this report the minister approved this rifle in the end without taking any steps, other than the report of Sir Charles Ross himseif, to ascertain whether these defects could be remedied. That was a very unusual course for the Minister of Militia to adopt. He has read the report of that Board of Inquiry. It is not signed by all the members of the Board, but so far as I remember there is not a great deal of difference between the report of the main body of the board and that of the other members. They point out this :
The chief objection or difficulty which was found in connection with the tests to which the Ross rifle was subjected, was brought out in the 'endurance test.' While in firing 1,300 rounds out of each of the rifles, the Lee" Enfield stood the test quite satisfactorily. It was found that after heating, the breech of the Ross rifle closed with more or less difficulty, the action being very stiff with occasional jamming besides which a possibility of double loading ' exists.
Were this an inherent objection to this rifle, independent of details of mechanism, the board would regard it as a very serious matter, but Sir Charles Ross states, that anv difficulty in this respect can be effectually obviated, and the board submit herewith a memorandum (exhibit ' D ') from him in reference to this point which in his opinion, affords an explanation of the unsatisfactory result of this test, and the manner in which the same may be overcome.
The board do not profess to pronounce upon the question of a complete remedy of this objection, but having called attention to it, assume that due precaution and provision with reference thereto will be taken in the event of the rifle being adopted.
The English language could not be plainer for the purpose of placing upon the minister and the government the responsibility of determining that that defect could be remedied and would be remedied before the rifle


Mr.  R. L.@: was finally adopted. The report continues as follows:
This is all the more important, inasmuch as in comparison with the Lee-Enfield, there is not the leverage in opening the breech which the mechanism of the latter rifle affords.
The magazines of both rifles are unsatisfactory, and can be improved upon. The board recommended the adoption of the ' Harris feed system,' in the adoption of which there need be no difficulty.
Speaking generally, the board believe that the Ross rifle has features which are a positive advantage over the Lee-Enfield, while it is contended by Sir Charles Ross that he can easily remedy any of the drawbacks which have been pointed out.
What reason, after all, was there for the government to abandon the Lee-Enfield ? What were the advantages of abandoning it and adopting the rifle which has been selected ? I do not desire to say one \vord which would reflect in any possible way upon the merits of the Ross rifle, and I do not think my hon. friend the member for Sherbrooke did anything more in his address than to read from the record page after page detailing certain defects which undoubtedly have been disclosed in this rifle. It is asserted that these for the most part have been remedied. Let it not be suggested for one moment that these reports are not important, because the Minister of Militia himself in the concluding part of his speech, speaking of the standing committee on small arms, said this:
I believe these men are able, conscientious and determined to do their duty. Some of them are now at Quebec testing carefully an improved, I suppose it might be called, or a modified Ross rifle. As the result of what has happened; as a result of the reports which have been made, and information which has been gained, the contractor, with the assistance of members of the Militia Department, has thought it desirable to make certain changes, and before the manufacture of the new order for 10,000 rifles is begun this modified form of rifle will be thoroughly tested.
Well, it is of no use for us to say that these reports, which have been read in the House and which formed the principal part of the speech of my hon. friend from Sherbrooke, are not of much importance, in view of the fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia has declared that owing to these reports a new, or as he terms it a modified, Ross rifle has been adopted and will be tested by the members of this standing committee before it will be served out to the troops of the country. It does seem to me that the reading of these reports to the House ought not to bring to the hon. member for Sherbrooke the condemnation which the Minister of Militia in the early part of his speech saw fit to mete out to that hon. gentleman.


Frederick William Borden: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the rifles now in store are not to be served out until the new rifles are ready ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I did not say that.


Frederick William Borden: Because the rifles now in store are being distributed among the troops and will be used in the present camp.


Robert Laird Borden: I made no reference to anything of that kind, because I have no information on the subject. I was merely reading the hon. gentleman's language, and pointing out that in the new or modified form of Ross rifle which is now being tested, those changes have been made as the result of the very reports which have been brought forward in this House by my hon. friend from Sherbrooke. That is the language of the Minister of Militia in dealing with that subject.


Frederick William Borden: In part.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the hon. gentleman qualifies it by saying that there is other information.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out, if the hon. member will allow me, that the only four important changes that have been necessary in the rifle are a return to four recognized in Mark I as first presented by Sir Charles Ross to the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not of course know about that. I do observe in some of the reports that in the first place there was Mark I. Some defects were found in that, and they were remedied, and Mark II rifle was brought out and supplied to the troops. In Mark II certa in defects were found which had not been observed in Mark I ; and Mark III, according to the statement just now made by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, is more or less a reversion to Mark I. But what I desire to point out is that the Department of Militia seems to have failed, so far as the evidence before the House shows, to have given much consideration to the defects pointed out by the committee in the first instance.
It would have been worth some further effort on the part of the Department of Militia and of the government to procure the Lee-Enfleld rifle before this series of experiments were entered upon. Great Britain, according to the statements of hon. gentlemen who are authorities on this subject, has been experimenting on the Eee-Enfield rifle for a great many years. Why should not we take advantage of the experience of Great Britain in that regard instead of beginning a similar series of experiments ourselves?-because that is exactly the way in which it has turned out. We have been doing with the Ross
rifle in the last six years exactly the same work which Great Britain has been doing with the Lee-Enfleld in the last ten or twelve years. Was there any need of that? It would not seem so. The Minister of Militia says he was unable to induce the small arms companies of Great Britain to embark in the manufacture of the Lee-Enfleld rifle in Canada.


Frederick William Borden: Might I point out that the Lee-Entield rifle, as it was ii? 1901, when the adoption of the Ross rifle was first considered has changed completely. Practically a new rifle has been adopted in England since then. I think there have been two serious changes in the Lee-Enfleld-not simply changes but new types, two marks, since 1900. We would have had to go on changing just the same even if we had adopted the Lee-Enfleld.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to dispute matters respecting which the minister must be better informed than I.
But it seems to me that the minister's statement supports most thoroughly the argument I have just presented. Instead of beginning a series of experiments on a new rifle ourselves, it would have been more prudent to avail ourselves of the experience of the past in Great Britain as well as benefit by the experience which Great Britain must continue to gather in the future. Undoubtedly the experience of Great Britain must be very much greater than any we could acquire with our comparatively small military force. Great Britain must naturally have a greater number of great men possessing expert knowledge in the manufacture and improvement of arms, who are applying themselves continually to the devising of changes and improvements. I should think that would have been better than to begin the task of doing all that ourselves upon a relatively small scale, without anything like the same number of experts. or men of the same experience in a matter of a highly technical nature, such as this.


Frederick William Borden: Does my hon. friend mean by that that he would have favoured the establishment of a government factory for the manufacture of rifles ?


Mr. FIELDING  I.@: I would require a little more information than is before the House at present before coming to a decision. My hon. friend, for example, says lie could not procure any manufacturer in Great Britain to start the industry in this country. But he did not inform the House whether or not he offered to any small arms manufacturer in Great Britain the same terms as those he offered to Ross Rifle Com-panv.


Frederick William Borden: The negotiations did not proceed that far. I went to the Chamberlains who, I knew, repre-

sented the Birmingham Small Arms Company, and endeavoured to induce them to come here with a branch factory. They took time to consider and declined.


Robert Laird Borden: They might consider and decline the mere offer that they should come to Canada and establish a small arms factory. But they might consider and might not decline a proposal that they should come and establish a small arms factory on the same terms as those tendered to Sir Charles Ross. I am not passing any criticism on Sir Charles Ross in this connection. As a business man, he was perfectly justified in getting the best possible contract he could. But it seems to me that the terms were pretty favourable and such as would be likely to attract the attention of men in England engaged in manufacturing the Lee-Enfield.


Frederick William Borden: I went so far as to state the probable number of arms we would require per year, and I also said I had no doubt the government would undertake to buy all its requirements from the small arms company if they would establish a branch here-those two points being similar to those in the Ross contract.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Then of course there is the other consideration whether we could not have secured from Great Britain as large a supply of rifles at any time as we can get from the factory we have established.


Frederick William Borden: We could not at that time get any.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think, if it were known that the government of Canada required a certain number or nfles per year for a certain period of years, there would not have been great difficulty in arranging with the English government for the supply of those rifles. I would think it would be much easier for the small arms manufacturers in Great Britain to undertake to supply those than for Sir Charles Ross, who had no factory at all, and who had to build a factory.


Frederick William Borden: That is what the Birmingham Company said they would do. but they would have to get the consent of the War Office before making a contract. They wanted to remain in England and supply us here. We wished to have the factory here.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: The company, of course, had drawings.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but they are not referred to in the contract or made part of the contract. Therefore, the contractor is bound only by the agreement to manufacture the rifle up to the standard of the
specimen rifle deposited with the Minister of Militia.


Frederick William Borden: Inspection is provided for.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that. But, if the rifle is inspected and found to come up to the standard, it must be accepted.


Frederick William Borden: Which can be based only on specifications and plans. Inspection would be absolutely impossible without specifications and drawings.


Robert Laird Borden: But the difficulty about that is that the minister seems inclined to bring into the contract something that is not there. The proper way, if drawings and specifications are required, would have been either to attach them to the contract or to provide that specifications and drawings should be submitted by the minister, and that the contractor should be obliged to comply with them. That would have left a certain remedy in the hands of the minister which is not available to him to-day.
Then, another unusual provision of the contract, and one greatly in the interest of the contractor, is that the expenditure in manufacture up to $18.75 is to be advanced by the govrenment from time to time. I infer from the evidence that the rifle could not cost the manufacturer more than $18.75. The result of the provision of the contract to which I have just referred, which has been read and which I shall not repeat, is that the government pays for the rifle as it is being manufactured, and that, on its delivery, it pays the profit. This means providing a very considerable proportion of the working capital, a very favourable provision for the contractor.
Another provision is that in case of war, the government may serve a notice of thirty days after which the contractor shall say how many rifles he is able to supply. This seems absolutely illusory. I do not see that the country could depend upon that. Suppose war had been declared between Great Britain and some other country five or six years ago, what would have been our position ? In the first place, our troops would have been armed with Mark I or Mark II of the Ross rifle, and these rifles apparently would not have been perfectly serviceable, for defects are admitted and stated in the reports read before this House. But, passing from that, what would have been our position as to obtaining any necessary further supply of rifles ? How would we stand under this contract as compared with our position under _ some reasonable arrangement with the War Office ? If we had an arrangement with the War Office, we could apply

to Great Britain, who would certainly be the mistress of the seas, and who would be able to bring rifles to our shores. And it is beyond question that an arrangement could have been made for a proper supply within a reasonable time. What would be our position under the contract with Sir Charles Ross. I am not saying this by way of criticism upon him but by way of criticism upon the government for venturing to enter upon such a contract. We should require a further supply of rifles. We would give notice that war had been declared and would call upon him to state how many rifles he could supply. Under the terms of the contract, he could reply : I will supply 1,000 rifles within a year, and if he supplied that number in that time he would fulfil his contract.


George Eulas Foster: He would have thirty days in which to make that reply.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: But suppose the government said : We want 50,000 rifles, he would have to state how many he could supply. We would at once be able to purchase the balance between the number he was able to supply and the 50,000 wre l'equire.


Mr.   R.@: Ij. BORDEN. That is exactly what I am saying. The minister Is only adding point to my argument. You would be obliged to purchase from some other source.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. But, so far as Sir Charles Ross is concerned, you would have no guarantee of an adequate supply of rifles in an emergency. That is the point. The contract by its terms failed to make any provision whatever for such an emergency as I have pointed out. If we could purchase 49,000 rifles and Sir Charles Ross could supply only 1,000, what advantage would it be to us? Why not purchase the whole 50,000 from the same source as that from which we would obtain the 49,000 ?


Frederick William Borden: There is a provision under which he is obliged to work double time, if necessary.


Mr. FIELDING  I.@: I know that. But he is not required by the terms of the contract to supply any particular number of rifles within a specified time.
Now, as I have said, during the course f	"c are obliged to pay up
to $18.oj, that is, <5 per cent of the price of the rifle. We are obliged to supplv that from time to time. We are obliged to supply that upon investigation of the amount expended by Sir Charles Ross, an investigation which does not seem to me to be a very adequate one.


Mr.   R.@: 



[Stage Direction]
The Minister of Militia corrected me last night, when I referred to this investigation as having been made by an inspector ; it appears to have been made by an accountant. I wras misled by a provision of the contract. In the contract it is provided that the investigation shall be made by the inspector of small arms. But apparently it has been found impracticable to make any such investigation by a mere examination of the material on hand. Therefore an alternative method has been devised, and a chartered accountant employed by the government goes through the books of the Ross Rifle Company, makes a certain investigation and report, and upon that the money is paid over. The contract was unworkable and the substituted arrangement is unsatisfactory. Then there was another important feature of this contract, and that was the grant of about 19 acres of land upon the Plains of Abraham to this company. I do not know what the land was valued at when it was granted, I do not know whether it had any particular market value or not. But I should imagine that it would become of great value in the not distant future. As this practically amounted to a complete alienation of the land, it would have been much more to the credit of the government to follow the usual and constitutional course, and to come to parliament for power to make that grant. The whole project would then have been open to discussion and perhaps to criticism ; whereas under the course which was pursued, a lease for 99 years at a rental of $1 per year, and perpetually renewable, was granted to Sir Charles Ross; so that by means of a perpetual lease the land has effectually passed from the ownership and control of the people of this country without any opportunity for discussion in parliament.
The question of the price of the rifle has been gone into very fully by the' hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, and I will not deal with that again. It appears that the rifles purchased from the War Office in 1895 were purchased for about £2 15s.; the rifles purchased from the trade were of course more expensive. But so far as the price is concerned, we are certainly in no better position to-day, it is not pretended that under the contract we are to be in any better position in the future, than if we had procured these rifles in Great Britain.
Therefore,, so far as this contract is concerned, it has not in any way improved the position of this country' with regard to the armament of our forces. It does not improve the position so far as the character of the rifle is concerned. I would think that is a very moderate statement of the case. It does not improve the position of the country as to the cost of the arm.

The contract itself merely provides that we shall pay at the rate of $25 per rifle, and it is the intention of the contract that we shall pay to Sir Charles Ross exactly the same price as that which we would have been obliged to pay in Great Britain. It does not improve the position of the country in so far as assuring an effective supply of rifles is concerned. The Minister of Militia just now has answered me by saying that if we could not get them from Sir Charles Ross, we could at least purchase them from somewhere else. We could have done that if this factory had not been established. This, taking these three leading aspects of the case, I am not able to see how the position of the country has been improved by this contract.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the action of the government in entering into (this contract, in the first place, without proper investigation of the character of the rifle, deserves the censure of this House. The government took a proper step in the first instance by establishing a board to make a certain investigation, but when that board disclosed certain defects in the rifle, the government absolutely failed in its duty in not continuing that investigation so as to become absolutely assured of its position before it entered into a contract which would bind this country for all time to come. Having regard to the fact that six years have since elapsed, and that during that time'the defects that were then pointed out by that board do not seem to have been remedied either completely or satisfactorily, censure must certainly be laid at the door of the Department of Militia. It may be, as my lion, friend from Victoria and Haliburton has said, that this is to be attributed to some officers in the department. I pass no opinion upon that. But my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton himself, in speaking of the inaction of the department or of its officials, said that as a result every one was condemning this rifle from Dan to Beersheba. Well, if every one was condemning the rifle it was surely high time for my hou. friend the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) to bring the matter to the attention of the House, and to invite a discussion of the motion which he has presented. I venture to think that the situation to-day is not very desirable or satisfactory. We are paying as much for this rifle as we would have paid for the Lee-Enfield rifle. We will continue to experiment upon it in the future. We have not the same rifle as that which is employed by the British forces, we have not the'benefit of the experience and knowledge gained by the British government in its experiments on the Lee-Enfield rifle, and in time of war we have absolutely no sufficient guarantee that there will be a necessary supply of rifles forthcoming. Under these circumstances, I think the matter has been properly brought to the attention of the House, and that the government, in dealing with the whole subject of the arming of our forces by this rifle, has not displayed the diligence and the knowledge of conditions that might properly have been expected.
Mr. R. G. MACPHERSON (Vancouver City).: I feel like apologizing to the House for speaking at this late hour on a subject which has been apparently so well threshed out. But I am desirous of saying a few words on the subject of this rifle, with which I am personally cognizant, and also of reading a letter or two from some of the people who are interested in rifle shooting in our country. I do not propose to go into the merits of the contract entered into betweeii the Ross Rifle Manufacturing Company and the government, nor am I goiBg into the many questions that have been brought up by the hon. gentleman who moved this motion, and have been spoken to by the Minister of Militia, the member for Victoria and Haliburton and others. I want to relate a little experience I have had myself with the Ross rifle, and also with the Lee-Eufield. I have had considerable experience in shooting, and have been an active member of the Vancouver Rifle Association for some years, and have associated with riflemen on the coast for the last ten or twelve years. I want to say that there are no body of men who are more severe in their criticism of a fire arm than the riflemen; and when they, the formers speakers, speak of every Lee-Enfield as being a perfect shooting weapon, they speak as men who have not had as much experience in rifle shooting and in handling rifles. The good shots, who have won their position- on the provincial teams then on the Dominion team, and from that to the Bis-ley team, trying and retrying rifles that are stored in the different armouries throughout the country. A good shot will come in and look over the rifles that are stacked, and he will select from the armoury a rifle to take out to the range. I have seen Lee-Enfields taken out of the armoury and tried on the range, guns that nobody would attempt to make any correct shooting with. After trying them I think every man who has used the rifle will bear out that statement. Many Lee-Enfields have been given out in times piast and will be given out, as many Ross rifles will be given out. Many Mannlicher. many Ivrag-.Torgenson and many other rifles, no matter what the manufacture may be, which are not perfect weapons in every respect. So that, to condemn the whole Ross rifle outright on account of the bad shooting of one, or two, or three, or even ' one hundred or two hundred rifles, will not

be justified if a fair comparison be msade between that rifle and other rifles. I am of the opinion that the government acted very wisely indeed in establishing a rifle factory in Canada. If it were to carry out the well established principle, laid down many years ago in Canada, that we shall endeavour to manufacture as many kinds of goods as we caD for use in Canada, if it were to follow out the protection policy of our friends opposite, then there can be no argument by or on behalf of our hon. friends opposite against the establishing in Caniada of a rifle manufactory. We, to-day, protect very highly indeed all kinds of manufactured goods. We are endeavouring to bring in manufactures; so that, we are simply carrying out a well established principle of this sand other governments in attempting to bring into the country ail the manufactures we possibly can. Whether or not it was wise to have given the Ross Rifle Company a site on the Plains of Abraham is a question that I am not going to discuss, but I am of the opinion that the people down in the city of Quebec, who are directly benefiting by the establishment of that factory, were willing to see it established ou the Plains of Abraham. So, I do not think that a very good case has been made out on that question. We want manufactures of all kinds in Canada and we want rifles to be manufactured in Canada. If we are ever to be a great nation, as we all hope we will be, we have to undertake all the responsibilities of nationhood and citizenship: so that, when we have established in the country the manufacture of rifles we have made one great step towards our own independence of any other country in supplying us with arms in case we should require them. I must, if I am not too bold, commend the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) for the very fair way in which he has handled this question. He asks: Why did you give up the Lee-Enfield? Why did you go into the manufacture of rifles? There is no more reason in the world why we should have clung to the old Lee-Enfield las there is why Great Britain should have clung to the original Lee-Enfield. I have shot with the old Lee-Enfield and I have seen guns of that make prefectly useless in so far as good shooting is concerned. It may have been a good weapon of offence and defence in the field, but so far as good marksmanship is concerned it was impossible. A great deal of the criticism that bias been levelled against the Ross rifle has emanated from the marksmen of Canada. I tried the Ross rifle three years ago. I went to the butts along with some others and we tried the rifle out there. There was nothing wrong with the mechanism, there was nothing wrong with the magja-zine and there was nothing wrong with the shooting qualities other than this, and it is a point that I immediately brought to Mr. MACPHERSON.
the attention of the Minister of Militia, that the percentage of clear cut marks in the target wsas less than the percentage of those that keyholed. Members of the House who are not used to rifle shooting will not know posssibly what that difference means, but if the rifle ball is the least bit, I might say, wobby, it will make a keyholed shape mark in the target, as the Lee-Enfield never does. It miade a keyhole mark in the target and our shots did not take very kindly to the rifle on that account. However this, like everything else that is being tried, is a new departure and a government or an individual is bound to meet with criticism. If the government or the Department of Militia and Defence, on finding these defects, did not eliminate them they would be justly be targets for the most severe criticism. Mark I rifle, not being a perfect weapon, in so far as the experiments showed, Mark II was issued. The defects in Mark I were overcome by Mark II. Then the defects of Mark II were overcome by (Mark III and that has been the history of any rifle that has ever been given to troops in any part of the civilized world. I want to read a letter that I have received from one of the best shots we have in British Columbia. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the province of British Columbia, per capita, has the best shots in Canada. The rifle team that comes down here to the butts at Rockliffe has done the best shooting during the last five years of any other rifle team in Canada. I speak qf per capita. We. have a man in our province who bias been upon the Bisley team many times and we have also a King's prizeman. Major Duff-Stuart who was one of the original winners of the Palma trophy down at Seagirt is one of the men who favours the Ross rifle. This letter is from Lieutenant James Selater, a gentleman who won the Grand Aggregate last year at the butts in the province of British Columbia and was also well up. not in the first twenty, but in the Bisley team for this (coming year, although he' is not on the Bisley team. Mr. Selater is a well known gentleman in the city of Vancouver, having lived there for twenty years, he was for many years agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway and is now agent of the Western Fuel Company, the Macdonald Marpole Company, as it is called, and is a man of high standing in British Columbia. He writes me this letter unsolicited :
Vancouver, British Columbia, April 25, 1908.
My Dear Sir,-I wondered when I wired you yesterday asking for the new model Ross if you would understand. The message was suggested by Fred. Richardson, who is at present in the hospital here, who had been in communication with Sir Charles Ross concerning a trial of the new gun which I made here. This new model of the Ross is a crack-erjack. You mark my words if in a short

time, when a few of them have been, handed out and the men know what they are capable of, you do not see a demand for them from the militia from end to end of the country. There will be no more knocks, except from some prejudiced ones. I went out last Wednesday along with Duff Stuart and Mr. Studd, of the V.R.A., did not know how the rifle would shoot, or anything about it except that, from our previous experience of which you know, I had no faith in the gun. I was practically a man prejudiced against the Ross. I came away from the range an enthusiast in its favour. It was agreed that I would take two sighters at each range, and then shoot match conditions, with time limit on shots and all other ordinary restrictions. I made the following scores:
200	 33
500	 34
600	 31
Total	 98
and made a ' magpie * with my second last shot at that. With just a little more care I could have had my ' century/ for after I had finished my score I put on three more bulls-eyes just by way of practice. Show me any rifle that a man can do that with for the first time that is not a true weapon. Its straight shooting powers were a revelation both to Duff Stuart and myself. After I had finished the official scores, Duff lay down and put on 34 at 500 and 32 at 600 just as easy as rolling off a log. You ought to have seen the pleased look of wonderment and delight on his face as he plugged in bull after bull, as much as to say * Well, isn't this easy/ He was another convert and Dufl knows a thing or two about a rifle. Since then I have had the rifle out on the range twice and while I did not make 98 with it on account of the weather conditions which were totally against big scoring, yet I made top score shooting against the whole regiment on both occasions, and with no aids to sighting other than the plain sights used on the Lee-Enfield. With the Sutherland adjustable sights the new model ought to he unbeatable. If I continue to get the same satisfaction out of the Ross as I got out of the one owned by Richardson, I shall take it to Bisley and take my chances with them all. Of course I am not an expert on arms and can only speak of what I find. I am more than delighted to know that I am getting one of the new rifles. -Yours,
(Sgd.) J. SCLATER.
That in my opinion, Is as good an argument in favour of the Ross rifle, and a good deal better than any that could be used against it by Sergeant Hayhurst wbo evidently sat down to write out a thorough criticism. I am not casting any aspersion upon Sergeant Hayhurst but I believe that if Sergeant Hayhurst takes one of these new rifles and lies down at the butts, with his sharp eye and steady band he will make such scoriug as be never made before. I believe from what Mr. Sclater says there is no better weapon made. Let me point out this further: the ' News-Advertiser ' of Vancouver is the Conservative organ in 289
that city and it is one of the sanest papers published in British Columbia, and their military writer in his article which appears in the (Sunday issue has this to say of the Ross rifle.
On account of the many criticisms of the Ross rifle, it may be of interest to state that a new model of this rifle has been under test here lately. Staff Sergeant Richardson, the well-known rifle shot, of Victoria, who is at present in the general hospital here, convalescing from a severe illness, purchased one of the new Ross's, hut owing to his sickness was prevented from trying it at the range. It was entrusted to one of the local shots for trial, and a most satisfactory result was obtained on Wednesday of last week. The test was made under the supervision of Major Duff Stuart, the adjutant of last year's Bisley team, who states that the rifle is one of the best shooting weapons that he has ever had in his hands. In the new model a radical change has been made in the barrel, which has been increased both in length and weight resulting in great accuracy in shooting power. The complicated sights of the original Ross have been abandoned, it being the intention, it is understood, of equipping the new model with the Sutherland sight. In the one under trial here, the ordinary ' H ' sight with which the ordinary Lee-Enfield is equipped was attached, so that the results obtained may he fairly compared with those obtainable from a Lee-Enfield. At the 200 yards' range, the score was 33 out of a possible 35. At 500 yards two consecutive scores of 34 were made, and at 600 yards the scores were respectively 31 and 32, all being shot under match conditions. Lieutenant J. Sclater, who assisted in the trial, is so satisfied with the new model that he has ordered one from the Ross factory, which ought to be here in the course of a week. Other improvements than those mentioned above have also been made in the rifle, of which a detailed description will appear later.	,
I might go on for a considerable time showing the merits of the Ross rifle, but I do not think I could add anything stronger than I have read from the letter of Mr. Sclater and from the pen of the military writer in the ' News-Advertiser.' I say this : no matter what department of a government undertakes a new departure they must expect the severest criticism, and, if after five or six years we have succeeded, as we apparently have, in bringing a weapon to such perfection as the new Ross rifle has attained, then I say the money has been well expended and the government is to be commended for the undertaking.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Worthington).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Armstrong,	McLean
Borden (Carleton),	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Coekshutt,	Martin
Crocket,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Poster,	Perley,
Fowler,	Porter,



Herron,
Lake,
Lalor,
McCarthy (Calgary),
Schaffner,
Sproule,
Wilmot,
Wright (Muskoka)-18.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Aylesworth,
Black,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Burrows,
Carney,
Cash,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Copp.
Crawford,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Finlay,
Finlayson,
Fortier,
Girard,
Graham,
Hall,
Hart.y,
Johnston,
Kennedy,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Laurier
(L'Assomption), Lavergne (Drum. & Arth.), Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,
McCool,
McIntyre (Perth), McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Wellington), Miller,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Boss (Cap9 Breton), Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Smith (Nanaimo), Templeman,
Tolmie,
Turgeon,
Turrifl,
Watson,
Wilson (Rus ell), Zimmerman.-55.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.
Calvert,
Logan,
Parmelee,
Greenway,	[DOT]
Talbot,
Clarke,
Gordon,
Carvell,
Logg'ie,
Schell (Glengarry), Tobin,
Reid (Restigouche), Telford.
Adamson,
Brown,
Gauvreau,
Delisle,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Michaud,
Rousseau,
Desjardins,
Lemieux,
Lanctot (Richelieu), Galliher,
McLean (York, C.), Sloan,
Guthrie.
Bickerdike,
Bureau,
Caldwell,
Caron,
Conmee,
Opposition.
Taylor,
Lefurgey,
Worthington,
Tisdale,
Bergeron,
Marshall,
Ames.
Northrup,
Elson,
Lennox,
Monk,
Ganong,
Reid (Grenville),
Maodonell,
Lancaster,
Boyce,
Clements,
Avery,
Daniel,
Alcorn,
Henderson.
Haggart,
Paquet,
Roche (Marquette), Morin,
Osier,
Broder,
Barker,
Barr.
Beattie.
Bennett,
Blain,


Robert George Macpherson: Devlin,
Dyment,
German,
Grant,
Fisher,
Law,
Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.), LeBlanc,
Macdonald,
McColl,
Ratz,
Schell (Oxford), Sifton,
Sinclair,
Stewart,
Wright (Renfrew), Smith (Oxford), Bole,
Beland,
Jackson (Selkirk), McCarthy (Simcoe), McCrane.v,
McIntyre (Strathcona). Amendment of tived.
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Christie,	.
Clare,
Forget.
Jackson (Elgin),
Kemp,
Leonard,
Lewis,
MacLaren,
Maclean (York, S.), Owen,
Pringle,
Seagram,
Stanfield,
Smith (Wentworth), Staples,
Thompson,
Walsh (Huntingdon), Ward,
White,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington).
Chisholm (Huron).
r. Worthington nega-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Post Office-outside service-salaries and allowances, $2,353,139.25.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) There is here an increase of $286,800, which is made up as follows; post office inspector's offices, $12,000; railway mail service, $71,000; post offices generally, $203,000. The increase in the offices of post office inspectors is made up as follows; twenty-six increases of $50 each and one of $30( eleven additional clerkships, and one additional messenger.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: What are the duties of inspectors ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The duties of inspectors are defined in the Post Office Act. Generally the inspector visits all the offices of his district, instructs the postmasters in their duties, looks after the accountant's branch in the several offices, and reports upon their condition to the department at Ottawa. He also locates new offices. He takes the place of the Postmaster General in his district, subject always to the decision of the Postmaster General.


Angus Alexander McLean: Has he any authority over the time the mails go to different places in the country ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The inspector is bound to give attention to all these details. When a demand is made for an increased service, the Postmaster General refers the matter to the inspector, who makes a report to the Postmaster General, and then authority is given to him to open an office or otherwise to increase the service.


Angus Alexander McLean: I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General

and also to the attention of the Minister of Railways a matter which is of great importance to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Some time ago a railway was constructed from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour. Previous to that time the mail left Charlottetown at six o'clock in the morning and was distributed by stage all along the route to Murray Harbour the day after it reached Charlottetown. I wish to read for the benefit of the minister an editorial which appeared in the Charlottetown 1 Guardian ' of the 15th of May, which will perhaps make the matter clearer than I could express :
Murray Harbour Railway.
There are many complaints of the inadequacy of the train service on the Murray Harbour Railway, and they appear to be well founded. The service is slow and not well arranged. Passengers desiring to leave points along this road and cross by steamer to the mainland under the present arrangements must stay over night in the city both going and coming, and on their return trip must spend not only the night but the best part of the following day here. If a Sunday intervenes the case is still worse.
The mail arrangements by train are equally bad, the incoming mails being held over night and till three o'clock the following day before going out on the train and only reach their destination late the following night at best, and for points a little off the railway not till the third day. This cannot be called modern or up-to-date service. Even under these conditions the traffic on the branch is large and has exceeded expectations. The people served by the road are clearly entitled to a better mail service.
A good while ago it was given out that the Railway Department would put on motor cars for service on this road, but nothing has been heard of this recently. If only one of these cars was put on the Port Vernon loop to connect with the train on the main line it would save an hour in the regular through service. Surely something can be done that will give the patrons of this road a chance to come and go and make connection with the outside world with reasonable promptitude.
Never before were so many millions being expended on transportation, and this we are told is an eleotion year. And yet the train and mail service on the government road through this thickly settled and prosperous" section of the most thickly settled province of Canada is such as we have described. The interests of business, the convenience of the travelling public, the general welfare anu good politics alike demand that this service shall be speedily and permanently improved.
This is a matter which should secure the attention, not only of the Postmaster General, but of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Probably the fault lies with the Minister of Railways. There is np doubt that this is a line of railway which pays the government of Canada perhaps as well as any of. the branch lines connected with the government system, still we have the fact that the mails for the southern portion 289}
of the province arrive in Charlottetown between 9 and 11 at night and are not distributed until three or four days afterwards. It is up to the Postmaster General to improve the system, and I believe, that if this matter had been brought to his attention before, he would have improved it. He should see that we have an up to date post office system in the province, especially the southern portion, which had a better system before we were given improved communication by railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad the bon. gentleman has brought this to my attention. The fault does not lie with my department but with the Railway Department, which has the arranging of the railway system of Prince Edward Island. The Post Office Department pays the Intercolonial Railway for mileage just as it does other railway companies, and we are entitled to just as good a service. I shall make the necessary representations to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals to-morrow and see that the Intercolonial Railway gives us a service on Prince Edward Island to which the Island, and particularly that section of Queens county, is entitled.


Mr. ALEXANDER MARTIN (Queens).: I am pleased to hear this statement of the hon. gentleman. I do not think however he can claim that the matter has not been brought to his attention. I placed a question on the Order Paper early in the session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was away.


Alexander Martin: I also asked for the correspondence. The question has been brought up year after year, and I trust the minister will take the necessary action now. Heretofore the difficulty was that the Postmaster General laid the blame on the Minister of Railways and Canals, and that minister laid it on somebody else. But if they will both agree, there would be no difficulty in remedying the present condition. That can only be done by giving us a second train ; and if that is done, the hon. minister will be entitled to the gratitude of our people.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the hon. minister any inspectors to look after the literature which comes through the mails ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Every postmaster is bylaw authorized to inspect such literature. He sends the objectionable literature to the department at Ottawa which passes on it in the last resort.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the department do with It ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Burn it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is there any inspection of literature which comes from Great Britain ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Generally speaking, the literature coming from Great Britain is not objectionable. Still last year my attention was brought to some papers which should not be entitled to the privilege of the mail, and through the good offices of His Excellency we prevented it from coming in. I have here a blue-book published by the Postmaster General in England, giving the list of Canadian magazines posted-that is the magazines coming under the special arrangement we made last year with Great Britain and entitled to what is called the intellectual preference. My hon. friend will see that it is very respectable and high class literature.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have been told that there are many publications coming from Great Britain which should not be allowed in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Many come in by express.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: These are coming in weekly. You can get them in some of the book stores. I went down and picked out half a dozen in one book store. They are the very lowest class of literature, both as regards the printed matter and the illustrations, and should not be allowed into the country. It is the duty of the hon. minister to make some investigation and take some steps to prevent such literature coming in. He knows very well that a great deal of the literature circulated in Great Britain should not be allowed to pass through our mails. You can put your brightest and brainiest in the pulpit and your best young men and women in your Sunday schools, and you may take care of your schools, academies and universities as much as you like, but so long as you have literature of this class filtering into the country, you are going to have the tone of the people dragged down. And when I find the Postmaster General stopping some of the splendid magazines coming here from the United States, the ' Scientific American,' the ' Outlook,' and many papers devoted to industrial education-or, if not stopping them, making them more difficult to obtain by adding to the cost of them in this country-I cannot but note the contrast in this treatment and the treatment of these and the papers of which I complain. So far as the daily newspapers are concerned, the Postmaster was forced to take a different position from that which he assumed at first; and he has paid out tens of thousands of dollars of the public money of this Dominion to daily papers throughout the country because he made the serious blunder in his treatment of daily newspapers in the mails. He made a similar blunder in regard to the weekly newspapers. The weekly newspapers that go from this country to the United States ought not to be saddled with extra postage. It is well


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: enough for the minister to say that he has placed a man at the border to receive these papers and distribute them throughout the United States, but he will not find the weekly papers satisfied with that. They want a removal of the embargo upon them. Not only are these clean papers, but they do a good work in advertising Canada gratuitously in the United States. The minister knows that he is backing down with regard to these newspapers as he did in the case of the dailies. But instead of coming out squarely and placing them on the same footing as the dailies, he is trying to satisfy them with some little advantage. But the weekly papers are not to be satisfied in that way. They will press their rights until they obtain them.
But my main object in rising was to call the attention of the minister to some of the pamphlets coming into our country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They do not come through our mails.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But somebody 1ms charge of the literature that circulates in our country. Which of our ministers has control of the investigation of news stands? The newsdealer from whom I purchased these papers of which I have spoken told me that he had fifty publications coming from Great Britain. I picked out half a dozen which should never be allowed to be exposed in this country and the minister knows it well. No matter how they come here, they will have the effect of lowering the tone of our people, and they should not be allowed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) has referred is not a new one. I can assure my hon. friend that as regards this periodical, ' Photo Bits '


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the minister will allow me, I refrained from naming any of these publications, because I do not think we should give them any advertising in this House. I would respectfully ask the minister not to use the names.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well. As regards this publication which I hold in my hand, it is one of the papers, which, long ago, has been stopped by the department from coming through in the mails. I have myself given instructions with regard to said publications, and every officer in the department with a head on his shoulders, knows that we have a right to stop such literature from passing through the mails. But, when they come in otherwise, for instance, when they come by express direct to the newsdealer, we have not control over them. It is not my duty to watch the news-stands and, when to issue warrants against news dealers. That is the business of the provincial authorities. The duty of the Postmaster General in reference to this class of

literature is clearly defined in the Post Office Act. But, for instance, my hon. friend saw these papers on a news stand. If he had felt it his duty to have a warrant issued against the newsdealer, his course was to go the police court and lay an information. The provincial authorities would, X am sure, sustain his course. The Postmaster General has surveillance over matter that goes through His Majesty's mail, but that is all. In many cases, we have gone beyond the strict letter of our duty in this matter. On many occasions complaints were made to me, for Instance, by the Lord's Day Alliance, and members of the clergy, who lose no time when they find that unwholesome literature is being circulated in the country, in appealing to the Post Office Department. Under such circumstances we give the most positive instructions to the postmasters, and if the papers do not come through the mail, we take upon ourselves to write to the attorney general of the province. On several occasions I have written to Mr. Foy and to Mr. Gouin, and have called attention to the complaints which were coming to the Post Office Department. My hon. friend may rest assured that we have no intention to allow this class of literature to be circulated in the country.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot understand how it is that the Postmaster General can take unto himself the authority of dealing with daily papers or weekly papers coming into the Dominion-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Through the mails.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Well, these do not come through the mails.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They do not pass through the post office.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When they pass through the post office any thing objectionable would easily be covered by a wrapper. There is no reason to suppose that they are coming in by express. Then why is it that he has no power to deal with weekly papers, the filthy papers from the United States ? He admits to-night that the weekly papers can come in here in bulk by express, and be distributed to the news stands, because he has admitted that he has not any control over these publications that are coming in from Great Britain.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend surely knows that papers can enter in the form of parcels from England. They come over in a separate compartment of the mail steamer, by express, and they are sold to the newsdealers.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why not the same over the United States papers ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows that, for instance, papers can come from
Buffalo to Toronto by express without passing through the post office. With these, we have nothing to do. Perhaps the Minisister of Customs would have something to do with them. We have a surveillance only over the papers coming through His Majesty's mail. Now, as regards the filthy literature, I take issue with my hon friend when he says that there is a carnival of obscene literature in the Dominion, any one would infer from his words that this kind of literature is being spread all over the Dominion. From the reports we have it appears that the bulk of periodicals come through the mails, and it is only in exceptional cases that they come by express. But as regards papers coming through the mails,
1 can assure my hon. friend, from the reports I have from the officers of the department, and from my own experience in dealing with these matters, that since the amended convention came into force last year in the month of May, we have practically purged the mails. If my hon. friend will not take my word for it, I would ask him to inquire for instance from the very zealous association in the province of Ontario known as the Lord's Day Alliance ; let him ask the members of the clergy. We have received many letters from those associations in Ontario and other provinces thanking the department for the course we have followed on that question. This paper surely does not come through the mails, it started throught the mails, but we stopped it There are four or five obscene papers of the same class and with about the same title coming into Canada. But when those papers are being sold, any citizen can lay a complaint, can have a warrant issued and a fine imposed on the newsdealer who sells them. But that citizen must himself put the judicial machinery into motion.


Mr ARMSTRONG.: Some minister must be responsible for this literature that is coining in. Perhaps it is the Minister of Customs, who has been looking at one of these papers for a little while.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend may find the evidence in the blue book which I handed to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that as soon as we make representations to the post office authorities in Great Britain as to the objectionable nature of any of the newspapers which have applied to be put on the Canadian post list, they immediately withdraw the privilege which is given those papers, that is to say, the privilege of coming into this country at the reduced rate.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would ask the minister if he did not forbid ' Collier s Weekly,' the 'Scientific American' and some other United States publications from being expressed into this country and dis-I tributed here ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. The weeklies from the United States were coming in with a mass of other papers, good, bad and indifferent. They were filling our mail cars, they were paralyzing the whole mail service. It was not the desirable papers that were coming in in such large quantities, but mere advertising sheets which under cover of a journal, contained nothing else but advertisements, and sometimes very-filthy advertisements ; novels and novelettes. As I have explained to the House time and again, we objected to that. We said, the time has come when we must control our own classification, that is to say, the papers that should be admitted into our mails coming from the United States must be of the same character as the paers published in our own country and enjoying the second class rate. The Americans were not averse to that; they were themselves deluged by so-called papers loading down their mails and had been for years. Representations were made, and finally it was agreed that these papers should come from either country at a rate not less than four cents a pound. Now my hon. friend says : You have departed from your cast iron rule, you have backed down, you have not been consistent. Let me tell him that the objection was not against the dailies. The daily papers published in the United States and sold in Canada are not objected to.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why is it if the daily papers are not the objectionable papers that are coming into this country the minister has been compelled to pay tens of thousands of dollars of the people's money for the mistake that he made last May ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Well what has the minister done ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must not give himself to the-shall I say virtue- I dare not say vice-of exaggeration. He should not exaggerate. We had first to come to definite terms. We said that papers going out from Canada to the United States, or papers coming from the United States to Canada and enjoying second class mail privileges, would have to pay four cents a pound-dailies and weeklies included. We make no distinction in regard to that certain rule. My hon. friend asks : How is it that you have paid back to the papers thousands of dollars ? Here is what happened :	Very few American daily papers are read in Canada. On the other hand some of our newspapers are sold in large quantities in the United ' States, especially in the eastern states, and also in Michigan and Ohio. The Winnipeg ''Free Press,' the Toronto ' Daily Mail,' the Toronto ' Globe,' ' La Presse.' ' La Patrie,' ' Le Canada ' considered themselves somewhat mulcted when that new regulation was put into force and as our objection was not against the daily newspapers and as they


Rodolphe Lemieux: were bona fide papers falling under our classification, publishing political news and giving the ordinary food which one might expect in a daily newspaper, we relaxed the rule and we stated that our amendment to the convention would not apply to them. When we amended the convention last year the Canadian Press Association met at Toronto, and, whilst we were patriotic enough not to object too strongly to the new convention as amended, yet, it appealed to the Postmaster Generai and asked that it should not exact the difference between the old rate and the new rate until the first of January. That representation was made to me by all the papers, the ' Daily Mail and Empire,' the Toronto ' Globe,' ' La Presse ' of Montreal, the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' having a circulation in the United States. The editors sent a delegation to Ottawa and they said : You should not exact the difference between the old rate and the new rate until the 1st of January next. The change took place in the month of May last. Well, I said to the representatives of the Canadian Press Association :	First of all, be
good enough to pay according to the new rate and on the 1st of January I will ascertain if really you have been taken by surprise and on the 1st of January, if my colleagues agree to it, I will see that a remittance is made. Was not that fair and was not that good policy ? They reported to me that the notice had not been sufficient. According to the postal convention between the United States and Canada a public notice of some months has to be given that an amendment will take place or that the convention will be abrogated. The newspapers said : We did not pay attention to that ; we did not see it. Wo were in ignorance of the amendment and it has taken us by surprise. Under these circumstances I reimbursed them the difference between the old and new rate on the 1st of January next. That is what has been done and there has been no complaint against it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I may be very dense but I cannot quite understand this. On May last the minister places a restriction on daily and weekly papers going into the United States.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And coming from the United States.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And also on papers coming from the United States into Canada. Now he has receded from that position. He takes back all that he has done in regard to daily papers and in taking back what he has placed on the statute-book he allows every daily paper in the United States to come into this country just the same as they did two years ago. The same daily papers are coming as they came two years ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no objection to them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why did not the minister investigate the subject last May and satisfy himself before he put the daily papers to all the inconvenience that they have been put to for a year, the loss of subscriptions and the loss of thousands of dollars that he has paid back. He must admit that he has paid that money out without getting any value for it. I would suggest to the minister that instead of only backing down part of the way in connection with the daily papers he should come out and say, I have made the same kind of blunder in regard to the weekly papers and I will do the same thing ; I will pay them for the mistake made last May.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot be so angelic as to admit that I have made the blunder that my hon. friend suggests I have made. I confess that I am but human, but still under the circumstances I have done the best and events have proven that the policy was on the whole a wise one. As regards daily newspapers,, there was no complaint, but we had at that particular moment to apply the rule to all newspapers whether weeklies or dailies. I hSave outlined briefly to the House the arrangement I have made with the Washington authorities and I think it is a fair arrangement as regards the weeklies. I may now state fully how the whole question stands :
The interchange of second class matter between Canada and the United States is now effected at the rate and regulations herein stated.
Under the postal convention between Canada and the United States, as amended in January last, and effective since February 5 last, legitimate daily newspapers published in either country, and addressed to bona fide subscribers in the other, may be mailed by the publisher in the post office at the place where they are published upon prepayment of postage in cash at the rate of one cent per pound or fraction thereof.
Newspapers and periodicals published less frequently than daily, when posted in either country for despatch to the other, are liable to postage at the rate of one cent for each four ounces, or fraction thereof, calculated on the weight of the package for each post office of destination, and when thus mailed direct prepaid by stamp the country of destination is under obligation to effect distribution of whatever may have been accepted by the country of origin.
United States legitimate newspapers and periodicals, other than dailies, which have been accepted by the Post Office Department of Canada, may, under the mailing-m-Camada privilege upon prepayment of postage ait the rate of one cent per pound, be posted by United States publishers at the following Canadian post offices, viz.: St. John, New Brunswick; Montreal, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Calgary, Alberta, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Copies to be so tendered for mailing must be despatched
to Canada by express and be restricted to bona fide subscribers. Publications admitted under the mailing-in-Oanada privilege must comply with the provisions of the Postal Law of Canada, that is, in their subject matter they must f consist wholly or in great part of political or other news or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics.'
Canadian newspapers and periodicals issued less frequently than daily may be posted in the United States upon prepayment of postage at the one cent per pound rate. United States regulations governing the mailing in that country of a newspaper or periodical published in another country expressly stipulates that copies of a publication so mailed, in order to be accepted at the one cent per pound, rate of postage, must he posted by the publisher's authorized agent, and in accordance with this regulation it would be necessary that the Canadian publisher have an authorized agent in the place at which he desired that his publication should receive entry into the United States mails as second class matter. Recently, however, this regulation was modified to the extent that eleven United States post offices have been exempted trom requiring that the posting should be performed through a publisher's agent. The Canadian publisher may, therefore, assign his mailings by express direct to the postmasters of the following offices:
Boston, Massachusetts.
St. Albans, Vermont.
Ogdensburg, New York.
Buffalo, New York.
Detroit, Michigan.
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Grand Forks, North Dakota.
Helena, Montana.
Spokane, Washington.
Seattle, Washington.
'rom which offices they will he distributed ffirougb the United States on prepayment ot postage at the rate of one cent per pound, provided, of course, that application for second class privileges has been made publisher at the United States post office which he desires to secure entry, and that such application has been accepted.
My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) will note that the weekly rate Is now 1 cent per pound and not 4 cents. Each c?,untl';\' therefore, has the power to see that Its own classification Is followed. Every weekly paper going to the United States will have to apply to the post office authorities at Washington to be entitled to the second-class special rate of 1 cent per pound and I think it is safe to say that every weekly paper [DOT]	...ir,i,in in thnr privilege.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes, the Canadian papers are all respectable papers, and of 'ourse we could retaliate If it became necessary, which I do not think Is at all likely. Alter this permission Is obtained the weekly newspaper can be sent to one of the^ points on the border line and instead compelling these newspapers to have an agent there on the spot, the United States authorities will

relax that regulation and the postmasters will be the authorized agents for these *weeklies. We do not in Canada exact from the United States periodicals the appointment, of an agent to obtain the re-miailing privilege. We are on an equal footing therefore, and the rate of postage for Canadian weeklies, which conform to this tegulation, will be in future 1 cent per pound plus the express charge which is practically nothing. *


Robert Laird Borden: If these objectionable newspapers which are to be seen here do not corue through the mails then I presume they must enter through some customs port. I realize that there might be a great deal of difficulty for the Minister of Customs to exercise any very effective control or supervision over the entry of such papers.


Mr. PATERSON.: We have the power.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I see the minister is letting himself down as easily as possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should have pointed out that we have secured what I may term our independence in connection with postal matters. I will admit, to please my hon. friend, that I have receded on the dailies and that I have receded to some extent on the weeklies.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But we have gained this very important point that we will only admit to His Majesty's mails in Canada the newspapers that will come within the Canadian classification. Prior to the recent amendment to the convention -we were obliged, under the reciprocity as regards posted matters, to accept a huge mass of filthy weeklies, objectionable literature, and patent medicine advertising sheets. Now, we accept only such as come under our own classification and that is a great advantage to Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: How are you situated m regard to publications from Great Britain ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Newspapers published m Great Britain can come to Canada at the reduced rate of 2 cents instead of 8 cents per pound. We can stop objectionable literature from Great Britain as well as from any other country. ,


Robert Laird Borden: Previous to the convention did we not have the same right with respect to similar periodicals coming from the United States ?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the Minister of Customs has the power. I do not want to minimize the importance of exercising the power effectively. Whether these papers come in by mail or by express they are equally objectionable and ought not to be exhibited for sale on the public news stands of the country. I would like to ask the Minister of Customs whether the matter has come under his consideration in any way, what means he has exercised in the past, and what further means he can exercise in the future, to prevent the entry of periodicals of this character, which I am sure he would consider very objectionable indeed.


William Paterson: I do not censor these publications myself ; my officers do that-One of the publications I saw is something that I think should not be allowed to come in. We are continually confiscating literature of this kind. Every little while in Montreal we are not only having literature seized but having the importers of it brought up and fined. I was not aware that such publications were coming from Great Britain, but I will mention the matter to the officer in charge. Under the law we have perfect power to order literature of this kind to be destroyed. Whether we would have power to confiscate anything of this kind after it had passed the customs and gone into the possession of the dealer I do not know. That is a point on which I shall have to consult the commissioner. Perhaps the leader of the opposition will have an idea whether under a tariff that prohibits immoral literature we could follow it after it had passed the customs. I am inclined to think we could.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The object of the amend ment was specially to restrict the objec tionable literature coming from the Unite states which Game here in vast quantities and particularly to restrict these advertis mg sheets which came under the guise o newspapers and which were to be found ii almost every home in the country.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister wouh seem to think that these sheets do no come through the mails now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know that some of them have been prevented from the verv beginning. * .	,	,	-y


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Robert Laird Borden: It would depend altogether on the terms of the statute, and I am not sufficiently familiar with these to give any opinion on the subject. It would seem to be a fairly logical consequence that if the goods are prohibited, and through some inadvertence of an officer and the impossibility of detecting their true character, the goods are permitted to enter the country, the customs or some other department should have the power to follow them up and see that they are taken possession of and destroyed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I know that the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General will do what they can to stop the im-

portation of this kind of literature, which is exposed openly on the news stands. 1 picked up this paper yesterday at a news stand, the proprietor of which told me that he received fifty publications every week from the old country. These publications are coming in in very large quantities and are being distributed throughout the country. I think some of them come by mail, because an ordinary small newsdealer could not afford to get them by express from the old country. The newsdealer told me that Saturday was the day on which these publications were first exposed for sale, so that when I bought this paper yesterday, the bulk of them have been sold. I may say that I have spent a great deal of time in the United States, travelling and going to school in different cities, and X can defy the Postmaster General to go into any city of the United States and pick up any such literature as this. I do not believe it is allowed to be published. X cannot express too strongly the hope that the ministers who have charge of this matter will stop the importation of this kind of stuff, and they cannot stop it too soon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has spoken of the facilities provided for newsdealers to import this objectionable literature through the mails. It is quite true, it may come in small packages, and be easily passed without being detected ; but the Postmaster General has the right to open the packages and see whether the literature is objectionable or not. If it is, he confiscates it. I remember a case in point in Montreal. A certain newsdealer in St. Catherine street was selling a very objectionable newspaper which he received through the mails from Paris, France. My attention was called, by the Archbishop of Montreal, to these importations. I immediately informed the postmaster at Montreal to stop them. He did so, and to his great surprise two weeks afterwards he saw in the same news stand the very papers which he had stopped coming bv mail. Then he found that the newsdealer had changed his mode of procedure and was receiving the papers by express. When objectionable newspapers are offered for sale, any citizen can take action under the Criminal Code and have a wararnt issued, and the law is pretty severe against the circulation of immoral literature. If my hon. friend will allow me to read the regulations of the Post Office Department on this subject, it may serve some good purpose:	.
According to regulation 191 it is forbidden to post for delivery or transmission through the post any obscene or immoral book, picture. lithograph or other publications, of an indecent, seditious or scurrulous character, or any letter or envelope, or post card or wrapper upon which there are words or things of the character aforesaid or tending
to injuriously affect the commercial or social standing of the persons addressed. There is not a day when I do not receive a dozen or so objectionable post cards sent me by clergymen and other gentlemen throughout the country complaining of the circulation through the mails. In each case the decision is prompt, but of course we cannot foresee that people will send indecent post cards through the mail. The regulation 195 provides for the treatment of correspondence by persons engaged in illegal business.


William Paterson: The prohibitive articles in the tariff cover books, printed papers, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable, seditious or indecent character. The difficulty consists sometimes in determining that a certain case comes within that category.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The difficulty lies in the application of the clause. Of course when a publication is clearly immoral there is no difficulty. But there are papers that circulate socialistic ideas and I am hammered from all sides to prevent their circulation. We have of course to be very careful about infringing on the liberty of the subject; that is our great tribulation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I notice an expenditure in the Yukon of $100,000, and the income only amounts to something over $11,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have to give proper facilities to all sections of the country, and in the Yukon territory our service is much more expensive than in any other section. Even with the sum we pay in mail subsidies and otherwise to the railway and steamship companies, we are obliged during the winter months to forward only a certain weight of mail. I was interviewed the other day by the representative of the White Pass Railway Company, and he told me that in the future they could not renew their mail contract with the department, although we pay them a very high price. Whereas in previous years they would give us three or four trips a week, in the future they will only give two. The reason they give is that business has decreased during the last few years, the cost of living is very high, the roads are much more difficult, and the space available and the numbers of cars and steamers are less.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does that include transportation to Dawson city ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How much is spent by the postal department in the Yukon outside of transportation ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Dawson post office, $4,425. The postmaster's salary is $3,750

and $657 allowance for rent. That is not very much.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: X do not want to go into the details.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, the biggest figure is for travelling expenses of inspectors and clerks, $12,440. Then we have the post office at White Horse, $3,150. That is where all the mail matter aggregates during the winter to leave again when navigation opens in the spring.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon. minister will look at page A-2 of his report I would like to ask him for ail explanation of the $37,000 paid in connection with stamp vendors, compensation to postmasters and special delivery letter?.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have, besides the post offices in the cities, special offices that are licensed to sell stamps. There are no boxes to receive the letters and no postal service except the sale of stamps, For instance, my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) asked the other day to have stamps sold


Samuel Hughes: At Lindsay station.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, at Lindsay station, a point convenient for the public. These stamp vendors are entitled to receive some small discount, the exact rate of which I have forgotten. The discount on a few stamps is an infinitesimal amount, but these stamp vendors are spread throughout the country, and the system is a convenience to the public. As to the messengers, that is for our special delivery service. If my hon. friend sent a letter to Montreal by the afternoon train, which he desired to have delivered at once, by affixing a special delivery stamp, which costs ten cents, he would secure the services of a messenger at the Montreal post office to deliver the letter at once, up to eleven o'clock in the evening.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the hon. gentleman please explain the transit charges on correspondence with other countries, for which $33,000 is charged '!


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have a special arrangement with Great Britain, and also a special convention with the United States. But to other countries that are in the Postal Union we have to pay a poundage on letters or papers carried on their steamship or railway trains.


George William Fowler: Has the minister filled the vacancy in the superintendency of the railway mail service in New Brunswick ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not yet.


George William Fowler: Why ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question in New Brunswick is the same as in other parts of the country. We want for the railway mail service, especially in these days of fast Mr. LEMIEUX.
transportation, the best man available. Sometimes people claim to have a title to a position because they have been in the service for a long time. The gentlemau who acted as railway mail superintendent in New Brunswick died some time ago.


George William Fowler: Two years ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There has been a difference of opinion among some of our officials as regards his successor. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) that, for my part, I will see to it that the appointment is made from a purely departmental point of view. We must have the best man available. Three or four names have been mentioned. Wre have been able to give the service, but the position will be filled before long, and we will appoint the best man that can be had.


George William Fowler: It seems to an ignorant onlooker that you are taking a great deal of time to make up your mind. It would almost appear that you are waiting until the elections are over. I would not impute anything of that kind to the Postmaster General, of course, for he has always represented to the House that he does not believe in political appointments, but believes in appointments made in the interests of the service. Still as this vacancy has lasted for two years, I would ask the Postmaster General if he does not think it has lasted long enough ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the appointment should be made, and it will be made very shortly. Before the end of the session-and I suppose we may say that the end is in sight-my hon. friend may be able to put another question and learn if the appointment is made.


George William Fowler: It is not the intention to wait until the elections are over ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


George William Fowler: I am glad to have that assurance. I will certainly put the question again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well.


George Eulas Foster: At page S-55 of the Auditor General's Report, we find a charge of expenses in connection with the trial of a railway mail clerk at Edmonton-railway fare of six employees to Edmonton and return $695.10. That seems a very high charge for railway fare.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know the case


George Eulas Foster: I am not asking about the case, but about this expenditure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will explain. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) -knows that when a postal clerk is charged with robbery of the mails, to establish our case we must prove that the letter has been posted at such a place and received at such a place.

In the present instance we had to bring clerks from the post office at Montreal through whose hands the letter had passed. It was a registered letter containing between $300 and $400. The clerk was somewhere around Moosejaw or Calgary I think. The trial took place in the fall of the year and was postponed once or twice. Without the presence of these clerks, we could not establish the links *in our chain of evidence. We could have shown where the letter was posted, but not through whose hands it had passed, so we could not have reached the guilty party. We had to bring clerks from Montreal to Calgary. If the hon. gentleman will look at the charge he wili see that the amount is not excessive.


George William Fowler: Why not take their evidence under commission ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We couldn't ; they had to be brought there.


George Eulas Foster: Referring to page S-9 of the Auditor General's Report, I see that a great many mail bags were repaired, and all at a uniform price of 42 cents. How is that regulated ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We follow the custom that has been followed in the department from time immemorial. Prior to 1S96, we had the following engaged in the work of repairs : S. and H. Borbridge, Ottawa ; R. S. Montgomery. Ottawa ; Tackaberry and Laurie, London : T. Thompson, Toronto ; Mrs. T. O'Donohoe, Montreal ; H. L. Carson, Ottawa ; E. Brown, St. John, New Brunswick. At present, we have thirteen repairers on the list in different parts of Canada. Each district must look after its own bags and sacks. They are repaired in the several districts and sent to Ottawa. They are examined in the denartment in the lower portion of the Ottawa post office building, where the boots are examined by Mr. Cooch, and from here they are redistributed.


George Eulas Foster: But the minister, while he has given me a lot of information I did not ask for, has not answered my questiou. Why is; the charge 42 cents for each bag, great, small, little and big ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a contract. Tenders have been asked for for all these different services, and a uniform price has been fixed. The man who repairs the bags takes them all' small and big, at a uniform price of 42 cents. He takes his chances; sometimes he may gain a little and sometimes he may lose. But the price of 42 cents is about the average price.


George Eulas Foster: There are some repaired for 25 cents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They belong to a different category, they are very small bags.


Mr. HERRON.: Some time ago I drew the attention of the Postmaster General to the condition of the post office at Macleod.
I would like to know if he has any report from that office, or if anything is being done to provide better accommodation. I make no complaint with regard to the management of the office, only with regard to the lack of accommodation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend drew my attention some time ago to the state of the post office at Macleod, and I immediately wrote an official letter to our inspector in that district, and I also wrote to the Minister of Public Works calling his attention to the matter. In many of the cities and towns of the province of Alberta, post offices which were quite sufficient three or four years ago, and even two years ago, are to-day altogether inadequate to the increased population. When representations are made to me of the need of better accommodation, I pass the matter over to the Minister of Public Works. The Post Office Department decides if the building is necessary and the Public Works Department erects the building.


John Herron: The accommodation is entirely inadequate, and I hope there will be no delay.


George William Fowler: Have any post offices been closed during the last year in the province of New Brunswick, and particularly in the county of Kings and Albert ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know that any have been closed in that district. Post offices are closed only in case there are no more patrons, or because a postmaster cannot be found, or because there is no sufficient reason for maintaining the office. Does my hon. friend say that any office has been closed?


George William Fowler: There is the Kerry office in the county of Albert.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there are twenty or twentydive people I would open an office at once.


George William Fowler: Then I call attention now to the post office at Kerry, and beg the minister not to close it. If it is closed, these people would have to go a very long distance for their mail, some of them perhaps ten miles.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister buy the clothing for the uniforms and have it made up afterwards by other parties?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We buy the clothing ourselves, and the contractors here at Ottawa. Noel and iChevrier, make the uniforms under our supervision. We have an officer in the department who supervises the making of uniforms.


George Eulas Foster: I see you purchased from Caldwell, Boyd and Company, Lanark, a quantity of material; and the Crown Tailoring Company of Toronto make up a large number of trousers, uniforms and so forth.

Do you buy the material from Caldwell, Bovd and Company, and send it to Toronto to be made up?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then the Bill of the Crown Tailoring Company is simply for making the goods, not furnishing material. For instance, that $3 for making up trousers, is that for the stuff and the making?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that is the price of the making, not of the stuff. The blue melton trousers, I think that is for the cloth and the making.


George Eulas Foster: I presume it would be the same with the tunics. They charge $5.45, that is a pretty round price for making the tunic if they do not find the stuff. Do you put this up to public tender?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: On page J-2 of his own report, the hon. Postmaster General has paid $52,000 to the American Note Company for stamps. Does he ask for tenders for these stamps ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, there is a contract with the government passed by my hon. frieDd the Minister of Finance.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How long does it run ?


William Stevens Fielding: Tenders were asked for originally and this contract was extended.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: For how long ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it was for a period of five years more.


George William Fowler: Were new tenders asked for ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, not recently. This is a class of work for which you have difficulty in getting tenders. There are but few persons able to compete, and by gelling tenders you accomplish nothing. The course adopted was that originally tenders were invited and the contract 'went to the lowest tenderer. This contract was extended on two occasions. In both instances the proposals were referred to the King's Printer and in one instance to a gentleman associated with or interested in the printing of bank notes, familiar with the value of these goods and upon the certificate of the King's Printer that the prices were fair and reasonable, the contract was extended.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to ask the minister if he has ever taken into consideration the question of printing postage stamps and bank notes at the mint. I think that is worthy of his consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: The facilities there are not at all adapted to it. My hon. friend Mr. FOSTER.
means that we should have a government printing establishment instead of the present arrangement. The present arrangement of not having this work done in a government establishment but in an office in the capital specially constructed for the purpose and more or less under the supervision of the government was adopted some years ago and it has worked satisfactorily.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The original contract was passed in March, 1897. They print Dominion notes, postage stamps, postal notes, post cards and inland revenue stamps of every description.


George Eulas Foster: There is an item of $21,000 and over at page S-61 for ' labour at the Montreal post office.' What is the class of labour that you employ there ? It seems a large amount of money. I suppose there is a good deal of work to do.
Mr. LEMIEL'X. The two largest offices in the country are Toronto and Montreal. We have in Montreal, more than anywhere else, the burden of the foreign mails. The mails are distributed from there to all points in the country. Therefore, we have to employ more transfers and more labourers than at any other office, Many of these labourers are not civil servants in the ordinary sense of the word. They are merely labourers and their wages range from $1.25 to $2.25 per day. Besides that we have in Montreal and Toronto a very brisk Christmas season when we are obliged to employ 100 men or more in order to provide the public with the necessary facilities.


George Eulas Foster: I notice that in Toronto the pay of labourers ranges from $1.25 to $1.75 and in Montreal from $1 to $2.25.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The farther west -we go the dearer labour is.


George Eulas Foster: But in Montreal it is dearer than in Toronto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Labour in Calgary and other western towns is higher than in Montreal, Halifax and St. John.


George Eulas Foster: In Vancouver it is from $1.25 to $2.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no section of the country where we have to change our labourer and mail clerks more frequently than in the west. That is our great trouble. They complain that the salary is not high enough. We give them a provisional allowance besides.


George Eulas Foster: But for these labourers you do not have any provisional allowance. You do not mean to say that you are paying less in Vancouver than in Montreal ?


George William Fowler: That is a guess that the minister has made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Generally speaking, we pay more.


George Eulas Foster: That does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation.


George William Fowler: Why do you not say that it is a better class of labour in Montreal ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish I could say that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have received a great many complaints from Montreal. I do not suppose there is another city in which the mail service seems to be as badly managed as in Montreal. The minister is well aware that not only are the daily papers complaining constantly, but business men are complaining and thirty members of the board of trade have signed a statement setting forth their complaint. I cannot understand how it is that from a city like Montreal there should be so many complaints constantly of irregularities, of miss-sent letters and of all kinds and classes of complaints.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will admit that up to a year or so ago there were many complaints from Montreal. I have explained before to the House the reason why. There were some internal difficulties in the Montreal post office, difficulties which have been removed since the appointment of a very efficient officer, Mr. Gaboury, who is the assistant postmaster. There are not so many complaints as my hon. friend thinks. If there is a missent letter I know it because there is a wire or a letter sent stating the fact. It is surprising how few complaints are made. I will give the committee a statement about the complaints that are made. The total number of complaints relating to the carriage of articles through the mails last year was 708. There were 573 complaints of delay and with respect to 251 of these the evidence showed that the delay was due to causes beyond the control of the department. Last year the winter was very severe especially in the west. We had a coal famine and while trains were not running complaints should have been made to the weather bureau and not to the post office. When trains v ere stopped letters were delayed and the complaints came to the Post Office Department. They should have gone to the weather bureau. There were 48 complaints of misdelivery and in 8 of these the responsibility rested elsewhere than with the department or the misdelivery was not established. There were 84 complaints of nondelivery and in 47 of these the complaints were not substantiated by evidence, or the sender and addressee and not the department was at fault. It should be born in mind that 478,290,967 articles of mail matter were carried by the Post Office Department during the same period. The complaints numbered only an infinitesmal fraction of a percentage of the total number of mail pieces carried so that the statistics would not confirm the statement that the post office is not well managed. Men are not perfect, letter carriers are not perfect, the department may sometimes be at fault, but it is surprising that compared 'with the vast business the complaints were so few.


Mr. LAKE.: The hon. gentleman does not hear one half of the complaints.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If they are from my hon. friends district he does not fail to mention them.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have made complaints many times but there are a great many others I have not made. For instance there was a letter posted to a member of my household from Winnipeg and it went to England and back again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was an investigation made ?


Richard Stuart Lake: No. The letter was properly addressed and the mistake evidently occurred in the Winnipeg post office. The practice in England is to bring all these complaints before the Postmaster Genera!, but in Canada there is a feeling that people do not like to complain as they imagine they might get some official into trouble. However that may be, the Postmaster General does not hear a very large proportion of the complaints.


William Paterson: Will there be a probability of my getting the Customs estimates through when this item is passed ?


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so.


William Paterson: I am tired sitting here and I will go home if you do not think my estimates will be passed to-night.


George Eulas Foster: I thought you were interested in the Postmaster General's estimates.


William Paterson: If you do not take the Customs estimates up to-night we are out of money and it is a very serious thing.


George Eulas Foster: I have often felt that way myself.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I notice that the report of the Post Office Department states that in the dead letter branch the value of contents of letters received during the nine months ending March 31, 1907, is estimated at $524,000 while the amount disposed of was estimated in value at $34,000. What is the explanation of that ? Does it mean that the Postmaster General has letters to the value of nearly $524,000 still in his possession.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, less the $34,541 disposed of.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What do you do with them ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are in our possession and we have not been able to dispose of them.


George William Fowler: Are they registered letters ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, it includes parcels and all sorts of things.


George Eulas Foster: You auction these off, do you not ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How often are these sales held ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not say.


Mr. PERLEY.: Has the minister ever taken into consideration the question of issuing a special stamp, part of the postage of which could be used to assist in the fight against tuberculosis ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My attention was called to an article which has been published in the ' Outlook ' by a celebrated philanthropist of the United States in regard to a stamp which has been Issued every year at Christmas time in Denmark, if I mistake not, and sold for two or thi-ee weeks during the year. It has a special value of say five cents, while the value of the ordinary stamp is two or three cents, and the difference goes to the hospital for the suppression of tuberculosis.


George William Fowler: Are people obliged to buy that stamp during that period ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, it is purely voluntary : but in Denmark it has been a tremendous success. Everybody is anxious to have a stamp.


George Eulas Foster: Is it purchased as a souvenir ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes. People wish to have it on their letters and parcels that are sent abroad.


Robert Laird Borden: But if a two-cent stamp is used on a letter, it will go just the same ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. The use of this special stamp is not compulsory. Of course, I have not studied the question for Canada, but it has been hinted to me that such a stamp might be issued.


George Halsey Perley: I understood that last year the minister was giving this matter consideration, and had some idea of issuing the stamp for last Christmas. I would like to know if he is seriously considering it now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh. yes. the matter is under consideration, and very serious cou-Mr. ARMSTRONG.
sideration. The reason that this year I ceased considering it was that I decided to issue a series of stamps to commemorate the Quebec tercentenary, and it would not do to multiply these special stamps. In fact, the postal union would, I am sure, protest if a country abused the privilege. But I may assure my hon. friend that after the tercentenary stamp is issued, I shall be pleased to take the earliest oportunity to confer with him and all others interested in regard to that matter, always subject to the approval of my colleagues.


George William Fowler: Why should the postal union object ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The simpler and more uniform the stamp is, the better for the postal relations. Up to the last postal union congress, memorial stamps, such as those that will be issued for the tercentenary next month, could be used from Canada to any other country. By the regulations adopted at the last congress, it has been stipulated that these special stamps shall be used only on the continent; so that the stamp to be issued for the Quebec tercentenary will be used only on the continent of America, unless I obtain permission from the British authorities to use it between Canada pnd Great Britain, a permission which I expect to obtain. According to the postal union rules the special stamp cannot be used between one continent and another.


George Halsey Perley: I would like to ask if the revenues from this special stamp go into the ordinary revenue of the Post Office Department, as we are voting so much money for this celebration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, parliament has voted $300,000 towards the Quebec tercentenary. The stamps, I hope, will be sold in large quantities ; but we must also provide for the extension of the postal service year by year in Canada. Of course, the extent to which these stamps will be sold is entirely speculative. But I can say that the stamp to be issued next month under the authority of the present Postmaster General will be from an artistic point of view one of the most beautiful ever issued.


George William Fowler: Can the minister give us an idea of what the design will be ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot, because it is contrary to etiquette in such cases to publish the description beforehand. But I intend, as soon as the time is ripe, to lay on the table of the House a whole series of the stamps, so that the members can see for themselves the kind of stamps we issue in celebration of that great occasion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How is it the Canadian Pacific Railway receive about $550,000 for the nine months, the Grand Trunk Railway $289,000 and the Intercolonial Railways $120,000? I notice that the Intercolonial

Railway is paid bulk sums in many instances for carrying the mails and the Grand Trunk Railway also for a number of places, while the Canadian Pacific Railway furnishes a definite statement and charges so much per mile, varying from two cents to eight cents. On the Intercolonial Railway there is paid between certain places from four cents to eight cents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the United States they pay according to space and weight. Here we pay according to mileage. The standard price is four cents per mile for baggage car service and eight cents a mile for postal car service, the postal cars being equipped with racks for boxes and letters and accommodation for mail clerks. The Grand Trunk Railway was the first railway system built in Canada and it received from the government a special rate on certain lines per mile or per weight. That system went on until Sir Oliver Mowat became Postmaster General in the fifties before confederation. Sir Oliver Mowat appointed a commissioner, and that commissioner fixed the mileage system which is still in existence. The Grand Trunk Railway had some vested rights because it was the first company carrying mail, and it has kept those rights until now, but at the period I have mentioned, a four cent per mile for baggage car service and eight cents per mile for postal ear service was made uniform on the other railways. Later on, it was made uniform on the new portions of the Grand Trunk Railway. The Canadian Northern, which was built still later on, when It was voted subsidies, -was given these subsidies on condition that it should carry the mails free. In the Subsidy Act, there is a clause providing that railway companies receiving subsidies from the government shall carry the mails free. I cannot say in what year that clause was inserted. At all events we have had lately a protest from the different railway companies that the amount paid is not high enough, and I will ask council to appoint a commission to look into the whole question. The principle has been practically adopted that a revision must take place every ten years.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot understand why from one little town to another two cents per mile should be charged and in other cases four cents per mile. Take page S-19 of the Auditor General's Report and you will find that from New Germany to Caledonia twro cents per mile is paid the Halifax and Southwestern. On the next page you will find that eight cents is paid from Lunenburg to Middleton. Then the Dominion Atlantic is paid from Truro to Windsor one cent per mile and from Halifax to Annapolis eight cents per mile. There must be some explanation of these differences.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Generally speaking the rates are eight cents and four cents. Sometimes, however, requests are made for more frequent service, and the arrangements is an arbitrary one as the department finds that the revenue does not always warrant the payment of an additional subsidy.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Look at the Intercolonial Railway, page S-20, it is paid $121.000. In some eases bulk sums are paid and in others so much per mile. I can understand that during the summer months more money be paid to the Intercolonial Railway, but it seems strange that that road should get $121,000 when the Grand Trunk Railway only receives $289,000 on all its systems.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Grand Trunk came at a time when a special arrangement was made. They were the only railway, and contracts were based on a lower figure because money was worth more in those days than it is to-day. That is why they ask for a revision of the subsidy.


George William Fowler: Do you ever get registered letters in the dead letter office ? If so, what do you do with them, when you cannot locate the addressee?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We retrace, if possible, the person .who sent the letter. If we are unable to find either party, the money goes to the Receiver General.


George William Fowler: In this amount of $524,000, in the mail matter in the dead letter office, are there any registered letters?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I believe so. But most are parcels and articles-an enormous amount, of course.


George William Fowler: Has the minister given any attention to this matter of rural mail delivery?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has given it more attention, perhaps, at least in this House, but I have also given some attention to it. I do not suppose that, at this hour, the hon. member (Mr. Fowler) would ask me to repeat the arguments I advanced, not against rural mail delivery, but against the expediency of our adopting it now. I would rather refer my hon. friend to the speech I delivered on the same subject in this House not very long ago. Briefly, the United States have adopted this system; but they have a population of 85,000.000 and an enormous postal revenue, w7ith a territory no larger and a climiate more favourable for this purpose than ours.


George William Fowler: How does the minister establish that? We can drive sleighs in the w'inter time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. but we have the Yukon; we have the Labrador coast.


George Eulas Foster: They have Alaska.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but we have many distant districts.


George William Fowler: We have the islands that Captain Bernier has taken possession of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, where there are splendid deposits of coal which it is important for us to secure. We have a postal revenue that is buoyant and a fiair surplus, but we have not the postal resources of the United States. But, I would rather not excite my hon. friend from East Lambton on this subject at this moment. The question is an open question, and later on we will discuss it.


George William Fowler: I was only anxious to know whether the minister was seriously considering it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am seriously considering it and it is a very interesting question.


George Halsey Perley: In the contracts with the railway companies for carrying the mails, what power is reserved to the department . in case the service is not carried out? Last winter there was a railway in the county 1 have the honour to represent that, for two weeks, had not a train run on it. It became so serious that people there had to go many miles in order to get provisions. I brought the matter before the Railway Commission and it was attended to almost immediately. In the first instance, i thought of going to the Post Office Department about it. to learn whether the Postmaster General had any power in such a case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. No service, no pay. But, of course, the people prefer to have the service than to have the payment kept back ; and in such cases I always advise them to apply to the Railway Commission to have the service carried out.


George Halsey Perley: Do I understand that the department has no power to inflict a penalty upon a railway company in such a case other than to withhold play for the exact time during which they have not rendered the service ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the penalty.


George William Fowler: Has the hon. minister a surplus, and, if so, of what amount ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The surplus will be in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000 and $1,600,-
000.


George William Fowler: What does the minister propose to do with it ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Spend It in the best interests of the postal service-but cautiously.


George William Fowler: The minister seems to be spending it very cautiously. I hope he does not intend to hand it over to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). That hon. gentleman will get rid of it Mr. FOSTER.
quickly enough. It would be better to spend a portion of it in improving the postal service which certainly needs improvement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am doing my best. I do not think there is an hon. member of this House who can say that he has come to the Postmaster General with a fair request and been refused. I have multiplied the services wherever it could fairly be said thiat they were not sufficient to keep up with the increase of population and in accordance with the good times that have prevailed. Where there were tri-weekly services I have established daily services ; where there were daily services I have established semi-daily services. I have reduced the distance between post offices. Formerly we did not establish post offices in ordiniarily thickly-settled parts of- the country at distances of much less than from six to eight miles. Now we have post offices four miles, or three, or even two miles apart. Where there is a mill, a school, a church or an establishment of any consequence, we never say no to the request for a post office.


George William Fowler: Has the minister withdrawn the postal service on the river boats that run between St. John and Fredericton?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


George William Fowler: I understood he had.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year, there was, I would not like to say a hold-up, but some thing very like a hold-up at the oirening of the season. They said they would not carry the mails unless we would double the subsidy to something like that. Then, we had to protect ourselves. This season it is all arranged, and we will carry the mails as before.


John Herron: I was surprised to hear the Postmaster General state that he had tried to establish post offices at distances of four and five miles.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Two miles.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Iu thickly-settled sections.


John Herron: In our country, even in what we call thickly-settled portions-where we have a settler on every section, or, possibly, every quarter-section-there are people who have to drive fifteen miles for their mail. It is quite common to go seven or eight miles. I speak of only one particular section, but I think this is fairly general.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman would point out to me a section of 25 to 30 people I would certainly establish a post office. That is my policy. Of course, we cannot have a post office at every door; but if there is any considerable number of people gathered, we establish a post office. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) will

look at the postal map of his section, he will see that the post offices are there. It is not the same in the west as in the east, which is much more densely populated.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister has stated that by reducing the rate in the cities from two cents to one cent, lie will increase the revenue to the department. Now there is still a million and a half of money to be spent in the rural districts in a year, that is the department is bringing in a million and a half more money than they are going to make use of.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not say a million and a half more. I say that the reduction of postage from 2 cents to 1 cent for drop letters will increase the revenue. But the hon. gentleman should not lose sight of the fact that the cities are paying for the deficiencies of the rural districts. Toronto, Hamilton, London, Brantford, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Winnipeg especially, are paying for the service in the rural districts. When my Bill comes up I will establish these facts by figures.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I will have to see the figures before I accept that statement. I feel that the minister has not given the subject quite as much attention as he ought to. In the United States they are expending this year $36,000,000 on a rural free delivery service for about 18,000,000 people, that is practically $2 to each person. Now if the minister will investigate the conditions in the province of Ontario, he will find that we have about 40,000 square miles of territory that can be covered with a rural free mail delivery, covered successfully ; and in the province of Quebec about 20,000 square miles. When the minister states that because the United States has 80,000,000 of a population Canada must wait until we have 20,000,000, I am satisfied that he does not understand the question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman forgets that the United States did not establish that system when they had 00,000,000 people, or even when they had 70,000,000 ; they had nearly 80,000,000 when they started rural mail delivery. The system has been in existence in England for nearly a century, it has been in existence in France, Switzerland and some portions of Germany for years and years. But there is no comparison with the conditions in those thickly settled countries and the conditions prevailing in much the greater portion of Canada. Why, you could put England in Lake Superior and you would not see the shores of England. Of course, I admit that in some portions of Ontario the system might be established. I do not know of any more prosperous section of the British empire than the province of Ontario, there is no more intelligent portion of the British empire 290
than the province of Ontario. But if you give free rural mail delivery to one section of the country why should you not extend it to another? My hon. friend speaks of Lambton, of the Niagara peninsula, of the county of Essex, and that beautiful section of Ontario, and he says that surely they are entitled to free rural mail delivery. But what about Gaspe, what about Kings and Albert, what about Argenteuil, what about Carleton ?


Mr. FIELDING  I.@: Does the minister mean to suggest that there is any more prosperous section of Ontario than the county of Carleton ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Surely not from an intellectual point of view.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We could establish free rural delivery in a large portion of Ontario, Quebec, the eastern provinces and some parts of the western provinces. But the minister intimates that all those districts must wait until the rest of the country is filled up. until Gaspe, or Argenteuil, or some of those outlying districts are filled up. If that is the position the minister takes with regard to rural delivery, I see very little hope for it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have a standing invitation from the hon. gentleman to discuss that question before the farmers of Lamb-ton. I would like to explain to the farmers of Lambton that their member in the House has made very nice and very able speeches in favour of rural mail delivery, that he was quite ready to spend in Canada what the United States are spending, and when his electors from Lambton learn that it will cost millions and millions beyond the revenue we have, they will probably give a cold douche to my hon. friend and his proposal will have to wait for a few years.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister is not fairly stating the question when he says that we will have to spend millions in Canada to establish this service in the thickly settled portions of the different provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not want to establish it in any portion but I want to give it to the whole country.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister knows that in the United States no route can be established unless there are 100 families^ on that route. A standard route is 24 miles long and in the outlying districts of the United States they are not being served by a rural free mail delivery at all. The minister talks about it costing millions and millions to serve the people in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: $29,000,000 in the United States.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am aware of it. I say that it cost $36,000,000. But, they are serving nearly 20 million people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are discriminating.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would ask the minister if in the thinly settled portions of the country they say that the farmers in the thickly settled portions are discriminating against them. As far as rural mail delivery is concerned we cannot have it if the present position of the minister is maintained. He may talk about the population of the United States and about their not having adopted it until they had 80 millions people. It is folly to approach the subject in that way. He might as well say that the telephone and telegraphs and all new inventions for the dissemination of knowledge throughout the country should not be made available to the people.


Robert Laird Borden: You require a city of a certain size, do you not, before you give free mail delivery ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, the new regulation requires a population of 12,000 and a revenue of $20,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister consider that cities just a little under that are discriminated against ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, we apply good common sense to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course you do. What is the difference between that principle and the principle of establishing routes wherever there are a certain number of persons? That is exactly the principle the minister carries out with regard to cities and towns.


George William Fowler: I would suggest that an experiment be made of the rural mail delivery system in Kings and Albert, and if it is satisfactory there and not too expensive the minister might apply it to outlying districts such as Lambton and others like that.


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: I would like to ask the minister if, in his annual balance sheet, he charges up anything against the postal revenue for the money invested in buildings put up for the purpose of carrying on the post office work. Does he not think there should be a certain proportion charged against this money which is invested purely for the carrying on of the work of the department ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not always, public buildings very frequently include the customs and the public works as well as the post office.


Aaron Abel Wright: I know, but a good many of these buildings are put up for carrying on the postal work of the country. A portion of the cost of those buildings should be charged against the department so that the people would have an opportunity of seeing just how our postal matters stand. I would like to ask the minister if the Post Office Department is


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: required to approve of the erection of new buildings before the work is begun ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, when the erection of a public building is proposed the Department of Public Works receives, through my department, a statement of the revenue, the population, the postal facilities required and the probable revenue for the future. We generally say if a public building should be erected or not. We are the determining voice, generally speaking.


Aaron Abel Wright: Why do you put up post office buildings in places with a small population and leave large towns without public buildings ?


George William Fowler: There does not seem to-be a quorum present. The committee had better rise under those circumstances.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you not thiuk we should carry this item. I have given all the explanations.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not have any objection to this passing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will give the explanation with reference to the mail service.
There is an increase of $93,500 made up as follows :	*
Ordinary land service	$53,500-
Mail service by railways	 10,000
Mail service by steamboats	 20,000
Supply and repair of mail bags.. ..	10,000
The vote for land service is for new post offices, increase in the frequency of existing services, increased price of old contracts renewed, and submitted to public tender. The increase for the mail service by railways is chiefly to provide for the extension of the service in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The miscellaneous is as follows : Travelling charges, $3,000, stationery, printing, advertising, $5,000, postage stamps, post cards envelopes $10,000, other miscellaneous items, $42,000.


George Eulas Foster: Your postage stamps are by contract ?	'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: This miscellaneous vote includes the payment of labourers ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, we have to employ extra men at busy seasons.


George Eulas Foster: Who employs the labourers in Montreal, for instance ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The postmaster.
Mr. FOSTER, Has he sole authority ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are appointed under my authority. He writes to the department that he requires 20 men say for such a time and I have a list of names that are sent to me.


George Eulas Foster: By whom?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may say they are sent by members of parliament on both sides of the House and by others. There are applications coming in all the time by the hundreds. If the postmaster at Montreal or Toronto asks for twenty men I send him a list of 50 or 60 names and the applicants are brought before them and tested. I have given the assistant-postmaster at Montreal complete discretion as to the selection of the men. My hon. friend will understand it would be very risky to take men for post office work simply because they are recommended by politicians, and we must find out if they are reliable and trustworthy.


George Eulas Foster: What test is made?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He sends for their parents or their friends and asks for certificates and when they are well recommended he appoints them.


George Eulas Foster: Does he make any test as to their mental qualifications?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When they are merely to do labouring work such as carrying mail bags they do not require much education but sometimes they enter as labourers and they are employed in the sorting of letters and so on. Of course you will not find university graduates or men who have passed the civil service examination who will take $1.25 or up to $2 a day.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister of course has followed precedent, but I would suggest that in future these estimates should be given in more detail so that we will not have an appropriation of $504,000 under the head of miscellaneous, and which money could be devoted to any one of numerous subjects. Some of the departments bring down their estimates in the greatest detail and others bring them down in three or four huge items at the tail end of which is a miscellaneous vote which can be utilized for any possible purpose. That is not according to the spirit of parliamentary control over government expenditure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I admit there is room for improvement there and will try in the future to have more detail.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business next sitting.


Wilfrid Laurier: Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 a.m. Saturday.
290J
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 26, 1908.