1909-04-15

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) authorizing the Ottawa Fire Insurance Company to change its name to the Ottawa Assurance Company.-Mr. Per-ley.
Bill (No. 138) concerning the Quebec and Oriental Railway Company.-Mr. Lavergne.
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Frank Parsons.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Kootenay and Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Knowles.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO asked:: 1.	How many miles of the Lake Superior Branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have been completed, and the cost thereof to date, without terminals, and the total estimated cost of this branch without terminals?
2.	What subsidies in lands or money have been granted by the Dominion or provincial governments or municipalities, respectively, to said Lake Superior Branch?
3.	What other branch lines of the said Grand Trunk Pacific have been constructed, the mileage thereof, and the cost and the cost per mile without terminals, respectively?

4.	Of the $205,200 proceeds sale of stock mentioned in answer to Mr. Borden's question 9, brought down by the Finance Minister, what part was paid in cash, when was it paid, and how was the balance paid or accounted for?
5.	Who are the directors of, and who are the owners of the stock in the Grand Trunk Pacific Town and Development Company, and the amount of paid up capital held bv each?
6.	How many townsites and what other real estate and the acreage thereof are owned by the said company, last named, on the prairie and mountain sections, respectively?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	The company state as follows:	A.
188.77 miles now in operation, but under construction department, not yet having been taken over by operating department. B. Cost, including bond interest, but exclusive of terminals as at January 31, 1908, $9,686,457.98. C. $9,986,457.98.
2.	The company state as follows: Dominion government, $6,400 per mile, on a total not to exceed 220 miles.
Ontario government, $2,000 per mile, not to exceed 200 miles and 675,000 acres of land.
Town of Fort William, $300,000 to be applied on Fort William terminals, and $50,000 on the Kaministiquia bridge.
3.	The company state as follows:	No
other branch lines have been constructed.
4.	The company state as follows:	Proceeds sales of Grand Trunk Pacific stock mentioned in answer to Mr. Borden's question 9, were all paid in cash at the time the stock was issued.5.	The company state as follows:	The
directors, Chas. M. Hays, two shares; E. J. Chamberlain, two shares; Wm. Wain-wright, two shares; W. H. Biggar, two shares; E. H. Fitzhugh, two shares.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is the holder of 29,990 shares of paid up stock. Total common stock, $3,000,000 all issued; preferred stock, $2,000,000, not issued; total common and preferred stock, $5,000,000.
6.	The company state as follows: Eighty-one townsites and three-quarters interest in the Town of Prince Rupert, the total is about 78,640 acres. .
The Department of the Interior furnish the following additional information:
Crown Lands.
The acreage of Crown lands sold to the Grand Trunk Pacific Town and Development Company at $3 per acre is 12,905.45 acres; and for which at this rate the government have received $38,716.35. In addition to the above payment the company has also agreed to pay over to the government one-quarter of the net profits on the sale of these lands. The patents for these lands have issued to the company *within the last four or five months.
Homestead lands.
The acreage of lands which the government permitted the company to buy from the Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
holders of unpatented homesteads is 11,279.81 acres. The company paid the government $1 per acre for the privilege, granted on these lands, which amounted to $11,279.81; and in addition the company paid the various holders of these homesteads the price which the homesteader in each case demanded.


CANADIAN WATERWAYS AND BOUND-' ARIES TREATY.
Mr. BOYCE asked:: 1.	What steps are being taken by the government with reference to the rider or condition attached by the United States Senate to its ratification of the Canadian Waterways and Boundaries Treaty, as a conditional acceptance by the United States of America?
2.	If no official investigation has been made by the government into the claims of the I nited States to a greater portion than one-half of the St. Mary's river, as set forth in the rider to the said treaty attached by the L nited States Senate, is it the intention of His Majesty's government in Canada to make any such investigation before submitting the treaty to the House for ratification?
3.	If so. when is it anticipated that such investigation be made, and where is it being carried out?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: The true interpretation of the resolution of the Senate of the United States is a question of legal nature which the government has now under consideration.
After a conclusion has been reached on the subject the House will be informed of any action which may be taken in the matter.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What are the total imports and exports
of merchandise for Canada for the fiscal year 1908?
2.	What are the total imports and exports of merchandise from and to Great Britain, the United States, France and Japan, respectively?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	The total imports and exports of merchandise for Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31,	1908, were:	Imports
$364,237,864; exports, $263,368,952.
2.	The total imports and exports of merchandise from and to Great Britain, the United States, France and Japan, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1908, were as follows:-
Imports	Exports
from.	to.
Great Britain	$ 95,313,730 $134,477,124
United States	
214,787,269	96,921,138France	
10,251,717	1,806,732Japan	
2,196,284	740,958


WINDSOR, NOVA SCOTIA, PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Mr. BLACK asked:: 1. Were tenders called for the work of renovating the interior of the post office and

eustoms building at Windsor, Nova Scotia? it so, who called for the tenders?
2.	What are the names of the persons who tendered, and the amount of each tender?
3.	Whose was the lowest tender?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted, did the person making this tender get the contract and do the work, or was it awarded to another who made no tender at all?


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1, 2, 3, 4. The department considered that it had become necessary to clean, paint, kalsomine, repair and refinish furniture in the Windsor, Nova Scotia, public building. A tender was secured by the caretaker from Benjamin J. Barns for the work for the sum of $360. The price asked was considered reasonable and he was authorized to do the work.


DEFENCE OF OUR SEA COAST.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What interpretation does the government place upon the resolution re naval defence passed unanimously by the House on March 29?
2.	What steps does the government propose to take towards carrying out the purport of the resolution, and when is it proposed to commence action in this respect?


Right Hon.   S@: The government have decided that, as shortly as possible after prorogation, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) shall proceed to London for the purpose of conferring with the Admiralty as to the best means to be adopted to give effect to the resolution of March 29.


DOMINION RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES-COST OF NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What are the expenditures for the fiscal year 1908-9? on consolidated fund and capital account, respectively ?
2.	What are the receipts for customs, excise and miscellaneous, respectively, for the same year?
3.	What amount has been paid for interest on loans payable in Canada and outside Canada, respectively, for the year 1908-9?
4.	What amounts have been paid for commission, brokerage and other expenses, respectively, on loans made since December 31, 1909?
5.	What amount has been paid on account of Grand Trunk Pacific Eastern Division in each year up to March 31, 1909, distinguishing between the Winnipeg-Quebeo and the Quebec-Moncton sections?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1, 2 and 3. The accounts for the year are not yet closed, and so I cannot give these figures definitely. But I will send to mv
hon. friend (Mr. Foster) the latest statement which will give him the information now available.
4.	The hon. member will see that there is evidently an error in this question and that it does not admit of any answer.


Mr. FOSTER.: It should read '1908'.


William Stevens Fielding: The calendar year?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I will ask that sections 4 and 5 of this question stand; No. 4 to be corrected, and No. 5 because the answer to it would require the collection of information from the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-PROPOSED LOAN.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO asked:: Were there any communications or negotiations, verbal or otherwise, prior to the 26th October, 1908, or prior to November 16, 1908; between the government or any member therof, or any person by or on behalf of, or with the knowledge or consent of the government, with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, or the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or any person on behalf of either of said companies, with reference to the proposed or any loan by the government to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company? If so, when?


William Stevens Fielding: Members of the government have had frequent conversations with representatives of the Grand Trunk Pacific on all matters relating to the affairs of the National Transcontinental Railway. So far as these conversations affected the matter of the loan, the substance of them is covered by the papers before the House.


William Sora Middlebro: Was the government or any member or members thereof, consulted or communicated with, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, or the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or by any person on behalf of either of said companies, as to the form or substance of the letter of the 16th November, 1908, from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the government, and was such letter first submitted to the government or any member thereof for approval or amendment? If so, when?


William Stevens Fielding: I beg to repeat the answer given to the former question.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CONMEE.

Mr. JAMES OONMEE (Thunder Bay and Rainy River).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. There was a reference by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) yesterday to a 'special train' or 'express train.' I may say that a reference of that kind has been made previously in this House. I happened to meet the

hon. member this morning, and I told him it was my intention to ask him for an explanation. I thought the remarks were directed to me. I asked yesterday if I was correct in thinking so, and the hon. gentleman replied that he had directed his remarks to me. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, hut I see there is another sinner on the other side, and perhaps I may be able to get some information from him-


George Eulas Foster: Order.
Mr. CONMEE

he having used the
same language. I refer to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).


George Eulas Foster: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the word 'sinner' should not be employed in the debate.


James Conmee: I will withdraw that word, and I will refer to the hon. member as the spotless dove that represents North Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand that the opprobious epithet has been withdrawn?


James Conmee: I may say to the House that I am indebted to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) himself for this word, he having applied the same name to me last year. If he wishes to deny that he is spotless and wants us to assume that he has spots all over him, I can tell him of some of them


George Eulas Foster: I think I must ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep the hon gentleman (Mr. Conmee) to the point. Surely, we are not going to have a bear garden again.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) has risen to a question of privilege, and he must confine himself to that question.


James Conmee: May I ask the hon. gentleman for an explanation of his remarks in regard to this 'special train'-what relation he supposes me to have to that subject, and why he used the expression in the House?


George Eulas Foster: What remarks?


James Conmee: A few evenings ago the hon. member used the same expression, 'Send him away on his special train'-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) had better confine himself to the present debate.


James Conmee: Very well. I see two or three members on the other side who indulged in a good deal of mirth over this question. I think they nearly all clapped their desks. Among them, for instance, was my venerable friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro). Surely, he will give me an explanation; surely he will condescend to give me some information with regard to this particular train.


James Conmee: 


Mr. HUGHES.: How can they give information when they had nothing to do with it?


James Conmee: I think I saw the gallant colonel (Mr. Hughes) also


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) a question: How can any one on this side give information concerning that train when the hon. gentleman himself seems to be the only one posted concerning it?


James Conmee: I assumed that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) had the courage of his convictions, but it seems that he indulges in remarks at the expense of his fellow members and, when asked for an explanation, has none to give.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) had better confine himself to the question of privilege.


James Conmee: I see that the hon. member for Simcoe, who used the words of which I have spoken, is now in his seat. Perhaps he would be good enough to give an explanation of what he referred to.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: The hon. member refers to


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member has referred to 'the member for Simcoe.' I am one of the members from Simcoe, and I do not wish to be catechised by the hon. gentleman, as I said nothing concerning the matter.


James Conmee: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie) had any idea that he was referred to. I referred to the hon. member for East Simcoe.


George Eulas Foster: He is on your own side.


Mr. LENNOX.: South Simcoe. Let us have it 'South.'


James Conmee: I see the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is now in his seat. I ask him if the remarks he made with regard to 'special train' or 'express train' were directed to myself. I would like an explanation from him now as to why he coupled me with that transaction.


Haughton Lennox: I had not the advantage of being in the Chamber at the time the hon. gentleman began his remarks; I understand him, however, to refer to something that I interjected across the floor of the House yesterday. When the hon. member from Rainy River spoke of an accommodation affidavit, I said it was not an accommodation train, nor was it a special train, nor was it, I might say, a Sunday ' nighter ' either. The train I referred to was a Sunday night train-if I recollect correctly- whether the hon. gentleman had any con-

nection with that train I am not prepared to say. If it is in order, I would like to elaborate more fully what I did refer to. I referred to an incident that occurred in connection with the last general election on a certain Sunday night previous to the Monday of the election. A certain train started from Port Arthur, I think, for a bush poll, and that bush poll was in the hon. gentleman's riding where an attempt was being made to conduct a special and peculiar election in the hon. gentleman's interest. A number of young and inexperienced, and I am afraid, somewhat ignorant boys were upon that train, were got upon that train, and they were taken to that poll; and the sworn evidence in the court of justice was that these young men, or some of them, voted several times, and voted, if I recollect the evidence rightly, in the interest of my hon. friend from Rainy River. The incident was a very disgraceful and unfortunate one, and it reflected no credit upon the manner of conducting elections in the Dominion of Canada. It was a special train, and_ it had the distinguished honour of having a very distinguished name applied to it, ' the Conmee special.'


James Conmee: I expected just such an explanation from my hon. friend. He is entirely misinformed as to the facts. He has not hesitated to make insinuations which I cannot help but think reflect upon me, because the hon. gentleman wished to convey that there was some wrong-doing on my part in connection with a special train during the last election. Now he has made to the House a statement which, to use parliamentary language, is entirely incorrect. I happen to have in my possession a little bit of evidence on that point to which the hon. member referred.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think it would be an abuse of the privilege of the House to introduce that evidence. The hon. gentleman may properly make a statement now.


James Conmee: I am not going to attempt to give the evidence further than to say that there was no evidence of anv special train. Perhaps I may be permitted to Tead the words which the'judge used in his address to the jury. The judge, in addressing the jury in regard to this matter, called their attention to the fact


Haughton Lennox: What is the name of the judge?


James Conmee: Judge Britton. I have in my hand the official report; anybody is welcome to see it. He said that reference had been made to a special train, and he called their attention to the fact that there was no evidence, that nobody had given any evidence, that there was a special train; nobody pretended to say there was a special
train. The judge, for the benefit of the jury, defined a special train; he said it was a train engaged for a special purpose, to start from a specific point. The train in question was a construction train, a usual construction train used in the construction of all railways. This was a Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or the branch from Fort William west. The line was not then completed ; it was not opened for traffic. Everybody who wished to go on that line, either for election purposes or for any other, took advantage of the train, the work train going out at a certain hour on that evening. The evidence goes to show, not only that some voters did go-that is true-but a great many others went on that train. The train carried supplies for track laying, coal and other things for the work, just as it did on other occasions. There was nothing special about it. Now, I notice that some hon. gentlemen seem to be very much interested in this particular train. Let me say to them that there is nothing to their credit in the case that came before the courts, and nothing to the discredit of the member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River. No person ever suggested that I had anything to do with it, or any knowledge of it, or the slightest thing to do with regard to it. I do not propose to discuss the evidence now, but it goes to show that there was a prostitution of justice, manipulated by a government other than the government that forms this cabinet.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Those words exceed the limit of debate.


James Conmee: I think I am trying to keep within the rules of debate.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I refer to the words 'prostitution of justice.' I invite the hon. gentleman to withdraw them.


James Conmee: I will change them, and say there was a miscarriage of justice. There was one man in connection with that transaction-I do not want to mention names, it is not fair-but I have no hesitation in doing so if hon. gentlemen wish me to do so. The culprit in the whole case, as the evidence showed, and as the jury found, was the brother of the Conservative organizer in that particular riding.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question of privilege of course relates to the hon. gentleman himself, and he should not depart from that point.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I think Mr. Speaker, you should compel the hon. member for Rainy River to take his seat when you are giving a ruling.


James Conmee: An hon. member has a right to make an explanation, because the

hon. member for Simooe (Mr. Lennox) stated that there was a fraudulent transaction in connection with that poll, that a special train was the Conmee special. I say these words are untrue, they are entirely incorrect, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw them.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. In the first place I did not say there was a special train, I said it had been spoken of as a special train, as the Conmee special.


James Conmee: The House has heard the words , of the hon. gentleman, and surely when that question is raised


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman is bound to accept the statement of the hon. member for Simcoe as to what words he did use. That is the rule of the House.


James Conmee: I do not see that his present words make it much better.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is the rule of the House. The hon. gentleman is bound to accept the statement of the hon. member he is referring to the moment he says, 'These are the words which I uttered.' That is the rule of the House.


James Conmee: But, Mr. Speaker, have I not a right to object to the words if they are not correct?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: You must accept his statement of the words that he used.


James Conmee: I bow to your ruling. The hon. member now says that what he said was that the train was spoken of as a special train, as the Conmee train. I say that is equally objectionable, because it casts a reflection upon me. The hon. member went further than that, he referred to the personation of votes, and he said they were all cast for me. The evidence does not show that; the evidence shows that votes were cast for both candidates.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order, I did not say that the votes were all cast for my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee).


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman made the statement that the votes were cast for me. Whether he used the word ' all ' or not, I am not going to say but he did .make the statement that the votes were cast for me. That statement is incorrect and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not understand the hon. member's point.


Haughton Lennox: No, nor nobody else, I think.


James Conmee: The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) in his remarks stated that this poll was a bush poll, that Mr. CONMEE.
a train was got up on Sunday after evening to take the voters there. The whole tenor of the hon. gentleman's remarks was that this was a manipulation, a wrongful manipulation under the law, a disgrace to the elections in the country.


An hon. MEMBER.: So he said.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Conmee: That the illegal votes that were cast were cast for myself as the candidate.


An hon. MEMBER.: In your interest.


James Conmee: In my interest. Now I say that is not the evidence


Samuel Hughes: That is the evidence.
Mr. CONMEE-but the evidence disclosed was that there were at that poll improper votes but that they were cast for both candidates. The hon. member has made a statement that he should withdraw and I ask that he do withdraw it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot compel the hon. member to withdraw any statement; I have not read the evidence. It is a matter of appreciation on one side or the other. The hon. member has made a statement, he has denied a statement made by the hon. member on the other side, and I think the question of privilege does not arise.



REPORT OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
On government orders being called.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, before the government orders are called, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has yet any statement to make with reference to the disclosures made by the commission In the _ province of New Brunswick, and about which I asked him yesterday and the day before.


Right Hon.   S@: I stated to my hon. friend yesterday that I had sent for the report and the evidence. I have not received the evidence. As to the report I have not yet read it through but so far as my information goes and my judgment at the moment, there is nothing to call for government interference in this matter.


George Eulas Foster: I desire to give notice to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) that at the very earliest opportunity, I hope not later than Monday, we will challenge the judgment of the House with reference to that matter. I would be very glad if my right hon. friend could arrange that it be' taken up on Monday. I do not think it will take very long but it would be satisfactory to have a date arranged for it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to accommodating my hon. friend in that matter.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Further consideration of the motion of Mr. Fieding, that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. SPROULE.: I want to draw attention to the fact that this order is improperly on the Order Paper. It was superseded by the adjournment of the House, it was an undisposed-of motion and should not appear on the Order Paper as it is. Bourinot refers to a similar motion as follows :
On another occasion the House adjourned while a motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair was under consideration, and it became necessary on the next sitting day to move that the House do immediately resolve itself in Committee.
As I understand and interpret the rules a motion falls to the ground and must be renewed under such circumstances and therefore this order is improperly on the Order Paper.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Since Bourinot wrote his work, the House in 1906 adopted a new series of rules. Rule 32 reads:
If at the hour of six o'clock, p.m., on a Wednesday or Thursday, or at the time of the adjournment of the House, a motion on the notice paper he under consideration, that question shall stand first on the order of the following day, next after orders to which a special precedence has been assigned by rule or order of the House.
I have consulted the officials of the House in this matter and from what I can learn this rule is susceptible of two interpretations. I am giving it now the most favourable interpretation and allowing the question to Temain on the Order Paper. As the rule here evidently requires, in spirit if not in letter, I have allowed the motion to remain on the Order Paper and I think it is now in order.


Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).: Mt. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Before the hon member proceeds I suppose the House will want to dispose of the point, of order raised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).


William Pugsley: If you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will pardon me, I have a statement to make to the House with regard to the objection I raised yesterday. You remember I stated yesterday that if my hon.
friend would produce to the House the original affidavit which was declared or sworn to upon the 12th of October, 1908, I Would make no objection! to the reading of the whole of it. This morning I had the opportunity of having a conference with my hon. friend the member from St. John (Mr. Daniel) and he has undertaken to produce and file with the clerk - which I presume would be done before I make any observations to the House-the original declaration sworn to or declared upon the 12th of October. Upon that undertaking of my hon. friend I withdraw all objection to the reading of the declaration which was made at a later date.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am very glad to hear the statement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). I stated yesterday that I had the original affidavit in my possession, and I was only anxious to lay it before any committee which this House would appoint.


William Pugsley: It is to be laid on the table, is the understanding with my hon. friend,-and filed with the clerk of the House. Is there any misunderstanding between us as to that?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have no objection at all to take that course.


William Pugsley: Very well.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And I will have much pleasure, after reading it, in placing it in the hands of the clerk of this House. I am very glad indeed to hear the statement of the Minister of Public Works. I think the stand which he has taken to-day is one not only in his own interest but in that of the public life of Canada generally.


William Pugsley: I never objected to that.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When these charges are made and solemly declared and sworn to in various parts of the country I certainly think, especially when they affect a person so high up in the country as a minister of the Crown, that the least parliament can do is to investigate these charges to see whether they are true or whether they are false.


Samuel Hughes: May I interject a question?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Only with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Samuel Hughes: With the hon. gentleman's permission, are we to understand that there is any procedure taking place to-day different from what would necessarily take place under the rules of parliament? As I understand, when a member reads a document in the House it must be laid on the table.


William Pugsley: As I understand there are two declarations, one declaration which was made and signed, or rather alleged to have been made and signed, on the lgth October, 1908. My hon. friend says he has that declaration with him. That is a declaration which I have for months been seeking to obtain access to. My hon. friend has undertaken now that that declaration shall be filed with the clerk of the House
My hon. friend has stated he has also in his possession another declaration which makes a slight change in the previous one, and declared to in the month of March of the present year. That is the one my hon. friend is going to read and that is the one which in the ordinary course will be laid on the table. But my hon. friend has also undertaken that he will also lay on the table a declaration which was originally made or declared to on the 12th of October, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: Will the House allow me for a moment. I wish to guard the House against a possible error. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) stated not once, not twice, but three times that he had the original affidavit and that was the affidavit he proposed to read, and was only too anxious to have read.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have not only the affidavit referred to but I also have the other affidavit which so far has not been referred to, and made by Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, I think the day following the original affidavit.


William Pugsley: Don't let my hon. friend misunderstand me; surely there is no need of misunderstanding.


George Eulas Foster: There is not any.


William Pugsley: There was an affidavit or declaration professed to have been made by Mr. Mayes on the 12th of October, 1908. That declaration is alleged to have been read at a meeting in St. John. It was published in the St. John press upon the morning of the 13th, and was published broadcast throughout Canada the same morning. It must have been telegraphed to the various newspapers, the Conservative newspapers particularly, throughout Canada. Now, that is the declaration which I understand my hon. friend has with him and which he has undertaken to file with the Clerk of this House. I am quite willing he should read the other upon that undertaking, and then of course they will both be filed, but don't let my hon. friend misunderstand what I say.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have been making great efforts to get this affidavit before the House, and I leave it to the judgment of the House if it is my fault that I have been prevented. Perhaps I should go over it all again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: I don't want to do that,- because I purpose laying a motion before the House and in that motion there are extracts from the affidavit.


Haughton Lennox: Read it all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Very well, I will read it all:-
I, Gershon S. Mayes, of the parish of Lancaster, city and county of St. John, province T New Brunswick, contractor, do solemnly declare:-That on the first day of September, 1905, on the advice of the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, who was then Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick, and is now Minister cf Public Works of Canada, I had a conversation with George McAvity, of the city of St. John, and the said province, merchant, relative to tenders for dredging which was then to be done in the harbour of St. John by the Public Works Department of Canada, of which the Hon. C. S. Hyman was then minister. Mr. iMcAvity proposed that I should go to Ottawa on Monday the 4th of September as he was going and would meet me there at the Russell House on the 5th inst. We did meet according to appointment. Mr. McAvity wanted to know what price I wanted. I told him that I had tendered in June for 50 cents per cubic yard. He said: Why not ask 55 cents, giving him (McAvity) five cents per yard or 10 per cent. I said: Why not do as we talked of in St. John, which was that he should go in with me and take a quarter or half of the cost of the dredge and receive his proportion of the profits. He said: Yes he could do that when he got home and might put from $10,000 to $20,000 in it and perhaps get some friends in it with him, but for the present he would go in on a percentage basis and would see Hyman right away. Well, I said: What should I do about financing it and wrhat was he going to do to help me? Oh, he said, he could easily arrange with the banks, no trouble at all when you have got the contract. We went to see Hyman at half past two p.m. McAvity went in and I stayed outside. I had told Mr. McAvity to arrange if possible to have at least 400,000 yards to diedge. McAvity came out and got me to go in and I explained to Mr. Hyman the difficulty of bringing a big plant and only digging a small quantity. Mr. Hyman agreed to see that if I got the contract, that is, if I was the lowest tenderer, I should receive the 4GO.OOO yards. Afterwards Mr. McAvity said that I had better arrange an agreement. I said: Why not wait until we get back to St. John and hear whether the tender has been accepted or no-t. He said that he had a copy of agreement already. I said: How did he get it? He said: Oh they were all ready here. I then read it over and told him that it was all one-sided, I was to do the work; he was to get the profit. Well he said: What do you want me to do? I told him that I still thought he should be financially interested, he and his friends, to the extent of from $20,000 to $30,000 at least; that it was a long, back load for me to carry. Oh, he said as before, the banks would help me and wait till I got home. rNo, I said,' 'I have got to go right to Boston and close the trade with the dredge-owners.' 'Well', he said: 'Better sign the agree-

ment now. 'Well', I said: 'Why not you be bound to do something'. Well, he said for me to write something at the bottom and he would sign it. I said: 'I am not a lawyer'. Oh, go ahead', was the reply. So I wrote what came to mind and he signed it. A copy of this agreement is hereto annexed marked ' A ' and the part written by me is marked ' Al.' I then made up the tender at 55 cents per yard for soil and $8.90 for rock and bculders, inclosing $20,000 cheque.
These agreements I may say are as follow:-
Memorandum of agreement made fifth day of September, in the year of our Lord 1905, between Gershon S. Mayes, of the city of St. John, province of New Brunswick, contractor, and George McAvity, of the same place, merchant.
Whereas, the said Gershon S. Mayes has made a contract with the government of Canada to dredge a certain portion of the harbour of St. John for 55 cents per cubic yard;
And whereas, the said George McAvity is interested in the said contract with the said Gershon S. Mayes, and it has been agreed between them that the said George McAvity shall receive all moneys paid to the said Gershon S. Mayes for the said work over and above 50 cents per cubic yard;
Now, this agreement witnesseth that the said Gershon S. Mayes in consideration of one dollar in hand well and truly paid at or before the ensealing and delivery of these presents and of divers other good causes and considerations him thereunto moving, hereby agrees with the said George McAvity to pay the said George McAvity, his executors, administrators, or assigns, all moneys which may be received by the said Gershon S. Mayes, for dredging the said harbour of St. John upon the above mentioned contract or any continuation thereof, over and above 50 cents per cubic yard, and the said Gershon
S.	Mayes agrees to pay the said moneys to the said George McAvity as the same are received by him from the government of Canada or from other persons paying the said Gershon
S.	Mayes for the said dredging. In witness whereof the said parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first above written.
(Sgd.) GERSHON S. MAYES, GEORGE McAVITY.
That is the agreement marked ' A.' The agreement marked ' A 1 ' is as follows:-
And whereas the said George McAvity is to receive moneys out of the performance of the above contract, he agrees and promises to use his influence and endeavours with the Minister of Public Works or officer of the government at Ottawa, to increase the number of yards to be dredged at the aforesaid site of contract.
(Sgd.) GEORGE McA.
The next day, the 6th, I was informed by Mr. Hyman that my tender was accepted. Months afterwards I learned that my tender was the only tender received both times; that is in June and in September. Engineer La-fleur wrote the letter giving 400,000 yards to be done and I left for Boston, via Montreal, and afterwards secured dredge and brought her to St. John. On October 15, 1905, I received a 1364
telephone message from Dr. Pugsley asking me to call and see him next day which I did. He said: ' Mr. Mayes, I am in need of money and it would be nice if you could help me.' I i said: 'Dr. what for? You know I have paid you some $1,300 in my second case against Connolly which you have in a way offered to pay back because you have said that Mr. Emmerson was so slow in bringing up the matter and I have not the funds. I am carrying a big back load and am paying large amounts to the Bank of Montreal for overdrafts.' Just then Mr. George McAvity came in and Di. Pugsley said that Mr. Mayes business was getting along so well that a little money would be very acceptable. I again stated that I was carrying a big back load and that I could not see why Dr. Pugsley should ask me for money. I said : ' What do you want it for ? A loan ? ' ' Well,' said Dr. Pugsley ' you see it will be nice to have some one who could do something for you while in Ottawa'; there was always something to be done, and if I could not give him a cheque that I could give him a note for three or four months. I asked how much and he said: 'Oh about $2,500 or $3,000/ I said, ' This is too muoh but I suppose I will let you have a note for four months for $2,000.' Dr. Pugsley then made the note out and I signed it. He said he felt sure that he would give me good return for it or pay it back. I went out and was followed shortly after by Mr. McAvity, who asked me what in the devil I gave Dr. Pugsley so muoh for. He thought $1,000 more than enough. I asked why he had not said so and he replied that he could not interfere but thought it a pretty hard time to ask me for money. I said, ' yes and what did he do for it?' and McAvity said that he (McAvity) had arranged with Mr. Hyman.
On November 11, 1907, while I was seeing Dr. Pugsley about some troubles I was having he casually remarked, had I seen Mr. McAvity yet? I said I had met him quite often. He said had I squared accounts with him lately, that he did not wish to know anything about it but surmised that perhaps it would be well to get things going along smoothly. The next day, November 12, I saw McAvity at his office and spoke of money matters. He said that he had been at Ottawa and had got the amount from the accountant and that I owed him $8,633. I said that it was a large amount to pay and that I was not earning much. However I paid him the amount by cheque. I further say that the following is a complete record of my payments to Mr. George McAvity under agreement:
1906.
January 29	$ 4,000
July 6	 2,000
August 8	 2,000
August 24	 2.000
October 20	 4,000
October 30	 2,000
November 23	 2^000
1907.
April 6	 4,300
August 1	 5,000
November 12	 8,633

On 24th July last I wired the minister that my contracts were completed. The engineer in charge had given his certificate, and I was

then entitled to receive the balance of all moneys earned as well as all moneys retained for the performance of my contracts.
Not having received any money I saw the minister on 21st August at St. John. He insisted that I should pay McAvity the balance which he claimed to be due under the agreement before he would let me have my money. I said: ' Can you, as a minister of the Crown, hold my money that way? He said he thought he could. I saw the minister again the next day to see if I could get my money and he told me that he was anxious that I should see McAvity and fix matters up right away and that he did not wish to have the affair in the courts. I then wrote the minister stating that I could not understand why he should use his position to hold up the man who had earned the money in order that a middleman should exact his satisfaction. He then wrote me that he would give instructions for the payment but I did not receive any of the money that was due me until about a month afterwards though the minister had with him when in St. John an account showing exactly what was due me.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and knowing it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at the city of St. John, in the city and county of St. John, this 12th day of October, 1908.
(Sgd.) GEESHON S. MAYES.
(Sgd.) W. HENRY HARRISON,
A Commissioner for taking affidavits
to be read in the Supreme Court.
Declared before me at the city of St. John, in the city and county of St. John, this 24th day of March, A.D. 1909.
(Sgd.) W. HENRY HARRISON,
A Commissioner for taking affidavits
to be read in the Supreme Court.
(Sgd.) GERSHON S. MAYES.
Now, the affidavit which I have read perhaps places in as succinct a form as I could do it the various statements which have been laid before the public. The statetments, in short, are to this effect, that in June, 1905, Mr. Mayes sent in a tender to the Public Works Department offering to do certain dredging in the city of St. John. The price which he asked for that dredging was 49 cents per cubic yard.


William Pugsley: He swears to fifty cents.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Forty-nine.


William Pugsley: No sir, he says fifty in the declaration.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am aware that Mr. Mayes spoke of it as fifty cents and I am aware also that the hon. Minister of Public Works, in this House, a few days ago, spoke of it as fifty cents.


William Pugsley: I spoke of it as forty-nine cents.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: It has been spoken of a3 a fifty cent contract.


William Pugsley: I spoke of it as forty-nine in the return which I gave.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister also spoke of it as fifty cents. It is very easy to turn it up. I looked it up on purpose to see whether the minister had made that reference or not and I am absolutely sure I am stating what is correct and that ' Hansard ' will bear me out. That first tender has been carelessly spoken of by every one almost as a 50 cents tender, but in reality it was a 49 cents tender for that class of material and was not accepted by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Mayes, however, was anxious to get a contract with the government, so he looked around for help and applied to my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), who was then, I believe, his solicitor and also Attorney General of New Brunswick, and he advised Mr. Mayes to consult Mr. Geo. McAvity. In that, there was nothing out of the way that I can see. Mr. McAvity was then, as he is now, a prominent business man in the city of St. John, financially able in every way. Mr. McAvity, however, also occupied the position of active business manager of, or the hub around which the whole Liberal party machine in the city of St. John turned. In that statement, I think I am entirely within the truth, because it is well known by every one in that city that Mr. McAvity was the chief executive administrator, so to speak, of the Liberal party in St. John at that time and is still, for all I know. Mr. Mayes took the advice of his solicitor (Mr. Pugsley) and consulted Mr. McAvity, with the result that they both came to Ottawa. They had a consultation here about the prices to be charged for this dredging. Mr. McAvity interviewed' Hon. Mr. Hyman, who was then Minister of Public Works, and afterwards interviewed Mr. Mayes; and on the strength of those interviews, Mr. Mayes put in a tender at 55 cents. Then he was asked by Mr. McAvity to sign an agreement to pay him five cents per yard over and above what he had told Mr. McAvity he was willing to do the work for. He signed that agreement. But Mr. Mayes, although he signed that agreement. was not entirely satisfied with it. He thought it was altogether one-sided, that under it he was to do the work and Mr. McAvity was to get the profit. He therefore urged the latter to take a financial interest in this dredging, but Mr. McAvity _ would not consent to do so and did not. If it were necessary to give any proof of that, I might refer to the affidavit which Mr. McAvity himself made and published in the city of St. John as a reply to the affidavit of Mr. Mayes. But I do not think it necessary, because it is generally known that Mr. McAvity had no financial interest whatever in

that dredge and did not claim any. Consequently the only interest he had in the matter was in the obtaining of this percentage on the money paid Mr. Mayes for the dredging; and what Mr. Mayes got in exchange for that five per cent was the political influence of Mr. McAvity with the Department of Public Works. That agreement, 1 submit, is something which this parliament has the right to take seriously into its consideration and ought to deal with. All that Mr. McAvity had to give or to sell in connection with this dredging contract was his influence with the Department of Public Works. He makes no claim to have any financial interest whatever in the dredging plank In fact, according to Mr. Mayes, he declined to take any financial interest in the matter at all. All he gave was his political influence, so that, under these circumstances, the agreement between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes was, I submit, a corrupt and immoral one. I think I am justified in going further and saying that it was an illegal agreement. If hon. gentlemen will look up section 158 of the Criminal Code, subsection (1), they will find it is as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not less than $100, and not exceeding $1,000, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month; and in default of payment of such fine, to imprisonment for a further term not exceeding six months who, by reason of, or under pretense of, possessing influence with the government, or with any minister or official thereof, demands, exacts or receives from any person any compensation, fee or reward, for procuring from the government the payment of any claim, or any portion thereof or for procuring or furthering the appointment of himself or any other person to any office, place or employment, or for procuring, furthering the obtaining for himself, or any other person, any grant, lease or other benefit from the government ; or offers, promises or pays to such person, under the circumstances and for the causes aforesaid, or any of them, any such compensation, fee or reward.
N-ow, I make no claim at all to be learned in the law; but looking at that section as an ordinary layman, it appears to me that such an agreement as the one I have mentioned must come under the clause I have read. Therefore, I think I am justified in declaring that that agreement was not only corrupt and immoral but also illegal.
From what I can see, it appears to me that this $35,933, which was paid to Mr. McAvity under this agreement, was nothing but plain plunder of the public purse and undisguised robbery of the public treasury.
I do not intend troubling the House with any extracts from newspapers, although there was a great deal published in connection with this matter, except to refer to an editorial in a St. John Liberal newspaper, edited by a man well known in public life, who has always been a consistent Liberal,
who is so constant to his Liberal principles that even when he held the office of postmaster, while his party were out of office and the Conservative party were in power, that newspaper still stood by its Liberal principles and criticised the government of the day, although its proprietor and editor was an official under the Conservative administration. And he afterwards resigned his position and gave up whatever financial emoluments he was receiving from it rather than give up anything of his Liberal convictions. The paper I refer to is the St. John * Globe,' and in its issue of October 16, 1908, the following editorial appears:
Thirty-five Thousand Dollars.
While the air is blue with affidavits, declarations and letters in regard to the dredging transactions between Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity, and while there are several statements and counter statements, there is danger of having one important matter overlooked. That important matter is that the Dominion of Canada is out over thirty-five thousand dollars upon the Mayes dredging contract, and that, apparently, somebody ought to pay that sum of money back to the Dominion treasury. It really belongs to the people of Canada; and indeed the sum may be more than the amount named. The former Minister of Public Works-Mr. Hyman-Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity would seem to be the principal parties concerned. Mr. Mayes was willing to undertake to do the work of dredging for fifty cents a yard, and tendered to do it for that price in June, 1905. Apparently this price was for a smaller quantity of dredging than was eventually done. And the natural inference is that if Mr. Mayes could dredge a smaller quantity at fifty cents a yard, the much larger quantity which he eventually had assigned to him could have been done at a lower price. However, that is not material. Nothing came of the June tenders, but early in September of that year Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes were in Ottawa together and Mr. Mayes got the enlarged quantity of dredging at a higher price per yard-five cents more-than he originally offered to do the work for. There is no clear indication at all why Mr. Hyman allowed the higher rate, but possibly he may not have given the matter much thought, or have regarded the increase per yard as not very serious. It is quite clear now that if he took this simple view of the matter he was in error, for it enabled Mr. Mayes to pay Mr. McAvity a very large sum out of the profits of his work, over, as we have stated, thirty-five thousand dollars. As it would be unreasonable as regards Mr. Hyman to assume that he knew of the arrangement between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes, it would be unfair to assume that he ought to make good out of his own means the higher price paid out of the treasury to Mr. Mayes. This leaves the matter as between Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity on the one part and the Canadian people, whose money they got, on the other part. Mr. McAvity is not very clear in his statement as to why Mr. Mayes should pay him the amount which he did pay him, although he does seem to have done some service in going to Ottawa several times in connection with Mr. Mayes's business. Mr. COMMONS
Mayes, capable business man as he is assumed to be, seems not to know clearly why he paid the thirty-five thousand dollars over to Mr, McAvity, and asserts that he has taken proceedings at law to get it back. If he gets it back, it ought surely to be returned to the Canadian people to whom it would seem in equity to really belong. But, perhaps, if Mr. McAvity were to send the money back to the treasury, and Mr. Mayes were to stop his suits to recover it, that would seem to be the best settlement. Hon. Mr. Pugsley, who is now the Minister of Public Works, standing in the interests of the people, would certainly do the right thing in endeavouring to secure some such settlement in the interests of the country, for it appears to he quite clear now without any reflection upon his predecessor's management then .that Mr. Mayes could have done the work for the price at which he first tendered. After all is said

I would ask the special attention of the Eight Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to this:
After all is said, the main consideration is the public welfare, and the safeguarding of the interests of the people whose money has been so improperly taken from them. This whole matter is a vivid illustration of how the people may he preyed upon. A crisis will come in the administration of affairs in this country if there he not close attention given to the real interests of the people.
The other two principal points in the affidavit relate, I think, to the statements . with regard to Mr. Pugsley, when, in 1905, he was Mr. Mayes' solicitor and attorney general of the province. The statement is made by Mr. Mayes that he paid Mr. Pugsley $2,000. The statement that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) made in reply to that is: Yes, Mr. Mayes did pay that money to me, but he paid it for professional services which I rendered him. Now, Sir, that is a perfectly good reply. The point is one that can be easily proved, and if this committee of investigation is given-and I presume and hope that it will be-nothing will be easier for the Minister of Public Works than to give his detailed bills to that committee and show the services for which that $2,000 were charged. The other matter is with reference to the allegations which Mr. Mayes makes, that the present Minister of Public Works, since he has been Minister of Public Works, held back payments from Mr. Mayes which were due him on his dredging until he had satisfied the commission, of Mr. McAvity. Now, I am not going to argue whether that is true or whether it is not true; I take it as a matter of evidence to be given before the committee of inquiry. I may say this, however, in going over the papers that were brought down in connection with these matters, 1 have seen some telegrams, a few of which I will read and which will show the House at all events, that there is some slight Mr. DANIEL.
evidence to support the statement of Mr. Mayes that he was held up. These documents, of course, were taken from the files of the department and were brought down and laid on the table. The first is a telegram, addressed to the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works:
St. John, July 21, 1908. Eugene D. Lafleur, Ottawa.
Contract No. 6745 completed, also No. 6791.
J. K. SCAMMELL, Engineer in charge.
The contracts referred to were Mayes' contracts. The telegram is to be found at page 171 of the return. Then, at page 172, there is the following telegram:
Ottawa, July 25, 1908. Scammell, resident engineer.
Has Mayes' contract been satisfactorily completed? He is applying for return of security deposited.


EUGENE D. LAFLEUR.
[Stage Direction]
At page 179 of the return, there is the following telegram:
St. John, July 27, 1908.
E. D. Lafleur,
Chief Engineer, Ottawa.
Your telegram received. I would consider c< ntract No. 5754 satisfactorily completed.
J. K. SCAMMELL, Engineer in charge.
Also at page 179 of the return there is another telegram as follows:
St. John, July 31, 1908.
E. D. Lafleur, chief engineer,
Public Works Department, Ottawa.
All dredging of contractor Mayes completed except city's contract at Sand Point, berths ?, 3 and 4.. Soundings now being taken show considerable work to be done there before I can pass upon this.
J. K. SCAMMELL, Engineer in charge.
On page 180 there is the following telegram:
St. John, July 31.
To E.   D.@: Lafleur,
Final estimates for accounts on all government dredging contracts controlled by this office have been sent to you. Mayes dredge hauled up yesterday to be dismantled.
(Sgd.) J. It. SCAMMELL.
Then on the 5th day of August, page 181 of that return, there is a memorandum to the chief engineer, signed by Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works:


Right Hon.   S@: Mayes, dredging contractor, writes me that his work is completed. Kindly iet me know if you have received a certificate from resident engineer Scammell to this effect. Mr. M'. is anxious to have the whole matter closed up, and if the necessary certificates have 'been furnished I shall be glad if

you will have the matter attended to with as little delay as possible.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM PUGSLEY.
On that same memorandum the following is written:
All contracts with this department completed. Security deposits can now be returned.
(Sgd.) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR,
Chief Engineer.
That is on the 5th day of August. Now, as opposed to that, it would seem that notwithstanding the statement which I have just read signed by the chief engineer of the Public Works Department 'That all contracts were completed, and no reason why payment should not be made, and even security deposits returned,' we find that on the 22nd day of August, Mr. Mayes was still without his money, and he wrote the following letter to the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works. It shows that no matter what the reason of the delay was for the payment to Mr. Mayes, Mr. Mayes himself at all events, considered that he was being held out of his money because Mr. McAvity had not been paid up. It is as follows:
St. John, N.B., Aug. 22, 1908. Hun. Wm. Pugsley, Esq., M.P,
Minister of Public Works, St. John, N.B.
I understand that the Minister at that time was in the city of St. John.
Dear Sir,-I regret you have seen fit to u itlihold from me payment of my July estimate and the balance of my contract in consequence as you stated to me, of iMr. Geo. McAvity having wired you that I owed him some money. I do not think that this is a consistent position for you to take. Mr. Mc-Avity's bills against me are a personal matter and are different entirely from anything between the government and myself. I consider that I have overpaid Mr. McAvity to a very large amount. He proposed to have certain conditions carried out by which I would obtain more dredging work, and would receive fairer and more equitable treatment from the officials of the department. He has utterly failed in this, and I now propose to enforce my rights by bringing suit against him to recover the very large amount which I have paid him, some $36,000. You are perfectly aware that Mr. McAvity's claim against me is for percentages on my contracts with y< ur department in consideration of his services in helping me to get a contract, and his promise that he would do all in his power to assist me to get others. Knowing this as you do, I cannot understand why you should use your position to hold up the man who has earned the money that a middleman may exact his satisfaction. I will therefore tliank you to have the balance of my account, $56,591.63, remitted to me at once as my work has been completed and certified to by your officers. I may say further that J have claims against the department which I propose to forward
at an early date, based on improper measurement of the barge loads, and also for the extra work of digging boulders of a size not contemplated or covered by my contract, together with other items, to^ all of which I will thank you to give consideration.
I remain, yours obediently,


G. S. MAYES.
[Stage Direction]
Now, Sir, I think I have given fairly good reasons why these matters which have taken up so much time this afternoon, should be investigated by a committee of the House. I referred yesterday to the Hodgins case; I will refer to only one more before I take my seat. It will be remembered that in 1907 a paper in New Brunswick spoke of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) in a manner which reflected on him very seriously, a reflection which he stated himself was npt true. But what was the result in his case? The hon. member for Westmoreland, although he denied the truth of the statement, felt that the very fact that a reflection had been made upon him was a reason why he should, for the time being at all events, retire from his position in the ministry, and defend himself and clear his character. It is a painful subject to recall, and I will not read his letter to the Prime Minister; but I will read the Prime Minister's letter to the hon. member for Westmoreland, then Minister of Railways. The Prime Minister in referring to the hon. gentleman's letter to himself, says:
To this communication I sent to Mr. Emmerson the following reply:-
Ottawa, April 1, 1907
My dear Emmerson,-I have come to the conclusion that the course which you take is, under existing circumstances, in the publio interest. You owe it to yourself, to your colleagues and friends, to clear your character of the charges levelled against you. You could well ignore mere insinuations, but d'reet and specific charges you do well to face as soon as uttered. I will place your resignation in the hands of His Excellency.
Now, Sir, taking those cases as precedents of what should be done where charges are made against the public administration of affairs in this country, charges as in this case solmenly made-because if Mr. Mayes had been stating what is not true, he knows, as every one knows, that he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury-I say that under the circumstances we must take some notice of this very serious statement which has been published broadcast over this country, reflecting on the administration of the Public Works Department, reflecting also upon the present Minister of Public Works.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that all the words after 'that' be struck
[Stage Direction]
out, and the following be substituted therefor:
That in the month of September, 1905, a contract was awarded by the Public Works Department to Gershon S. Mayes, of the city of St. John, for dredging at Sand Point, St John, N.B., at the price of $8.60 per cubic yard for materials specified as of class 1, and 55 cents per cubic yard for materials specified as of class 2, and that before the signing of the said contract the said department, through its chief engineer, guaranteed by letter to the said contractor 400,000 cubic yards ot all classes of material as the quantity to be removed under the said contract.
That on the fifth day of said month of September, before the signing of said contract, the said Gershon S. Mayes entered into an agreement with George McAvity, of the said city of St. John, whereby the said Gershon S. Mayes agreed to pay the said George McAvity all money which might be received by the said Gershon S. Mayes under the said contract or any continuation thereof over and above 50 cents per cubic yard, and the said George McAvity agreed to use his influence and endeavours with the Minister of Public W orks or officer of the government at Ottawa to increase the number of yards to be dredged at the aforesaid site of contract.
That in the month of June, 1905, the said Gershon S. Mayes had submitted to the Department of Public Works a tender to do the said dredging of material of class 2 at 49 cents a cubic yard.
That in reference to the said contract and agreement the said Gershon S. Mayes at the mty of St. John, on the twelfth day of Octo-oer, 1908, made and published a solemn de-cia ration in which he alleged that on the day September, 1905, on the advice of the Hon. William Pugsley, then Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick and now Minister of Public Works, he had a conversation with the said George McAvity relative to tenders for the said dredging and that as a result he was induced by the said George McAvity to increase his tender to 55 cents per cubic yard; that under the said agreement with the said George McAvity he paid the latter at various times during the .1 ears 1906 and 1907 sums of money amounting * n the aggregate to thirty-five thousand nine hundred and thirty-three dollars
That the said solemn declaration also contained the following statements:
On Ocober 15, 1907, I received a telephone message from Dr. Pugsley asking me to call see him next day, which I did. He said, Mr. Mayes, I am m need of money and it would be nice if you could help me.' I said ' Doctor, what for ? You know that I have paid you some $1,300 in my second case against Connolly which you have in a way offered tc pay back because you have said that Mr. hmmerson was so slow in bringing up the matter and I have not the funds. I am carrying a big back load and am paying large amounts to the Bank of Montreal for over-gi aws. Just then Mr George McAvity came in and Dr. Pugsley said that Mr. Mayes' business was getting along as well that a i ttle money would be very acceptable. 1 again stated that I was carrying a big back load and that I could not see why Dr. Pug-
John Waterhouse Daniel: sley should ask me for money. I said, ' What do you want it for, a loan?' 'Well,' said Dr. Pugsley, ' you see it will be nice to have some one who could do something for you while in Ottawa there was always something to be done and if I could not give him a cheque that I could give him a note for three or four months ' I asked how much, and he said, ' Oh, about $2,500 or $3,000.' I said, ' This is too much, but I suppose I will let you have a note for four months for $2,000.'
Dr. Pugsley then made the note out and I signed it. He said he felt sure he would give me good return for it or pay it back. I went out and was followed shortly after by Mr. McAvity who asked me what the devil I gave Dr. Pugsley so much for. He thought $1,000 more than enough. I asked why he had not said so and he replied that he could not interfere, but thought it a pretty hard time to ask for money. I said, ' Yes, and what did he do for it? ' and McAvity said that he (McAvity) had arranged with Hyman.
On November 11, 1907, while I was seeing Dr. Pugsley about some troubles I was having, he casually remarked, had I seen Mr. McAvity yet? I said I had met him quite often. He said, had I squared accounts with him lately; that he did not wish to know anything about it, but surmised that perhaps it would be well to get things going along smoothly.
#[DOT]##*##
On 24th July last I wired the minister that my contracts were completed. The engineer in charge had given his certificate and I was then entitled to receive the balance of all moneys earned as well as all moneys retained for the performance of my contracts. Not having received any money, I saw the minister on 21st August at St. John. He insisted that I should pay McAvity the balance which he claimed to be due under the agreement before he would let me have my money. I said,
' Can you as a minister of the Crown hold my money that way? ' He said he thought he could. I saw the minister again the next day to see if I could get my money, and he told me that he was anxious that I should see McAvity and fix matters up right away, and that he did not wish to have the affair in the courts. I then wrote the minister stating that I could not understand why he should use his position to hold up the man who had earned his money in order that a middleman should exact his satisfaction. He then wrote me that he would give instructions for the payment, but I did not receive any of the money that was due me until about a month afterwards, though the minister had with him, when in St. John, an account showing exactly what was due me.
That it subsequently appeared that the date 15th October, 1907, was inserted in the said solemn declaration in error, and that the said date should be 15th October, 1905, and the said original declaration has since been amended accordingly and again solemnly declared to.
That the said George McAvity had no financial interest in the said dredging contract except such as was due to his political influence, and the sole consideration for the payment of the said moneys received iby the said George McAvity out of the moneys paid by the government under the said dredging con-

tract was the political influence of the said George iMcAyity in connection therewith.
That the said solemn declaration was publicly read by the Hon. J. Douglas Hazen, premier of the province of New Brunswick, at a large political mass meeting in the city of St. John on the evening of the said 12th day of October, 1908, and the allegations contained therein, as well as the said corrections in the date above referred to, have since been published . in many leading newspapers throughout Canada.
That in the opinion of this House, in view of the serious character of the matters aforesaid, the allegations contained in the said solemn declaration and all relevant matters touching the said dredging contract ought to be referred to a committee of this House to inquire into and investigate the same and to report thereon in order that the truth or falsity of the said allegations may be determined, and that any public moneys improperly paid out in connection with the said dredging contract may be recovered and restored to the public treasury.


William Pugsley: I will thank my hon. [DOT] friend if he will send over the affidavit sworn to on the 12th of October, 1908.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I might say that I lay that affidavit on the table of the House, as I stated at the outset of my speech.


William Pugsley: I asked my hon. friend to send me the original affidavit sworn to on the 12th of October, 1908. He now sends me the affidavit, not with the date ' 1907 ' in it but with the date ' 1905,' corrected. Is that all my hon. friend has that he is going to send me?


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is the original affidavit that was read by the Hon. J. D. Hazen in the city of St. John on the 12th of October, 1908.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can see in a moment that that cannot be the affidavit which was read.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I wish to say, Mr. Speaker

Some hon MEMBERS. Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. minister has the floor and he is certainly entitled to a hearing.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) must see that. I say this, not intending to say anything_ that would hurt the hon. gentleman's feelings or wound his susceptibilities, but as a fact which he must be aware of, because the hon. gentleman in the very resolution which he has read makes the statement that the affidavit read upon the 12th of October declared that I had received these moneys from Mr Mayes in the year 1907 and that it appeared subsequently that the year 1907 was inserted through error. Now then, in the affidavit
which my hon. friend has sent to me apparently, the year-I cannot tell exactly what the figure previously was-but it reads now ' October 15, 1905.' Of course, if that is all the hon. gentleman has; if he has simply the one affidavit which was corrected some four or five months afterwards and two months after parliament had been in session; if he sends that to me as being the original affidavit of October 12, 1908, then all I can say is that I regret that my hon. friend inadvertently misled me when he made the statement that he had two affidavits, the one of October 12, 1908, and the other of March, 1909. The hon. gentleman made that statement to the House; he acquiesced in the question which I put to him. I put the question distinctly to my hon. friend as to whether he had the two affidavits in his possession, the one of October 12, 1908, and the one of March, 1909, and my hon. friend assented to that and led me to believe that he intended to lay the original affidavit with the figures '1907' upon the table of the House.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) holds in his hand both of these affidavits.


William Pugsley: There is only one affidavit here.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He holds in his hands the affidavit solemnly declared to on the 12th of October and also on the 24th of March.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, it may be that my hon. friend is not aware of the statement which he is making, but he has only forwarded to me one declaration, and that declaration contains, it is true, two jurats, but it only professes to be an affidavit giving the date as ' 1905.' Now, what I thought my hon. friend had, and what I wanted to have laid upon the table of the House, and what I made numerous inquiries about-inquiries, through my solicitor, of the premier of the province of New Brunswick, who is the Attorney General of that province, and who read that false affidavit before that public meeting; who read that affidavit, and read it, I believe, with the intention of inducing the people who were present at that meeting to believe and had it circulated broadcast throughout Canada in the morning papers following that meeting, so as to make the people of this country believe, and intending to make them wrongfully believe-


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.


William Pugsley: -that I


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: -that I as a minister of the Crown, that I as Minister of Public Works of Canada


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. member rise to a point of order?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I rise to a point of order. The minister stated that Mr. Hazen read that date as 1907 down in St. John and that he did it with the intention of deceiving. I say that Mr. Hazen read the date


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am in order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman will understand that a point of order may be raised in reference to a breach of the rules of the House. The statement now being made by the hon. member does not apply to the rules of the House.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to this point of order; I made the statement yesterday that the Hon. Mr. Hazen read the date as 1905.


William Pugsley: That is not a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is impossible for the Speaker to give a decision unless he hears the point of order. 1


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am simply raising the point of order that the Minister of Public Works says he does not believe my statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No. No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is what I am stating.


Mr. FISHER.: No such statement was made by the minister.


William Pugsley: I will tell you why I believe that this clause in the affidavit-


Samuel Hughes: Order.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. I will not allow three or four points of order to be raised one after another until the first is decided. The point of order by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) is no point of order at all.


Haughton Lennox: Then, if the Speaker has ruled, I wish to speak to a point of order. The hon. member (Mr. Daniel) yesterday slated that he was at this public meeting, that he was within 10 or 12 feet of the hon.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Hazen, that he heard the affidavit read


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Haughton Lennox: One moment-that he heard the affidavit read-


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, that is no point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. L want to know what the point of order is.


Haughton Lennox: That the hon. member for St. John heard the affidavit read, that when it came to that point where the date 1907 is set out that the Hon. Mr. Hazen paused, and turned to Mr. Mayes and he questioned the matter of the date, and that_ Mr. Mayes then corrected the date, making it ' 1905,' and then the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) says that the hon. Mr. Hazen read the affidavit as 1905, and that the hon. member for St. John-


William Pugsley: That is no point of# order.


Haughton Lennox: Let me state my point of order and I will bow to the decision of the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. LENNOX-that the hon. member for St. John heard the statement read in that way at the meeting at St. John, and therefore the hon. member for St. John now rises to the point of order that he made the statement of his own knowledge that it was read as 1905, and the Minister of Public Works now refuses to take the statement of the hon. member for St. John, and he is bound Mr. Speaker to take it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is no point of order in that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not understand the Minister of Public Works to contradict the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Daniel).


Some hon. MEMBERS: He did.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not so understand it. The hon. member for St. John gave his version of what occurred at the meeting at St. John and the Minister of Public Works is giving a different version.


Haughton Lennox: He was not at the meeting.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order; the Minister of Public Works has a right to speak, he has a right to give his appreciation of what occurred at the meeting at St. John just as the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) has, and there is no breach of the rules of the House in that.


Mr. CROCKET.: Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have a perfect right to speak. Do I understand your honour to rule that a member of this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.
Mr. CROCKET-that a member of this House is not bound to accept-


William Pugsley: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) is putting a question to the Speaker.


William Pugsley: He cannot speak after you have ruled.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down while the Speaker is standing.


William Pugsley: Then let the hon. member for York sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. It is impossible for -the business of the House to be conr ducted in this way. I understand that the member for York is putting a question to the Chair.


William Pugsley: Then let the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) sit down when Mr. Speaker is standing.


Haughton Lennox: And you sit down.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Do I understand your honour to rule-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. The hon. member has a right to put a question to the Chair.


James Conmee: Not without the permission of the member who has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I sincerely appeal to the House that if the House has any intention of transacting business it will assist me in maintaining the rules. I would ask both h-on. gentlemen who are on their feet to sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down; sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is a rule of this House that when the Speaker rises members should be seated.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: Let the Minister of Public Works


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not had as long an experience as I would like to have had
in this Chair, but I sincerely appeal to both sides of the House to assist me in maintaining the rules which are to the honour and credit of the House. I hope I will get the support of both sides of the House in endeavouring to maintain the decorum and dignity of the riouse.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Now, I will proceed.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) did not hear my ruling. He is merely asking a question as to my ruling. I suppose that would be permissible.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to do so in the most respectful manner. I wish to understand if your honour rules that a member of this House is not bound to accept the statement of a fellow member made upon the floor of the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I ruled merely that the hon. member for St. John city and county (Mr. Daniel) was giving a version of what had occurred at a public meeting at St. John and that the Minister of Public Works was giving a different version. If the hon. member for the city and county of St. John had made a statement in reference to himself the Minister of Public Works would certainly have been obliged to accept it. That is a rule of the House. What occurred at a public meeting x-s an altogether different matter.


William Pugsley: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to call your attention to an extraordinary feature of this declaration and one which I think, will cause you to regard with considerable astonishment the remark which has been made that there was no intention of leading the people to believe that I had received this money while Minister of Public Works in the year 1907. I find that this affidavit, which, it has been said, has been corrected, contains now the year 1905, the figure five being inserted in ink and, I presume, it is written over the figure * seven ' which was in typewriting. In the original affidavit it says that ' on the 15th of October, 1907, I-that is Mr. Mayes-received a telephonic message from Dr. Pugs-ley asking me to call and see him next day, whidh I did '-and, Sir, after this affidavit being re-sworn to this alteration from the year 1907 to 1905 is initialed ' W. H.H.5 March 24, 1909. So, there, Mr. Speaker, we have this admittedly false affidavit sworn to by Mr. Mayes on the 12th of October, 1908, the original of which I was seeking for, which my solicitor had demanded from Mr. Hazen, the premier of the province who had read that false affidavit at that meeting, as I was informed. We asked for the original affidavit. We find it kept concealed, no attempt made to correct it and not until the 24th day of

March, 1909, is it corrected by Mayes and re-sworn to by him. Now, then, there is another important matter to which I would like to call your attention, and to which I would like to call the attention of the hon. member for the city of St. John, because he professes to have great pain that he is compelled to bring this matter before parliament. Let me ask him, if he was at that meeting and he knew that the date of 1907 was wrong and that it should be 1905, what he thought next morning when he saw in the 'Daily Standard ' and in other St. John papers the statement that I had received this money in 1907 when I was Minister of Public Works, What did he think of the editorials which charged that as a minister of the Crown I had prostituted my office and received these moneys from a contractor under my department? Let me ask him


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


William Pugsley: Let me ask him what efforts he took to correct the wrong impression that had been given to the public?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The Minister of Public Works has asked me what I thought when I saw in all the press that mentioned it that the date was 1907. What I thought was that the reporters who were present at that meeting failed lamentably in doing their duty.


William Pugsley: Then, Mr. Speaker, let me ask my hon. friend as the candidate of the Conservative narty in the city of St. John, as the candidate in whose interest this affidavit was read, as the candidate on whose behalf the Conservative party had taken to its bosom this self-confessed boodler, according to his own statement, Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, and upon whose friendship and support they were relying, what he did to let the public know, to let the evening papers know that the affidavit was wrong and that so far from my receiving this money as Minister of Public Works I had simply received a fee from Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, who was my client some two years before I became a member of parliament ? What does he think of the fact, that, from the night that the affidavit was read, an affidavit which put me in a most unfortunate position in the minds of thousands of people in this country, because that affidavit was calculated to shock the people of Canada because it was a startling statement that a minister of the Crown, the Minister of Public Works, had taken moneys from a contractor who had dealings with his department, and with Mr. PUGSLEY.
whom it was his solemn duty to deal simply from the standpoint of the public interest, no effort was made to make a correction? What does my hon. friend think of the failure of duty upon the part of Mr. Hazen and upon the part of himself with regard to this matter? What does my hon. friend think of the fact that from the night that this affidavit was submitted to the meeting up to the day ot the election, neither my hon. frined nor Mr. Hazen ever expressed the slightest regret for the great wrong which they had done me? My hon. friend has made the statement that Mr. Mayes immediately corrected this error. When did he do it?


Mr. BOYCE.: On October 13, 1908.


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend when he did it. He did it upon the evening of October 13, and how did he do it? He wrote me a letter and that is the only way in which he did it. He did not do it by letter to the public press, and my hon. friend did not do it by letter to the public press.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Why did the hon. gentleman not do it?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: In the evening papers of October 13 there appeared my denial of this, there appeared my statement that this took place not in 1907 but in 1905. In these papers, Sir, I referred not in mild language to what had taken place. I referred in language, which, under other circumstances, might have been considered harsh, to this matter. I denounced the man who had made the affidavit as an infamous liar, and I denounced the men who had availed themselves of his services in as strong terms as I was able to summon. My denial of this statement and my denunciation of this man appeared in the evening papers of the 13th of October, and it was then and not till then that Mr. Mayes wrote me a letter stating that he had observed in the evening papers the statement which I had made and he desired to express his regret that the date had been given as 1907 instead of 1905. He said that the error as to the date was the error of a typewriter.
Does it not strike you as strange that through the error of a typewriter, these newspaper reporters should have fallen into the same lamentable error? These newspaper men were not typewriters and were supposed to have taken down what was said at that public meeting, and it was very singular that they should have fallen into the same error. Th.e error was stated afterwards to have been a typographical one; but is it not equally singular that

every Conservative newspaper, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, should have been guilty of the same typographical error?
I have another reason for charging the people in St. John who had to do with the preparation of this affidavit, of having deliberately gone to work with the intention of inducing the public to believe that I had received these moneys in 1907, when I was Minister of Public Works. There is strong and clear evidence of that contained in the paragraph itself, outside of the date; and I wish now to denounce that paragraph as absolutely false and concocted for the purpose of inducing the people to believe that I had been guilty of a corrupt act as minister of the Crown. This is what the paragraph states:
He (Mr. Pugsley) said, ' Mr. Mayes, you see it will be nice to have some one who could do something for you while in Ottawa/; there was always something to be done.
What is implied by that? It is implied that I was then a member at Ottawa, and that going to Ottawa, I would be able to confer services on Mr. Mayes; and they weaved the whole thing together and put it into October 1907, and it is difficult for me, it is impossible, to believe that it was not done deliberately with that intent. Is it not strange that if it were a mere mistake, the date should have been put forward two years? Is it not strange that the date should have been put forward from a period when, as solicitor for Mr. Mayes, it would have been perfectly right for me to receive money from him, to a time when, as member of Parliament and minister of the Crown it would have been criminal for me to have received money from him, as a contractor, when to have done so would have made me guilty of grave public wrong? That would have been sufficient to drive me from public life. Is it not strange that such a mistake should have occurred and be attributed to an error of a typewriter in the one case, and to a typographical error in the other? And I here denounce the statement as absolutely false, and declare that I never made any such statement to Mr. Mayes. Let me further say that for years I had been the solicitor and counsel for Mr. Mayes in important legal proceedings, and that he was indebted to me in a very considerable sum of money. I performed, it is true, some service in connection with this matter, and it is true that I asked him for some money on account of these professional services, and that I accepted his note, which he subsequently paid. Let me ask my hon. friend whether there was anything in that which could to-day do me any discredit as minister of the Crown or make me in any way unworthy of occupying the position I do. What was there in 1905,
when I was not a member of this House and when I was solicitor for Mr. Mayes, and had been for years acting for him in my professional capacity as such, to prevent me taking his note for $2,000 in payment of such services?
In the affidavit of Mr. Mayes there is another statement equally false and unfounded, and that is the statement that upon one occasion I declined to pay him any moneys unless he settled with Mr. McAvity. I denounce that statement as absolutely without foundation'. I desire to denounce also another statement, and that is that I held up moneys which were coming to him. There is not a shadow of foundation for it. So far from holding Mr. Mayes up, the facts were these:	In the
summer of 1908, I received from Mr. McAvity a telegram stating that he was interested in the contract with Mr. Mayes, that there was money due him, and asking if I could not retain these moneys until settlement could be come to between them? Of the relations between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes, I knew nothing. Whether they were full partners or not I knew not. I had not the slightest intimation as to what were the relations between them, or what agreement they had together, but on receipt of that telegram, I understood that they were in some way interested together. I then communicated with Mr. Mayes, and called his attention to the fact that Mr. McAvity had said he was interested in the contract and had asked me to delay payment until they could arrange matters. That is not an unusual thing for the department to do. It is not unusual for the department to receive information of a dispute between the partners and to be asked by one of them to delay settlement on that account.


George Eulas Foster: Were they partners ?


William Pugsley: I do not know but I assume they were. Mr. Mayes himself makes the statement, in the declaration mv hon. friend has read, that he requested Mr. McAvity to put in $20,000 to $30,000. I assumed that they were partners, but what their actual relations were I had no knowledge, not having been informed by either of them, and that was a matter with which I had nothing to do. True, on the 22nd of August, Mr. Mayes wrote me the letter which my hon. friend read ; and in order that hon. members may judge for themselves whether or not I was holding up this gentleman with a view of assisting some one else, let me read the letter which I wrote Mr. Mayes two days after:
G. S. Mayes, St. John.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of yours of the 22nd instant, and in reply would remind you that, when I informed you of the notice whioh I had received from Mr. McAvity that he was

interested in the moneys coming to you from my department and had requested me not to pay them over until the matter was adjusted, you admitted that there was an amount coming to him, which you said you were prepared to pay, provided I would allow a further claim whir'll you said you proposed making, and would buy your- dredge. The impropriety of your proposal, which I told you I could not possibly entertain, did not seem to impress you as it ought to have done.
As you, in your letter, deny any indebtedness to Mr. MeAvity, I do not propose to intervene in the matter, and shall give instructions for the payment to you of the amount found to be due you by the accountant of my department. If you have any further claim on the department, it will be dealt with on its merits. Whether or not you owe Mr. MeAvity or have overpaid him, or whether or not there should be litigation between you, is, I beg to assure you, a matter of perfect indifference to me.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you and the members of this House to say whether, either from Mr. Hyman when Minister of Public Works or from myself, after I became minister, either Mr. Mayes or Mr. MeAvity received any favour of any kind or description, which any ordinary contractor was not entitled to receive from the department ? In fact, his ground of complaint was the very reverse.	And this, I suppose, induced
him to go from step to step, first asking me to buy his dredge, then asking me to recognize claims which he was making against the department, and, when he found he could not succeed in that, making threats of what he would do in the way of exposure, which, I suppose, he thought some of our friends would be afraid of, and finally making this affidavit in the hope of injuring me and the Liberal party. Let me say that from beginning to end Mr. Mayes was constantly claiming . favours from the department. After I became minister he sought to have his contract, which he said he was willing to have carried out at fifty cents, raised to ninety cents, claiming that it was fairly worth that; he wanted to have an allowance made for boulders of $19.60 instead of $8.60. And you will see in the records brought down letters and telegrams from him, and I have in my possession letters and telegrams from Mr. MeAvity asking me to grant certain favours. And if you look over the correspondence from beginning to end, read it line by line, you will not find anything to show that I treated Mr. MeAvity or Mr. Mayes as if they had the slightest claim upon my friendship or upon my consideration, but that in all cases I discharged my public duty and held Mr. Mayes to the absolute performance of the contract which he had with the Public Works Department. Surely that is of some importance when this House is considering whether or not there should be an investigation. Let me say to my hon. friend (Mr. Mr. PDGSLEY.
Daniel) that if he, as a member of this House, can find in the correspondence brought down-which, no doubt, he has perused with the utmost care-any affidavit of Mr. Mayes or any words upon which he, as a member of this House, would feel that a charge can properly be made against me as Minister of Public Works, I invite him to make that charge. And let me say to my hon. friend-and I speak as one who has had some parliamentary experience- that that is the proper and the manly course to pursue. Let me say to my hon. friend that it is neither manly, in my judgment, nor is it honourable, nor is it conduct to be expected of public men, that they should, by mere insinuations seek to destroy the character of their opponents when they are uot prepared to take the reponsibility of submitting definite charges tor investigation by parliament.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), while I am willing to give him every latitude, is going rather beyond the limit when he accuses me of taking an unmanly course and a dishonourable course. I would ask the minister to take those words back.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not hear the word ' dishonourable.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will ask the minister if he did not make use of that word? He was referring to the action


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) insist on these words being withdrawn?


William Pugsley: What I was endeavouring to do was to point out, in language which could not be mistaken, what is the duty


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


William Pugsley: -of a member of this House. Sir, I could not by any possibility withdraw that statement


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
Mr. PUGSLEY, -because, Sir, I was simply laying down a rule which ought to govern every hon. member of this House.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I rise to a point of order.
I ask the Minister of Public Works to withdraw those expressions. If he does not,
I shall then have the liberty of following suit. And, if it is the rule of parliament-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The words 'unmanly' and 'dishonourable,' if used, I think, are not parliamentary.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the word 'unmanly'; I did not use the word 'dishonourable.' What I said


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. It is impossible for a member to be heard if he is interrupted in this way.


William Pugsley: What I intended to say, and what I have no doubt I did


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. This is very unbecoming.
Mr. PUGSLEY,-what I have no doubt I did say was that the honourable and manly course for a member of this House, instead of making insinuations, was to make a charge so that it could be investigated. And these are sentiments that it would be impossible to withdraw.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Sit down.


John Waterhouse Daniel: My point of order is that the minister says I have been making insinuations against his character. I have made no insinuations, and I ask him to withdraw that statement.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think on that score the minister (Mr. Pugsley) can accept the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) that he made no insinuation.


William Pugsley: Well, I have


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Give him a chance.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. It is impossible for the minister to speak if he is interrupted in this way. I merely want order to be upheld in the House; i understand the desire of the House is that order should be maintained. It is useless to put a question to an hon. member, and, when he rises to answer it, interrupt him. How can he speak if order is not maintained?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) says he did not insinuate anything against me, I accept his statement.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) and every member of the House knows very well that I never insinuated anything. Every member of the House knows that any insinuations or charges against him have been made by Mr. Gershon S. Mayes on oath.


William Pugsley: Then, I understand that my hon. friend did not make any insinuations against me?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Yes.


William Pugsley: He certainly has not made any charges against me. But he has intimated in language pretty clear and plain that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) ought to accept my resignation as a minister of the Crown.	- 'Sfif!


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker-I will endeavour to make you hear.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. I do not want language of that kind used to the Chair.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have no instructions to receive. Order.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentlemen on your right will be quiet, people will be able to be heard. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that the Minister of Public Works should withdraw a certain statement and he has not withdrawn it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He has withdrawn it. I understood the hon. minister to withdraw his statement.


Samuel Hughes: We take the Speaker's word for it-the minister has withdrawn it.


William Pugsley: And yet my hon. friend says that he has made no insinuations against the minister. Might I ask my hon. friend, when he comes to think it over after he has had a night to think the matter over, whether there is not an insinuation contained in that suggestion of his that the Prime Minister should ask me to resign. Let me ask my hon. friend to tell us, after he has thought it all over, what he meant by calling up the case of my hon. friend who now so worthily represents the county of Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) in my own province; what was the sense of my hon. friend referring to that case, also making a suggestion as to the duty of the right hon. the Prime Minister in the circumstances? Now, I desire to repeat the well known rule, I repeat it for the information of my hon. friend from the city of St. John, that if a member of parliament desires to have a minister's conduct investigated, if he thinks the minister	has	been guilty of	any	wrong-doing,then	it	is not only	the	proper andmanly course, but the parliamentary course, the course which appeals to the	good	judgment of	all	decent men,that	he	should have	the	courage to
prefer his charge before the House and undertake the responsibility of producing ground for his charge. That is a fair course to take towards a minister, and it is the course which I am sure, upon reflection, the hon. gentleman will see he should have pursued.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to some further false statements in the affidavit or declaration which my hon. friend has read. It makes the statement that Mr. Mayes was informed that he was the only tenderer upon both occasions; and my hon.

friend in fathering that affidavit, in making himself responsible


John Waterhouse Daniel: I wish to correct the hon. minister. I am not the father of that affidavit.


William Pugsley: Well, I am sure the hon. gentleman is not the stepfather.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Perhaps he is the dry nurse.


William Pugsley: That may be. At all events, my hon. friend does assume a certain responsibility, in fact a large measure of responsibility, for any affidavit which he submits to this House. Now no member of parliament should allow people lightly to make affidavits, take them up and read them to this House, where they reflect upon the character of either private citizens or members of parliament. Therefore when a member of this House does read to parliament an affidavit and asks parliament to take certain action upon it, his action ought to be a guarantee that he has made some inquiries to satisfy himself as to the truth of the statements which are there made. Now, what has my hon. friend done? He has read to this House, in the first place, an affidavit which it was admitted at the time it was read to the public meeting, contained a false statement of a most material character, and which continued to contain that false statement down to the 24th of March of the present year, an affidavit which neither Mr. Hazen nor anybody else could alter, except Mr. Mayes himself, by taking it back and going before the notary before whom it was sworn, and correcting it and re-swearing to it. He has read here an affidavit which states that Mr. Mayes was the only tenderer on both occasions. Yet my hon. friend knew from the statement which was brought down to this House, or if he did not know he ought to have known it, a statement brought down in answer to a question put by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), that so far from Mr. Mayes being the only tenderer, upon both occasions there were two tenderers, and that he was the lowest upon both occasions. Now, what does my hon. friend think of that? Does he think that is honorable and fair?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will tell the hon. gentleman what I think of it. I ask him to recollect what was stated in that affidavit with regard to that matter; Mr Mayes says that he was informed months afterwards.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Waterhouse Daniel: You can 'oh, oh,' as much as you like, I am stating what I have just read in that affidavit, and it should be in the memory of every one listening to me now. He does not state that he was the only tenderer, he says that he heard months afterwards that he was the only tenderer.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: If it were not for the information from the department before this House, would anybody suppose for a moment but that Mr. Mayes was the only tenderer? Would anybody suppose for a moment but that he intended to convey the impression that he was the only tenderer, and had got this contract at his own price? and that without any further tenders being received, Mr Hyman, the then Minister of Public Works, had awarded him this contract-without having any other tenders between which and his a comparison could be made? Surely the position which my hon. friend has taken in reading this affidavit is very different from the actual position. He puts it forward in this affidavit as if on each occasion there had been no other tenderers, and that this arrangement had been made between him and the Minister of Public Works. Surely the position is very different, because we find that early in the summer of 1905 there were tenders called for, and the specifications contained the condition that the tenderer should own a dredge registered at the time in Canada; we find that there were two tenders received, that the tender of Mr. Mayes for ordinary material was 49 cents per cubic yard, and the next tender, which was that of Messrs. M. J. Haney and Roger Miller, of Toronto, who were prepared to comply with the condition, and who named the price of $3.50 per cubic yard of material described as class 1, and $1.25 per cubic yard for material described as class 2. There you have experienced contractors, the firm of Haney & Miller, of Toronto, tendering to do this work at the price of $1.25 per yard for ordinary material. Now at that time, if the Minister of Public Works had chosen to waive the condition with regard to dredges, and given the contract to Mr. Mayes, there being that great difference between them, I suppose possibly he could have done so, but it would not have been a fair discharge of his duty as Minister of Public Works, because in asking for tenders he had attached a condition as a result of which, of the two tenders, only one was by parties who were prepared to comply with the condition, and that was for a price considerably higher than the Minister of Public Works thought the work was fairly worth. Now then, did he do the right thine in calling again for tenders? I submit he did. He found that the only firm which was prepared to tender for this work and which had a dredge registered in Canada, tendered at a price which he thought in the public interest he ought not to pay, and thinking that the price was excessive, he called again for tenders. That it seems to me was what it was his duty to do. So far as the affidavit shows, so far as any statement my hon. friend has made to the House shows, up to the time, at all events, of calling for new tenders, there was nothing which could be impugned in the conduct of

the Minister of Public Works, or of the officials of the department. Now, he called again for new tenders, and upon the second occasion, it is not true, as Mr. Mayes suggests, that he was the only tenderer. Again tenders were received from Messrs. Haney & Miller, of Toronto, and also from Mr. Mayes, and upon this occasion Mr. Mayes altered his tender for material of class 1. He reduced that. From this affidavit you would suppose that he did nothing but increase his tender, but as a matter of fact he reduced his tender in respect of one kind of material, of which it was supposed and afterwards proved there were large quantities in the harbour of St. John, that is large boulders. He reduced his tender on this class of material from $8.90 to $8.60 per cubic yard, and raised his price on the other material by 6 cents, making it 55 cents a cubic yard. For one class of work, large boulders, he reduced his tender by 30 cents, and for other materials he increased it by 6 cents, and his tender went in in that form. The affidavit read by my hon. friend shows and the records of the department conclusively prove that his tender and that of Messrs. Haney & Miller, of Toronto, went in in the regular way in accordance with the rules of the department. When the tenders were opened it was found that the tender of Messrs. Haney & Miller was $3.75 per cubic yard for materials of class 1 and $1 per cubic yard for material of class 2. Thus there was a difference of 45 cents per cubic yard between the tender of Mr. Mayes and the tender of Messrs. Haney & Miller.
In the face of the departmental record, in the face of the fact that there were these two tenders, I ask what justification can be given by my hon. friend for reading to this House an affidavit which would lead the members of this House and the people of Canada to believe that no tender was submitted upon the second occasion but the tender of Gershon S. Mayes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the specification the same on each occasion when tenders were called for?


William Pugsley: The tenders in both cases were the same except that when they were called for early in the summer a provision was inserted that the tenderer must have a dredge registered in Canada and when they were called for in September that stipulation was omitted. In all other respects the tenders were the same. No tenders for what the Minister considered a fair price could be got for the work with that provision in as the tender of Messrs. Haney & Miller had shown, but, in order to meet competition when that condition was done away with, Messrs. Haney & Miller, who are very experienced contractors, tendered at the price of $1 a yard and the tender of Mr. Mayes was 55 cents a yard.
I ask what was the duty of the Minister 137
of Public Works? He had invited new tenders by public advertisement in the various newspapers which would come to the notice of contractors. Two tenders were put in, one from an experienced firm, at $1.00 for ordinary material and the other from Mr. Mayes at 55 cents for the same class of material. What was the duty of the minister? Was it not to accept the lowest tender? My hon. friend will say that having invited new tenders it was the duty of the Minister of Public Works to go to Mr. Mayes and say: Why, you tendered before at 49 cents, although now, in response to a public advertisement, you are the lowest tenderer, although you are 45 cents per cubic yard below the next tenderer, a firm of experienced contractors, yet I will not give you this contract on your tender, you must come down to the lower price. Was it the duty of the Minister of Public Works to do that? I do not think so. Bear in mind that Mr. Mayes in this extraordinary affidavit, prepared and read under extraordinary circumstances on the eve of a general election, when there would be a desire to put forth everything which could be put forth against the department in order to injure the Liberal party, nowhere ventures to insinuate that Mr. Hyman was informed of Mr. Mayes' readiness to tender at 50 cents per cubic yard. Nor does he venture to insinuate that he ever intimated to Mr. Hyman that he would accept less than 55 cents per cubic yard. All he says is that he went to Mr. Hyman and asked if he could have this larger quantity because he said he was going to buy a dredge in the United States which would cost a large sum of money and he wanted to be sure of a large contract, which was not unreasonable. What did Mr. Hyman say, according to Mr. Mayes' own statement? Mr. Hyman immediately said:	'You will get such a
quantity provided you are the lowest tenderer, that is all.' He happened to be the lowest tenderer and he got the contract at his price of 55 cents per cubic yard. Surely it is important, in considering the adoption of this resolution and the granting of this committee of inquiry to ascertain whether or not in this whole transaction, from the beginning to the end, there is anything reflecting upon the conduct of the Minister of Public Works,_ either the previous minister or myself since I have had charge of this department. I say, that so far as Mr. Hyman is concerned, there is not a particle of evidence and there is not even a suggestion that he swerved one iota from the duty which he was sworn to perform. What does my hon. friend ask? He asks that without a particle of evidence, wihout a charge, without even an insinuation so far as Mr. Hyman is concerned, a committee of this House should be solemnly



appointed in order to inquire as to whether or not Mr. Hyman did his duty as a Minister of Public Works. Sir, Mr. Hyman, is not here to answer for himself, but I would be sorry as one member of this House, to be a party to the appointing of a committee to investigate the conduct of a former minister of the Crown who is not now a member of parliament, without some member at least having ventured to make some suggestion against his conduct.


Haughton Lennox: What about the present minister?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will hear about the present minister by and by. I am speaking now with regard to the late minister, because when this House is asked to appoint a committee to investigate the awarding of this dredging contract it is not to investigate any charge against me, but to investigate the conduct of a gentleman who formerly occupied the position which I have now the honour to fill, it is to investigate the conduct of Mr. Hyman when he was Minister of Public Works and I can appeal to those gentlemen who knew Mr. Hyman when he was Minister of Public Works, who knew how well he performed his duties as minister, to say whether some charge or some statement or some evidence or some fact should not be presented to this House before a committee should be appointed to inquire into his conduct as Minister of Public Works in connection with the awarding of this contract. There is, as I have said, no pretence upon the part of Mr. Mayes that he had any improper communication with Mr. Hyman, there is no pretence upon Mr Mayes' part that Mr. McAvity had any improper communication with Mr. Hyman; and, with the evidence, as I have said, all the one way, the evidence that tenders were invited in the ordinary public way by public advertisement, that the tenders were received in the ordinary way and that the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, it does seem to me that so far as Mr. Hyman and his conduct in connection with the awarding of this contract are concerned, there is nothing to lead in any way to the suspicion that he did not act in an entirely proper manner and entirely in the public interests. Does my hon. friend suggest that Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes were informed of what the tender of Messrs. Haney & Miller was? Does he suggest that?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not at all, not at all.


William Pugsley: Very well, not at all. My hon. friend does not even insinuate that?


John Waterhouse Daniel: No reason to even suspect any such idea.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Very well, I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that. Then what does it come to? It comes to this: That my hon. friend admits that there was no collusion between Mr .McAvity and Mr. Mayes, and the minister.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I admit nothing more than I have stated.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must admit _ that Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes had no information as to what was the amount of the next tender, and that being so, they simply put in their tender at 55 cents per cubic yard, and they took their chance of that being the lowest tender. And, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that there was a difference of 45 cents per cubic yard between their tender, which was the lowest, and that of Messrs. Haney & Miller, which was next to them, is the very strongest evidence of the fact that there was no collusion. Then there was the other fact that the tender of Mr. Mayes on boulders was reduced by 30 cents per cubic yard as compared with what it was under the first tender, and that there was also a change made by Haney & Miller in the price they asked for boulders as well as in the price they were asking for ordinary material. But everything connected with the letting of the contract in the departmental records, and everything which Mr. Mayes has stated, is absolutely consistent with the fact that so far as the minister was concerned, and so far as the officials of the department were concerned, everything was regular and proper. And yet, Sir, we are asked undeT these circumstances to investigate the conduct of a former minister of the Crown in awarding this contract in a regular and proper manner to Mr. Mayes. Let me say this to my hon. friend, and I say it as a lawyer; I say it as one who has had very considerable experience-I have seen the question asked in the newpapers: ' Why does not the Crown proceed against Mr. McAvity? ' Let me say, Sir, that if the Crown could proceed against anybody it would not be against Mr. McAvity, but it would be against that bosom friend of the member for St. John, Mr. Gershon. S. Mayes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I want to say, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: Because, Sir, it was to Mr. Gershon S. Mayes this money was paid. The Crown had no contract with Mr. George McAvity; the Crown paid no moneys to Mr. George McAvity, and the Crown would have no case and no claim of any kind or description against Mr. George McAvity. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) is solicitous for this inquiry in order to see whether the Crown has a claim.

Let me say to my hon. friend that if it is true, as he says, that Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity had no knowledge of what was the next tender; if it is true, as will appear from all the evidence and all the facts we have before us, that there was no collusion of any kind between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes and the minister, and that there was no irregularity in the letting of the contract, let me say that the Crown could have no action against Mr. Gershon S. Mayes. The only ground upon which an action could be founded is that there was collusion. Suppose two people are about tendering for work with any department, and one of them says to his partner:
' Now, I control this matter and I am willing for myself to do this work at a certain figure/ and the other partner says: 'No, we can get more for that; I do not think there is anybody else in the country who will do it for the low figure at which you think of tendering, and we are perfectly safe in tendering at a larger figure/ and a tender is put in and it is dealt with in a proper manner, and upon the advice of the officers of the department that contract is awarded, and the Crown discovers afterwards that one of the partners who might have controlled it would have been quite willing to put in a tender for a smaller amount, could the Crown turn around and bring an action against the firm to recover back the money which it might have saved? Now, in the absence of collusion, that is exactly the case here. My hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) says that Mr. George McAvity became interested with Mr. Gershon S. Mayes in this contract, and if it had not been for Mr. George McAvity Mr. Mayes would have tendered for a lesser figure. But Mr. Mayes did not tender for a lesser figure, and he did not tell the minister that he was willing to do the work for a lesser sum.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He did tender and he could not get the contract.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend need not have brought that in because it has no bearing on the point. He tendered some months before.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Exactly, for the same work.


William Pugsley: That was under another call for tenders and at that time he had not a dredge and the contract could not be awarded to him, and so far as the Minister of Public Works could know he might have changed his mind a thousand times between June and September.	He might
have ascertained in the interim that the work was more difficult than he anticipated and the minister would know nothing about it. The point I make is, that his tender being put in in the regular way in response to a public call for tenders, his tender having been accepted by the minister in good faith, I care not how much he may have 137J	,	I	! i
paid Mr. George McAvity, the Crown has no claim against Mr. Gershon S. Mayes for one dollar of the money which was paid under that contract. And, my hon. friend might as well face it first as last, that the only ground upon which any claim could be made by the Crown against either Mr. McAvity or Mr. Mayes is that there was collusion between them and the department, that there was fraud upon the paTt of the late Minister of Public Works, that he conspired with these people to enable them to get the contract in fraud of the public and against the public interest. That is the only ground upon which a claim could be made, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) wants this committee appointed, and if he wants to see whether this money can be recovered back, let him have the courage to say that the Hon. Charles S. Hyman, while a member of this House, and while Minister of Public Works, was guilty of this fraudulent act and that he was a party to this money having been taken from the public treasury-


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister allow a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If I am out of order I will sit down.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman asking his question.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister say whether in his opinion that was a legal contract between Mayes and McAvity.


William Pugsley: I would not be at all adverse to giving an opinion to my hon. friend on that question if it were at all before the House, but that is a question between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And the minister too.


William Pugsley: I would say this to my hon. friend, and I will not charge him any thing for this opinion-


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is a very unusual thing.


William Pugsley: I would say to my hon. friend that I understand that Mr. Mayes has sued Mr. McAvity, and why? Because Mr. McAvity did not get any favours from the Department of Public Works.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the minister would allow me I may say


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would consider that a good cause for action, because the understanding on which Mr. McAvity got into the agreement was that he would get favours.


William Pugsley: And my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) has actually read to this House a letter-he has actually fathered this letter, too-in which Mr. Gershon S. Mayes complains of Mr. George McAvity that he has not succeeded in getting favours from the Department of Public Works. And that is the ground upon which, just a few days before the election, almost simultaneously with the reading of this affidavit-and let me say. Sir, that the people of St. John accepted it at its true worth, and let me say further, Mr. Speaker, the people of the whole province of New Brunswick accepted it at its true worth. While we had in that province a splendid cause to fight for, and while we had most acceptable candidates in every comity in the province, yet I am almost inclined to think that some small measure of the success which we achieved in that contest was owing to the unfair tactics of our opponents, was owing to their determination, shown day after day and week after week, to resort to all kinds of slander, to hesitate at nothing in order to achieve success, winding up with the reading, by the premier of the province, of this false affidavit, at the great Conservative meeting in the city of St. John.
At six o'clock the House took recess. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: When the House rose at six o'clock, I had made the remark that perhaps the great success which the Liberal narty had won in the province of New Brunswick was to some extent-possibly only to a small extent-assisted by the conduct of the members of the Conservative party in that province, particularly the leader of that party and the present premier of New Brunswick in reading this affidavit at the great Conservative meeting held in St. John on the 12th of October. That was but the culmination of the attacks and of a course of action of a very discreditable character, which, it was hoped, would injure the Liberal cause in the province of New Brunswick, but which signally failed. True, my hon. friend from St. John, (Mr. Daniel) succeeded in getting ^ back to parliament, but he and his colleague who sits beside him (Mr. Crocket) represent all that is left of the once great Conservative party of that province. Of course, they did not spring this affidavit on the public until a comparatively short time before the election, but still where the people had the opportunity of studying the whole question, where they have known me a great many years-because I have lived among the people of St. John upwards of a quarter of a century -they gave a pretty emphatic verdict with regard to these attacks, so far as I myself was concerned. And so far as the hon.


John Waterhouse Daniel: gentleman who represents the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) is concerned, while he has succeeded in being elected, the Conservative majority of very nearly 1,000, wfiich he had in 1904, was cut down to 192. And the majority of about 600 which the late lamented Dr. Stockton had in 1904 was converted into a majority of nearly 6,500 for myself in the constituency which I represent. I have always been ready and willing to meet any attack made upon myself, and it has given me great pleasure to day to have the opportunity of meeting the insinuations which are contained in the statement presented to the House. What I always desire is that I shall meet my opponents in the open, that I shall have the opportunity of facing them, and I have never been afraid-and I trust never shall -to meet my enemies under any circumstances. My hon. friend who represents one of the constituencies of Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asked the question before recess: What about the present Minister of Public WoTks? Well. I shall tell him, so far as this contract is concerned. But first let me ask him if he would join in the insinuations now being made in the Conservative press that I was in some way, directly or indirectly, connected with Mr. Mc-Avity in the advantages got from this dredging contract. If he, or any other hon. gentleman, would join in that suspicion or insinuation, let me ask him whether, if what they suspect were the case, he would not think it strange that I should have asked Mr. Mayes for money instead of going to Mr. McAvity, who, it appears, was to get considerable advantage out of this contract. Or does he not think, if if were understood that I was interested, directly or indirectly, that Mr. Mayes would have referred me to Mr. McAvity instead of giving me this $2,000 for services which he ays was not due me at all and to which I was in no way entitled. I desire to say-and I say it in the most emphatic Planner and in the strongest language possible-that I had no interest at any time, either in 1905 or any time since, directly or indirectly in that contract, that I was not benefited in any way directly or indirectly, by it, or in whatever was derived from it by Mr. McAvity. In 1905, I acted simpiy as the solicitor of Mr. Mayes and was discharging towards him the duty which I thought, as his counsel and solicitor, I might fairly perform. He came to me as his legal adviser, as one who had advised him during a great many years in many important matters, and he asked me if I could Tefer him to any business man in St. John who would be likely to engage with him in this dredging enterprise. I mentioned Mr. George McAvity as a man of means and large experience whom I thought it would be greatly to his advantage to have as a partner. It was under those circumstances, and for that rea-

son and no other, that I referred him to Mr. McAvity. What their arrangements or relations were I never knew, beyond having the general knowledge that they were interested together in the dredging contract, and I assumed that their relations were those of ordinary partners engaged in an ordinary business transaction.
If it is asked: What about my own conduct? I think I can fairly answer that the best way to judge is to look at the record and see whether or not I honestly and faithfully discharged the duty which I owe the public as Minister of Public Works. If any hon. gentleman can find in the correspondence any statement made by Mr. Mayes or anybody else that I ever showed towards him or Mr. McAvity, in connection with this contract, any favour or consideration which might not fairly be shown the veriest stranger, then an indictment might fairly be brought against me. But if I am able to point to the record and show that, although requests were made me from time to time to grant certain favours to Mr. Mayes, and although those requests were made both by Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes, I refused them in every instance and held Mr. Mayes strictly to the performance of the contract, and if I can show specially that there is strong evidence that neither had I any interest in the matter nor was I influenced by friendship towards either party, then I submit that all these insinuations fall to the ground.
I wish to refer again for a moment to the statement that in the interest of Mr. McAvity I held back moneys which were due to Mr. Mayes. I have given that statement an unqualified denial. It is said that he should have been given this money in the summer of 1908-in the month of August, if I remember well. I made inquiry from the deputy minister of my department with regard to the day when the final estimates were submitted, and I received this certificate from him:
Ottawa, Ont., October 19, 1908. Hon. Wm. Pugsley, St. John, N.B.
Final estimate fifty-five cent contract July 29, check mailed September 17; final estimate core July 29, check mailed September 21; final estimate four hundred foot extension, 90 oents, September 19, check mailed September 22; final estimate South Rodney wharf and six hundred foot extension September 21, cheek 9,000 dollars mailed September 29.	5,091 dollars, 90
cents still owing.


Sgd. J. B. HUNTER.: I will tell you why I held back that amount. I had given directions for the payment of the entire sum to Mr. Mayes. But when I went to St. John, I found that certain of the ships berths there which, under the arrangement between the government and the city Mr. Mayes had contracted to dredge out,-or, rather to sweep out, using the more correct expression-had not been
swept out. So far from his performing his contract, he had left a very considerable amount of sweeping undone, and it was reported to me that the big ships would not be able to berth there by reason of his not having performed his contract. Finding this to be the case, I at once telegraphed to the chief engineer-or had Mr. Scammell telegraph, I am not sure which-to hold back certain moneys until Mr. Mayes should perform his contract. I did this in the interest of the people of St. John. And, let me say if I had known at that time facts which have been disclosed since, I would have had more of the money coming to Mr. Mayes held back, because over upon the northern side of the Sand Point slip, in these ships' berths which he was supposed to have dredged, we have discovered a considerable number of boulders which it was Mr. Mayes' duty to remove, and which the department has been called upon since to remove at very considerable expense. Mr. Mayes received money to which, I am bound to say, I do not think he was fairly entitled. And if I had known what I know now, a further amount beyond the $5,000 would have been held back. I state definitely-and I defy contradiction; I defy my hon. friends opposite to look through the correspondence and find anything to contradict me-that I have never held back any money from Mr. Mayes to which he was entitled, and I have never delayed the payment, except, as I have said, in the case of the $5,000 held back by reason of his not having performed his contract for the work of which I have spoken.
Now, I wish to take up some correspondence which has already been published. I speak now only of matters of which I have personal knowledge. If I had not personal knowledge, I would not read from the copies contained in the newspapers, but I am aware they are correct, and my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) if he looks at the files, I have no doubt, will see the letters there. The first letter is dated November 23, 1907, after I had become Minister of Public Works. Mr. Mayes wrote me this letter:
St. John, November 23, 1997. Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Minister of Publio Works, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Permit me to call your attention to the fact that I have not been paid for any work for the last three months. This is entirely due to the appropriation having been exhausted and does not reflect upon anybody. Notwithstanding this, at your request, I have prosecuted this work under my contract just as diligently as if I were receiving the money regularly.
I may say that it was necessary to go on with this work in order to get ready for the steamships expected in the then coming winter.
I am sure you can understand what a burden this has imposed upon me when you con-

tider the extreme difficulty of getting money fiom our banks for any purposes. I have a l-'rge overdraft for which I am paying a heavy rate of interest. Had I so chosen, I could under the terms of my contract have stopped work altogether and thereby practically stopped my expenses, but the result would have been that the work would not have been advanced to an extent necessary to provide for the opening of the winter port season, which it practically is to-day. Under these circumstances I would suggest that you should cancel my old contract from the date of the last payment under it and substitute a r.ew contract embodying all the work which remained unperformed at that date, together with the work since awarded to me and which has recently been surveyed by Messrs. Vali-quet and Holt, this work to be at the same schedule as paid to the Dominion Dredging Company for similar, though in many instances, not so difficult work as we have had, the section, which contains nearly all the boulders in that vicinity, entailing serious breakage and great expense and loss. Besides this, you will find upon inquiry, that before I entered upon my first contract a gieat portion of the high water work which belonged to it had been removed by the local government dredges. Consequently, ,1 have Byways had an undue proportion of low water ,w.hich has added very materially to the difficulties of my work.
Trusting that this request may receive your most favourable consideration.
I remain, yours sincerely,



[Stage Direction]
This gentleman, whose affidavit is now presented to the House, is represented as being_ eager to take the contract at 50 cents a cubic yard. Yet his request is that, owing to the difficulties of the work, he should be allowed to cancel his old contract and be given a new contract at 90 cents per cubic yard, the rate which he was getting under a later contract awarded to him after public tender by the gentleman who was acting Minister of Public Works previous to my appointment. Mr. Mayes made out a strong case, but not strong enough to warrant me as I thought, in the public interest, in acceeding to his request. I wrote him this letter :
16th December, 1907.
Dear Sir,-I have had under careful consideration your letter of the 23rd ult., asking to he relieved of your contract of the 30th September, 1905
[Stage Direction]
That is the contract in question.
-and after consulting with the chief engineer of my department and examining the contract and specifications very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to comply with your request, and I have therefore to ask that you will proceed as rapidly as possible and complete the work required under said contract.
I shall be glad to learn from you how soon you will he able to complete the work.
I am, your very truly,

[Stage Direction]
G. S. Mayes, Esq., St. John.
William Pugsley: Then I find another communication relating to this matter-and I intend to read this in order to show you that I endeavoured to perform my duty to the public and was not in any way influenced in the manner which these gentlemen would have you, Mr. Speaker, believe I was influenced; that I did not, as they have intimated, use my position for the purpose of aiding and assisting Mr. McAvity. This is a telegram which came to me:
St. John, October 10, 1907.
Mayes defies me. In his work absolutely refuses to dredge in accordance with instructions given in writing and also personally
delivered. He stated that we had no power over him; have cancelled all his work until he shows his obedience. Kindly wire as soon as possible.
Have wired the chief engineer.


J. K. SCAMMELL.
[Stage Direction]
I replied by telegram as follows:
Ottawa, 12th October, 1907.
J. K. Soammell, C.E., St. John.
Your telegram received. Carry out instructions of chief engineer.

[Stage Direction]
Which meant that he was to keep Mr. Mayes right down to the performance of his contract. Now, we come down to the spring of last year.
Hon. Dr. Pugsley, Ottawa, Ont.
My dredge ' Beaver ' has been working nearly three years without being registered. Is there a necessity for registering next week for tendering other works, prefer not to.

[Stage Direction]
To which I replied on the 18th as follows
G. S. Mayes, St. John, N.B.
Same condition is in all advertisements issued calling for dredging tenders. Regret find it impossible to make exception in your case.
(Sgd.) WM. PUGSLEY.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. minister one question. Before six o'clock I put a question regarding the second dredging contract into which Mr. Mayes entered, and asked if the same conditions were in the second notice calling for tenders as in the first. One of the conditions was that the dredge must be registered in Canada, and because he did not have a dredge registered in Canada, he failed to get the first contract for which he tendered. I wish to know if I understood the minister aright to say that the condition had been omitted from the second notice and that consequently he got the second contract. Now if that be so, how can that telegram be correct, that the same conditions applied in all cases, and therefore it was absolutely necesary for him to have the dredge registered in Canada ?


William Pugsley: This telegram relates to a new work entirely that I was about to undertake in 1908, and in respect of which the advertisement went out in the ordinary way, with the condition that the dredge should be registered in Canada. We have more dredges now than we had in 1905.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister read the answer he gave?


William Pugsley: This is the answer:
G. S. Mayes:
Same condtion as in all advertisements issued calling for dredging tenders.
That is, all advertisements that my department is now issuing calling for tenders.
Regret, find it impossible to make exception in your case.
Now here comes another. In July 1908 I received from Mr. Mayes a letter under the date of 25th of that month, as follows :
Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works.
Dear Dr. Pugsley,-I wired you yesterday, that my work was completed and now beg to confirm it by letter. So far as the removal of the core was concerned this was a great surprise to us all, including your engineers. The plan, dated June 1, last, showed dimensions which were also included in the specifications, calling for the removal of 12,000 yards. It was rather surprising, therefore, when the removal of 3,000 yards completed the job. As it is very evident that another error has been made, perhaps you will be good enough to point out some 9,000'yards for me to do elsewhere. I understand that the Railway Department want the berth at the Ballast wharf cleaned up. If so, I am ready and willing to do the work.
I remain,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) G. S. MAYES.
And probably under this original contract, whatever work Mr. Mayes would get, Mr. McAvity would get a share of it, and if I wanted to aid Mr. McAvity as a friend, I would naturally be disposed to encourage Mr. Mayes in getting additional work, and consent to his request for additional work. Then he says:
If so, I am ready and willing to do the work.
P.S.-May I call your attention again to the very large amount of money in holdbacks on progress estimates which are now due to me on these accounts. Please have the payment made as soon as possible as I have use for funds.
That date is in July, 1908. On August 10 I received this telegram from Mr. Mayes:
Have kept crew on dredge awaiting possible word from you as to dredging Ballast wharf berths. It can be done more satisfactorily this time of year as place is badly exposed to fall
and winter weather, this now.
Can you kindly arrange G. S. MAYES.
To which I replied on the same date as follows:
Regret unable to comply with your request.
My reason being that when the time came for this work to be done, I intended to put it up to public competition, and was not disposed to let it to Mr. Mayes by private contract. Now in addition to the letters which I have read, there are other letters on file which my hon. friend has had an opportunity of examining, and in which Mr. Mayes was contending that he had a claim against the department because my inspector had not allowed him full measurements; he was making a claim also that he should be allowed $19.60 for the removal of boulders instead of something over $8 which his contract provided for, and his requests in all these particulars I refused and held him down firmly to his contract. Then when he began to feel that he was not going to be shown any favours by me, he writes intimating that he is going to appeal to other members of the government for that justice which I was denying him. Let me say here that the man who gives to Mr. Mayes, from my experience of him, what he thinks is justice, may possibly be doing an injustice to other interests which might be entrusted to his charge. At all events, I simply did what I thought was my duty, I refused to accede to Mr. Mayes' requests. Along in the summer of 1908 he made up his mind that he would like to get out of the dredging business, and he approached me to see if I would not buy his dredge for the Public Works Department, and the price which he wanted was $150,000, or thereabouts. He began to intimate to friends of mine that if I did not buy his dredge there would be some disclosures made which would be very injurious to the Liberal party. He did not expect, I think, that I would be influenced by any of his threats, or by any of his intimidations which he was making, but I think he hoped that by going to my friends and telling them, perhaps half the story, he might induce them to endeavour to bring some influence to bear upon me to purchase his dredge. Well, my department required a dredge, and I was willing to buy his dredge if I could get it at a fair and reasonable price. I desire to say here that word came to me from most reputable friends, and amongst others from Mr. C. J. Osman, who was formerly speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, a gentleman of the highest character, a man whose woTd would be taken more quickly than the affidavit of many people, and a gentleman whom I think my hon. friend from St. John also knows and esteems.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The Hon. Mr. Osman is a very respectable gentleman, formerly a member of the legislative assembly; I believe he was defeated at the last election. I have great regard foT him, as I have for Mr. Mayes.


William Pugsley: Well, it happens, Mr. Speaker, that there is a difference between the two gentlemen. Mr. Osman has occupied a very high and responsible position in the province of New Brunswick; to-day he is manager of a great manufacturing enterprise in the parish of Hillsborough in the county, of Albert. He is a gentleman whose word will be taken everywhere in the province of New Brunswick as a man of the highest hotiour. He has been my friend for a good many years; and one day, during the time of the general election, he came to me in the city of St. John, in a state of considerable excitement, and he said to me that Mr. Mayes had seen him and shown him a photograph of a promissory note for $2,000 which he had given me, and I think also the photograph of the cheque which he had given in payment. He led Mr. Osman to believe, so Mr Osman told me, that he had given me that note at a time when I was Minister of Public Works. Mr. Osman was greatly disturbed about it, and thought that he would come to me as a friend and as a member of the party, and give me notice of what Mr. Mayes had said.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the note bear the date on its face?


William Pugsley: Apparently Mr. Osman did not notice it if it was in the photograph. Mr. Osman did not tell me as to that, but he has said to me and has stated over his own signature that Mr. Mayes led him to believe it was given when I was Minister of Public Works. I said: ' Did he tell you when the note was given? ' He said: ' No.' I said: ' It was in 1905, when I was solicitor for Mr. Mayes,' and I told Mr. Osman he need not worry. Mr. Osman said he was glad to hear it and he returned to his home in Albert county. Mr. Mayes intimated to Mr. Osman that if he could get $150,000 for the dredge, good Conservative as Mr. Mayes was, and I judge still is, there would be, out of this price of $150,000, a contribution of $20,000 towards the Liberal campaign fund. Mr. Speaker, that statement was made not only to Mr. Osman, so Mr. Osman told me, but to several other people of great repute in the city of St. John who all had the same story to tell of these approaches which were made to them by Mr. Mayes, and to different people the threat was made that unless this dredge was bought and an arrangement made to settle these claims, some dreadful and damaging disclosures would be made. To Mr. F. W. Holt, as Mr. Holt has declared by a solemn declaration. Mr. Mayes showed all the documents and photographs and


William Pugsley: said he was about proceeding to Fredericton to have them published in a newspaper with which my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) is familiar, viz : The Fredericton 'Gleaner,' and that they would be published before the election and of course go broadcast throughout the country and do great damage to the Liberal cause. It happened that Mr. Mayes did not succeed either by these intimations made to my friends or by influences of any other kind, in accomplishing his desires. Among others whom he had approached was Mr. John B. M Baxter, an alderman of St. John and then vice-president of the Liberal-Conservative Association, whom Mr. Mayes had got to interest himself in the hope of selling this dredge to my department. On the 30th day of September, 1908, Mr. Baxter sent me this telegram:
St. John, N.B., Sept. 30, 1908. Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Client impatient at hot receiving word from you or inspector

And the client is Gershon S. Mayes-
Client impatient at not receiving word from you or inspector. Quotes your purchase and payment for dredge ' Industry ' by order in council

That is the dredge which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has been inquiring about-and I wonder if he has been having communications from Mr. Mayes on the subject-
Quotes your purchase and payment for dredge ' Industry ' as sufficient precedent for buying his dredge with complete equipment, ready for instant work at smaller price. Points out that fund for purchase is not exhausted or arrangement could be made similar to British Columbia purchase.
Mr. Mayes keeps in touch with all the dredge purchases made.
Advise act immediately, and wire definitely as client insists on prompt decision.


JOHN B. M. BAXTER.
[Stage Direction]
In reply to Mr. Baxter's telegram the following letter was sent by myself:
St. John, N.B., Oct. 7, 1908.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your telegram of the 30tli ult. in regard to dredge ' Beaver ' which was recently examined by the general superintendent of dredging. I regret to say that his estimate of the value of the spares is very much less than the estimate given by Mr. Mayes; and upon his report it would be impossible for me to recommend the purchase of the dredge at the price Mr. Mayes puts upon it.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) WM. PUGSLEY.
Mr. Speaker, I have given you a part of the correspondence and I invite my hon. friends opposite, if there is any one who

ventures to believe or who would like this House to believe that I ever showed Mr. Mayes or Mr. McAvity any favour in connection with this dredging contract or that I ever deviated one hair's breadth from the line of my duty as Minister of Public Works, I call upon him to read it to this House, I call upon him to give to this House and to the country information which he has upon that point. I declare, Sir, that every letter, every telegram which passed between us, every departmental act of mine, every act of mine as Minister of Public Works, will show that I faithfully discharged my duty as between Mr. Mayes, the contractor, and the people of this country.
Now, Mr. Mayes, having tried first by suggestion that there would be a contribu-ton to the campaign fund, a suggestion which did not succeed, because I suppose we did not require any campaign fund
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. PUGSLEY -At all events. Sir, we did not require any campaign fund to be contributed to by Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, nor by anybody else in return for any favours to him or any one else having dealings with the government of this country. After he had failed to accomplish his object by these suggestions, after he had failed by an attempt at blackmail, and after he found that he could not dispose of his dredging plant to the government and could not get his claim settled except in the ordinary way, and get just what he was entitled to get, after he found too that he could not get his contract cancelled, and could not get me to engage to give him a larger amount than he was in justice and by law entitled to, what did he do? He then went to the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick and handed him this affidavit for the purpose of having it read at the great Conservative meeting in the city of St. John on the 12th of October. That meeting was attended by prominent Conservative statesmen from other parts of Canada, among whom was Sir James Whitney, the premier of the province of Ontario. I am told, Sir, and I believe it is just possible, that the reason why my hon. friend succeeded in saving his bacon in the election in St. John was that he and his friends repudiated all knowledge of this affidavit until after it was read; my hon. friend said that this was a great bombshell which Mr. Hazen had been keeping up his sleeve for the purpose of exploding that night, and he and his friends admitted that instead of being a bombshell it proved to be a veritable boomerang and did great damage to the Conservative party. As I said, Mr. Mayes handed to them this affidavit and they made the most of it before the elections. It did not do them any good then and I do not think the fathering
of it by my hon. friend and the reading of it in this House is going to do him and his party very much good now or in the future.
I fear I have already taken too much of the time of the House, but I felt it was necessary that I should refer to these matters in order that the members of the House and the people of the country generally might know just what are the facts of this case, so far as they have come under my own observation and so far as I am able to speak with regard to them.
I simply wish to say this, and I say it with a good deal of sorrow, Sir, that the tactics which were used in the city of St. John and which culminated in the reading of this affidavit were calculated to bring disgrace upon the public life of this country. There is nothing more discreditable, there is nothing more unworthy of those who aTe seeking the confidence of the people than that instead of trying to build themselves up on their own conduct and merits, they should seek to discredit and to destroy the reputation of their opponents by false statements and by slanders. But, Sir, my personal experience in the city of St. John was not very different from that experienced by others in other sections of the country. In the province of Quebec we found the name of Sir Lomer Gouin, the premier of that province, forged to a telegram designed to assist his opponents in the election. Out in the province of British Columbia, upon the eve of the election, when the public mind was excited upon the Asiatic question, when everything depended upon the attitude of the two great parties on that question, we found there a forged telegram read at a public meeting, which no doubt was intended to and designed to and which no doubt did have a most material effect upon the election in the city of Victoria. Down in my own constituency, a few days before the election when the people were in the midst of the excitement of a political contest, at this great Conservative meeting they sought to destroy my character and to injure the Liberal party by reading a false affidavit and publishing it broadcast in the newspapers of this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Such were the tactics of the Conservative party, and I regret to have to say it. They sought to make me suffer by these disgraceful tactics, but. Sir, I am happy to say that the people of the province of New Brunswick viewed such conduct as it should be viewed, and they not only returned me as the representative of one of the most important constituencies in that province, but they sent back ten staunch Liberals with me to support the government. That is the best answer that can be made to the tactics which were used at that time, and which I may say are of a similar character to those which have

for a good many years been directed against me.
I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that while I have made mistakes, as every man who has been a long time in political life has made mistakes, they have been errors of the head and not of the heart. I have endeavoured at all times to do what I thought was in the public interest. While 1 was in the provincial arena I endeavoured to discharge my duty to the public, and when I received the very high honour of being called by the Eight Hon. the Prime Minister to take a seat in his cabinet, I made up my mind that I would be even more zealous than I ever was before foT the public weal. I have endeavoured at all times, Sir, to perform my duties, not only as a member of parliament, but as minister, in what I conceived to be the best interests of the country. And let me say that if there is any gentleman on the opposite side of the House-my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) included-who feels that there is any ground for an attack against me in reference to this contract, or any other, then I say the fair and manly course is to make a charge against me with regard to the administration of my department. And let me say also to these Conservative newspapers which are levelling their vile attacks upon me and seeking to injure my reputation and my character that it would be fair for them to appeal to seme gentleman upon the other side of the House to make a direct and specific charge against me so that I may know what I have to answer, so that an inquiry may take place, and so that witnesses may be called to the end and that we may know whether I am guilty or not guilty of those insinuations which are hurled against me. That, it seems to me, is the fair and manly course to take, and that, it seems to me, is but a small measure of the justice which every public man in this country is entitled to have meted out to him.
Mr. 0. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the Minister of Public Works upon the theatrical success he has achieved. He has certainly attained to the full limit of affected wrath and righteous indignation. I am bound to say that he won my admiration in that respect. I have heard the hon. gentleman when he was a minister of the Crown in the province of New Brunswick making similar exhibitions upon similar occasions in the New Brunswick legislature; I have heard him rend the air with rugged denials and with swelling assertions and denunciations such as we have heard from him this afternoon, but, when following some of these occasions in the legislature of New Brunswick there were investigations, investigations under oath, the denials which the hon.


William Pugsley: gentleman so solemnly made upon the floor of the legislature were completely dissipated. Now, Mr. Speaker, what was passing through my mind when I was admiring the affected indignation of the Minister of Public Works, and when he was denouncing his alleged traducers as infamous and malicious liars, was, why if he had such a feeling against these traducers, and why if these statements which he characterized as infamous, are really falsehoods, why has he not sought to punish those who have done him such wrong. The Minister of Public Works is a lawyer, and no one knows better than he that if the statements which are contained in that solemn declaration (which has now been spread upon the pages of ' Hansard ' and which is now upon the table of this House) be untrue, he has a remedy to punish Mr. G. S. Mayes; he has a remedy to punish the Hon. J. Douglas Hazen, premier of the province of New Brunswick. If these statements be false, as the minister has claimed, the man who made them is unquestionably liable to prosecution for perjury in the courts of this country.
Why then, I ask you, has not the Minister of Public Works resorted to the remedy which the law affords him and instituted a prosecution for perjury against Mr. Mayes? Why has he not instituted an action for libel against the premier of the province of New Brunswick? The Minister of Public Works, I think, went far afield this afternoon when he made such a violent and wholly unwarranted attack upon the honoured premier of that province and I desire, as a member representing one of the New Brunswick constituencies, to resent that unwarranted attack which was made upon that distinguished citizen of the province. What was the reference which the minister of Public Works made to the Hon. J. Douglas Hazen? -that he deliberately read an affidavit knowing it to be false, that he was a party to an attempt to deceive the electorate of the province with respect to the date that the interview which is spoken of in the affidavit is alleged to have taken place between the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Mayes. I thought that, after the statement which the hon. member for the city of St .John (Mr. Daniel) made in this House yesterday, the Minister of Public Works even would have hesitated before making such an attack upon the hon. Mr. Hazen. The hon. member from St. John city stated clearly and distinctly in this House yesterday afternoon that he attended the political meeting at which this solemn declaration was first read, that he was on the platform on the occasion upon which Mr. Hazen was reading this affidavit and that when Mr. Hazen approached the paragraph in which this mis-

take occurred he hesitated at the figures '1907', that he turned, around to Mr. Mayes, that Mr. Mayes then said '1905', and that Mr. Hazen read the affidavit as of 1905. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is one hon. member of this House who would hesitate to accept the statement which was made by the hon. member for St. John yesterday afternoon. And, that being the case, I ask the members of this House if they think the Minister of Public Works did himself any justice or any good this afternoon when he sought to represent Mr. Hazen as being guilty of an attempt to read a false date into an affidavit.
But, Mr. Speaker, I ask you again: Why is it that the Minister of Public Works, if these statements aTe untrue, if this affidavit is false, if this is the greatest outrage that was ever committed with respect to a public man in the Dominion of Canada, has not, in the past five or six months, taken the action which the statutes of this country enable him to take against Mr. Mayes and against Mr. Hazen?
Now, the minister has seen fit to refer to the result of the election in the province of New Brunswick, he has boasted of the result of these elections as a sort of vindication of himself with respect to these charges. He said furthermore that he thought the small measure of success which was attained by the Conservative party in New Brunswick was largely _ owing to the unfairness of his opponents in the use they made of this affidavit in the city of St. John. I think I can give this House pretty well the reasons for the return of eleven Liberal candidates from the province of New Brunswick. I think that the minister's friend, Mr. George McAvity, who is the very same gentleman who, the minister dared not deny this afternoon, got away with $35,000 of the money of the people of this country, had as much to do with Jhe result of the elections in the province of New Brunswick as any other cause. Will the minister deny-I do not think he will-that the same Mr. George McAvity, who got away with this plunder from the public treasury, was associated with himself in the purchase of the St. John 'Telegraph' and the St. John 'Times'. The minister dare not and will not deny that statement because it is a fact that he was associated with Mr. McAvity in the purchase of these two papers which had been advocating the Conservative cause in that province for some months before that time. Not only was he associated with Mr. McAvity but he was associated with Mr. John Moore, another gentleman who has formed a dredging company in New Brunswick and who is obtaining many contracts at exorbitant rates from the Public Works Department. I am not sure but that if the truth were known it would be found that some portion of this $35,900 enabled, at
least his friend Mr. McAvity, to assist in the buying of these papers from the owners at that time. These papers, as I have said, were the only Conservative papers that were being conducted in the city of St. John. The purchase of these papers by the minister and his friend, Mr. McAvity, took away from the Conservative party the only means they had of spreading the issues before the people of New Brunswick. The Liberal party not only had these two papers, but they had two other papers, the St. John 'Sun' and the St. John 'Star' which had been bought some time previously by other gentlemen who had been very close to the treasury of this Dominion-the Hon. B. F. Pearson whose name, I think, will be familiar to every member of this House who takes any interest in the puDlic accounts of the Dominion. So that, I think the less that the Minister of Public Works says in this House with reference to the causes of the so-called Liberal victory in New Brunswick the better for himself. With respect to the election in the city of St. John, it seems to me that if there is one constituency in New Brunswick where this question would have formed an issue and where the verdict in this particular matter _ would have had some significance it was in the constituency in which this affidavit was read. What was the result in that constituency? My hon. friend who addressed the House so fairly this afternoon on this question is here to-night to confront the Minister of Public Works notwithstanding all the efforts which that hon. gentleman made to cause his defeat and notwithstanding the fact that he had not one single paper to espouse his cause in the city of St. John, owing to the action of the hon. Minister of Public Works and his friend Mr. McAvity, in buying up the papers which had formerly been advocating the interests of the Conservative party. In that election the minister sought to make a great deal of this very transaction. He appealed to the electors of St. John not only to elect himself, but to elect his colleague, Mr. Pender, my hon. friend's opponent in St. John, and appealed to them upon the ground that if Mr. Pender was not elected with him there would be no vindication with respect to these charges which he alleged were so foully uttered against him. But the electors of St. John did not respond to that appeal. My hon. friend from St. John, as I have said, is here to-night despite these influences. Now, I think that is all that is necessary to say with respect to the result of the election in New Brunswick.
I have heard the minister say it here and I have heard him say in the legislature of New Brunswick in the same way: Take the manly and honourable course, if you have any criticism to make and make a

charge. I have heard him use the same expression in the legislature of New Brunswick. It is an expression I have heard very frequently in this House-so frequents Iy that it has become a veritable chestnut. \ Make a formal charge.' Does the minister not see that there is to-day on the table of this House a specific charge more solemnly made than could be made by any hon. member speaking from these benches. I venture to say that never in the history of politics in the Dominion, has a charge been more solemnlv and publicly made, or more widely circulated, than this charge which was made in the city of St. John on the 12th of October last. It has been circulated broadcast in every newspaper in the Dominion, and was read in the province of New Brunswick at that great meeting, in the hearing of the premier of Ontario. No charge could be more publicly or more specifically made than that which is now on the table of this House. The hon. minister said yesterday that he would welcome the fullest and freest investigation. That is also a statement I have frequently heard made by him on the floor of the New Brunswick legislature. But if he would welcome the fullest and freest inquiry, why does he not consent to this investigation? What does it matter, so far as his character and reputation are concerned. whether the charge be made by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) or in the shane of the solemn declaration made by Mr. Mayes in that city. The matter is as fully before the people as any proceeding taken in this House could be; and if the hon. gentleman has any regard for his reputation or character, he would not split hairs upon the manner in which the charge should be presented.
The speech which he made this afternoon was full of denials and strong denunciation of his alleged traducers. But was it not to he expected that the minister would make the denials he did? Is there an hon. member who would suppose, for one moment, that the minister would not deny the allegations of this solemn declaration ? Now, I ask my hon. friends on both sides of the House to consider thoughtfully the pretended defence which the Minister of Public Works made this afternoon. Leave out his general denials and his denunciations of the members of the Conservative party and see if he has touched for one moment the gravamen or the gist of the accusations contained in that affidavit. Did he deny the fact, or did he even refer to it at all, that there was an agreement entered into between Mr. Mayes and Mt. McAvity, precisely as alleged in that solemn declaration? No, he did not deny it because, unfortunately for him, we have in that case the documentary evidence which was read this afternoon by my hon. friend from St. John. We have the evidence that Mr. McAvity did not put Mr. CROCKET.
a dollar into this contract, that he had no pecuniary interest in it or other interest beyond his political pull with the Department of Public Works, and that, because of that oolitical pull, he received an undertaking for Mr. Mayes to pay him five cents per cubic yard on every yard of material of that class dredged in the harbour of St. John, and that under that agreement he received from Mr. McAvity, out of the money he got from the department the enormous sum of $35,933. The Minister of Public Works did not choose to address himself to that aspect ox the case at all. Yet, that is the feature of this case which is the most important from the standpoint of the electors of this country. Under that agreement the public treasury of the Dominion has been defrauded of that sum of money, given to Mr. McAvity as a pure and absolute rake-off in exchange for his influence with the department. Of that there can be no manner of doubt, and therefore the minister passed over that phase of the question.
He did not however attempt to justify the inaction of the government in that connection, upon the ground that neither Mr. Mayes nor Mr. McAvity would be liable to an action for the recovery of that money unless there was collusion between the Minister of Public Works and one or other of those gentlemen. I know that the Minister of Public Works is an able lawyer, but I do not think that the proposition he advanced this afternoon in that respect would commend itself either to the lawyers or the laymen of this country. It would seem to me a most remarkable proposition that the only ground upon which an employer can recover back money of which he had been defrauded was that he himself had been in collusion with the oarties who had defrauded him. Yet that is the effect of the contention which the minister made this afternoon. It was that the corporation which had given out ft contract could not recover from its employee or contractor money of which it had been defrauded unless it was in collusion with the party who had committed the fraud upon itself. It seems to me that the contention is so utterly absurd that it would not to be considered even by some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side.
But my hon. friend from the city of St. John quoted this afternoon our Criminal Code with reference to this question of the liabaility of Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity.
I have no doubt myself that this transaction came within the terms of the section which my hon. friend cited and that this was, in the terms of that section, a corrupt and illegal arrangement between Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity. But in addition to the section which my hon. friend quoted, there is this other one which bears upon this legal question:

Sec. 159. Every person convicted of an offence under the last preceding section shall be incapable of contracting with the government, or holding any contract or office with, from or under it, or of receiving any benefit under any such oontraot.
Since that is the law-of which there can be no question-then this was an illegal arrangement and consequently absolutely void, and Mr. Mayes was not entitled to receive from the Department of Public Works any portion of that money. So that, speaking as a lawyer, it seems to me that there can be absolutely no question as to this phase of the controversy. There can be no question that that amount of money was fraudulently obtained by Mr. Mc-Avity out of this contract and that the Department of Public Works and the treasury of this country have been to that extent defrauded. This government has not seen fit down to the present to take any action. I have already pointed out that the Minister of Public Works has not seen fit to take any steps to prosecute Mr. Mayes for that perjury which the hon. gentleman says he committed when he swore to that affidavit, and that he has not ventured to prosecute the premier of the province of New Brunswick for the alleged libel he committed when he read and published that affidavit in the city of St. John. I point out further, that neither the Public Works Department "nor the Justice Department has taken-nor does either intend to take-any action for the recovery of this money of which the treasury has been defrauded. Now, I seriously ask the members of this House to consider if the conduct of the minister (Mr. Pugsley) is consistent with the conduct of a man who is wholly innocent of these charges. If any man against whom such a vile slander as he alleges has been


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) misunderstands me entirely. I said that the slander was with regard to the fact that I had received these moneys while I was Minister of Public Works. That is the slander which was uttered in St. John, that is the slander which was sent broadcast throughout Canada. I do not see where there is any charge in the affidavit as now read, making the date 1905, which one could complain about. There is not very much of a charge in it so far as I am concerned.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I must express astonishment that a gentleman who occupies the high position of Minister of Public Works in this country should state in his place in the parliament of Canada that he does not see any serious charge in the affidavit read here this afternoon with respect to the interview which, Mr. Mayes alleges, took place between him and the present minister on October 15, 1905. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) forget-do members of this House forget?-that in that paragraph the present Minister of Public Works is charged with having asked of Mr. Mayes and having received from him $2,000 in connection with this work as a rake-off?


William Pugsley: It did not say that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister say the statement does not mean that?


William Pugsley: I do not take it so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: ' Mr. Mayes, I am in need of money, and it would be nice if you could help me.' I said, 'Dr., what for? You know that I have paid you some $1,300 in my second case against Connolly which you have in a way offered to pay back, because you have said that Mr. Emmerson was so slow in bringing up the matter and I have not the funds. I am carrying a big back load and am paying large amounts to the Bank of Montreal for overdraws.' Just then Mr. George McAvity came in and Dr. Pugsley said that Mr. Mayes' business was getting along so well that a little money would be very acceptable. I again stated that I was carrying a big back load, that I could not see why Dr. Pugsley should ask me for money. I said, ' What do you want it for, a loan? ' ' Well,' said Dr. Pugs-ley, ' you see it will be nice to have some one who could do something for you while in Ottawa;' there was always something to be done, and if I could not give him a cheque that I could give him a note for three or four months. I asked how much, and he said, * Oh, about $2,500 or $3,000.' I said,
' This is too much, but I suppose I will let you have a note for four months for $2,000.' Dr. Pugsley then made the note out and I signed it. He said he felt sure that he would give me good return for it or pay it back.
Does the minister say that the correction of this date takes all offence from that paragraph? Was he not attorney general of the province of New Brunswick at that time, a minister of the Crown? And I ask him if he regards it as creditable to himself or to any other citizen of this country to have it said of him that he spoke to a contractor under the Public Works Department of this country, promises to use his influence to help that contractor in connection with that contract, and asked and received from him the sum of $2,000? If the Minister of Public Works does not regard that as a serious accusation, I am satisfied he differs very markedly from the great majority of right thinking people in this country. That is an offence under the laws of Canada, whether the hon. gentleman was Minister of Public Works or not. The Minister of Public Works waxes very indignant about this mistake in the date, and, as I pointed out, has accused the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick of deliberately reading that * 1907 ' for the purpose of making a charge against him as Minister of Public Works. Now, I

want to put this to the Minister of Public Works: If the fact is, as he alleged it this afternoon to be, that this note for $2,000 was received by him for professional services, what difference does it make if it was in 1905 or 1907? The question is not when the note was paid; the question is: What was it paid for? As to that, there is a serious conflict between the Minister of Public Works' statement made by the Minister of Public Works on the floor of this House and the statement made under oath by Mr. Mayes subjecting himself to prosecution for perjury if the truth of that statement cannot be established. If the fact is as the minister states, why should he object for a moment to having the matter investigated? Does he object to going before a committee of this House and making a statement under oath? If the facts are as alleged, the falsity of the statement can be determined in ten minutes by an examination of the Minister of Public Works before a select committee of this House. He would only have to produce his books, and if the case is as he alleged, that the money was paid for professional services, his books will show it. That is if he keeps books, because it has been found by a commission which has been investigating certain matters in the province of New Brunswick-


William Pugsley: I call the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) to order. I think my hon. friend is out of order in attempting to refer to what took place in another place reflecting upon myself. At the proper time I shall be ready to answer anything in regard to it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is very pleasantly put-under the circumstances. But, surely, when I am discussing this question I can use any illustration which occurs to me. I referred to that matter to show that if the statement of the minister on the floor of this House this afternoon, that this $2,000 was for professional services, represents the-facts, and if he went before a select committee, the matter could be settled in ten minutes by the production of his books, if he had books; and I was about to remark that, if he had not books, as it seems that the loan company of which he was the whole thing


William Pugsley: Order. I really think my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) ought not to transgress the rules. We have had so much of this that even my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who will stand a good deal and give a good deal, had to object. I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) will not persist.


George Eulas Foster: That is perfectly in order.


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the point of order?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has no right in this debate to refer to a loan company with which he says I am connected and its books. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will remember that the same question touched him the other day with regard to something which indirectly might reflect upon him-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) does not think there is anything offensive in that. If the hon. gentleman happens not to keep books, even when he conducts a large loan company, he should not consider it offensive to have that fact pointed out.
So much, Mr. Speaker, for the paragraph in this affidavit with reference to the note. But does the hon. gentleman say that that is all there was in the affidavit of which he had reason to complain? From the interjection which he made a few moments ago, I assumed that when this date was corrected there was nothing in the affidavit with which he could find fault, or which would warrant him in taking proceedings against Mr. Mayes and Mr. Hazen. But is that a fact? Why, my hon. friend from St. John has placed the whole affidaivt upon the ' Hansard,' and we find that in addition to that charge there is a specific charge that the Minister of Public Works, as minister, was cognizant of this corrupt agreement with Mr. McAvity, and that he sought to hold Mr. Mayes up in the interest of his friend McAvity. I ask the Minister of Public Works if he attaches no importance to that accusation. Silence, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, gives consent


William Pugsley: Not necessarily.
Mr. CROCKET, -and that he attaches no importance to such a serious accusation as that. Yet he would have the members of this House believe that because a typewriter's error had been corrected in the previous paragraph, which did not alter the gravity of the accusation with respect to his character as a public man, that was a reason why there was no necessity for taking these proceedings. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that will go down with even hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House, and I can assure you that it will not go down with the people of New Brunswick. Now, I do not intend to follow the hon. gentleman with respect to the correspondence which he has read this evening. He read that, I suppose, for the purpose of rebutting, so far as it would rebut, the statement of Mr. Mayes with reference to his being held up. But I would point out this fact: the minister claimed that he had given Mr. Mayes no favours, and he read correspondence which began, I think, some time in the summer of 1908 to bear out that contention. The Minister

of Public Works is aware, I presume, that there was a break between Mr. Mayes and his friend McAvity during the summer of last year. The Maritime Dredging Company, with the minister's friend, Mr. John E. Moore, had come upon the ground at that time, and there was not so much anxiety then to promote the interest of Mr. Mayes as there was to promote the interest of the Maritime Dredging Company, and after that, it is true, Mr. Mayes was turned down by the Minister of Public Works. I think, Mr. Speaker, if there was an investigation there might be some very interesting disclosures in reference to that feature of the case.
Now, there was one thing that struck me as tending strongly to corroborate the statement of Mr. Mayes, and that was the letter read by my hon. friend from St. John, dated, I think, the 22nd August, in which he put it up to the minister, in a letter addressed to him as minister, that*he had been endeavouring to hold him up in the interest of Mr. McAvity. Now, I ask if it is reasonable to suppose, if such was not the case, that Mr. Mayes would address such a letter to the Minister of Public Works himself. It seems to me that that letter which was read by my hon. friend had more significance with respect to this matter than any correspondence which the minister brought down referring to the negotiations after the break had occurred between Mayes and McAvity. Then I find in analysing the minister's speech that he devoted a great part of it to an attempt to vindicate the Hon. Mr. Hyman. Why, Mr. Speaker, there are no allegations in this affidavit affecting the character or the conduct of the former Minister of Public Works. I thought it would have been better for the minister to have devoted a little more attention to these charges which relate to himself than to attempt to defend Mr. Hyman from charges which have never been made against him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow this subject further; but I do wish to express my desire and my strong opinion that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to see that an investigation is held. So far as the interests of the Conservative party are concerned I think I can say to the Prime Minister that they will be better served by refusing the investigation and allowing these charges to hang over the Minister of Public Works and the cabinet. But there are more than party interests to be considered in this affair. I think the public interests are those which should determine an issue of this kind. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman and the members of this government ought to have some regard for the good name and the honour of their administration, and they ought to have some regard for public
morality in the Dominion of Canada. I ask you, Sir, to consider if it tends to promote public or political morality in this country, or morality of any kind, to allow such grave charges as those which are now upon the table of this House to remain uninvestigated, following the remarkable and extraordinary silence or inaction of the minister who has complained so indignantly concerning them.
My hon. friend from St. John mentioned two cases which it seems to me are analogous to the case now before the House. He referred to the charges which were made by Mr. Hodgins against the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners. In that case what was the conduct of the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission? Was he content to sit down, as the Minister of Public Works has done, without demanding an investigation into these charges? No; in that case the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission at once communicated the charges to the leader of this House and caused them to be laid on the table, and the Prime Minister felt it to be his duty to have them investigated in order that their truth or falsity might be determined. As pointed out by my hon. friend, that was a case not nearly so strong nor so grave as the case now before the House, for the reason that the charges of Mr. Hodgins were contained in an unsworn letter published in a newspaper in British Columbia. They were not attested under oath; there was not that solemnity about them, and, furthermore, they did not relate to the conduct of a minister of the Crown, but to an appointee or appointees of the government. Yet in that case the Prime Minister felt it to be his duty to cause an investigation of those charges to be made. I ask him to consider if that case can be distinguished from the case that is now before the House, and if he felt it his duty in those circumstances to cause an investigation, how can he justify himself in taking no notice of these charges, charges made under oath, made in the most public and emphatic manner that a charge has ever been made against a minister of the Crown in this country.
My hon. friend from St. John gave another illustration; it is one that I take no pleasure in referring to, and I refer to it simply as a precedent in matters of this kind. Almost precisely two years ago there was an unfortunate publication in a newspaper published in the province of New Brunswick which reflected on the character of a minister of the Crown, not in his public capacity, not in connection with the administration of his department, but in his capacity as a private citizen of this country. What was the action of the Prime Minister then? The predecessor, as the representative of New Brunswick in the cabinet, of

the Minister of Public Works-and by the way the Minister of Public Works acted as that gentleman's counsel in that matter- made denials of the accusations brought against him. In that case a newspaper article was the sole foundation of the proceedings which the Prime Minister felt called upon to take. The matter came before this House and the hon. gentleman who was involved in that case rose and in the most emphatic manneT possible denied the truth of the charges made against him. Hon. gentlemen opposite applauded just as they applauded this afternoon the denials of the minister. What was the action of the Prime Minister, what do the records show? That in accepting the hon. gentleman's resignation from his cabinet he stated: 'You can afford to ignore vague insinuations and innuendoes but specific charges you do well to meet as soon as uttered.' That was the opinion of the Prime Minister with reference to a matter which did not affect the administration of a department of this government. If that was the Prime Minister's opinion upon that subject, what has he to say to-day? Would not those words have [DOT] been very appropriately applied to his Minister of Public Works? Was it not a specific charge? As I have said, no more specific charge was ever made, no charge was ever made with greater detail, than the charge which is contained in that affidavit. It was uttered on the 12th of October, 1908, and the Prime Minister's opinion in the former case was that a minister would do well to take proceedings to vindicate himself so soon as any specific charge was made; yet we have his Minister of Public Works in this matter lying down, as has been pointed out, fox a period of five or six months without taking any proceedings of any kind and now' greatly to my surprise, apparently opposing an investigation in this House. If the Prime Minister thinks that that conduct on the part of his minister, backed up. if it is to be backed up by the administration, will inure to the benefit of his government or his own reputation, he will find that he is greatly mistaken and that it will not be long before he will very deeply regret the course which he has seen fit to take with reference to this matter.
I do not desire to say any offensive word with reference to the Minister of Public Works or any other member, but I do think, as a member of this House, that the dignity of the House and the honour of the government require an investigation of these charges, and if the minister's statement is true, then the Minister of Public Works should be the most grateful man in the country for having the charges investigated and having his course vindicated, if vindication can be had.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: Mr. Speaker, after the very lucid and able argument of the Minister of Public Works Mr. CROCKET.
(Mr. Pugsley) I feel that it is unnecessary for me to spend very much time in discussing this question. But, Sir, as a representative from the province of New Brunswick, as this is a New Brunswick matter, I feel that it is not only my duty but my privilege to address the House for a short time, in order to give my views on what I consider the most dastardly attempt _ ever made in the history of Canada to drive a public man from public life.
I wish first to call attention for a few moments to the conditions prevailing when this preposterous document was .made public in the city of St. John. You must remember that it was only about a year ago that the Conservatives of the province of New Brunswick imagined that they were absolutely the owners of the province of New Brunswick for the next 25 years, when I was told to my face 20 times in the month after the 3rd of March by two members whom I* do not now see in this House, that I would never get back here again, when every Liberal member in the House from New Brunswick was told that his days were numbered, when the principal diversion of the member for York (Mr Crocket), and the late member for Kings and Albert, consisted in going around to the Conservative clubs in Ontario and telling them that not more than two Liberal members would be returned from the province of New Brunswick. When these hon. members went down to the election in 1908 they confidently believed they would be able to send back 11 or 12 Conservative members from that province. After they had been engaged in the campaign for a few weeks they commenced to get their eyes opened, and to see that the chances of breaking even were very few indeed and that they had to do something to rehabilitate themselves. They had sent their premier-a man who is possessed of wonderfully good looks, and when you have said that, you have said the most that can be said of his virtues-on a junketting tour throughout Ontario and Quebec with the other members of the ' big four.' They had failed to make good and they had come back, to use a slang expression, dragging their tails behind them. They came to St. John and it was felt that they had to do something in order to revive the drooping spirits of their followers in the province. They held this great meeting, all the Conservative magnates of the province were present and the premier read this affidavit. I am bound to accept the statement of the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Daniel) that the premier of the province turned to Mayes and asked him if this date should not be 1905 instead of 1907, but I am of the opinion that it must have been uttered in a whisper and not in an audible voice. If it had been uttered in a voice which was capable of being heard, why on earth did

not the audience hear it; why could they not get some man in St. John next day who would make an affidavit that he had heard the correction?


William Pugsley: Why could not the newspaper reporters hear it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why could not the newspaper reporters who heard the premier read it as 1907, hear the correction as 1905 ? I say again, I am bound to accept the statement of the hon. member for St. John City, but I do not think I am bound to say that the words were uttered in a voice loud enough to be heard by anybody else than the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel).


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker

Mr. CARVELL-and I say here to-night that the hon. member for St. John sits in this House as the result of that false affidavit.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the trouble?


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the hon. member wishes to insinuate by the remarks that he has just made that Mr. Hazen did not make the statement I said he did, I am bound to say that


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rise to a point of order. If the hon. gentleman wants to raise a point of order, let him raise it or else sit down. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, that


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If he has any point of order to raise let him raise it and sit down.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am sorry the hon. gentleman is so excited.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not. Raise your point of order now.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The statement I made this afternoon was that when Mr. Hazen read the affidavit and turned around to Mr. Mayes he spoke in his usual voice and Mr. Mayes


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, that is no point of order; I am going to insist it is no point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand it is a question of personal explanation.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Exactly.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) has the floor, and of course the hon. gentleman (Mr. Daniel) can only speak now with the consent of the hon. member having the floor.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well, I will ask the consent of the hon. member to make a statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not propose to consent to the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) mak-138
ing another speech. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have had too much of this interruption from the other side of the House. We have a number of members on the other side of the House who will say anything against a man on this side and the moment you begin to hit them back they begin to squeal and whine.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: I demand that these words be retracted.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not hear the words.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member spoke them in a very loud voice, Mr. Speaker; I heard them; his statement was this: There ard gentlemen on the other side of the House who will say anything against a member on this side of the House. I demand that these words be taken back.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: These words are very general in their application, but still they might as well be taken back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If, Mr. Speaker, you want to rule against me I have no objection. I thought I would raise the member for North Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: It is not a question of raising me; it is a question of the hon. member taking the words back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand he takes it back? Do I understand that these words have been retracted?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member is going to speak now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend objects to it, and I knew he would, I am willing to withdraw it, because he would object to most anything.


George Eulas Foster: Coming from that quarter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now that the hon. member foT North Toronto has had his usual diversion and has objected to my saying something, I presume I will be allowed to go on with my speech.


James Conmee: He is a privileged character.	'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is. At this date in the history of the campaign, when it was necessary to do something to raise the drooping spirits of their friends, they went to Mr. Mayes and they got the affidavit which has been read. This affidavit was read by the premier of New Brunswick on tire evening of the 12th of October and in



the afternoon papers of the following day a statement was made by the Minister of Public Works of exactly what did happen. Later on that afternoon a letter was received by the Minister of Public Works from Mr. Mayes admitting there was a mistake in the affidavit, and while my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) may say that I am not justified in referring to the premier of New Brunswick-this great personage in their eyes who must not be referred to- I want to tell him that this grand lhama, as a hon. gentleman beside me says, never had the manhood from that day until the 26th of October, or down to the present time so far as I know, to stand up and publicly acknowledge his mistake and declare that what he had said against the Minister .of Public Works was not true. And I will say more than that, and I will give my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) a chance to correct me if I am wrong. I never heard of the member from St. John himself being manly enough to .correct the statement which was made for his benefit by the premier of the province.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He never made it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: These were the reasons which drew forth this preposterous affidavit at the time, and I will have something to say why it is rehashed now. There aTe insinuations in this document that the Minister of Public Works sent Mr. Mayes to Mr. McAvity with some wrongful purpose. We have the statement of the Minister of Public Works, and it is not denied, that Mr. Mayes, who had been his client for a great many years, came to him to ask with what responsible person he could associate himself in the dredging business and_ he pointed him to Mr. McAvity. And just here I want to say something about Mr. McAvity. In my opinion there is no man in the Dominion of Canada who has been hounded with the tenacity with which Mr. McAvity has been hounded by the Tory party of the province of New Brunswick for the last year. And I want to tell them more than that, that the name of McAvity will be honoured in the records of the province of New Brunswick when his traducers are entirely forgotten. I am willing to stand up here to-night and claim Mr. McAvity as one of my friends, and I am proud to do so. I challenge gentlemen opposite to read this affidavit carefully and to truthfully say that a particle of blame can be attached to Mr. McAvity or that he played any role than that of a business gentleman. We have heard a good deal about rake-offs; we have seen cartoons in the Conservative papers for the last three or four months about Mr. McAvity and his rake-off, and I will read this document to show that there is no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of that Mr. CARVELL.
gentleman. Mayes says they went to Ottawa; he says he wanted McAvity to put up $20,000, and I think I am safe in saying that Mr. McAvity did not want to put it up. Mr. McAvity and this man went to Ottawa to make a contract as partners, and it was up to Mr. McAvity to make the very best trade he could-my hon. friend smile3 over there.


Haughton Lennox: So do we all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like him to show this House where there was one transaction there which they could even insinuate is dishonourable on the part of Mr. McAvity.


Haughton Lennox: It was all dishonourable and dishonest..


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mayes says:
I had told Mr. McAvity to arrange if possible to have at least 400,000 yards to dredge. McAvity oame out to me and got me to go in and I explained to Mr. Hyman the difficulty of bringing a big plant and only digging a small quantity. Mr. Hyman agreed to see that if I got the contract, that if I was the lowest tenderer I would receive the 400,000 yards.
I want to know what Mr. McAvity had to do with that. Here was an arrangement made between Mr. Hyman and Mr. Mayes that if Mayes was the lowest tenderer he would get 400,000 yards in order to justify him in going to Boston and buying a dredge, and we have the declaration tonight of the member for York (Mr. Crocket) that there are no reflections to be cast on Mr. Hyman. If there are no reflections on Mr. Hyman, against whom are they? Why should there be any reflection against Mr. McAvity? Mr. Hyman told Mr. Mayes that if he was the lowest tenderer he would get the 400,000 yards, and all this took place before there was any transaction between Mayes and McAvity as to McAvity's share of the contract.	.
I want to repeat this contract, or this arrangement with the Minister of Public Works, against whom the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) says there is no reflection to be made, was made by Mr. Mayes and the Minister of Public Works before any agreement was made between Mayes and McAvity and in the face of this I would like to know how hon. gentlemen can say that McAvity has been guilty of any wrong-doing. Again Mr. Mayes, I say purposely, and I do not know whether the gentleman who prepared the affidavit for him knew it-purposely and falsely, and knowing it, I believe, stated that there were no other tenders in for this work excepting his. Then another inference is drawn in order to show that there is crooked work somewhere between the Public Works Department and this man Mayes. Mr. Mayes got his contract and then he

made an arrangement with Mr. McAvity for good and sufficient considerations, I presume, that he would give Mr. McAvity five cents a yard on his contract. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who will say that _ the government of this country are not justified in giving a contract to the lowest tenderer providing he submits anything like a reasonable tender? There had been tenders called for earlier in the season and one of the conditions of these tenders was that the dredge must be a Canadian dredge. Mayes tendered at by far the lowest figures, less than half of the highest tender, but because that clause was in the specifications the Minister of Public Works could not award the contract to him. Therefore, he called for new tenders and cut out that clause in order to give the people of Canada the benefit of getting that work done at the lowest possible price. That clause was cut out, new tenders were called for, two tenders were received and the lowest tender was accepted. I would like to know how any man can go to the people of this country, tell them the truth and say that there is anything wrong in that transaction. I am glad to have the privilege of standing up in this House in a public manner and saying that Mr. McAvity played the manly part in this transaction. As far as Mr. McAvity is concerned, let me tell hon. gentlemen that he will welcome all the lawsuits they want to bring against him. Mr. McAvity has nothing that he wants to retract and he is willing to face these people any time they come along. They have already started a suit against Mr. McAvity, but that was months ago, and we have heard nothing more about it since then. I would he very much surprised if we ever hear anything more about it.
Now, these hon. gentlemen make an onslaught upon the Minister of Public Works. It is not necessary for me to defend that hon. gentleman because he has done it himself. He has pointed out the unfairness of the statements made; he has pointed out that he knew nothing about the arrangement made between Mayes and McAvity; he has pointed out that this $2,000 transaction was a personal, professional matter between himself and Mr. Mayes, and he has pointed out, of course, that this transaction did not take place in 1907. We come down now to the statements, the insinuations, I call them, made in the effort to drag in the Minister of Public Works, in some way or other, as being a party to this transaction in order to blacken his character. I am not going to read extracts, but I am going to call the attention of the House to the letter written by the Minister of Public Works to Mayes on the 24th of August, 1908. Mayes had written him a letter which comes, to my mind, the near-i38i	i i : i i
est to a case of blackmail of anything I have seen in the public documents of Canada and the Minister of Public Works sends back a letter which no man, I do not care how much nerve he may have, would dare to write and make it a public document if he were guilty of the charges which hon. gentlemen are insinuating against him. He quotes Mayes' letter to him and then says:
You admitted that there was an amount coming to him-
That is to Mr. McAvity.
-whioh you said you were prepared to pay, provided I would allow a further olaim which, you said you proposed making and would buy your dredge.
What is the answer:
The impropriety of your proposal, which I told you I could not possibly entertain, did not seem to impress you as it ought to have done.
And then he turns around and tells him he can have whatever money is coming to him and that it has nothing to do with Mr. McAvity. I ask him if these are the words which any man would dare to pen if he were in the guilty position which my hon. friends attempt to insinuate he was in at that time. I am not going to read the correspondence which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works read this afternoon, but after reading that correspondence and after listening to it I ask again if his is the conduct of a guilty party.
Mr. Mayes came to Ottawa about a year ago or a little less. He came while the estimates were going through last May or June, and I am credibly informed that he carried this story to the Conservative party, and that a member of the Conservative party came to a gentleman who occupies a seat in this House from the province of Nova Scotia, and told him the story. That gentleman came to me, told me the story and he thought that there was something which might get some one into trouble. Mr. McAvity was telegraphed for, he came to Ottawa and Mr. McAvity said: You go back to your friend and you tell that friend to crack on the moment that he wants to. I think the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) knows who carried the story back. I can tell the hon. members of this House that nothing further was said about the Mayes business and that the estimates for dredging at St. John went through without opposition.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I might say to the hon. gentleman that I have not the most remote idea of what he is referring to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will accept the statement. Then we follow this down a little further. Mr. Mayes who was here last May or June, tried to get a renewal of his

contract. He commenced to blackmail the Minister of Public Works in August and he failed. Then the vice president of the Tory party in St. John went with an offer or a bribe of $20,000 for the Liberal campaign fund if they would buy his dredge. They would not buy it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the non. gentleman not aware that Mr. Baxter, to whom, I presume, he refers, has denied that under oath?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I am aware that a gentleman whom I would believe a great deal quicker says he did.


William Barton Northrup: That seems to be a case for investigation then.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: After everything had failed, after every device known to crooked men had failed


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mayes comes out with this affidavit. All I have to say about this Mayes affidavit is simply this:	A man
who, according to his own confession, will play the game that Mayes played in this matter from the beginning, a man who will play the hand that he played down a few weeks before the 12th of October would not hesitate to go further if he found it necessary, and draw an affidavit for the purpose of injuring the Minister of Public Works or of obtaining something which he thought might possibly help out his own personal ends. I am prepared, knowing the transaction and all the parties interested, to take the word of the Minister of Public Works against the whole bushel of affidavits made by a man like Mayes. When the Minister of Public Works tells this House that he had nothing to do with that contract, that he did not make anything out of it, there is nothing that I can see to investigate, and I would like to know why this thing has been brought up at this moment. There is no apparent reason for bringing it up. There are no great issues at Ottawa. There does not seem to be any reason on the surface why this matter should be launched at this particular time and two or three days of the valuable time of parliament taken up discussing it. But there is a reason beneath the surface, and I can tell you what it is. This was brought to the front for the first time last October when the Tory party were in dire distress, and again it is brought up in this month of April when that party are again among the breakers down in New Brunswick. I am prepared to say that it would be possible to have that party out of power in twenty-four hours by a rebellion among their own supporters in the New Brunswick legisla-Mr. CARVELL.
ture; and consequently this matter is now revived, not for the benefit of the people of the Dominion as a whole, but for consumption in the province of New Brunswick, in the hopes of diverting the attention of the people of that province from the troubles they are now having with their own local administration. That administration which was elected a year ago, with the support of over two-thirds of the representatives in the House of Assembly, that government which has since violated every pledge it ever made, either to friend or foe, which has only gone to the polls twice in the last year and got a black eye each time, which dares not open a constituency in that province to-day, whose supporters are seething in rebellion, and which feels bound to do something in order to draw awav public attention from its own sins, has taken this course, and imagines it will achieve its object by trying to blacken the fair fame of the Minister of Public Works. A similar attempt failed in October, 1908, but I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the present member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) occupies a seat in this House as a result of this false affidavit of Mayes. I cannot, therefore, agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that this affidavit did no harm to the Liberal party. It did do some hurt in many parts of the province of New Brunswick. I was some thirty miles out in the country the morning after ithe affidavit was read, and I was telephoned to come into town to meet my executive committee, and was told that if this thing were true I would have to denounce the whole matter or they would abandon me. I telegraphed the Minister of Public Works immediately and got back an answer, and when the afternoon papers came out, my people believed his reply, and I lost nothing by this affidavit. But I went to the city of St. John and I had occasion, after nomination day, to make a pilgrimage to the town of Sussex. I referred to this question there, and on my way back next morning,. I met a clergyman-a gentleman who occupied tne high position of president in the Methodist conference-and he told me that the ministerial association of the city of St. John had held a meeting the day before, and had decided that they could not vote for the government because of the revelations made in that affidavit.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I thought the hon. gentleman said there was nothing in it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was a whole tissue of falsehoods. That man told me that he believed Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right and the people needed his services another term, but in the face of that affidavit, he

could not vote for the government candidate and would not do it, and I assumed there were sufficient people in the city of St. John of the same mind as this clergyman to give my hon. friend the seat he occupies.
I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion there is no charge laid against the Minister of Public Works which requires investigation. If there be any hon. gentleman opposite who believes the statements in this affidavit-there seem to be two of them who do-let him get up like a man and make his charge. If any one will do that I shall hold up both hands to give the committee of investigation asked for, and I believe that every member on this side will do the same; and I have no doubt that Mr. McAvity will be the first man in New Brunswick who will welcome the opportunity to come here and tell what he knows about the transaction. Let these men come out in the open, and not remain under cover of a false affidavit, and let them, on their own responsibility, make their statement and they will have no trouble in getting an investigation.


Mr.  W. B.@: NORLTHRUP, (East Hastings). I trust that I shall be able to avoid following in the footsteps of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr Carvell) and of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), who addressed the House at such length to-day, and confine myself to the subject before the House. I am encouraged to do so by the fact that it is perfectly evident that some gentlemen who have spoken on this resolution have not taken the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to read the amendment which has been put in your hands. And consequently we have lost half a day listening to very interesting historical disquisitions and to the whys and wherefores of many pregnant matters to the total neglect of the particular subject before the House. I trust that I shall be able to discuss this matter dispassionately, without saying a word to hurt the feelings of any hon. gentleman opposite, for, as I understand the question-and I think that other hon. members, on a moment's consideration, will take the same view-there is no necessity for the hard feeling and excited language given vent to so frequently to-day, and which have been aroused mainly by the fact that the Minister of Public Works has been so absorbed in some imaginary attack on himself and some of his friends that he has not had time to read the amendment. My hon. friend who last spoke (Mr. Carvell) after declaiming against the affidavit in question as a tissue of falsehoods, as absurd and inconsequential, wound up by telling us that in his own province the feelings excited were so great that people there, from clergymen down, were unwilling to support their old love, the Laurier government, if the statements in this affidavit were true. And we on this side, wishing to see the will of the people carried out, challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to give us the opportunity to find out whether or not this affidavit be true. I believe the Minister of Public Works to be too good a lawyer and too old and experienced a politician to have imagined for one moment, either this afternoon or any other time, that there was any attack made on him in this amendment.
What is the case before the House? This House is not a fit body to try whether or not certain statements are true. From what we have witnessed to-day, this House is preeminently unfitted to occupy a judicial position and decide whether or not certain charges made against a minister of the Crown, or his late colleague, are true or not, and this amendment does not ask the House to try this question.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Barton Northrup: It sets forth a certain momentous series of statements, and I venture to say that even the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Carvell) would not contradict the statement that if Mr. Mayes' affidavit be true-and it is not for me or any member on this side to say [DOT]it is-then the right hon. gentleman who leads the House owes it to himself to see that an investigation is made into its allegations. If that affidavit be untrue, then the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) is one of the most deeply wronged men in this country, and the man who does him the most wrong is the right hon. gentleman who refuses to give him an investigation in order that he may clear his reputation. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that we do not agree as to just what the nature of the charge is. Let me illustrate one point: The Minister of Public Works has taken a great deal of the time of the House to-day and on other occasions to dwell upon what he would have us believe to be a momentous error made in the original declaration. '1907, appearing instead of '1905.' I have read the affidavit very carefully, and I have listened to the statements made by the Minister of Public Works; and I venture to say that there is not one lawyer in Canada -not one lawyer in Canada-even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) himself, who would not say that, in relation to the question before the House, it was a matter of utter indifference whether that declaration said '1907' or '1905.' And I will tell the minister why: There are two explanations of certain facts. Mr. Mayes gives one statement and the minister gives the other. And which ever you accept the result is the same, so that it is immaterial

whether that declaration related to 1905 or 1907. If the Minister of Public Works has stated . the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if the $2,000 he received was in payment of legitimate legal costs, he had just as much right to receive those costs after he became Minister of Public Works as before. If, on the other hand, what Mr. Mayes swore is true, and if that $2,000 was paid for the assistance, the influence of the Attorne'' General of New Brunswick to be used in Ottawa to secure undue favours for this contractor, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) had no more right to receive that $2,000 before he was minister than afterwards. Why, the law read this afternoon, the Criminal Code of this country, places it beyond peradven-ture that if Mr. Mayes' story is true the Attorney General of New Brunswick, though not a member of this House then, was taking part in a transaction which is contrary to the law and the parties to which are liable to seven years in the penitentiary. Now, I wonder if there are not enough facts in this case for hon. members on either side who wish to do what is right, and who wish to know what the facts are, to agree upon and dispose of the question. I suppose we can start with the indisputable fact that Mr. Mayes was a client of the Attorney General of New Brunswick, and that they had conversations, and that Mr. McAvity was acquainted with the Attorney General of New Brunswick, and that he was the head centre for the city of St. John of the Liberal party, and that Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity had conversations about getting a contract in Ottawa. And I suppose that there is no dispute, as the Minister of Public Works allows, that Mr. Mayes had tried_ to get a contract at 49 cents for a certain kind of dredging. And there is no dispute that Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes came to Ottawa, and that they came to see about a contract, after a conversation between Mr. Mayes and the Attorney General of New Brunswick. There is no dispute that Mr. Mayes and Mr. McAvity came to the office of the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman), that Mr. Mayes remained outside and that Mr. McAvity went in. What took place within that room, I do not pretend to say. But so far, I think everybody will agree as to the facts. Up to the time that Mr. McAvity went into this office, Mr. Mayes had no contract, and, apparently, could not get one. Mr. McAvity came out and Mr. Mayes went in and got the contract at six cents more than he had tendered.


William Pugsley: It does not state that. What the affidavit says is that Mr. Mayes went in and spoke to Mr. Hyman and asked him if he could get the contract for 400,000 yards, as he wanted to know that prior to bringing in his plant. And Mr. Hvman Mr. NORTHRUP.
said he would get it if he were the lowest tenderer.


William Barton Northrup: What does the minister complain of in my statement?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that the contract was closed then.


William Barton Northrup: No, I said that Mr. McAvity went in, leaving Mr. Mayes outside. After a time, Mr. McAvity came out and Mr. Mayes went in. We do not know what took place, but we do know the fact that Mr. Mayes got the contract at six cents more than he had been trying to get it for months. And that very same day, or the following day-I think the same day a letter was written by the chief engineer of the department, promising Mr. Mayes 400,000 yards more. Now if Mr. Mayes got a contract for an additional 400,000 yards, I think the minister will admit that that contract was not given after public competition. We have no evidence as to the amount of advertising. I do not know about it, nor do I care; it is not material. Mr. Mayes got a certain contract which he had been trying to get, and, after a conversation with Mr. Hyman he got that contract increased by 400,000 yards.


William Pugsley: That is not the evidence at all. It does not say that the 400,000 yards was additional.


William Barton Northrup: It was not 400,000 yards originally. The amount was greatly increased.


William Pugsley: The other tenders would cover 400,000 yards.


William Barton Northrup: He was to have a guarantee of 400,000 yards, and the fact that a letter was written by Mr. Lafleur to that effect showed that it had not been closed in the first place. And then he went to get the dredge. And the very day he heard that his contract would be so much better even than the one he had tried to get and failed, Mr. Mayes signs an agreement to give Mr. McAvity all he got out of the contract over and above 50 cents. These are the facts. What did Mr. McAvity do for the difference between 50 cents and the contract price? That is one matter we want to have investigated. Nobody on either side has made the suggestion as to anything that Mr. McAvity did except to use his influence. Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not. But surely when a man gets a contract at six cents a yard more than he was willing to take the work for, and gets a much larger quantity of work than he had hoped, and when in getting it he was assisted by the head of the Reform party in his city, and when, immediately after, he makes the

agreement under which he is to pay $36,000 out of his contract, surely the subject is one for investigation. It is not for me to say Mr. McAvity did anything wrong.
I am not concerned about that. It is not for me to say Mr. Mayes is a saint; I know nothing of Mr. Mayes. But it is the duty of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is responsible for the honour of parliament and of the proper conduct of the various departments, and who is responsible to the people of this country to whom he owes so much and who have trusted him so often, to see that their interest is protected, which interest, evidently, has not been protected when Mr. McAvity was getting out of such a transaction as this the sum of $36,000. One need mot go further than this far with the admitted facts to show that there is sufficient ground for an investigation. But there is another fact. The Attorney General of New Brunswick was paid $2,000 by this very man Mr. Mayes. It is not for me to say whether it was paid for the influence of this gentleman in obtaining the contract or in payment of legal costs. But when a man pledges his oath, thereby running the risk of going behind the prison bars if he has told an untruth, and declares that this payment of $2,000 was practically a rake-off for the Attorney General for his province in connection with getting a contract, I am not bound to believe it, but I am entitled to say to the right hon. gentleman who leads the House: Surely, Sir, this is a matteT for investigation. It is all very well for the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) who has just taken his seat to say in the most theatrical way that he has such confidence in the Minister of Public Works that he would accept his word against a bushel of affidavits. That very statement perhaps shows the utteT unfitness of this House as a judicial bench to try a question of this kind. Now it is perfectly certain, too, that after Mayes had finished his contract he was not immediately paid, there is no doubt about that. There may be a difference of opinion as to why he was not paid. Mr. Mayes may give one reason, and the Minister of Public Works may give another Teason why he was not paid, but the stubborn fact remains that he was not paid promptly after he had finished his contract.


William Pugsley: He was paid in the ordinary course.


William Barton Northrup: Surely in the face of this letter of the 22nd of August protesting against holding him up, the letter which was answered by the minister on the 24th of August, surely in the face of that correspondence the minister will not say that he was paid promptly. Just imagine the moral obliquity of Mr. Mayes if, when he
had been paid promptly for the work which he had finished in July, he should write on the 22nd of August such a letter as this:
Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Esq.,
Minister of Public Works, St'. John.
Dear sir

I regret that you have seen fit to withold from me the payment of my July estimates and the balance of my contract in consequence, as you state to me, of Mr. Geo. McAvity having wired you that I owed him a sum of money.
Now he was held up, and held up by Mr. McAvity, the gentleman who, he said, had been holding him up all along:
I do not think this is a consistent position for you to take. Mr. McAvity's bills against me are a personal matter, and are different entirely from anything between the government and myself. I consider that I have overpaid Mr. McAvity to a very large amount. He proposed to have certain conditions carried out by which I would obtain more dredging work, and would receive fairer and more equitable treatment from the officials of the department. He has utterly failed in this.
And the agreement under which he was to do that was executed on the 6th of September after he got his $400,000. and before he got his $36,000 for what he had done. Now, Mr. Mayes says he has not done any more for him. and so the rogues fall out-no, I do not wish to use hard terms-but these gentlemen fell out.
He has utterly failed in this, and I propose now to enforce my rights by bringing suit against him to recover the very large amount which I have paid him, some $36,000. You ai e perfectly aware that Mr. Mc/Vvity's claims against me is for percentages of my contracts n ith your department in consideration of his services in helping me to get a contract, and his promise that he would do all in his power to assist me to get others.
This is his opinion of the minister on the 22nd of August:
Knowing this as you do, I cannot understand why you should use your position to hold up the man who has earned the money that a middleman may exact his satisfaction.
Now I would like to ask the minister


William Pugsley: Read my reply.


William Barton Northrup: I will with pleasure, if you will send it over to me.


William Pugsley: It has gone into the ' Hansard ' office. I will send for it.


William Barton Northrup: I will read it if the minister gives it to me at any time before I resume my seat. But the point I wish to make clear is this, that Mr. Mayes, on the 22nd of August told the minister that he, Mr. Mayes, and Mr. McAvity had made a criminal contract under the statute law of this land, that McAvity was given his I percentages in violation of the very clauses

read by the hon. member for St. John. He wrote to the minister saying: You know this is the case, you knew it on the 22nd of August. And here the minister is being told by the contractor in the most remonstrating tone, I am surprised at you holding me up, I, the man who did the work, you, who know all the facts, that McAvity was only being paid to use his influence later, and you are holding me up and letting the middleman have the money and letting the man who did the work go without it. We will see, when we get the answer of the minister, what he said to this charge that he had known before of this state of affairs, and if he did not know it before, he knew it on the 22nd of August, and then the minister writes a letter in a jaunty tone saying: This is a matter of indifference to me. One would think that the minister who was guarding the treasury, when he found this statement made by the contractor, Mr. Mayes, would have felt himself entitled to bring an action against Mayes and McAvity for collusion, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, if he were here, if the Crown had brought an action against Mayes and McAvity, and put McAvity in the witness box with that sworn declaration, what the verdict of a court would be in that case. We know what McAvity himself swore to, and it would be interesting to see the explanation McAvity would give, a gentleman whom I am not attacking, but who is lauded to the skies by the hon. member for Carleton, N. B. (Mr. Carvell); I would like to hear what his explanation of the reason by which he raked in $36,000 when, according to Mr. Mayes, he had done not one single thing, invested not one solitary dollar, and had merely used his influence with the minister to obtain a contract. Now that contract was an honest and proper contract or it was not. It is not for me to say whether it was one or the other, that is a subject for investigation. But if that was an honest contract, don't vou think, Mr. Prime Minister, that McAvity obtained the money under false pretenses, when he represented to Mayes: This is such a dishonest government that you will have to have my influence to get you an honest contract. And if it was an improper contract, don't you think Mr. Prime Minister,


Mr. NESBITT.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman should address the chair.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The point of order is properly taken.


William Barton Northrup: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the speaker, then, to ask the right hon. gentleman who leads this House what he thinks about these statements, whether he thinks that was an honest and proper contract that was made with Mr. Mayes or not, and if it was Mr. NORTHRUP
an honest and proper contract, one that any body might reasonably obtain, then I ask you to inquire of the right hon. leader of the House why McAvity got $36,000 out of it. Would it not strike an ordinary person that he must have obtained that money under false pretenses? And if it was an improper contract, then I think the right hon. gentleman owes it to himself and his party to see that there is an investigation to show how such a contract came to be made. Now here is the letter of the minister dated the 24th of August, which is a reply to the letter I have just read of the 22nd of August:


Right Hon.   S@: Mayes, St. John.
I am in receipt of yours of the 22nd instant, and in reply would remind you that when I informed you of the notice which I had received from Mr. McAvity that he was interested in the moneys coming to you from my department and had requested me not to pay them over until the matter was adjusted, you admitted that there was an amount coming to him, which you said you were prepared to pay, provided I would allow a further claim which you said you proposed making, and would buy your dredge. The impropriety of ycur proposal, which I told you I could not possibly entertain, did not seem to impress vcu as it ought to have done.
As you in your letter deny any indebtedness to Mr. McAvity, I do not propose to intervene in the matter, and shall give instructions for the payment to you of the amount found to he due you by the accountant of my department. If you have any further claim on the department, it will he dealt with on its merits. Y hether or not you owe Mr. McAvity or have overpaid him, or whether or not there should be litigation between you, is, I beg to assure }cu, a matter of perfect indifference to me.
That letter is in answer to the letter of the 22nd August, in which Mr. Mayes told the minister that a corrupt arrangement had been made between McAvity and himself. How long before, we do not know. Some people might think that that was corroborative evidence of Mayes' affidavit, that the Attorney General, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) knew of it from the beginning. But as the minister did not deny the statement in Mr. Mayes' letter, that he knew of it prior to being told by Mayes on the 22nd August, I think the right hon. the Prime Minister should consider that as a proper subject of investigation to find out when the minister first learned of this transaction. The matters to which I have referred so far are not in dispute between the various parties and the only question seems to be, when an affidavit is laid on the table of parliament setting forth these serious charges, what should parliament do? Parliament must do one of two things, either declare that these charges, solemnly sworn to, are of such trifling importance that we will decline even to investigate them, or else allow an investigation to be made. I do not

for a moment wish to dispute the word of the Minister of Public Works when he says there is not a word1 of truth in this, that or the other charge. I would be doing very wrong if I did question his word, particularly in view of the way in which the presentment of this case strikes me. I think it will strike every hon. member that nothing could be much more absurd than that, when charges are made, charges which the right hon. gentleman himself will admit, if true, will lead to some very serious results after investigation, it should be held to be a sufficient and complete answer to this House and to the people of this country, a sufficient vindication of the honour of the government, for the Prime Minister to say, as he may be assumed to say by the words of the last speaker:	'I
place more confidence in the word of the Minister of Public Works than in a bushel of affidavits and therefore I shall allow no investigation.'
We have to remember that matters such as this strike different people in different ways. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works perused an article in 'The Globe,' Toronto, a paper by no means hostile to himself. The editor of that paper, and it will not be said that he was animated by Conservative sympathy, out of the fulness of his heart poured out his regrets, almost his maledictions, on the Conservative party because they had driven out the Minister of Public Works who would have to return to his lucrative practice in St. John until after the matter was investigated, and charges similar to these cleared up. The article is a long one and I shall read only the concluding paragraph. It reads:
Mr. Pugsley's enemies will thus succeed in depriving the country


Mr. PATERSON.: That has nothing to do with this.


William Pugsley: That has no reference whatever to the Mayes matter.


William Barton Northrup: Certainly, I am


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: That is entirely irrelevant to this. .


William Barton Northrup: The charge made in the other case is different from this. I have not said that this charge is true, I have not said that the charge which the 'Globe' referred to is true, but I am endeavouring to show that such charges produce an effect on the public mind and that the only way to meet such an effect is to have an investigation.
We have precedents in the mother land, to which the Prime Minister is so fond of referring, that shed a light on the standard of public life in that country. Many members will remember the case of Lord Henry Lennox in 1876. Lord Lennox was then a member of the Conservative administration and he was also a director of the Lisbon tramways, an unfortunate company which had as a promoter a man who made improper promises and led certain shareholders to grief. One of the shareholders sued the promoter and the judges in giving judgment against the promoter said that the directors of the company must have neglected their duty or the company would not have found itself in such a condition Lord Henry Lennox was a director of the company, and also a minister of the Crown. These events had taken place five years before and I think that .. rd Lennox was not at that time a minister, as I do not believe a Conservative administration was then in power. A gentleman on the opposite side of the House dropped a line to Disraeli, the premier, to say that he intended to give notice of a question asking the government practically what they proposed to do in view of the utterance of the judges in the case, to which be it remembered, Lord Lennox was not a party at all, so that any remark of the judges was obiter dictum; yet as soon as this letter was sent to the premier he sent it to Lord Lennox, who at once tendered his resignation to the nremier; the following day ip the House Lord Lennox gave his explanation, and the premier followed saying that it was a painful thing to him to have received and accepted the resignation, but he pTaised the honour of Lord Lennox, who insisted on defending his own personal honour without the responsibility of office and without asking his colleagues to share the responsibility with him.
There was another case in the old country in 1903 when a Mr. Fisher was a member, I think, of the Conservative administration. Mr. Fisher was engaged with certain other gentlemen with regard to a patent. Matters went wrong and the undertaking was not a profitable one, but Mr. Fisher personally had no more to do with the matter that went wrong than you. Mr. Speaker, or I. But in the course of litigation it was evident that certain people who had taken stock were going to lose and it was suggested to Mr. Fisher that as some of these people might have taken stock relying on his name as a minister being connected with the company, it was his duty to see that they did not lose. Mr. Fisher paid them 20 shillings on the pound and resigned his seat in the House in order that no blame might rest on his colleagues, no matter how innocent he might be. Mr. Balfour spoke with regret at the unfortunate result of the disclosures, and spoke of Mr. Fisher's resignation as a loss to the country. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman spoke to the same effect, and a gentleman whose voice has often resounded through this House, the Hon. Edward Blake, could not allow the matter to pass without a few graceful words. He said:

What has happened to-day, however painful it may be to the hon. gentleman himself, has vindicated his own reputation

And here, Sir, is the point to which I wish to call the attention of the right hon. gentleman:
-and also maintained the honour and standing of this House.
It is as a member of this House, it is as a Canadian, that I appeal to the right hon. gentleman to allow this amendment to pass, to allow an investigation to be held, and, Sir, if an investigation is held, and it is found that this affidavit is untrue, that this man Mayes has been maliciously endeavouring to blast the reputation of a man who in that case would be far better than himself, the right hon. gentleman and his followers need not have the slightest fear that we on this side will do anything to save him from well-merited punishment, and if, on the other hand, the investigation should show that there is some foundation for his charges, then this House, having a report from a committee which had heard the evidence, which had placed Mr. Mc-Avity on oath and had heard from him personally and not through his representative, for the time-being, in the House, then parliament would be able to vote what should be done by way of commendation or punishment of the gentlemen really concerned.
It seems to have been lost sight of in this discussion that if Mayes' story be true, then of course the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) would be implicated in the latter part of the charge, with reference to holding up the payment until Mc-Avity was settled with. If that were not true and the first part were true, if it were true that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) had received $2,000 for the use of his influence in Ottawa, it would not be a matter so directly concerning this House. The hon. gentleman says: Let a member make a charge and I will welcome investigation. I wish the Minister of Justice was here in order that I might ask him on what ground any gentleman on this side of the House should stake his reputation and his seat in order to punish a man for what, he did before he_ became a member of this House, for which we could not punish him even if the facts stated in Mayes' affidavit were proved to be true right up to the hilt. Nobody would pretend to say, that if it were true-and I guard myself again by saying that I do not express an opinion myself-but if it be true that the then Attorney General of New Brunswick was paid $2,000 for his political influence at a time when he was not a member of this House, it would be idle for any one to pretend to say he had forfeited his seat in this House because of something he had done some years before he became a member. And while both sides will accept that pro-Mr. NORTHRUP.
position, it is another matter altogether, if it can be proven to be true, whether the Prime Minister would allow one of the most important posts in his administration to be held by a gentleman who had such a conception of his duty as a public man. This is so serious a matter that in the interests of the country we are entitled to have an investigation so that the truth may be declared one way or the other. I have tried to discuss the question without using any harsh language against any one. I think it is a simple question as to whether or not enough has been shown in this affidavit of Mayes, if true, to justify an investigation. We cannot here try whether or not it is true., but we can appoint a committee to try that question. And surely, it must be evident to every one that if Mayes' character is so bad and his reputation so shaky and his affidavit so worthless as has been said by gentlemen opposite, surely the biggest mystery in Canadian political life today is that the Minister of Public Works would not welcome an inquiry to roll aside the cloud. One other point and I am done. If the affidavit of Mayes be true, then there was the very collusion that the Minister of Public Works has spoken of, and if there was collusion-apart altogether from the question of conspiracy which has been dealt with by my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket)-if there was collusion, then without doubt McAvity is liable to hand back the $36,000 which he got for doing nothing.


William Pugsley: Mayes does not say there was collusion with the Minister of Public Works.


William Barton Northrup: Mayes tells his story.


William Pugsley: He does not say there was collusion with Mr. Hyman.


William Barton Northrup: He did not pretend to say there was collusion because he was not present, but if the facts set forth by Mayes are true, I do not think any judge or jury in the land would have any difficulty in finding there was collusion.


William Pugsley: The member for York does not concur in that statement.


William Barton Northrup: I frankly admit that I differ from the law as laid down by my hon. friend from York. I do not think it would be possible to have an investigation of this matter without the standing of the Minister of Public Works of that day being concerned. And certainly the standing of the Minister of Public Works of to-day would be concerned, first as Minister of Public Works if the charge as to the payment to McAvity were held to be true, and secondly, if the other charge of receiving $2,000 for his influence were true. I do think that the right hon. the Prime Minister is practically concerned in this matter, because he being responsible to

the people of this country for his ministers, it is his duty when a prima facie case is made-and nobody would deny that there is a prima facie case when a man makes an affidavit with all the surrounding evidence to corroborate that affidavit that we have here-surely it is a duty that the right hon. gentleman owes to himself to see that his departments of government are kept pure and clean. I sincerely trust, from the national' standpoint, from a Canadian standpoint, from the standpoint of a member of this House, that the Tight hon. gentleman will allow an investigation. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will believe me, I am sure eyery member in this honourable House will believe me when I say, that if I were not speaking for the interests of the country and of the House; if I were speaking merely as a Conservative partisan I should hope from the bottom of my heart that an investigation would be refused.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the promise to the House that was made by the hon. member (Mr. Northrup) and that is, that I shall endeavour to stay with the question before the House, although I sincerely hope that I shall have more success in keeping that promise than he had. The hon. member began in what he seemed to oonsider was a very judicial frame of mind, and, he rebuked thq member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) for not keeping to the question before the House, but to my very great surprise the hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) very soon showed considerable partisanship in charging the hon. member for Carleton with a theatrical manner in the delivery of his speech. Without being an absolute authority upon the meaning of that adjective, I could not help thinking that the hon. member for Carleton probably owed .the favour of having that epithet hurled at him to the fact, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) thought he was usurping a function that is not altogether foreign to the manner of the member for Hastings himself. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) told us that in his opinion this House was not a fit tribunal to consider this question, but he immediately proceeded to give evidence that he thought there was in his own person at least one exception to that general rule, because in his speech he himself made a very exhaustive examination of the case. In the course of his speech the very strongest partisan attitude was taken by the hon. member (Mr. Northrup) himself, because he quoted the affidavit and all that Mr. Mayes says in the affidavit, against the word of the Minister of Public Works which we heard reiterated again and again with the most ample evidence to bupport it, in the
speech which the hon minister delivered in his defence to-day. I could not help wondering that the hon. member (Mr. Northrup) should have said that he could dispute the word of the minister, almost in the same breath in which he quoted the details of Mr. Mayes' affidavit against the word of the minister. One word more in regard to the member for Hastings will enable me to fulfil my promise to stay with the question. I must say that the honourable member was extremely unfortunate in the old country precedents which he cited to endeavour to prove his arguments. In the first place, the offence charged against the ministers in the old country was alleged to have occurred while they were ministers of the Crown and members of the House. That is not the present case at all. In the second place the ministers in the old country who were charged practically admitted the truth of the charge by at once resigning their positions. But in this case we have a diametrically opposite situation. We have the minister not only denying the charge which is brought against him but giving the most ample evidence that it is possible to give that the charges are foundationless. I would like to say that in my judgment this House is acting well with an undoubted right in having brought before it a resolution asking for a committee of investigation. It would be acting within its right to grant that committee, but I take it that the possession of a right is one thing and the light, frivolous or thoughtless exercise of that right is another thing.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.


Michael Clark: I do not recognize the relevance of the interruption of the hon. member.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not suppose you would.


Michael Clark: In fact I think I would be getting within the toils of rule 19 by saying that my hon. friend is as irrelevant as he frequently is. I was saying that it is not always wise to exercise a right, and I take it that the very strength of this right of investigation on the part of parliament, is that parliament, whether in this country or in the old country, has recognized that the demand for such a committee and for such an inquiry is so very serious a thing that it should not be acceded to except upon the very strongest case that can be presented to parliament. I would like to say, Sir, that the appointment of a parliamentary commission for inquiry into the conduct of a member of the House, who is also a minister of the Crown, is not an ordinary expedient to be lightly undertaken. It is an extraordinary

expedient, only justified by a very strong case. What is the fact, Sir, that relates to_ the ordinary procedure of this House with regard to every member of it? We have had it stated again and again in the last week and it is that in the ordinary procedure of this House when a member, not a minister, but a member, rises in his place and makes a statement as to a fact, we accept that statement as true. Yet this commission is proposed to investigate a statement of the utmost detail, made with the very greatest ability and supported by evidence drawn fully from the correspondence in this case. In regard to the basis upon which it is proposed to build this commission, the man Mayes leaves upon my _ mind two very distinct impressions. I differ from my hon. friend from Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) in that I am not from New Brunswick, and anything I know about this case I have learned to-day. I have listened with as much. care and as much impartiality as I am capable of to the charges on the one hand and to the Teply of the minister on the other, and I have gathered two very distinct impressions about this man Mayes. The first one which I have does not depend upon the unsupported statement of the minister, but it came out clearly in the correspondence which he read and which he had had with this man. The first impression I gathered about him, founded upon the minister's statement and supported by the correspondence, is that he is a disgruntled seeker of government favours. I take it that that was clearly brought out by his correspondence with the minister. He wanted a higher price for a dredge than that dredge was worth. The minister refused that higher price, and doubtless the man who wanted to sell the dredge did not feel quite so well pleased as if he had been met by an agreement instead of a refusal. We have heard something in this debate about the minister holding up Mr. Mayes. Why, it seems that the boot is entirely upon the other leg. It was Mr. Mayes who unsuccessfully attempted to hold up the minister. I take it that that fact was brought out in the debate, and brought out by the correspondence without any possibility of dispute on the part of any fair-minded man amongst my opponents in this House, and I take it that that fact justified my first impression and justifies me in describing Mayes as a disgruntled seeker of government favours. The second fact about this man is that, by mistake or otherwise, he promulgated a false affidavit. I do not think that any member of the opposition benches will be able to deny the truth of that statement. He promulgated a false affidavit. He was either so careless about it that he got the wrong date inadvertently or he was so wicked about it that he got Mr. M. CLARK.
it on purpose. My hon. friends opposite may take which ever horn of a not altogether pleasant dilemma that suits them best, but I take it that the fact is clear that he promulgated a false affidavit. He proved the falsity of the affidavit by correcting it himself. On the strength of a corrected affidavit this House is asked to throw over the circumstantial and complete statement of a minister of the Crown and to appoint a commission of investigation. To investigate what? To investigate a case hanging upon, depending for its sole foundation upon the statement of a corrected affidavit by a disgruntled seeker of government favours, who admits that in the first instance he promulgated a falsehood. I do not know what the opposition may think about this way of putting the case. That is how it strikes a plain man from the west, and I must say that in my humble judgment there are very grave and very strong reasons why we should not grant this commission of investigation on this kind of a foundation. Let me say that there are two grounds, and only two possible grounds, that occur to me which can justify motions of this kind or debates of this class in the House. The first is that they are undertaken for the public good, for the raising of the tone of public morality and public life in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I take it from the feeble 'hear, hear ' that there are at least some members of the opposition who claim that this is the ground upon which this debate has been carried on. Well, we of the Liberal party cannot have the slightest objection to the results along that line because I say deliberately that I do not think that when the statement of the minister is carefully and calmly read from beginning to end it will be considered any misfortune for the Liberal party that he was allowed to make the magnificent defence _ of his conduct to which this House has listened. I have just a little suspicion as to how far the public good is really paramount in the minds of my hon. friends on the opposition side when I reflect on the somewhat chastened countenances which they displayed when that statement was made. That chastened appearance would be much more easily explained if the second possible cause to which I wish to refer was more immediately in their mind when they moved this resolution and set in motion this debate. If they were not actuated by a desire for the public good, then there is' only one other purpose which could have moved them and that was to secure a party advantage by discrediting the good name of the people of Canada and the public life of the country in the person of a chosen minister of

the majority of the people. I know that members on the opposition side are a litle touchy when any reference is made to the result of the last election. My hon. and agreeable friend from Elgin (Mr. (brothers), I think it was, grew very warm in a recent debate on this subject, and asked whether the last election was to be held as an approval of all that had taken place in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If I am in order in answering that question, I should like to say that having talked with many electors in that part of the country I have the honour to represent, the verdict in the general elections, in my judgment at any rate, conveyed a disapproval of a campaign of that kind. I am convinced, from private and personal intercourse with many people not of the Liberal party, that the result might have gone the other way if the opposition had based their fight upon a policy instead of the class of fight they put up. My hon. friend from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) took a very prominent part in that contest and he came to my constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Michael Clark: I think this has a very distinct bearing on the question before the House. I am examining into the motives which underlie this resolution and I think that what I am saying is strictly pertinent. In any case, I can gratify my hon. friend by saying that however disagreeable it may be to them, there will not be very much more of it. My hon. friend from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) came to my constituency. He came, so far as I know, in a perfectly honourable way, accompanied by some unusual apparatus-an apparatus never required by William Pitt or Gladstone and which our own Prime Minister has hitherto not needed to enthuse the audiences he is in the habit of addressing. I must say that I do not think the class of campaign carried on by my hon. friend there did any good to the Conservative party. I had ample evidence only last evening, that many members of the House, when they want to see moving pictures go to Bennett's theatre, and I have every reason to believe that when they want to heaT good public speaking they will go to an orderly conducted public meeting.
I shall vote against the motion to appoint an investigating committee because I believe in the first place, that to use the power of appointing such a committee on frivolous grounds would encourage the appointment of similar committees every day in the week. If you take the affidavit of a man, who has been described in terms which were not greatly objected to even on the opposition benches, as your basis for appointing a committee of investigation, you can get such men by the dozen in every constituency who will make affidavits to defame the character of members on either side. I shall vote against the resolution in the second place, because, in my judgment, to appoint such a committee, except upon the very strongest ground, derogates from that public esteem which deservedly is attached to the high and responsible position of a minister of the Crown. A minister of Crown is the result of years of hard and honest service to the people in whatever county he lives. That position is the result of constant service to the people, and, as a general rule, of many contested elections, and you will lower that high position and very great responsibility in the public estimation if you appoint an investigation committee, such as is now asked for, except upon the very strongest possible grounds. In the third place, I shall vote against this motion because the only ground urged for the appointment of such a committee is the affidavit furnished by a man self confessed and proved to be a disgruntled seeker of government favours. I shall never give a vote in this House with a clearer conscience-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr.   M.@: CLARK-with a clearer conscience that what I am doing is in the best interests of the country and the dignity of parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I owe it to the House to declare what are the views which the government entertain upon this question and the reasons which have induced them not to accept the motion moved by my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel). I do not intend to discuss in any way the reasons which have been set forth in support of this resolution because I believe that every one of them has been refuted, and triumphantly refuted by my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) concluded a speech, which on the whole was moderate, by the statement that he hoped, as a Canadian, this investigation would be granted, but as a party man that it would be denied. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) expressed the same sentiment. He put it a little more emphatically perhaps, and added that if it were the bad fortune of the government and the good fortune of the opposition that the motion would be denied, the people would not fail to visit their disapproval at the proper time. Well, that is a matter of judgment, and I have some claim to my own judgment, and, in the words of my hon. friend who has just addressed the House (Mr. Clark), it is with a perfectly clear conscience and without doubt or hesitation that I say that this motion should not be entertained. This is not the first time unfortunately that the honour of a minister of the Crown has been impugned. Perhaps too frequently for the

honour of this country, motions of this character have been made. This is not the first time a member of this House has thought it his duty to bring charges against a fellow member and sometimes against a minister of the Crown, which, if proved, would drive the member accused out of public life. I agree with my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) that, if the charge that is levelled at my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works in this affidavit were true, he could not remain a member of the government-I do not think he could remain a member of this parliament. But this is not the first time such charges have been made. Whenever a member of this House has thought he owed it to himself and to his position to bring a charge of this kind against a fellow member, he has done it by rising in his place and stating that he was credibly informed and had reason to believe that such and such statements made against that fellow member were true. I quote s.everal precedents, but I will be satisfied with one. Here is the motion made by Mr. Tarte in 1891 against a member of the government of that day:-


That J.: Israel Tarte, Esq., the member representing the electoral district of Montmorency in this House, having declared from his seat in the House that he is credibly informed and that he believes he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence

Then follow the statements of fact. Is this the method followed by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel)? That hon. gentleman has this affidavit in his hand, this sworn declaration which was read most solemnly at a public meeting by no less a person that the premier of New Brunswick, making certain charges against the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). But though the hon. member (Mr. Daniel) has this document in his hand, does he dare to say that he is credibly informed that these accusations against my hon. friend are true? Does he dare to say that he has reason to believe them true? No, he does not take that responsibility. He incorporates th'at affidavit in a motion which he places before the House, but he has not sufficient faith in the statements of the affidavit to declare that he believes them true, and that he can prove the facts therein alleged. I am not surprised that my hon. friend the member for the city of St. John will not, even with this affidavit, say that he is credibly informed that the facts therein alleged can be substantiated by evidence. This affidavit bears on its face the evidence of falsehood,-I do not think I am speaking too strongly when I say so. In the first place, it is the evidence of a man, who, if we are to take his word, is a self-confessed boodler. What faith will you place in the words of a man who makes a Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.
charge against another, but who cannot make that charge without accusing himself? Do hon. gentlemen on the other side place very much faith in the statement of a man who thus comes before the House and confesses his own turpitude? If they place any faith in a story of that kind, they have the faith that will move mountains. But I do not think they should make allegations against any hon. member of this House upon such an affidavit as that.
Let us go into the statements in this affidavit and see what it discloses. Mr. Mayes states that on a certain occasion he entered into a contract with Mr. McAvity. I do not characterize that contract in any way. He said that when he made that contract with Mr. McAvity he paid $2,000 to the Minister of Public Works. This allegation is not new, it has been before the public for four months at least. It has been discussed by the press in all its bearings, and we know all about it. The Minister of Public Works, when that charge was made, met it immediately by admitting frankly that, in October, 1905, he had received money from Mr. Mayes, but said that it was money honestly paid to him for legal services. Mr. Mayes in his affidavit states-No, he does not state, but insinuates-that the money was not for professional service but for political influence. Now, we are men of common sense in this House: does anybody believe, after what we know of Mr. Mayes and the matter he has been prosecuting in an effort to help his own interest, that he would pay $2,000 to any man unless he got consideration for it? If this money was paid for political services where were these services rendered? This contract for dredging was given openly and squarely, without possibility of influence from anybody; it was given upon tender openly called for, and the contract was awarded to the' lowest tenderer who happened to be Mr. Mayes. What opportunity was there to use political influence? Yet, that is the charge made against the Minister of Public Works. On one side we have the statement of a self-confessed boodler that he paid this money for political services and on the other we have the statement of an honest man that the money was paid for legal services. Which are we to believe? Are we, under these circumstances, to take anything out of this affidavit? It would be a different thing if the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) had risen in his place and said: I have reason to believe that these statements are true. He does not say so, but simply lays this document upon the table of the House. His statement, in effect, is:	I have not sufficient faith to believe this affidavit upon

it, but we want the House to take action upon it. That is something new to our procedure and is not consistent with the rules and precedents of this House. The affidavit goes on to say that all this was before the Minister of Public Works had become a member of parliament or a minister of the Crown of the Dominion, but that since my hon. friend became a member of the government he had held up Mr. Mayes for the payment of moneys due to him. On this part of the case, I altogether agree with the words spoken by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) that if there has been a holdup it was not a holdup of Mr. Mayes by the Minister of Public Works, it was the case of Mr. Mayes trying to hold up this minister of the Crown. The facts are before the House in the documents that have been brought down. There is the letter by Mr. Mayes to the Minister of Public Works, and the letter by the Minister of Public Works in reply, showing that when, upon one occasion, Mr. Mayes was pressing the minister for the payment of money, he stated, in effect:	Unless I receive my money immediately, and moreover, unless you take over my dredge at a certain price, I will hold you up. He followed that up with threats to the minister, trying to induce the minister to buy his dredge. This was a clear attempt at a holdup. But the Minister of Public Works, answering like the honest man that he is, said that he would have nothing to do with it, and showed Mr. Mayes the door. And then Mr. Mayes went to the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick.
Reference has been made to the Hodgins case, and the question is asked: Why does not the Prime Minister do in this case what he did in the Hodgins case? When Mr. Hodgins made his statement in the press I thought it my duty to refer it to the chief commissioner of the Transcontinental Railway, and that gentleman asked for an investigation. Does it not strike hon. gentlemen opposite that there is a difference between the case of Mr. Hodgins and the case oi this man? Mr. Hodgins did not accuse himself, he accused some one else, he accused the commissioners. Mr. Hodgins, I think, is an honest man. He stated that there had been something wrong going on in the classification on the Transcontinental Railway. Believing that to be the statement of an honest man, I thought it my duty to call the attention of the commissioner to it, and the commissioner finding that his action was called in question, asked at once for an investigation. But are we to be told by hon. members opposite that whilst it is logical, whilst it is right to take action upon the statement of an honest man, we must take the same action upon the statement of a self-confessed boodler?
I see a great difference between the two cases.. So with the case of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). That hon. gentleman, to his credit be it said, when he saw a statement in a respectable newspaper reflecting upon himself, thought it was his duty at once to take action. But this again is a different case altogether, and I repeat that I refuse to be carried away by the statement of Mr. Mayes, unless his statement is corroborated by some other witnesses.
There is another consideration. This is the first time, as I have said, that we have such a motion made in this matter. The hon. member for the city of St. John has taken a course different from any other that has been taken under similar circumstances. I go further, and say that the hon. member for St. John has made it impossible for the government or any supporter of the government to accept his motion. This is a motion made on going into Committee of Supply, it is a motion which, according to the rules of the House we cannot amend. There is a statement in this motion referring to a past action. The House should not be called upon to investigate under any circumstances the conduct of a man who was not a member of this House. I think this is according to the rules of the House. If we wanted to. limit that inquiry, we could not do it. The rules of the House do not allow us to take a syllable from that motion, and do not allow us to add a syllable to it. We must take it as it is, holus bolus, swallow it all or deny it all. Well, undei such circumstances the only thing left for us to do, even if the substance of the motion under other circumstances warranted action, is to deny it altogether. But the last and supreme consideration is that this is a motion of want of confidence. I would not press that argument under different circumstances; but in the present case, we are not disposed to vote want of confidence in the Minister of Public Works for the reason that we are proud of him, and this evening we are prouder of him than ever before. I have frankly stated to the House the reasons why we cannot accept this motion.


George Eulas Foster: Before reviewing the reasons given by my right hon. friend why he and those who sit behind him cannot accept this motion, I wish to say a word with reference to Mr. Mayes. I do not know whether my right hon. friend personally knows Mr. Mayes or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: I never saw him.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) personally knows Mr. Mayes or not. But any one can easily see that unless there is a personal knowledge, it is quite possible to do a very great wrong to a private citizen

who is not able to defend himself on the floor of the House, and to do it under the shadow of the privilege of a member of parliament. Therefore I take the very first opportunity of saying that I know Mr. Mayes very well, I have known Mr. Mayes for a long period of years, and I know nothing to the discredit of Mr. Mayes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not even this?


George Eulas Foster: I know nothing to the discredit of Mr. Mayes. If you take Mr. Mayes as a citizen, I think he is just as reputable, has just as good a character, and stands just as high as the Minister of Public Works, and I am not saying anything to the disparagement of the Minister of Public Works in saying that. Mr. Mayes is a business man who, on the streets of St. John, or on the streets of any other city, enjoys a credit as good and his word is as good, as the credit or the word of the Minister of Public Works, and in saying that I am not saying anything to the discredit of the Minister of Public Works. Mr. Mayes is a self-made man, he has conquered hard circumstances, he has made a place for himself, he has made a certain patrimony for himself, and I have yet to find the first man who can point to Mr. Mayes and accuse him of dishonest or dishonourable action in the accumulation of that patrimony. Now I take this opportunity of saying these things because of what I think are the unfounded aspersions that have been made upon his character, made by some gentlemen who confessedly do not personally know him, and therefore have no knowledge upon which they can go.
But my right hon. friend says, do you consider him as good a character as the Minister of Public Works after this affidavit which he has given? Yes, I answer that in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker. Let us now for a single moment, as sensible men, divesting ourselves of party preferences, follow the force of evidence given every day in every court of the land. Here is a man who is brought into the witness box. He is put upon his oath, he is asked questions and he gives answers. He swears to the answers he has given. Maybe before he has got half through his evidence, maybe after he has gone down from the box and others have given evidence, he asks for the privilege to return to the box, or his lawyer asks it for him, and he corrects the evidence which he gave an hour before, or the evidence which he gave the day before. No judge upon the bench, and no lawyer conducting a case, calls that man an infamous liar because he makes a correction. That is a thing which is liable to take place with my right hon. friend, it is liable to take place with myself, it is liable to. take place with any man. Now if that be true, no one has a right to call a man an infamous liar when he is not in Mr. FOSTER.
his place, because he swears to a statement, and afterwards corrects it. For instance, he had in his mind a certain thing, his lips formed that, and his pen followed the direction of his mind, and a date was written down which he fully believed was the date he intended to have written down. When a few minutes afterwards that is read out by Mr. Hazen, on the platform in the city of St. John, and Mr. Hazen, thinking that the date is wrong, turns to the gentleman and queries as to the date, and is instantly told, 1905, that 1905 was the date he intended. When he finds 1907, as against 1905 which he intended, he immediately writes a letter to the gentleman who is chiefly interested, and in that letter says, it was 1905 I meant, and not 1907. That letter informed the Minister of Public Works, that letter became public property and informed the public of Canada. When a man under these circumstances made an error-he did not intend to make the error-he did not himself make the error-is it quite fair for an hon. member protected by the privileges of parliament, to call him an infamous liar? I cannot take that view of it nor can any sensible man who knows what goes on in business, on the street, in courts of law every day and almost every hour. A great deal has been made of that. The Minister of Public Works said:	Why did not the reporters
hear it ? I put this simple question to my right hon. friend. At a large meeting of this kind, where there was more speaking than any reporter could take, would a shorthand reporter take down that long affidavit as it was read? No body thinks that. Why did not the reporters take it? Because the reporters said to themselves, there is a typewritten copy of the affidavit, we will take what we can of the speeches, that affidavit will be given to us and we will have it for out papers. In that typewritten copy of the affidavit which was signed by Mr. Mayes the date was 1907 because Mr. Hazen, when he read it, did not take his pencil and change the figure from seven to five


William Stevens Fielding: How could he change another man's affidavit?


George Eulas Foster: I suppose it would have been stated


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Does it not strike the hon. member that the explanation which the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Daniel) said was made at the moment would strike the reporters as well as anybody else and would be such a marked thing that they would make a note of it?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend thinks he has put a very important question. What idea would present itself to the mind of a reporter in the hurry of an important meeting when an affidavit was being read,

of the whole purport of that affidavit? He did not know when some one said: ' Is that date correct,' and another answered: ' 1905;' it would go in at the ear but it was not a thing which a reporter would take down. The reporter would look to the document itself and he would give that to his paper.
I do not think there is any doubt about that and to the man who will try to imagine the actual circumstances, that will commend itself as a reasonable explanation of this error getting into the newspapers instead of being corrected there and then.
What matter on earth is it whether it was 1907 or 1905? For the space of a few hours the Minister of Public Works had a grievance because there was going abroad in the press a statement that he received money in 1907 when he actually received it 1905. To that extent it was a hardship upon my hon. friend and he had a perfect right to complain of it and make what he could of it, but to the man who went to the affidavit itself and analysed it, it did not make a pin's difference whether it was 1907 or 1905 as far as the personal action of the Minister of Public Works was concerned. The other fact is that following straight on the heels of the 1907 issue came the correction of 1905. You can make what grievance you like of that, I think the Minister of Public Works tried to make that his whole case in order to create sympathy for himself as a much-abused and much-maligned man. It was not in keeping with my hon. friend's abilities, standing and experience as a public man. It seems to me it would have been far better to say:
* Well, I was grievously wronged by that date being given as 1907 when it should have been 1905, but this man made a mistake, he corrected that mistake as soon as he knew it had occurred, and within 12 or 15 hours the whole country got the right statement of the case and had it alongside of the other.' Thus, I think undue stress has been laid upon that matter.
Let me now check off for a moment the reasons given by my right hon. friend as to why this motion should not be adopted. He says the government are precluded from allowing the motion to pass because it is made as a want of confidence motion. Are we to go over that old ground again and again? How often has my right hon. friend himself, the leader of this government, accepted and voted for motions which have been made as want of confidence motions if every amendment to Supply is to be considered a want of confidence motion. My hon. friend knows that he has accepted them again and again. He can accept this just as easily as he could accept the half dozen others which he accepted in the last parliament and allowed to be carried without challenging a vote, in some cases saying that he accepted the motion. These 139
motions were consequently passed, and then by the proper mechanism we returned to the consideration of Supply. My right hon. friend therefore is not opposing this motion because it is moved as an amendment to Supply. Am I out of order in saying that the objection which he raises on that score is a herring trailed across the track in order to take away the sense of smell from the real objection of the right hon. gentleman, his real objection being that he does not believe the motion should be allowed to pass under any consideration. My right hon. friend will not deny that that is the position he takes, he does not believe the motion should pass under any consideration. Why? Well he says that no member on this side of the House has had the hardihood or the courage to get up and say: ' I myself as a member of the House take the responsibility of charging the minister,'-and that consequently this motion was not properly brought before the House.
Will my right hon. friend quote me a parliamentary rule which makes it necessary that a member in proferring his motion to the House for whatever purpose, is bound to take that line. I have heard the Speaker say that is a rule of the House. I have heard other gentlemen over and over again declare the same, and declare that we are not in earnest because we do not take that method. But, the main point is the essence of the thing that we want investigated. The manner in which we shall have it brought before the House in order to get an investigation is within the choice of the member himself, so lotng as he conforms to the rules of the House. It will not go down with this House and it will not go down with this country, that simply because of a form which does not agree with the opinion of my right hon. friend, that therefore the substance shall not be investigated. What we want to do is to have the substance investigated, and the substance is very material indeed. Let me exhaust the two examnles my right hon. friend has given. He sees no analogy at all between the Hodgins case, the Em-merson case, and this case. I admit that the analogy is not complete because to my mind this is a stronger case than either of the others. In the Hodgins case you have simply a series of newspaper articles; you have no affidavit. But savs my right hon. friend: I choose to consider that Mr. Hodgins is an honest man ; I do not choose to consider that Mr. Mayes is an honest man, and therefore I will take a simple letter written by Mr. Hodgins, whom I consider to be an honest man, rather than take the sworn statement of Mr. Mayes, whom I do not consider to stand in that light. That is a mere matter of taste. My right hon. friend had no right to order an investigation into the Hodgins case simply because



he thought or did not think that Mr. Hod-gins was an honest man ; the point was, what was the accusation conveyed in what Mr. Hodgins said, and, whether Mr. Hod-gins was an honest man or not, if the accusation was one which made against what was improper in administration and government, my right hon. friend as premier of this country is bound to take it up and have it investigated. But let me press once more upon my right hon. friend this fact : my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is an influential and able and experienced lawyer; he is able to conduct his own case; he has not been foreign to libel suits for, if my memory serves me right, he has threatened several and brought some. Does my right hon. fiiend think it is reasonable that if the Minister of Public Works had an unimpeachable case he would allow that which he designated as the foulest outrage which could be done to any public man, to be put in the form of an affidavit where the man brought himself within the grip of the law and the toils of justice; does my right hon. friend think he would allow that to lie there undisturbed for four months and suffer and sweat under the grossest slander that a public man in this country has had inflicted upon him, and never issue a writ, never make a single step forward towards punishing the dastardly outrage which was perpetrated against him as he has declared over and over again in this House? My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has a good deal of the courteous and of the amiable about him, but he also has some human nature, and the man who could so righteously and indignantly declare against this outrage and the perpetrator of it is a human being by the very indignation that he shows. And it would be his very first impulse to say: 'I will show that man that I can keep my reputation; if there is any law in this country I will take him before the courts and I will preserve my character.' That, the Minister of Public Works has not done. But if he thinks that Mr. Mayes is below his rank, which I beg leave to doubt, the Hon. Mr. Hazen is equal with him in every respect; in point of public view, in point of private character, and the Hon. Mt. Hazen laid himself open when he read the fabricated- what was it that my hon. friend here behind me called it-a 'promulgated' falsehood?


Michael Clark: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member (Mr. Poster) has mistaken what I said. What T did say was (and I tried to speak grammatically), that he had promulgated a false affidavit. It may be foreign English to my hon. friend, but that is not my fault.


George Eulas Foster: I owe my learned and cultured friend from Red Deer a debt of Mr. FOSTT R.
gratitude which I am afraid I will never be able to repay, for this much needed instruction which he has been good enough to give me to-night. But here is the premier of the province of New Brunswick who in a public assembly, in the eye and in the hearing of this Dominion of Canada, read this promulgated falsehood and by still further promulgating it and giving it further currency added to the gravity of the outrage perpetrated upon the Minister of Public Works. And the Minister of Public Works wants us to think that he is of such angelic and such seraphic disposition that he lies quietly under the double-promulgated falsehood and does not take action. Well, it seems to me that we have got to have a great deal of that faith which my hon. friend from Red Deer has in ministerial dignity and ministerial excellence, to quite reconcile these matters one with the other. Now, let us take these two cases; I have traced to a certain extent the case of Mr. Hodgins, and my right hon. friend thought that should be investigated, and he appointed a commission and it was investigated. Take the case of Mr. Emmerson. Did my right hon. friend commit an injustice, or allow a man to commit an injustice against himself, in the case of Mr. Emmerson? Did he rise when that allusion was made in this House and say: ' If any man in this House will stand up and declare that he is credibly informed thus and so, and charges the minister then he shall have an investigation at once?' The Prime Minister did not do that Why was it? Was it that the then minister was of a different mould, of a little more sensitive nature, and felt he ought to relieve his colleagues of any possible imputation that might come upon them, and that therefore out of his generosity he sacrificed himself when no man stood up in this House and made a charge against him? Or was it because my right hon. friend procured the resignation of the then minister without demanding that a single man in opposition should have the courage to get up and pledge his seat? These two cases do not hold water when compared with the action of my right hon. friend in this case. Why the difference? If my right hon. friend wishes this motion not to pass, but still wishes an investigation we will not stand upon the order in which it goes. We will not tie ourselves to any particular amendment or any particular mode. Let my right hon. friend have the investigation and he may make the investigation upon whatever method or plan he likes. All we ask for is the investigation. Suppose Mr. Mayes had a seat in this House, suppose he sat here by my side, suppose he did not make an affidavit, did not make a declaration, but simply rose as a member and stated what he had stated

in his affidavit, my hon. friend would grant an investigation. Why ? From the mere mechanical fact that the man who made the statement happened to be here in this House, while the man who made the affidavit is not in this House. Does some one say 'character'? Would his character have been any better if he had been sitting here in this House than it would be if he were on the streets of St. John? Does not my right hon. friend see that this is simply switching straws? There is the absolute affidavit of a man who is just as reputable and just as honourable on the streets of St. John as he would be if he happened to be a member of this House. But my right hon. friend swings clear of another thing. He says that Mayes was a self-confessed bood-ler. Suppose my right hon. friend takes this view of the question. Suppose it comes to be a matter of common notoriety that if a man will enjoy the patronage of the government he has to have a pull to get it. Suppose he cannot get it unless he gets the pull, there is the compulsion of circumstances to make a man league himself with one who has the pull in order to get the work which he ought, as a free Canadian, to get in competition and without pull at all. Well, Sir, suppose that happens to be the case. I will tell you cases that I know of. I know of case after case where, in order to carry out the business that had been formerly carried out, a Conservative has to league himself with a Liberal and lie as a silent partner in order that the Liberal may get from the government the employment, the contracts, the work which is denied him in open and fair competition. That is an undoubted fact. Over and over and over again that is proved.


Mr. MILLER.: Will the hon. gentleman cite an instance of that?


George Eulas Foster: Oh, my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) must not be quite so fresh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. FOSTER, Then, shall I say soft? My hon. friend must not think I am to be switched off from my argument by a remark which is not at all pertinent in this case. I do not say it was impertinent, though that could be applied to a remark but not to a person.


Henry Horton Miller: May I ask again if the hon. member will cite an instance to prove what he says?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend puts to me the question if I will cite an instance. At this time I will not cite an instance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Now, will my hon. friend answer me a question? What inference does he dTaw from my answer?
139i


Henry Horton Miller: That the hon. gentleman is not very well able to prove his own statement.


George Eulas Foster: I will say to my hon. friend that I am very well able to prove it over and over again when I wish to and as I wish to. Now, Mr. Speaker, where was I when this


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. FOSTER-mild friend of mine broke in upon me in such an unaccustomed way? My right hon. friend stated that Mr. Mayes was a self-convicted boodler. Did my right hon. friend sense, when he stated that, what characterization he would have to make of Mr. McAvity, the bosom friend of the Minister of Public Works? My right hon. friend did not think of that. If Mr. Mayes was a self-convicted boodler, Mr. McAvity would be that ten times over and he has been caught with the boodle on him. No man in this House can deny that Mr. McAvity, acting with what my right hon. friend calls a self-convicted boodler, has taken out of the treasury of the country $35,900 for which he dug no mud. For all that Mayes got he did actual work. Now my right hon. friend sees how dangerous it is to play with phrases looking only to one side and seeking only for his own advantage. I call upon him as leader of the government and keeper of the treasury to go after Mr. McAvity and to get the peoples' money back. Mr. McAvity was the tempter, if there was any temptation, of Mr. Mayes. It was Mr. McAvity who engineered the transaction, it was Mr. McAvity who said: * Come along; I am going up to Ottawa; meet me there.' He came with an introduction given to him by the present Minister of Public Works. Now, let it be known that the Minister of Public Works and Mr. McAvity were not strangers who had met in 1905 for the first time. Mr. McAvity was at one time the president and a director of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, appointed thereto by my hon. friend, paid therefor by my hon. friend, and all the time that he was president and director having the patronage of the railway in the matter of such supplies as appertained to his particular line of business. My hon. friend therefore knew him, employed him, put him in positions of trust, saw that the patronage went to him and he was well acquainted with him in party and political matters. They were brothers together; they were bosom friends. Did my right hon. friend think, when he used that pet phrase of his, that he was thereby giving his own characterization of this gentleman so trusted by the Minister of Public Works, so favoured by that minister and who profiited so well out of the public chest, as he did in this instance? My right hon. friend forgets that phase of the question, and that is the phase in which the people are most interested. That is the very

crux of this resolution, and we want an investigation to know just how much money Mr. McAvity got; how he got it; what influences he brought to bear in order to get it, and how it came to be so easy in that department for a man to procure a contract from it for another and then draw from it this $35,900. That is what the people want to know. The right hon. gentleman never had a truer friend than the editor of the St. John 'Globe.' I do not know that he has a truer friend to-day. The editor of the St. John ' Globe ' does not see any particular virtue in Mr. McAvity's rake-off of $35,933. My right hon. friend has other good friends in the old Liberal party. Let him read what the press is saying to-day. Let him take his own papers that support him loyally and truly, and let him read their straightforward, honest declarations to-day. To-morrow morning when the news floats out on the wires and is read by the people that an investigation was refused on the flimsy pretext that no man got up and on his honour said he was prepared to prove this sort of thing, or on the equally flimsy pretext that the resolution was moved as an amendment to Supply, and, therefore, was a want of confidence motion, and when it goes out to the people that, according to the statement of the Minister of Public Works, Mr. McAvity did a proper thing when he took the $35,900, that he cannot be proceeded against, that no law in this country can take this money from him- let the right hon. gentleman believe that when that statement of his minister goes out. and his own refusal to investigate the matter, it will be hard reading for many of his best friends, and will not be a thing of which this country of ours can be proud. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more on this matter. I have simply to make one plea more to my right hon. friend, and that is to give free course for investigation in this parliament. When matters of this gravity are brought up, at least allow the people, whose affairs we are transacting, the slight privilege of a fair examination. You have one man making a certain statement on his word; you have another making a contrary statement on his oath, and you are in doubt between the two. Why is it not a proper thing to have an investigation where both can be taken on oath? Is there anything wrong or unfair in that? Let my right hon. friend tell me of one interest that will be injured if he grants this committee? If the Minister of Public Works took that $2,000 and took it as a solicitor's fee, it will be any easy matter to bring him before the committee and ask him to show his books, bills and receipts and checks and question him upon them. With all my deep admiration for the splendid dignity of a minister of the Crown, I still think that sometimes it is better to have these things Mr. FOSTER.
established on oath as is done in suits at law and vexed questions before the courts. It seems to me that no judge would turn out, no lawyer would ask to debar from giving evidence a man who was an accomplice in the thing charged. Every day in our courts of law such men are relied upon as witnesses. So that I make my plea to my right hon. friend that if there is no interest which will be injured, if the Minister of Public Works, who declares his innocence in such indignant tones, is really innocent, then that can be easily proved before the committee. If the affidavit made is false, that can be proved and the man who swore to a falsity can be punished. What interest would be injured by sending this matter to a committee and having it fully investigated?


Samuel Hughes: Am I to understand the Minister of Public Works denies having received the $2,000?


George Eulas Foster: No, as I understand it, he admits having received it, but what he says is that it was for professional services.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Mayes says it was for very different services. Mayes swears to his statement and we have the word of the minister denying it. But it would be more satisfactory if both these men were brought where they would be sworn and cross questioned and the truth brought out by examination of their books and checks and the like. Therefore, I again press upon the Prime Minister, that if no interest would be injured in the matter, let the people have the chance to know the truth by a full, free and impartial investigation.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure that, at this late hour and at this stage of the debate, no one could hope to add anything new, by way of information, to the subject which has been so thoroughly discussed all this afternoon and evening. All that I care to do is to try to emphasize two or three points, which seem to be the points of vital importance, and which have been fully covered by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works in his admirable address, but which it would be well to emphasize again. But first let me say a word or two on the general question of investigations. I-believe that the people will distinguish carefully, as they have done in the past, between motions which are made for the bona fide purpose of investigation and motions made purely and simply for the purpose of manufacturing political capital ; and the manner in which these different classes of motions may be made from time to time will have much to do with enabling the public to distinguish between the two.

Mr. 8PROULE. I rise to a point of order. Has the hon. gentleman the right to impute motives with regard to a motion before the House?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no rule to prevent my imputing motives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there is.


William Stevens Fielding: There might be an objection to imputing improper motives, but I am sure my hon. friend will not labour to find an authority to say that I may not impute motives. I may impute to the hon-gentleman some highly honourable motives, and that would not be contrary to the rules of parliament. Sir, I have in this case imputed no motives, I have only drawn a distinction between two classes of demands for investigation. And I wish to consider that point as illustrated by what we have now before us. Now, this matter of the Mayes' affidavit is not something which transpired to-day or yesterday; it transpired many months ago. My hon. friend from the city of St. John, and all those who have been interested in the matter, have had these documents in their possession for many months; and if they had desired an investigation they have had abundant opportunity to seek it in a different way and at an earlier stage of the session when the House ^could have dealt with it. But, for their own purposes, they have not sought that; for their own purposes, they have kept these documents in their pockets, or- Mr. LENNOX. If the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) will allow me a question: Is he aware that the papers in connection with this matter were moved for and that they were only brought down eight days ago?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member is referring to papers of a different character from this. The Mayes' affidavit was not moved for in this House. That affidavit is the basis of these proceedings and it has been in the hands of my hon. friends for months, and they have had every opportunity to challenge investigation if they had so desired. I want to invite the attention of the House and the country to the different forms of procedure in the matter of investigation. I had occasion to do so recently in the case of another subject that we were considering, and I wish to treat the same thought to-day. If an hon. member wishes to make a motion for an investigation of any public matter, he can put a notice on the paper setting forth the nature of his proposal, and when it is reached in due course, if the House is disposed to grant an investigation but not to limit it by the particular terms of the motion, an amendment can be moved. Thus, the House can declare in words that are deemed fitting its desire either to have an investigation or not to have an investigation. And, when an hon.
member wishes to make the investigation of a general character, that is the method contemplated by the rules and procedure of parliament. But if a charge is to be made against a minister of the Crown that is a different matter. If an hon. member is prepared to take the procedure illustrated by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to-night, if it be deemed necessary to attack the honour of a minister and charge him with any act of corruption in relation to the matters of which he is a trustee, it is the right of an honourable member to avail himself of the form of motion which is usually a vote of want of confidence and to come forward with a specific charge. And, when this is done, no government would refuse an investigation. But, while that would be the case where a member is prepared to make a specific charge of corruption against a minister, it is not the same when you come to deal with ordinary talk and to demand an investigation of nothing in particular. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) put the case fairly when he said that the honour and dignity of parliament require that we should not order investigations on mere frivolous statements for which there is no strong foundation. And that is the case here to-day; there is no foundation for an investigation. We are concerned in maintaining the honour and dignity of parliament. It happens that one party is in the ascendency to-day; some day another party will be in the ascendency-


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) says: 'Hear, hear'. But it will be a long time before my hon. friends of the Conservative party can win by the tactics which they have adopted in this case. There is a manliness, a sense of fair play among the people of Canada which will respond to such statements as those of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) when he shows the dastardly attempts made in the city of St. John to destroy him. I say, we are concerned in maintaining the honour and dignity of parliament; and, if it be laid down as a rule that a member can pick up a statement in a newspaper-whether an affidavit or an editorial article does not matter-and come before the House and say : ' I personally know nothing about this, but I will read it and will move for investigation by a special committee,' we are following a course that is not consistent with the honour and dignity of parliament. But when a motion of that kind is proposed, shall the House accept it? I ask hon. members of both sides to think seriously of the view I present. So, we have this motion in the form of a non-confidence motion. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Fos-


William Stevens Fielding: ment that if any man shall receive money for the purpose of influencing any government and so on, it shall be deemed a crime. But toward the end of the sentence, the hon. gentleman read-not very loudly; his voice fails at times-


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not at an.


William Stevens Fielding: Not very loudly


John Waterhouse Daniel: Just as loudly as the
other.
Mr. FIELDING-that the man who gives the money commits the crime.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Yes, both of them.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. McAvity has not confessed any crime; he has denied it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: No.


William Stevens Fielding: He has denied any
crime.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He has not denied receiving the money.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. McAvity, as appears, says he was engaged in a business transaction which was right and proper and one which he is prepared to defend. But, whatever may be said about Mr. McAvity, Mr. Mayes by his own affidavit declares that he entered into an improper, corrupt arrangement for the purpose of extorting from the Dominion of Canada money which he could not lawfully receive. You may hold Mr. McAvity in suspense-I offer no opinion at this moment as to his nqsition. But I say that Mr. Mayes, by his own statement, in his own affidavit, declares that he entered into what he meant to be a corrupt arrangement whereby he might, as my hon. friend said, filch this money from the public treasury.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It took two to make a bargain.


William Stevens Fielding: Very good. The second party is not in dispute, we have yet to know what is the fact with regard to the second. But I am judging Mr. Mayes by his own affidavit, and I say that by his own statement in his own affidavit he puts himself in a position which must be exceedingly painful to every man who would like to call himself his friend.


Samuel Hughes: Why not then take Mc-Avity's evidence in favour of Mayes, if you are going to take it the other way?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friends had been really anxious to have an investigation, we would have heard of it a long time ago. Now let us come to what I regard as the two important points in this discussion; and first, the affidavit. Why, my hon. friend from St. John says, it was a mistake. The affidavit had in it a certain date, 1907. He admitted that rather reluctantly, but

pressed by the Minister of Public Works he admitted it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: No reluctance about it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am bound to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. At all events, he had that affidavit in his possession and he claims now there was a mistake made in it as to a given date. The hon. member for North Toronto spent considerable time in aTguing that it made no difference at all; what difference did it make whether it was 1907 or 1905? Why, Mr. Speaker, it made all the difference in the world. The date was the essence of the whole thing. A document saying that in the year 1907 the contractor Mayes gives Dr. Pugsley, the Minister of Public Works at that time, $2,000-that was a thing that would startle the country. But when you change the date to 1905, what value had the affidavit? What concern could it have been to a public gathering in the city of St. John to know that two years before, as between Mr. Mayes, the client, and Dr. Pugsley, the lawyer, there had been some business transaction involving the payment of fees?


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister forget that if the statement made by Mr. Mayes were true, that the transaction occurred say in 1905 instead of 1907. that then, under the statute, the party who was guilty of it, the present Minister of Public Works, was guilty of a crime which would render him liable to seven years' imprisonment, and therefore he would be a criminal, and could not be a member of this House?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not know that. If my hon. friend says it is so, I am not going to deny it.


Samuel Hughes: In that affidavit, as I heard it read, is it not clearly stated that Mr. Hyman was the Minister of Public Works at that time?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes; but let us consider the circumstances under which the affidavit was produced. We had an election in the city of St. John. Mr. Hyman was not a candidate; the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Public Works was the candidate; and it was to damage the Minister of Public Works of to-day, it was to damage Dr. Pugsley, and try to elect the hon. gentleman who sits to-day for the city of St. John, that that affidavit was brought forward; and if it had been stated in the beginning that the date in question was 1905, two years before the hon. gentleman became a minister of the Crown, what value would have had that affidavit? The whole value of the affidavit, for the time a'ffi circumstances, was in that date, and that date was given as 1907, and it went out in the press and was circulated the following morning that the Minister of Public Works had received $2,000
from a contractor in a corrupt transaction, while he was a minister of the Crown.
I say again that the whole value of the affidavit was in the date; and if they had brought forward the affidavit at first with the date 1905, it is not nrobable that it would have been read in that meeting at all, because it was absolutely worthless as political capital except they put in a date which would involve my hon. friend in his capacity as Minister of Public Works with that transaction. But what concern was it to the electors of St. John that Mr. Mayes, a well known contractor, and Mr. Pugsley, a well known lawyer, should have had business as between client and legal adviser? Who were concerned in that? Who cared to know whether Dr. Pugsley received $2,000 or $200 for his services? These lawyers in the upper provinces sometimes get very liberal fees. I do not think anybody would say the payment of $2,000 to a gentleman who was the legal adviser of a prominent contractor, was a very large sum. You would not get a big Toronto lawyer to do very much for $2,000. And if it be assumed that because the $2,000 was paid to my hon. friend it is an evidence of corruption, why, any member of the legal profession would say it was utterly preposterous. The whole value of the affidavit turns on the date, and if that affidavit had been sent in with the present date1, 1905, the probability is that it would have been flung out. They would say :	' What do we caTe about
the affairs of Mayes and Pugsley as lawyer and client?' It was only by the falsification of that date, it was only by the insertion of the year 1907 in place of 1905, that the document became of any value politically. It was used with that date in it to damage my hon. friend, and if in the end he escaped damage, no credit is due to the men who used the affidavit in that way.
Now the other feature of the matter which I think is important, is the tenders. Tenders were invited for some dredging, and the specification contained the condition that the party who took the contract must be the owner of a dredge registered in Canada. Two tenders were brought in, Mr. Mayes was the lowest, but Mr. Mayes had not complied with the conditions of the specification. Now, suppose the Minister of Public Works had ignored that defect, suppose he had said. Well, never mind, we will give Mayes the contract all the same. Suppose he had got the contract, I can imagine my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) rising up the following session and saying:	What did
you do? You put in your specification a certain condition, and you therebv shut out from tendering many people who would have tendered, but they could not comply with that condition. Mr. Mayes' tender did not comply with that condition, but you gave him the contract in violation of your

specification-and hon. gentlemen opposite would have been strong in their denunciation of the Minister of Public Works for violating the condition of his own specification. So the Minister of Public Works said: Well, I am going to have difficulty in getting dredges registered in Canada, but I will give everybody a fair chance, I will invite new tenders, and let all have a fair chance. New tenders were invited, and that clause with respect to the dredge being registered in Canada was omitted from the specification. What is wrong with that? I put it to any business man-was not that a fair business arrangement ? Can any man say there was any wrong up to that moment ? Surely not. Then new tenders came in; and it appears that in the meantime Mr. Mayes decided to increase his tender. Can any body find fault with that? When a number of people tender, and their tenders are thrown out and they are asked to tender again, are they all bound to put in the same figures? Surely if the minister has a right to refuse to accept the old tenders, a man who sent in a tender has a perfect right to revise his tender and ask what he pleases. Suppose that in the meantime Mr. Mayes had made up his mind that he had tendered too low,-and we know there are occasions when men do tender too low-suppose that for any reason Mr. Mayes made up his mind that he wanted to get a higher price, and he sent in his tender at a higher figure, in open competition with the world, in response to the invitation, what fault could be found with such a transaction? What is wrong with that up to that point? First the tenders were asked for with a specification as to the dredge. Then it was found that nobody was willing to comply and the department said: 'We will give no favour, we will open the doors to everybody free; ' and they called for new tenders. That is right. When they gave the contract to the man whose tender was lowest.' I submit to any business man in the House that there is nothing wrong in that. We are not concerned in the relations between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes, that is their own business transaction. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says: Why not get the money back from Mr. McAvity. Mr. McAvity got no money from the government, Mr. Mayes was the contractor. Mr. Mayes sent in his tender, he had his association with Mr. McAvity, whether it is good or bad is their own private business. Tenders were called for publicly, tenders were sent in in open competition and the man who offered the lowest price got the work. I submit to the people of Canada who care to interest themselves in the matter that in those few sentences that you have the whole story. It is Mr. Hyman who is accused in this matter. Although the attack is levelled against the present minister (Mr. Pugsley), whatever Mr. FIELDING.
reflection is cast is cast on Mr. Hyman, who is no longer here to defend himself, and unless there are some good grounds for believing, unless somebody is prepared to say on his responsibility, ' I have reason to believe and do believe there was collusion between the minister or the deputy minister or the engineer or somebody ' in that department and that contractor,' I submit there never was a business transaction between the government and contractors that was fairer, straighter or more above-board than the transaction respecting the dredging of the harbour of St. John.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I raised a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on which I did not get your ruling, and I was afterwards contradicted by the hon. member in his speech. I asked your ruling as to whether an hon. member could attribute motives? The Minister of Finance said that the motive of the party who moved this was a political one. I asked your ruling as to whether he could or could not, I have here Bourinot's ' Parliamentary Procedure,' third edition, edited by Dr. T. B. Flint, which says:
No member can be allowed to apply the expression ' impertinence ' to another member, or to attribute motives.
It is upon the strength of that passage that I asked a ruling and on account of the difference between the Minister of Finance and myself and for the direction of the House I would like very much to have your ruling on it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is a well-known rule that no improper motive can be attributed.
I did not rule because the Minister of Finance declared he was not imputing any improper motives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He declared he had a right.


William Stevens Fielding: A good motive.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: A good motive, he facetiously said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The words are: * Or to attribute motives.'


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The intention is that improper motives should not be applied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this resolution was only introduced for a political purpose, would it not be for an improper motive and not for the good of the country?


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the tenders were increased in order that a rake-off might be paid for political influence would the Minister of Finance hold that that was not a corrupt arrangement?


William Stevens Fielding: If the tenders were open to the public, if there was free, open competition without collusion, they are not

called upon to inquire into the motive which led any man to increase his tender.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Without reference to the other tenders, if the tender was increased in order that a rake-off might be paid to a man for political purposes, would the minister say that that was not a corrupt arrangement?


William Stevens Fielding: Everything would depend on whether there was collusion or not. If a matter is open to public tender and a man sends in a tender to-day at a dollar and then further tenders are called for and he sends in a second tender at $1.50, I say that if he gets the contract because he is the lowest tenderer in fair and open competition, without any collusion or any allegation of collusion, there is no ground foT inquiring into the reason which led him to make an increase in his tender.
House divided on amendment, (Mr. Daniel)
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barr,
Beattie,
Blain,
Blondin,
Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Edwards,
Elson,
Forget,
Foster,
Goodeve,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lortie,
Macdonell,
McCall,
McCarthy,
Magrath,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Owen,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Price,
Russell,
Soha finer,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn,
Thornton,
Wallace, Worthington, Wright.-60.
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carrier,

Messieurs
McGiverin,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathcona), McKenzie,
MoLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
(Jarvell,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edw.), Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Ecrement,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Harris,
Hod gins,
Hunt,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Lavergne,
LeBlane,
Lovell,
Low
MaoNutt,
McCoig,
McColl,
McCraney,
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,	-
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Piokup,
Proulx,
Rankin,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross,
Roy (Dorchester), Roy (Montmagny), Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sutherland,
Talbot,
Templeman,
, Tolmie,	*
Turcotte (Nioolet), Turcotte (Quebeo County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Wilson (Laval)-100.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.
Allen,
McAlister,
Prowso
White (Victoria, Alta)
Macdonald
Warburton,
Lemieux,
Boyer,
Stratton,
MoLean (Huron),
Guthrie,
German,
Meigs,
Maclean (Lunenburg) Borden (Sir Fred'k.), Harty,
Clarke (Essex),
Law,
Emmerson,
Cash,
Loggie,
Tobin,
Ethier,
Todd,
Ruttan,
Richards.
Amendment (Mr. Opposition.
Lalor,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Staples,
, Campbell,
Maddin,
Fraser,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg) Gordon (Nipissing), Wilson (Lennox and Addington), Barker,
Marshall, [DOT] Roche,
, Rhodes,
Borden (Halifax), Reid,
Cowan,
Maclean (York, S.), Osier,
Lake,
Bristol,
White (Renfrew), Stewart,
Barnard,
Donnelly.
Daniel) negatived.


George Taylor: The hon. member for
Lisgar has not voted.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: I am paired with the hon. member for Kings-Albert.


Mr. CALVERT.: The Hon. the Minister of Public Works has not voted.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I thought in view of the character of the motion it was better I should not vote and I trust the House will excuse me.
Motion (Mr. Fielding) agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take up the Bills and resolutions on the Order Paper so as to prepare woTk for the Senate when they meet again.


George Eulas Foster: What Bills ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take them all except those that are contentious.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the Civil Service Bill will not be brought up ?


Wilfrid Laurier: If there is any one as to which there is objection we will not take it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 16, 1909.