1909-05-05

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.
I wish to call attention to an article in the last issue of the 'Military Gazette' which charges me with having made statements involving the good name of a Kingstonian, and with bringing discredit and dishonour on the Department of Militia and Defence. These statements have reference to my criticism of the expenditure on the servants cottages at the Royal Military College, Kingston. The justification for that criticism of mine is found in the fact that the Minister of Public Works himself, after giving consideration to the matter, reduced the item that I criticised, by $20,000. This article in the ' Military Gazette also charges me with reflecting on the Commandant and the entire staff,_ as well as on every officer, non-commissioned officer and soldier that attended the Barriefield camp last year. That allegation on the part of the writer has reference to a statement as to the drunkenness and brawling which I witnessed at Barriefield camp one Sunday, last year. I wish simply to say, Sir, that my remarks with regard to the camp_ were preceded by some remarks of the Liberal member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), which remarks were concurred in, almost to their entire extent, by the Minister of Militia himself. By reference to the statement of the Minister of Militia, it will be found that the personnel of the militia was not what it should be, and that the canteen was a nuisance which the department was endeavouring to regulate. I believe that the Minister of Militia would receive the en-dorsation of the people of this country, if he made an effort to control the sale of liquor at military camps. Now, Sir, I did not say that the men at the Barriefield camp were vicious and drunken; I did say that those in charge of the canteen were charged with selling liquor, and I repeat that statement now. One of the men charged was tried and convicted and fined for selling liquor; and, as regards the other men charged, the charge was amended by consent to having liquor in their possession, instead of selling it. All of these people pleaded guilty, and all of them were fined. In fact, the only regimental corps that was not fined was the 47th Battalion, which did not have any canteen. I repeat that I did not state in this House, as the article says, that the men at the Barriefield camp were vicious and drunken. I could

not have made that statement in truth, because I am very well acquainted with many of the men who attend that camp, and I know that some of them come from the most respected families in and around that district, and are orderly and respectable themselves. I repeat that there was drunkenness and brawling at the Barrie-field camp on Sunday afternoon. I have made careful inquiry into the matter, and it is only fair for me to state that in my belief most of that drunkenness and brawling was on the part of civilians, and not on the part of the soldiers themselves. In fact, I was more careful to investigate, on account of this matter being called to my attention by some of the officers from my locality, and, although drinking no doubt did exist in the camp there, as probably it will exist in any camp, yet I think it is quite possible that had it not been for the civilians who visited that camp, the drinking of the soldiers themselves would not have been noticed. I wish, further, to say, that in no way did I in my remarks on that occasion attribute any wrong to the Commandant, Colonel Gordon, or to the officers^ under him. I believe, Sir, that the fault, if fault there is, lies at the head of the Militia Department. From all I have been able to learn, and I desire to say it here now, I believe that the District Officer Comamnding at Kingston is an officer who well deserves the high reputation he enjoys in the vicinity in which he is best known.
I believe he is a gentleman who will carry out any instructions that are given him, and if the Minister of Militia should issue an order abolishing the canteen, I am firmly convinced that, so far as the camp at Bar-riefield is concerned, and so long as Colonel Gordon is in command, the instructions of the Minister of Militia will be carried out to the letter.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 171) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.-Mr. Michaud:
Bill (No. 168) respecting the Mexican Transportation Company, Limited, and to change its name to Mexican Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 170) respecting the Brockville, Westport and North Western Railway Company.-Mr. Marshall.
Bill (No. 167) to incorporate the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 166) respecting the Central Rail way of Canada.-Mr. Ethier.
Bill (No. 169) respecting the patents of Washington R. McCloy.-Mr. Rivet.
John Wesley Edwards: 



REPORT OF THE CENTRAL RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. FOSTER.: Yesterday, I moved for leave to introduce, by unanimous consent, a motion, but the assent was not given and I let it lie as a notice that I would move it. I beg therefore to move:
That there be laid on the table of the House a copy of the order in council of the government of New Brunswick, dated June 5, 1908, of the statutes of the said province under which said order in council was passed and of the findings of the commission appointed under the said statute and order in council.
The reason why I am moving this is to place upon the table, for the information and inspection of all the members of the House, these documents so that there can be no question as to their genuineness in connection with a motion which will form the foundation of observations to be made hereafter by hon. gentlemen in pursuance of the busineses of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It will be sufficient to call attention to the fact that this motion is absolutely out of order for several reasons. At this moment I think it will be sufficient to mention one only, and that is that there has not been sufficient notice according to the rules of the House. There are several reasons which I might urge against the motion of my hon. friend, but this, I think, is sufficient.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is evidently very much afraid of these documents. That is apparent at once. He seeks to take refuge behind some supposed rule of order. Inasmuch as the report of this commission contains matters gravely affecting a member of his own government,
I thought he would have been the first to rise in the House and move, as a matter of privilege, without any notice, that authentic copies of these documents should be laid on the table of the House. But the right hon. gentleman does not seem disposed to take that course. He is strong on rules of order in this connection. I think it would be a pity to set up the precedent in the public life in Canada that the report of a commission which, as every hon. member knows, gravely touches the public conduct of a member of the administration, should not be laid on the table of the House as soon as it has been presented.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) can only discuss the point of order at this stage.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This is not the motion I of which notice was given yesterday.


Robert Laird Borden: I am discussing the point of order. I am saying that inasmuch as this motion touches the public conduct of a member of the government, my right hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should be entitled to move it as a matter of privilege and without any notice whatever. On that ground I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion should be adopted this morning as a matter of privilege.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would like to have any misunderstanding cleared up. This is not the motion of which notice was given yesterday.


George Eulas Foster: I will explain that. I gave notice to the House yesterday in a general way of the subject matter which my motion would include. Afterwards, I wrote out, in obedience to a request of the clerk, a form of motion, A sufficient time, as I understand, has not passed to enable that motion to come regularly before the House. I gave notice of the substance of the motion, and this morning I moved a motion embodying the substance of the notice which I gave. It may not be in the same words and it is open to the House to accept or reject it. I move it for the convenience of the House in connection with subjects which are before the House, or which are imminent, and it is for the House to say whether or not, by consent, or as a matter of privilege, it shall be adopted.


Mr. FIELDING.: It is unfortunate, if the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) desired merely to discuss the point of order, that he should have begun his remarks with the rather superfluous observation that the Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. FIELDING

w>as afraid to have
these papers presented to the House. I think it will take even a more astute mind than that of my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Stevens Fielding: What is wrong? What is the point of order?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course, this motion cannot be presented at all, except by consent under rule 8, without two days' notice it cannot be discussed except by unanimous consent. If there is no consent it will have to stand for notice.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon.  J. A.@: CURRIE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 172) to amend the Railway Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Explain.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is intended to correct what is a manifest error in the Act in reference to train men. The clause of the Act that I propose to amend provides that when a train is being backed or pushed in front of the locomotive a man must be stationed on top of the car leading. This is quite right, but it goes farther and says that if an engine is being backed up a man must be placed on the tender behind the engine. Everybody knows that the engineer upon an engine can see just as well behind the tender as he can see in front of the engine. There is no place for a brakem'an on the rear end of the tender. This rule is one which was avoided until the last year or two when the enforcement of the law became more stringent and trainmen were brought to book for what they did not do. It would be as fair to ask these men to sit on the cow catcher as to sit on the rear of the tender. The intention of the amendment is to strike out the line which says that a mqn must sit on the tender when the locomotive is backing up. A number of accidents have occurred and the men in my riding who are interested have requested me to endeavour to have this grievance removed. I hope the Minister of Railways will see his way clear to make this change in the law and to incorporate the principle of my Bill in any one of the many railway bills which he has on the order paper, before the end of the session.


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

Hon.  J. A.@: CURRIE (Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 173) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


John Allister Currie: This Bill is intended to correct a grievance under which the vessel men suffer. Most of the grain from the Northwest is shipped by rail to the head of the lakes and then carried by steamer to the terminal elevators on the lakes or to the sea-board. The law at present provides for the inspection of this grain, and that the certificates should follow it to the sea-board, which is a very wise provision. It provides also that the grain shall be weighed into the terminal elevator on the great lakes by special weighmen, and there is no provision in the law which renders it compulsory that the grain shall be weighed into the vessel and out of the vessel again. The result of that has been great loss to the steamship interests on the great lakes last year. The following were the shortages charged against the different companies named:-



CANADIAN VESSELS.

[Stage Direction]
Summary of Shortages in 1908 Outturns.
Net
Shortages.
Northern Navigation Co	 3,160
Montreal Transportation Co	10,357
The Canadian Northwest SS.: Co.. .. 1,152
The Midland Navigation Co	 7,592	06
The Farrar Transportation Co.. .. 3,913'30 The Canadian Lake and Ocean Navigation Co	 5,557:48
The Canadian Lake Transportation
Co	 2,819-38
The St. Lawrence and Chicago Steam
Navigation Co	 6,005
F. E. Hall & Co	 380
Steamer ' Seguin '	 1,264
Inland Navigation Co	 4,773-68
Collingwood Shipping Co	 785-42
Mathews Steamship Co	 652
Turret Crown, Limited	 1,028
Net shortage in outturns	Bush. 50,439-32
There does not seem to be any method
by which the vessel owners can find out how this grain flies out of the hatches, but at all events it is alleged to disappear somewhere during transport on the lakes. The shortages charged for in the statement I have given are far in excess of what they naturally should be; so much so that it simply meant that these steamship companies were, last year, robbed out of $50,000, when the shortages actually should not have amounted to more than 5,000 bushels all told, allowing for shrinkage and everything else of that kind. The Marine Association held a meeting here and presented a memorial to the minister asking that something should be done in this respect. They also adopted a uniform bill of lading, which provided that they would not be responsible for shortages except to the extent of half a bushel for every 1,000 bushels carried. There was a dead-lock between the shippers and the carriers, with the result that this arrangement has now been broken, and the steamer interests have to fall back on the same old rules that prevailed before, and there is no doubt that this year they will be unjustly taxed with a shortage of 75,000 bushels. There is plenty of money in this business for all concerned ; there is no necessity for there being any graft on the part of anybody. The law now provides that the official weighmen at the head of the lakes shall be remunerated out of charges on the grain, and the government is not out one cent on that score. The idea of the Bill is, by the insertion of a very few words in the present law, to provide that the grain shall be weighed in and weighed out, unless both the shipper and the carrier agree to the contrary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
John Allister Currie: 



RAILWAY SUBSIDIES ACT-CLERICAL ERROR.

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 174) to correct a clerical error in chapter 63 of the statutes of 1908 respecting railway subsidies.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. GRAHAM.: This Bill is to correct a peculiar error in the statutes of 1908. At page 1409 of the Votes and Proceedings of July last, the House went into Committee of the Whole to consider resolutions respecting railway subsidies, and among the subsidies was one to the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway, to aid towards the construction and completion of a railway bridge across Burrard inlet, the amount of the aid being $200,000. That resolution went through the House in its various stages, but to the astonishment of everybody, myself included, when the statute was printed, it was an absolute blank, so far as the amount was concerned.


Mr. CROCKET.: A typographical error?


Mr. HAGGART.: Another typographical
error.


Mr. LENNOX.: They will occur.


George Perry Graham: It is to correct that and to insert the amount in the statute that this Bill is introduced.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the circumstances stated by the minister, it may be regarded, I suppose, as a mere typographical error, and therefore a resolution would not be necessary. The minister does regard it as a typographical error?


George Perry Graham: Oh, certainly; the records of the House show that it is in the omission in the Printing Bureau.


Robert Laird Borden: How did so unfortunate a typographical error occur?


George Perry Graham: It must be in the air.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways recognizes the possibility of these typographical errors. May I venture to hope that he will express to his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, the possibility of such typographical errors occurring even in well-ordered departments of the government. And may I cite this as the first instance within recent years at least, when such a typographical error has made necessary the enactment of a special Act of parliament. Perhaps the Minister of Railways will not be indisposed to extend the provisions of his Bill to certain other typographical errors to which attention has been directed in recent times.


Mr. OLIVER.: At this very session of parliament, it was necessary to provide an amendment to the Dominion Lands Act to correct a printer's error.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the reason the Minister of Railways said it was in the air.


George Perry Graham: I consulted the law clerk, and he assured me it was not necessary, under the circumstances, to have a resolution.


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


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	What officer of the government service is charged with the duty of insuring the observance of section 40 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chapter 71, 1903?
2.	What steps, if any, have been taken to insure the payment of the claim of the sta-tionmen, reported to this House, on the 5th of April, as having secured judgment against a subcontractor for work on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the vicinity of Prince Rupert?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Mr. Collingwood Schreiber is chief engineer for the government, of the western division of the National Transcontinental Railway (Grand Trunk Pacific Railway).
2.	The matter of unpaid wages in connection with the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, east of Prince Rupert, is not being neglected. The attention of the vice-president and general manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has been drawn to the complaints made, he has been requested by the chief engineer for the government, to give it his prompt attention. Formal notice has been given him that satisfactory evidence must be furnished to the government that the terms of the Act are being complied with.


EMPLOYMENT OF J. S. EWTART, K.C.
Mr. LAKE asked:: 1.	Is it true, as stated, that the government is employing Mr. J. S. Ewart, K.C., to proceed to England and the Hague in connection with the Canadian and Newfoundland fisheries case?
2.	Is this the same Mr. Ewart who recently wrote to the Ottawa " Citizen " of the 21st of April, accusing the United Kingdom, amongst other things, of establishing for ever a hostile nation on our southern boundary, of establishing Japan as a first-class fighting power, presumably to the disadvantage of Canada; also of bringing danger upon us and not protecting us, and of wishing to treat us merely as a source of military supply?
3.	Is not Mr. Ewart an avowed opponent of the continuance of Canada within the British empire?
4.	If so, does the government consider the exponent of such views a fitting and useful representative of Canada on the service mentioned?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Mr. Ewart has been retained in connection with the matter referred to, and if the work requires his presence in England or at the Hague he will no doubt go there.
2 and 3. The government has no information.
4.	Mr. Ewart's services were retained because of his attainments and eminence as a lawyer and without reference to any views he may or may not hold on political subjects.


LANSDOWNE DRILL SHED.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Did the government have a drill shed repaired in the village of Lansdowne, in the county of Leeds, province of Ontario?
2.	If so, upon whose recommendation was the said building so repaired, and was the contract let by tender?
3.	Were tenders invited by letter or by post ing up bills calling for same?
4.	What were the respective tenders and who were the parties so tendering?
5.	Did the government in any way ascertain if the contract was carried out according to specifications ?
6.	Were separate tenders called for the repairing and for the painting of the said drill shed ?
7.	Did the successful tenderer in each or
either case sublet the contract?
8.	Will the government lay upon the table of the House a copy of the specifications calling fsr the contract?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) On the recommendation of the officer commanding the Eastern Ontario command; (b) The contract was let by tender.
3.	By letter.
4.	E. P. McGrath & Co., Ottawa, $968; King & Haig, Lansdowne, $972; Wm. McConnell, Lansdowne, $1,025; John S. Mix, Brockville, $1,135; Driscoll & Fitzpatrick, Brockville, $1,180.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.
7.	No.
8.	I have a copy, which I will lay on the table or hand to the hon. member for Leeds.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY, STELLAR-TON STATION.
Mr. SEXSMITH asked:: 1.	What is the surface area of concrete walks, curbs, &c., at the Intercolonial Rail-

way station at Stellarton, Pictou County, N.a.
2.	Was the work done hy contract?
3.	Who was the contractor, and what were the prices to be paid him?
4.	What is the total paid, and to be paid for each class of work? And for the whole work ?
5.	When was the work done?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	18,250 square feet.
2.	The work has been done under an agreement with Mr. R. S. Low.
3.	Mr. R. S. Low; at 20 cents per square foot, including curb.
.	4. 18,250 square feet at 20c. comes
to $3,650	$3,650 00
Less 389 brls. cement,
$781.24		.. . .781 24
9 cars gravel.. ..	.. ..102 33
4 cars sand.. ..	
	909 05

5.	In the year 1906.



GOVERNMENT STEAMERS

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	Is the steamer 'Zaidee' under charter
to the government?
2.	If so, have her owners the privilege to engage in towing, and watering ships?
3.	For what purpose or purposes is she chartered?
4.	Is the steamer ' Gladiator ' chartered by the government?
5.	Have the owners of the ' Gladiator ' the right to charge ships for services rendered while under charter to the government?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: .
1,	2, 3. The steamer 'Zaidee' is under charter to the government, for attendance at all times when required for customs and quarantine service in Sydney Harbour. The charter makes no reference to the work which may be performed by the steamer 'Zaidee' when not required for customs or quarantine service.
4.	The steamer 'Gladiator' is chartered by the government for customs preventive
service.
5.	The 'Gladiator' may assist vessels in distress and charge them for the service, but it is provided in the charter party that a deduction from the amount payable under the charter may be made for the time during which the 'Gladiator' is employed in assisting vessels in distress.



CAPE BRETON FISHERY PROTECTION.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	When was the office of fishery inspector for the Island of Cape Breton made vacant by the death of the late A. C. Bertram ?


Mr. SEXSMITH.: 2.	Who has been discharging the duties of said office since that time?
3.	When does the government intend making a permanent appointment?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	August 31, 1908.
2.	Charles D. Bertram.
3.	Immediately.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-EARNINGS IN CAPE BRETON.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	What were the earnings from freight shipped from the Island of Cape Breton over the Intercolonial Railway in 1908?
2.	What were the earnings from freight shipped to the Island of Cape Breton over the Intercolonial Railway in 1908?
3.	What was the revenue from the sale of passenger tickets to passengers going to and coming from the Island of Cape Breton for the year 1908, on the said railway?


Hob. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Separate accounts are not kept for this portion of the Intercolonial Railway.
2.	Answered by number one.
3.	Answered by number one.



ST. JOHN, SUPERINTENDENT OF DRERG-ING.

Mr. DANIEL asked:: 1.	Has any appointment been made to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of the late W. J. McCordock, superintendent of dredging at St. John, N.B. ?
2.	If so, what is the name of the appointee, his place of residence, occupation, the annual salary to be paid him, and what are his qualifications for the position?
3.	What was the annual salary of the late superintendent ?


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) George G. Scovil. (b) Springfield,
Kings Co., N.B. (c) Farmer, contractor, merchant and lumber manufacturer, (d) $1,800.	(e) His qualification for the position are believed to be excellent.
3.	$2,500 was the annual salary of the late superintendent.



PICTOU COUNTY FISHERIES.

Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	Who are the fishery overseers and wardens for the districts in Bailey's Brook and Barney's River, sections of Pictou County, Nova Scotia?
2.	Did any of such overseers or wardens in the year 1908 or present year discover persons fishing salmon illegally, or find and seize any fishing nets illegally set?
3.	If so, what persons did they discover or catch fishing, and how many nets did they find or seize as illegally set?

4.	Did they prosecute or report for prosecution any of persons caught or discovered, or who were owners of any of the nets found or seized?
5.	Did they return to the owners any of the nets so found or seized or which had otherwise come into their possession or control as overseers or wardens? If so, to whom did they return such nets?
6.	On whose orders or at whose request did they return such nets, and when were they returned?
7.	Were the circumstances of any of the cases referred to reported to the department by the overseers or wardens or to any of their superior officers in the service?


Hon. L. P. BRODETJR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	A. J. McDonald, fishery overseer, and John J. McGillivray, William McDonald, Andrew Murray, Ferguson Miller and William Sutherland were employed as guardians last year; appointments not yet made for this year.
2.	Yes.
3.	William Arbuckle, Duncan Grant, Michael Hammon and John and Charles Duggan. Four nets.
4.	Prosecutions have not yet been made. The seizures were reported to the inspector by the special guardians making them.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	They were reported to the department on the 1st instant.



CANADIAN COASTING TRADE.

[Stage Direction]
2.
Kingston postmaster.. $2,000 00	$2,200	00Assist, postmaster ..	1,400	00Brantford postmaster.. 1,500 00	2,200	00Sherbrooke postmaster. 1,600 00	2,000	00Quebec postmaster _____ 2,200	00	2,800	00Asst, postmaster .... 1,600 00	2,000	00
3.
Kingston	
20,526	94	22,620	24Brantford	
11,335	02	16,465	23Sherbrooke	
5,843	27	10,413	83Quebec	
38,989	58	54,846	05
At Sherbrooke and Brantford there are no officers with the title of assistant postmaster, nor has there been an assistant postmaster at Kingston since 1904.

Mr. J. D TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Has the government taken into consideration the advisability of imposing an export duty on nickel in matte or in ore, or otherwise, as authorized by Act of Parliament, 60-61 Victoria, chapter 17, section 2?
2.	What is the policy of the government with respect tto the imposition of such a duty?


William Stevens Fielding: The matter has been considered from time to time but it is not thought well to take any action at present.



THE QUEBEC JUDICIARY.

Mr. DELISLE asked:: 


Mr. STANFIELD asked:: 1.	IIow many seamen are engaged in the coasting trade from Canadian port to Canadian port ?
2.	Of the number how many are Canadian or British subjects?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries has noi record of the number of seamen so engaged.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



POST OFFICE REVENUE.

John Wesley Edwards: 1'	Vas the revenue from each of th(
post offices m the cities of Kingston, Brant ,ord, Sherbrooke and Quebec in the years 1993 and 1908, respectively?
2.	What was the salary of the postmaster and assistant postmaster in each of the cities named above for the years 1903 and 1908, respectively ?
3.	What were the total salaries paid posi office officials in the cities named for the years 1903 and 1908, respectively?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1903.	1908.
Kingston	$32,533	10	$ 44,991	92Brantford	
33,718	43	53,656	27Sherbrooke	
19,599	57	31,583	59Quelle	
75,064	58	125,180	901.	Who were the former judges of the Superior Court and the Court of King's Bench in the province of Quebec, who are now in receipt of a pension from the government?2.	From what time have they respectively received this pension?3.	Who are the several judges now in office of the Superior Court and the Court of King's Bench in the province of Quebec?4.	What is the date of their respective appointments?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTIL (Minister of Justice):: 1 and 2:
Court of King's Bench:


Hon.  J. A.@: Ouimet, February 3, 1906.


Hon.  J. A.@: Lacoste, January 25, 1907. Superior Court:


Hon.  W. W.@: Chagnon, November 11, 1887. A. C. Papineau, May 6, 1889.
H. G. Malhiot, August 16, 1897.
L.	Belanger, June 11, 1902.
L.	B. Caron, November 12, 1903.
W. White, November 16, 1904.
A. B. Routhier, June 6, 1906.
C. J. Doherty, November 22, 1906.
J. E. Larue, October 2, 1907.
M.	Mathieu, January 29. 1909 3 and 4:
Court of King's Bench:


Chief Justice Sir H.   T.@: Taschereau, January 29, 1907.


Hon.  N. W.@: Trenholme, May 4, 1904.
Jos. Lavergne, February 3, 1906.
A. G. Cross, March 11, 1907.
H. Archambault, September 17,
1908.


Paid E.   G.@: Carroll, December 24, 1908. Superior Court:


Chief Justice Sir M.   M.@: Tait, June 6, 1906. Hon. F. Langelier, June 6, 1906.
M.	H. E. Cimon, July 22, 1882.
L. O. Loranger, August 5, 1882.
H. C. Pelletier, April 12, 1886.
C. P. Davidson, June 10, 1887.
L. Tellier, November 12, 1887.
C.	C. de Lorimier, April 15, 1889.
S.	Pagnuelo, June 5, 1889.
W. W. Lynch, July 5, 1889.
J. A. Gagne, December 10, 1889.
J. S. Archibald, November 22, 1893. J. J. Curran, October 18, 1895.
F. X. Lemieux, July 7, 1898.
J. E. Robidoux, Oct. 8, 1900.
A. Rochon, June 25, 1901.
T.	Fortin, September 25, 1901.
H. C. St. Pierre, June 11, 1902.
N.	Charbonneau, March 12, 1903.
J. Dunlop, May 5, 1904.
L.	N. Champagne, October 16, 1904. R. S. Cooke, November 16, 1904.
M.	Hutchinson, November 16, 1904. A. Malouin, January 7, 1905.
L. J. Cannon, July 29, 1905.
J. C. McCorkill, August 31, 1906.
E. Lafontaine, August 31, 1906.
L. P. Demers, August 31, 1906.
E.	Guerin, January 14, 1907.
A. A. Bruneau, January 29, 1907.
P. G. Martineau, January 29, 1907. A. Tessier, October 11, 1907.
D.	Monet, August 31, 1908.


Hon.  J. A.@: Jette, September 15,1908
F.	S. Tourigny, December 30, 1908. W. Mercier, March 22, 1909.



NIPIGON RIVER DREDGING.

Mr. BOYCE asked:: 1.	What was the estimated quantity in cubic yards, required to be excavated by dredging at the mouth of the Nipigon river in Lake Superior?
2.	By whom was such estimate made, and when was the report upon same received by the Department of Public Works?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	221,000 cubic yards.
2.	(a) Resident engineer E. B. Temple, (b) 20th June, 1908.



GLACE BAY POST OFFICE.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	Who is the inspector on the new post office, Glace Bay, N.S.?
2.	What salary does he recive?
3.	If paid by the day, does such payment include Sunday?
4.	When was he appointed?
. Mr. AYLESWORTH.
5.	What amount has he received to date?
6.	When will this post office be opened to the public for business?
7.	Is it the intention of the department to put a concrete walk in front of it?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Daniel Ross.
2.	$3.50 per day.
3.	No.
4.	March 6, 1908.
5.	$1,109.50.
6.	Date of completion of contract, 10th June, 1909.
7.	Matter will be considered in due course.



GLACE BAY RANGE LIGHT.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	Who has charge of the range light at Glace Bay harbour?
2.	How many applications were there for the appointment?
3.	Who were the applicants?
4.	What salary does the person in charge receive?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1. Mr. Michael McNeil.
2 and 3. None.
4.	One hundred dollars per annum.



SOUTH CAPE BRETON ELECTION.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	Have the persons who rented the buildings for palling booths in South Cape Breton at the last general elections been paid their
rent?
2.	Have the deputy returning officers been paid?
8.	Has the returning officer been paid? If so, when?
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of
State):
1.	The returning officer for South Cape
Breton, has received funds to pay the deputy returning officers and owners of polling booths.	*
2.	The payments to the returning officer were $1,182.21 on March 19, and $122.26 on April 21.
3.	As the returning officer has not yet reported the distribution of the fees and allowances, it is impossible to say whether he has paid all claims, or not.



FLINT ISLAND FOG ALARM.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: 
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 

VICTORIA COUNTY, NOVA SCOTIA, FISHERY WARDENS.

Mr. MADDIN asked:: How many river wardens for the protection of fisheries were appointed in Victoria County, Nova Scotia, between July and December 1, 1908?
What were their names, how long did they act, and what salaries did they receive?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: In Cape Breton North and Victoria there were one hundred and nine.
Name.	Time.	Salary.Neil Hugh McDonald	
1J	__$15	00Roderick McDonald	
1J	__ 15	00M. A. McLeod	
l|	....	15 00Malcolm McLeod	
l|	__ 15	00


Angus N.: 
Chas.   P.@: Moffatt	
2	
20	00Thomas Smith	
2	
20	00


Hon. GEO  P.@: Maloney	 2	___ 20	00


Alex.   D.@: McLean	
2	___ 20	00James McKinnon	
1$	
15	00H. A. McKenzie	
6J	
65	00Thos. Burton	
4	
40	00Thos. Kanary	
3	
36	00Alex. McDonald	
4	
40	00Norman McPherson	
4	
40	00Kenneth McLeod	
4	....	40	00Philip McLeod	
4	....	40	00Duncan McGregor	
4	....	40	00


John T.: Dunphy	 4	....	40	00


John A.: McLeod	
4	....	40	00Robert Jackson	
3	....	30	00Edward Keagan	
3	
30	00Thos. Barran	
3	....	30	00Murdo McDonald	
3	....	30	00Murdo Buchanan	
3	
30	00Wm. Smith	
3	
30	00Angus McAulay	
4	....	40	00John Smith	
3	....	30	00Name.	Time.	Salary.


Malcolm J.: Morey	..3 .	.. $30 OOAlex. Grant	.. 2* .	.. 25 00


John D.: McKenzie			.. 30 00


John A.: 
Hon.  W. W.@: McKay	..4 .	.. 40 00Duncan McRae (Red).. ..	..4 .	.. 40 00Philip McRae	..4 .	.. 40 00Malcolm Beaton	..4 .	.. 40 00John McDonald	..4 .	.. 40 00Richard Palmer	..3 .	.. 30 00A. J. McRitchie	..4 .	.. 40 00John McMillan	..4 .	.. 40 00Daniel Matheson	..5 .	.. 50 00Neil Campbell	..5 .	.. 50 00Alex. Matheson	..5 .	.. 50 00Angus Mclver	..5 .	.. 50 00Duncan Ferguson	..5 .	.. 50 00Kenneth McRitchie	..5 .	.. 50 00Murdo Morrison	..5 .	.. 50 00Malcolm Mclver	..5 .	.. 50 00


Angus R.: McDonald	..4 .	.. 40 00John Hart	..4 .	.. 40 00


Hon.  L. J.@: McKenzie		..4 .	.. 40 00
Dan. Mclver			.. 40 00
John McDonald	..4 .	.. 40 00Joseph McKinnon	..4 .	.. 40 00Alex. McRae	..4 .	.. 40 00James McLeod	. 4 .	.. 40 00Donald McLeod	. 4 .	.. 40 00


Hugh A.: McDougall		. 4 .	.. 40 00


John R.: McLeod	. 4 .	.. 40 00John McMullin	..4 .	.. 40 00Hector McRae	. 3 .	.. 30 00Neil Mclnnis	.. 2i .	.. 25 00Kenneth McRitchie	. 21 .	.. 25 00William Martin	.. 2* .	.. 25 00


John K.: McKenzie	. 2 .	.. 20 00Murdo McLeod	..5 .	.. 50 00


John R.: McNeil	. 4 .	.. 40 00Donald McNeil	. 4 .	.. 40 00Michael McIntyre	. 2 .	.. 20 00Anthony McPhee	.. 40 00Anthony Morrison	. 4 .	.. 40 00


Stephen D.: Gillis	. 4 .	.. 40 00D. D. Mclsaao	. 2 .	.. 20 00Donald Mclnnis	. 4 .	.. 40 OO


Hon.  J. A.@: McMillan		. 4 .	.. 40 00
Felix Gouthro			.. 20 00
Angus Bryden		. 4 .	.. 40 00
Joseph McLean			.. 20 OO
Norman Johnston		. 2 .	.. 20 00


Alex.   R.@: Campbell			.. 20 OO


John D.: Gillis			.. 15 00
Angus Gillis (widow's son).	.. n .	.. 15 00


Andrew D.: McIntyre		[DOT] u .	.. 13 34



THE PETAWAWA CAMP.

Mr. G. V. WHITE asked:: 1.	What branches of the permanent force and active miitia will encamp for training at the Petewawa camp during the coming season?
2.	When will this camp open and what will be the duration of same?


Hon.  W. S.@: The following will train at Petawawa this year:
1.	Of the Permanent Force: two batteries Royal Canadian Horse Artillery; one heavy battery R. C. G. A.; detachments of Royal Canadian Engineers, Permanent Army Service Corps, Permanent Army Medical Corps, Canadian Ordnance Corps.
Of the Active Militia the usual practice detachments from the Field and Heavy Artillery.
2.	It is proposed that the camp should open on the 12th of July and extend over a period sufficient to complete practice of the detachments of the Field and Heavy Artillery above mentioned.,



NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM.

Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	What are the names of all the men who were employed on the experimental farm at Nappan, N.S., other than the superintendent, during the month of June, July, August, September and October of 1908?
2.	What was the rate of pay, and what amount did each receive for each of the said months ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: Name.	Rate per day.	Rate per month.	J une.	July.	August.	Septem- ber.	October.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	.? cts.50 00	50 00	50 00	50 00	50 00	60 0050 00	50 00	50 00	50 00	50 00	50 0050 00	50 00	50 00	50 00	50 00	50 001 50	39 00	40 50	39 00	39 00	36 001 50	39 00	40 50	39 00	39 00	40 50J. Langille, teamster	1 50	39 00	39 75	36 00	39 00	36 00Jos. Richardson, labourer	1 40	36 40	37 80	36 40	36 40	35 00Alex. Casey, labourer 	
R. J. Robertson, labourer	l 40 1 40	35	00 36	40	37 80 37 80	36 40 36 40	36 40 36 40	37 80Wm. Middleton, labourer	
,	1 40	36 40	42 00	36 40	42 00	42 00M. Ripley, labourer	1 40 0 50	36 40 7 25	37 80	36 40	36 40	37 80Stanley Sutton, labourer	1 00	23 00	25 00	26 00	27 00



MALAGASH, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT.

Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mails be! ween Malagash station and Malagash point, N.S., what is the amount, and when does it expire?
2.	When tenders were last called, who were
the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Mr. John Mclnnes, the lowest tenderer, was awarded the contract, commencing 1st of May, instant, for the regular term of four years, for carrying the mails between Malagash Point, Wallace Ridge and Malagash Railway Station, at the rate of his tender, namely, $510 per annum.
2.	Tenders were last received on 19th March, 1909. The tenders and amounts of each tender are as follows:
John Mclnnes, Wallace Ridge, $510.


John J.: Ross, Wallace Ridge, $519.


Hon.  W. W.@: Reeves, Wallace Grant, $740.


Hon.  J. A.@: Ross, Wallace Ridge, $795.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 



NOVA SCOTIA NAVIGATION.

Mr. JAMESON asked:: 1.	Have any applications for aids to navigation along the coast of Nova Scotia been received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries or Lighthouse Board since January 1, 1909? If, so, from whom, and in respect to what particular portion of the coast?
2.	Have any such been favourably considered? If so, which and when?
3.	Have any such been unfavourably considered? If so, which and when?
4.	Did any officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries or any member of the Lighthouse board make personal inspection of the approach to Grand Passage, Digby county, following the application for a fairway buoy?
5.	If so, what is the name of the official; what was the date of inspection; did he make a report in writing and did he make any recommendation? If so, what was the nature thereof?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes. Applications have been received from the Shipping Federation of Canada

for lightships outside of Sydney and Halifax harbours; from residents of Port Medway for a buoy in the entrance to Port Medway harbour; from Mr. C. Jameson, M. P., for a buoy about a mile from Dartmouth Point, Long Island, Grand Passage; from residents of Carleton village for establishment of a beacon on the beach there; from J. H. Sinclair, M.P., for spar buoys in Coddles harbour; from residents of Port Mouton for two additional buoys in that harbour; from D. D. McKenzie, M.
P., for two buoys to mark the entrance to McKinnon harbour, Victoria county. Cape Breton; from D. D. McKenzie, M.P., for spar buoys at Eskasoni harbour, Cape Breton; from D. D. McKenzie, M.P., for a buoy to mark Stony Island, Baddeck Bay.
2.	None have been favourably considered as yet. *
3.	The applications for lightships outside of Sydney and Halifax Harbours and for a buoy at" Port Medway harbour were refused 5th March, 1909.
4.	5. No. The chief engineer has, however, visited this place several times before the application was made.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS FINANCES.

Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What are the total receipts and working expenses for the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway for the year ending March 31, 1908?
2.	Wliat amount of capital expenditure has been made for these two roads during the same period?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Intercolonial Railway- -
Working Expenses	$9,157,435 53
Revenue	 9,173,558	80
Prince Edward Island Railway-
Working Expenses.. ,. .	399,947	79Revenue	
304,579	832.	Intercolonial Railway.. ..$4,382,494 01Prince Edward Island Railway	
390,461	83



QUEBEC CAMPS OF INSTRUCTION.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Will camps of instruction be held in the
province of	Quebec this season? If	so, at
what points, and on or about what dates?
2.	What regiments will go to camp and what regiments will drill at headquarters?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	Yes.
Three Rivers	June	29.Granby	June	14.Levis	June	29.
2.
Military District, No. 5.
Troops training at Camps of Instruction, Three Rivers. ,
Detachment, R.C.R.; i 'G' Company, R.
C.R.; Detachment, Corps of Guides; 80th Regiment; 83rd Regiment; 85th Regiment; No. 4 Company, Canadian Army Service Corps; No. IV Field Ambulance.
Troops training at Local Headquarters.
17th Hussars; 2nd Canadian Garrison Artillery; 3rd Battery, Canadian Field Artillery; 21st Battery, Canadian Field Artillery; No. 4 Field Company, Canadian Engineers.	t
Infantry.
1st Regiment; 3rd Regiment; 5th Regiment; 11th Regiment; 64th Regiment; 65th Regiment; 86th Regiment; No. V.. Field Ambulance.
Military District, No. 6.
Troops training in Camps of Instruction, Granby.
'A' Squadron, Royal Canadian Dragoons; Detachment, Canadian Ordnance Corps; 7th Hussars; 11th Hussars; 15th Field Battery; 22nd Field Battery; Detachment, Corps of Guides; No. 6 Company, Canadian Army Service Corps; No. 6, Cavalry Field Ambulance.
Troops training at Local Headquarters.
6th Hussars; 13th Dragoons; 53rd Regiment; 84th Regiment.
Military District, No. 7.
Troops training in Camps of Instruction, Levis.
Detachment, Royal Canadian Engineers; i 'G' Company, Royal Canadian Regiment; Detachment Canadian Ordnance Corps, Detachment Canadian Army Pay Corps, Detachment Corps of Guides.
Infantry.
4th Regiment, 17th Regiment, 55th Regiment, 61st Regiment, 87th Regiment, 92nd Regiment; Section Signalling Corps-; No. 10 Co., Canadian Army Service Corps, No. 7 Field Ambulance.
Troops Training at Local Headquarters.
10th Hussars, 1st Field Battery, 6th Garrison Artillery.
Infantry.
8th Regiment, 9th Regiment, 18th Regiment, 89th Regiment.



THE B1SLEY TEAM.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Will the Ross rifle be used by the Canadian team at Bisley this year in the usual International competitions? If so, what mark of rifle will be used?
2.	If the question is not yet decided, when will it be decided?
3.	Does the question of the team rifle rest with the government, the Bisley team, or the Dominion Rifle Association?


Hon.  W. S.@: The Department of Militia has no information on this subject. The choice of a rifle rests with the individual members of the team, who may use either the Lee Enfield or Ross, in accordance with the regulations of the National Rifle Association.



SHERBROOKE, NEW REGIMENT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Is the construction of a new regiment in Sherbrooke under consideration by the Department of Militia and Defence? If so, to what branch of the service will the new regiment belong?
2.	What will be the numerical strength of the regiment?
3.	Have any arrangements or appropriations been made for a band for this regiment?
4.	When will enlistment and organization begin?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to have this regiment do annual training this season? If so, will it be in camp or at headquarters ?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	The formation of a battalion of rifles has been under consideration; but owing to lack of funds, progress has been arrested.
2.	Contemplated headquarters and eight companies.
3.	No.
4.	When funds can be made available.
5.	No.



SHERBROOKE ARMOURY.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Has the new armoury in Sherbrooke been finally taken over from the contractors by the Department of Militia and Defence? If so, what is the total cost of the building?
2.	What is the cost in detail in land surveys, inspection, plans, building, light, heat, water, drainage, &o. ?
3.	Were tenders called for the construction of the armoury? If so in what manner, or was the work done by contract?
4.	How may tenders were received, from whom, and for what amounts?
5.	Were any of the wutracts sub-let?
6.	What is the capacity of the armoury, and how many and what military units is it intended to accommodate?


Hon.  W. S.@: This information was contained in the Return furnished in accordance with the order of the House of Commons of January 25 last, and laid on the table of the House on April 20 ultimo. However, I will give the information 1 have before me:
Questions 1 to 5 appertain to the Department of Public Works.
6.	Size of building: 157 ft. x 207 ft., containing main hall 80 ft. x 179 ft. Accom-


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: modation has been provided for 54 officers and 685 non-commissioned officers and men of the following units:
11th Hussars, 1 squadron.
22nd Battery C. F. A.
53rd Regiment, 8 companies.
No. 6 Company C. A. S. C.
No. 6 (Cavalry) Field Ambulance.



EASTERN TOWNSHIPS CAVALRY BRIGADE.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Has a site for camp of instruction been selected for the Eastern Townships Cavalry Brigade? If so, at what point will the camp be held, and will the site selected be permanent?
2.	Will a rifle raDge be available for musketry instruction?
3.	When is it proposed to hold the annual training for the Eastern Townships Cavalry Brigade?
4.	Will the artillery brigade attend the same camp?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Yes, at Granby. No selection of a permanent site has been made.
2.	Yes.
3.	June 14.
4.	The 7th and 11th Hussars will go into training at Granby Camp June 14; the 6th Hussars and 13th Scottish Light Dragoons drilling at local headquarters, on dates not yet selected.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-SATURDAY SITTING.

Wilfrid Laurier: That from this date to the end of the session this House shall sit on Saturdays, the sittings to commence at eleven o'clock in the morning, and government business to have precedence.


George Eulas Foster: Would my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) make a slight amendment to the effect that the House put a self-denying ordinance on itself and stop promptly at six o'clock on Saturday. You cannot work every night.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no necessity to amend the order. But it shall be as my hon. friend wishes. I have no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I did not catch the answer to question 29 relating to the use of the Ross rifle by the Canadian team at Bisley?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I said that that was not a matter for the government but for the individual members of the team, subject to the National Association rules.


Samuel Hughes: Would it be proper to state that a number of the members of this year's Bisley team won their positions by using the Boss rifle?



SUPPLY-HON. WM. PUGSLEY AND EE-POKT OF THE CENTEAL BAILWAY COMMISSION.

[u"Mr. Pugsley was then Attorney General. It says:\nThat there was paid by the Receiver General to the Central Railway Company on account Mr. CROCKET.\nof the subsidy of $3,000 per mile, payable under said Act, between Chipman and Fredericton, the sum of $13,000, and the said New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company have shown to the satisfaction of the Provincial Secretary that they are liable to pay the sum of $8,500 for work done on the railway between Chip-man and Fredericton, which the company undertake \xb1o pay and for the payment of which the Lieutenant Governor in Council engaged to ask legislative authority to pay.\nBear in mind that the only orders amounting to $8,500 that were lodged with the Deputy Receiver General were orders lodged by Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Skinner for $7,500 and another order for $1,000 lodged by another member of the New Brunswick legislature, W. T. Whitehead, another member of the Grit ring in the province:\nThat on further considering the provisions of the said 45 Vic., chap. 34-1, the Provincial Secretary is of opinion that the company is by law entitled to be paid a subsidy at the rate of $3,000 per mile. No legislative authority for payment of said $8,000 is necessary.\nThese are the orders of Messrs. Pugsley, Skinner and Whitehead:\nThat the said sum of $13,000 as paid on account of work done by the Central Railway Company, and said amount should be deducted from the subsidy to be payable to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, that the company is, however, willing that in addition to the said sum of $13,000, there shall also be retained by the province the further sum of $1,000, which, as the distance from Chipman to Gibson is 45 miles, would make the subsidy actually available to this company $2,500 per mile. It is recommended that there be paid to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company the said sum of $8,500, the same to be chargeable against the said subsidy of $3,000 per mile, the same to be paid on the understanding with the said company that the said sum of $13,000, said sum of $8,500 to be now paid and said amount of $1,000, or $22,500 in all, shall be deducted from the subsidy of $3,000 per mile, payable under the said Act, so that the total remaining subsidy to be paid to the company (including said $5,000) shall be at the rate of $2,500 per mile, and that provincial debentures for the said amount to be issued by the Receiver General in amounts of $500 each, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent per annum, such debentures to be signed by the Provincial Secretary and to be under the great seal of the province; that the said debentures be issued as provided for by section 6 of the said Act, that the same be sold and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of the said sum of $8,500.\nThat is the way, Mr. Speaker, that the difference in the aggregate of the amount in the subsidy payable under the contract with the company and the subsidy provided by the Act is accounted for; $13,000 having been previously paid, $2,250 of that on the orders of the Minister -of Public Works and Mr. Skinner, and $8,500 more on the same orders upon which $2,250 had been\n\npaid and another $1,000 that seems to have been lifted at the same time. In view of these records, I think that the statement made by the Minister of Public Works about there being no ground for saying that there was any illegal payment of subsidies will not carry very much weight. The records show indisputably that the company received on account of this fifteen mile section $57,000 although under the contract they were entitled to be paid only $37,500 on account of the fifteen mile section. The statement will be found on page 42 of this case. There was paid on account of the fifteen mile section and the branches $77,000, of which $20,000 was for the branches, leaving $57,000 of subsidy paid to this company for fifteen miles where $45,000 was the maximum that was payable to the company under the provisions of the Act. There is no question but that that amount of $70,000, including the $13,000 previously paid, has been paid in subsidies under the Act of 1882 in respect of the main line and exclusive of the branches on account of which $20,000 was paid under a later Act, notwithstanding that only fifteen miles of railway have been built, which would justify a subsidy of $45,000. So that there has been illegally paid in connection with that fifteen mile section $25,000 of subsidy. I have already indicated what became of $8,500 of this amount, that amount having been paid under these orders which were held by the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Whitehead, and which appear in the records here as having been lodged with the deputy receiver general, and having been a first charge on the subsidy as it should be earned under the contract. There is another interesting fact in connection with the payment of this $2,250 to Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Skinner. I will put on the record the references in the report so that there may be no misapprehension. There will be found on the record an assignment from Dr. de Bertram to Wm. Pugsley and C. N. Skinner for $7,500 on pages 92 and 93. Then there is an order from Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Skinner to the receiver general to pay $2,750 to the Bank of New Brunswick at page 97. Then, the Attorney General, the late Mr. Blair, writes to the Deputy Receiver General inclosing the order of Messrs. Pugsley and Skinner and directing him to write to the Bank of New Brunswick stating that that $2,750 will be a first charge on the subsidy, and will be paid out of the first moneys earned-at page 98. The Deputy Receiver General accordingly writes to the bank-page 99. Then there is ' an order from Messrs Pugsley and Skinner to the Receiver General directing him to pay David O'Connell $2,000, and Mr. Pugsley incloses order to Mr. Babbitt, deputy 182\nreceiver general, the same day and asks that a letter be sent to Mr. O'Connell similar to the one that was sent to the Bank of New Brunswick. Mr. O'Connell, I may say, is a money lender in the city of St. John; so that Messrs. Pugsley and Skinner do not seem to have lost very much time in hypothecating the assignment of the subsidies they obtained. Then there is a further order signed by Messrs Pugsley and Skinner to the Receiver General for $550, and a letter asking the Receiver General to send to Mr. Trueman a letter addressed to the bank similar to the one that was sent to O'Connell; that is dated the 4th of January, 1896, and is found at page 103. So that there were orders outstanding against the $7,500 assignment, amounting to $5,300. I have already referred to the order in council that was passed providing for the payment of a further sum of $8,500 on account of these orders; and it is very significant that the Deputy Receiver General should be instructed later on to make a payment of $5,630 out of the subsidy that was paid under the order in council of 1902 to David O'Connell, the money lender, who was Mr. Pugsley's creditor under the other assignment, and that he should receive a payment out of a further subsidy that was voted by the provincial legislature and out of a subsidy that was paid illegally. So that when the records and the evidence are examined, it will be found that there has been no warrant, to say the least, for the statement that the Minister of Public Works has addressed to the House on this subject this afternoon. The Minister of Public Works has also stated that the reference made in this report to the guarantee of bonds is unfounded and false; he spoke of it as one of the most serious misrepresentations made in the report. The reference is to be found at page 19, beginning at the bottom of page 18:\nNotwithstanding this fact, it appears conclusive from the evidence that the whole $250,000 par value of these 3 per cent bonds had been guaranteed and delivered to the company up to the 6th of August, 1903.\nThe evidence bears out that statement, but before proceeding to discuss that point and in order that the House may have a clearer understanding of this question of the guarantee of bonds, let me further refer to the legislation passed in that connection. In the session of 1901 an Act was passed incorporating the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. During the same session another Act was passed authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to guarantee the bonds of any company which would undertake to construct a line of railway from Cliipman to Gibson to the extent of $250,000 upon the conditions, however, set out clearly in", u"\n\nthe statute, that the province should not be liable for one cent or that any portion of the bonds should be guaranteed until the line was completely constructed and in operation and a certificate to that effect given by the government engineer. That Act was subject further to this distinct provision that the bonds should not be guaranteed until this company had established and in working order a mining plant capable of mining 500 tons of coal per day. Those were the conditions precedent to the right of the government to guarantee any bonds under the Act of 1901. There was, an Act passed in 1902 by the legislaturei amending that Act to this extent. Section one provides that notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1901 the Governor in Council may guarantee bonds upon progress estimates subject, however, to their not exceeding in amount the cost of the' work already completed relatively to the whole cost of the road, and also providing' that there shall be retained such an amount of first mortgage bonds, until the establishment of the mining plant provided for by such Act, as will, in the opinion of the* Lieutenant Governor in Council be sufficient to provide the cost thereof. That provision has never been removed or modified in any way with reference to the re-' taining of the bonds providing for a mining plant. This amendment I have quoted, although it provided for the issue of bonds upon progress estimates, provided also that there should be kept in mind the cost of1 the work already completed relatively to the whole cost of the road.\nIn the session of 1903 there was a further Act providing that there might be a further issue amounting to $200,000 for tha purchase of the Central Railway, the Act' setting out that $180,000 was to provide for the purchase price of the Railway and $20,000 to recoup the company for expensed made for the betterment of the road. In, 1904, a further Act was passed and that Act is rather an interesting one. It contains the section which the commission has spoken of as an obscure section, and which opinion the Minister of Public Works tried to make light of this afternoon. When hon. members see the manner in which this was smuggled into the Act they will conclude that the commission were quite justified in speaking of this provision in the way they did. The Act in question is entitled an Act to amend the law authorizing the granting of aid to certain railways. There are five sections in it. The New Brunswick Coal Company and Railway Company is mentioned in the recital and the first section confirms the purchase of the Central Railway by that Company. The second section relates to a distinct and separate railway, the Restigouche and Western Railway, and refers to an Act af-Mr. CROCKET.\nfecting entirely that railway. Then the fourth reads:\nIf by reason of work on any section of the said line of railways being or having been found to be more than ordinarily expensive, it is found necessary to do so, the Provincial Secretary, by and with the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may endorse such guarantee on the bonds required to complete such road, and the amount of such guarantee may be greater than the mileage completed bears to the whole mileage of the line.\nThat section related to the Restigouche and Western Railway, and when the references made in that statute are looked up,i it will be seen that they deal entirely with that road. But what does the ingenious Attorney General of that province do in the same Act? He adds this as section 5:\nSection 5. The said Act, Edward VII., chapter 41, shall be construed as if the provisions of section 4 had been enacted at the same time as said Act and as part thereof.\nWhat member of this House is there who,\nreading the provisions of that Act would have taken them to amend the Railway Act governing the guaraantee of bonds to the Central Railway. The provision for the guarantee of bonds regardless of mileage in section four related entirely to the Restigouche and Western. I ask if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) who was then Attorney General of New Brunswick had wished the legislature to clearly understand the effect of the Act he was attempting to pass, he would have made a provision in the waj{\xa3it appears in this statute I have quoted. Why, when that Bill was brought down, the Hon. Mr. Hill, who was a strong supporter of the government, stated that he could not support the Bill because it referred to two different railways and was so mixed up that he could not understand its effect.\nThat was the way in which provision was made for the guaranteeing of bonds beyond the progress estimates proportioned upon the completed work in comparison with the whole mileage of the road. Now, bearing in mind this legislation, and bearing in mind the Act of 1901, I say, and the statement cannot be controverted, that there never was an amendment made to the Act of 1901 which did away with the provision requiring bonds to be retained for the purchase of a coal plant capable of mining 500 tons of coal per day, and which plant was estimated to cost $50,000. Furthermore, when we consider the Act of 1902, although it provided for the issue of bonds upon progress estimates, it was subject to the provision I have pointed out, that there must always be borne in mind the cost of the completed work relatively to the cost of the whole line, so that, until the Act of 1904, this section of 15 miles was\n\nnot entitled to any more than its proportion of the $250,000. The fact is that, notwithstanding that, before the Act of 1904 was passed, just as the commission has stated in its report, every dollar of the $250,000 bonds were guaranteed. The Minister of Public Works cannot dispute that statement. And not only that, but a further amount of $200,000, which was provided in the year 1903 for the purchase of the Central Railway, also had been exhausted, with the exception of $52,000, before the Act of 1904 was passed. Now, I ask any lawyer in this House, or any member of this House who cares to examine these statutes and orders in council, if it is possible for any one to claim that under that legislation, speaking of the issue and guarantee of bonds before the Act of 1904, the whole issue\tcould\tlegally have\nbeen guaranteed.\tThere is absolutely\nno question whatever that these bonds were guaranteed in contravention of the provision of he law,\tand, in that\nconnection, it should be borne in mind that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was responsible not only as ex officio director of the Coal Company for the distribution of moneys that went into the treasury of that company, but he was responsible as Attorney General and as a member of the Executive Council for the payment to that company of all moneys from the treasury of the province of New Brunswick. He not only disregarded all these provisions that had been mentioned, but did so in absolute violation of the law and without excuse or justification of any kind.\nProportioning the guarantee of bonds of $250,000 for the whole line of Tailway, 45 miles from Gibson to Chipman, the 15-mile section would have been entitled, of course, to one-third of that amount. But the Minister of Public Works, as Attorney General of the province, claimed that the first 15-mile section was costing more per mile than the unconstructed 30-mile section would cost, and that for that reason the 15-mile section was entitled to get more than one-third of the bonds. Now, if the evidence is turned up, it will be found, and found in the very document the Minister of Public Works read, bearing the signature of Mr. Evans, and dated 2nd January, 1903, that the estimated cost of the 15-mile section was $130,434, and of the 30-mile section $213,848, making a total of $344,282. That would leave less than 39 per cent for the 15-mile section and more than 61 per cent for the unconstructed 30-mile section. In addition, the Act provided that $50,000 should be retained for the mining plant. Deducting that, you find that $200,000 would remain and that the 39 per cent for the 15-mile section would amount to $78,000 and the 61 per cent for the 15-mile section would 182)\namount to $122,000. Besides this, the government had passed an order in council guaranteeing to the federal government the payment of $40,000 for rails advanced by the Intercolonial Railway for use on the 15-mile section and providing that the company should deposit their bonds with the Receiver General to cover the purchase price. This would leave but $38,000 as the maximum amount that could before the passing of the Act of 1904 have been legally guaranteed. Notwithstanding that, the Minister of Public Works was compelled to admit this evening that on August 6, 1903, $338,000 of bonds had been issued and guaranteed. It is true that he said $200,000 would be bonds authorized for the purchase of the Central Railway. But taking him even at that, there would be left $138,000 of bonds that had been issued before the passing of the Act of 1904 for the 15-mile section when, under the statute and orders in council, that section was entitled to receive but $38,000. So that, on his own statement, we find that the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member- and there is no doubt that he was responsible for all these transactions-issued bonds to the amount of $100,000 in absolute violation of the law.\t_\nThere -are some other matters to which I wish to refer, and, as the hour is late, I will ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate."]
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. T. W. CEOTHEBS (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to direct attention to a matter compromising and reflecting upon the dignity of parliament and the dignity of the whole country as well, a matter in which, therefore every member of this House and every good citizen of this country must feel a keen interest and because of which he must feel deep humiliation. Every one regrets the necessity of introducing anything unpleasant into the deliberations of this House, and the task of doing so which I have undertaken is to me by no means a pleasant or agreeable one. Indeed, I realize it as both ungracious and unpleasant. For my part, there is, however, in this matter no animus whatever, it is purely a strong sense of public duty which impels me to move in the matter, a duty which every member of this House ought to feel when the interests of the country are involved, a duty which may not be ignored without incurring the justly merited condemnation of public opinion. I take it to be the clear duty of this House to maintain at all times a zealous guard over its honour and standing. Eepresenta-tives are sent to this House by their constituents to sift and inquire into public matters of every kind, to investigate everything of a public nature concerning the welfare of the country. The public acts of public men are public property, and the people have a right to know and, if need be, to inquire into these acts and ascertain of what character they are. The public conduct, past or present, of every officer of this House, of the Prime Minister of this country or any of his colleagues, of every member of this House, of every servant of this government adds to or subtracts from the aggregate public morality and dignity of this country. Any act in violation of strict rectitude on the part of public men, any want of zealous attention to the interest of the country, permeates the whole moral fabric of the people and causes its deterioration. And hence I have no apology to make for introducing the matters whch I am about to introduce.. I regard it as a duty, and I have no doubt every member of this House will take that view of it after he hears all that is to be said on the question.
Perhaps you will permit me, before going into the details of this matter, to call the attention of the House for one moment to the tender regard in which the reputation 1784
ot public men in England is held, not only by public men themselves, but by the whole people of the country. It is the practice in England, universally observed, _ that where a member of the government is reflected upon by the bench he does not wait to be asked to resign, he at once tenders his resignation. So careful are they in England to guard the reputations of their leading men, feeling and realizing that any other course, any imputation of improper conduct must be injurious to the whole moral fabric of the people. There are many cases that may be referred to, amongst others the Lord Lennox case, the Mundella case, the Mr. Stansfield case, and the Mr. Hayes Fisher case. When there was some question as to the conduct of Mr. Hayes Fisher as a member of a syndicate in consequence of remarks made by a judge upon the bench, Mr. Hayes Fisher used this language in the imperial House of Commons-Judge Buckley from the bench had said that Mr. Fisher and Sir Josepth Lawrence had left the entire management of the syndicate


Mr.   SPEAKEB@: I would like to know if the hon. gentleman intends to proceed against a member of the House or against a member of the administration. If so I would like to hear argument on the point whether it is in order to bring such a matter to the attention of the House on a motion to go into Committee of Supply. The rules laid down by May are very clear that any charge of the kind must be brought in by substantive motion and due notice given so that it can be amended and discussed; a proffered amendment to the motion to go into Supply cannot be amended.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is no member of this House who has a higher regard or solicitude for the dignity of the Chair than I have and I yield to none in my desire to assist in maintaining that dignity. There is now before the House a motion to go into Supply, and I have a grave grievance as I conceive to present to this House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed to present it to the House and when the time arrives, if it should arrive, during the progress of my remarks that I am contravening any rule of the House then I have no doubt you will call me to order.


Mr.   SPEAKEB@: I understood from the hon. gentleman's remarks that his speech was going to have the effect of calling the attention of the House to the position of a member of this House. If so, it is very clearly laid down that that course cannot be taken on a motion to go into Supply.


Wilfrid Laurier: I ' would think that the point of order is well taken, but it is the wish of the Minister of Public Works that it should not be insisted upon.


Frederick William Borden: I was prepared with authority that would sustain the

course which my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) proposes to pursue.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman, if he pleases, may cite authorities, but there are certainly authorities to the contrary and which say that matters of this kind cannot be introduced on a motion to go into Committee of Supply. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) takes a different view. I do not question his view and perhaps he will not question mine, but at all events it is not the intention to raise the point.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I thought it my duty to call attention to this matter so that I should be relieved of any responsibility in future. If the House is willing that this course should be followed I leave the responsibility to the House. But the course now being followed is clearly in contradiction of the authorities and custom.


Robert Laird Borden: Lest I should be held to be bound by any expression of opinion from the Chair, I would suggest that before the House should come to any such conclusion with respect to a motion which may be introduced in this manner, some authorities which I have taken the trouble to gather should be considered in order that we may arrive at no premature decision. However, it may not be necessary to consider that point now as the Prime Minister has stated that this supposed point of order will not be insisted upon. I merely' make this statement because I have given some consideration to the matter, and with all possible respect to the view which you have submitted, Mr. Speaker, and purely for the purpose of saving my rights on a future occasion I ventured to make the statement which I have just made.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I desire to add one word to what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has stated. So far as I am concerned I am desirous that no objection shall be raised to the fullest and most ample discussion of this matter.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The House will see that it is better there should be no misunderstanding on the point, that any thing that is done now is done by the consent of the House.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: person or persons as lie may appoint to inspect and audit the same. The company's hooks and accounts shall he audited each half year by an expert accountant appointed for that purpose by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. All expense of such inspection and auditing shall he borne by the company.
The company shall produce and file semiannually with the Provincial Secretary, a statement of the business of the company, with the net profits, if any, for the half year immediately preceding, which statement shall be verified under oath by the president or seretary of the said oompany.
The salary of each officer and the amount of wages paid to any servant or officer .of the company, shall be subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Coun-who may fix or alter the amount from time to time so long as the said guarantee by the province shall remain outstanding.
The tariff of rates for the freight and passengers hauled upon the said railway, shall at all times be subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The road bed, rolling stock and plant of the company, and likewise its tolls and earnings shall be conveyed by such oompany to a trust company, or other trustees, to be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by way of mortgage, to secure payment of the principal and interest of such bonds, which trust mortgage shall be in such form and contain such provisions as may be approved of by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Provincial Secretary and Attorney General for the province shall be ex-officio members of the board of directors of the said company, and shall have the same powers and privileges as any other member of the board.
The company shall bind itself to establish on the line of railway a plant for mining coal, to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and capable of mining an average of not less than 500 tons per day.
At the time when the Act was passed the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was Attorney General of New Brunswick and he is specially designated in section 11 as an ex-officio member of this board clothed with all the authority of every other director of the board. So that the legislature of the province of New Brunswick in authorizing the government to guarantee these bonds threw around the whole transaction the strongest safeguards in the interests of the people, and appointed the hon. gentleman who is today Minister of Public Works in this government, ex-officio director, to see to it that all the safeguards that the legislature did provide for the protection of the people were fully carried out. The Central Railway was conveyed to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company in the year 1902, I think.


William Pugsley: 1903.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, in 1903. The -road was operated; a contract was entered Mr. CROTHERS.
into between the government and this company to construct 15 miles of the road extending from Chatham to Minto and that 15 miles was constructed and completed in the year 1904. The remaining 30 miles of the Chatham-Gibson Railway remains unconstructed (to this date. The road was operated by the company until the year 1905, when, by an Act of the legislature, or by an order in council authorized by an Act of the legislature, the whole road was taken over by the government of New Brunswick, and our familiar friend Mr. George McAvity, and Senator King, were appointed commissioners to manage the road. Now, in the month of May, 1908, an Act was passed by the legislature, chap. 19, authorizing the appointment of a commission to investigate, and with the permission of the House I will read a few sections of that Act to show the character of the tribunal appointed to make this investigation, and the purpose for which it was appointed:
1. The Lieutenant Governor is hereby empowered by and with the advice and consent of the executive council to cause a commission or commissions to issue under the great seal to three persons, one of whom shall be a judge of the Supreme Court or County Court, or a barrister of not less than ten years' standing, to hold an investigation or inquiry into:
(a)	The expenditure of all moneys of the province, granted since the first day of January, A.D., 1901, either as subsidies or otherwise in connection with the railway from Norton to Chipman, and the railway from Chipman to Minto, and the branches thereof:
(b)	The issue and sale, pledge, hypothecation or other dealing by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, or by any person or persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf, of or with all bonds and debentures guaranteed by or on behalf of the province and issued or purporting to be issued by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, or by the commissioners of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, guaranteeing of the said bonds or debentures by or on behalf of the province, and the expenditure of the moneys obtained by such sale, pledge, hypothecation or other dealing of or with the said bonds and debentures;
(c)	The expenditure of all moneys made by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, upon or in connection with the Central Railway previous to the purchase of the same by the said company;
(d)	The purchase of the Central Railway by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company from the Central Railway Company, and the facts and circumstances connected with such purchase;
(e)	The money payment or satisfaction received by the holders thereof, or by any other person or persons acting or purporting to act for them, or any of them, on account of, or in connection with the bonds or debentures outstanding against the Central Railway at the time of the purchase of the said railway by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company;
5653 MAY 5, 1909 5654	
(f)	The money payment or satisfaction received by the Central Kailway Company or by the shareholders thereof, or by any person or persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the Central Railway Company, or the shareholders thereof, or any of such shareholders, in connection with the sale or transfer of the Central Kailway by the Central Railway Company to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; (g)	The receipts and revenues and the expenditures, whether made for working expenses or otherwise in connection with the railways and the branches thereof, taken over by the province from the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, from the time they were so taken over; " (b) The amount for which the railways and the branches thereof taken over by the province from the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company could, at their present standard of construction, have reasonably been constructed; (i) All negotiations and transactions, relating to the foregoing subjects of inquiry, which were carried on or took place between the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company and the Central Railway Company or either thereof or any officer of either thereof or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the said companies or either thereof, or on behalf of any officer or shareholder of the said companies or either thereof, and the government of New Brunswick or any member or officer thereof or person acting or purporting to adt on behalf of the government of New Brunswick or of any member or officer thereof, and the facts and circumstances connected with such negotiations or transactions. 2.	As often as any vacancy occurs in the office of the commissioner acting under this Act by reason of such commissioner dying, resigning or declining or becoming incapable to act, the lieutenant Governor in Council may, from time to time, fill up such vacancy. 3.	The commissioners shall have, for the purposes of such investigation or inquiry to be instituted by them in pursuance of this Act, all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in His Majesty's Supreme Court for the province or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any action or suit in respect of the followring matters: (a)	The enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise as the commissioners may think fit; (b)	The compelling of the production of books, papers or documents which, in the opinion of the commissioners, are necessary to be produced; (c)	The adjourning of the court from time to time and from place to place within the province, as the commissioners may deem necessary; (d)	The punishing of persons guilty of contempt. I will not take up the time of the House to read all these sections in full. There are provisions that different officers shall use their authority in maintaining order and shall be at the service of this tribunal just as they would at the service of a judge of an ordinary court. Provision is also made for the appointment of counsel	to conduct the investigation, and also for the appointment of counsel to act for any one who desires counsel by way of defenco or explanation. Now, there was a court, Mr. Speaker, constituted as the ordinary courts of the land are constituted. The ordinary courts of the land are constituted by the various legislatures of the provinces, the legislatures determine the procedure, they determine the number of judges who shall be appointed, and when we are considering the report of this tribunal we are considering the report of a court regularly, legally, and constitutionally appointed, possessing all the powers and all the privileges and all the dignity and all the solemnity that attach to the courts of this land. The Minister of Public Works was a man who enjoyed nearly all of the highest honours that could be heaped upon him by the citizens of his native province. He was Speaker of the Legislative Assembly from 1887 to 1889, when he became Solicitor-General, and so continued until 1892; he was appointed Attorney General in the year 1900, and continued to be Attorney General until the year 1907, when for a short time he was premier, and afterwards in the month of August of that year, he was appointed Minister of Public Works of the Dominion. The order in council appointing the members of this tribunal is as follows: _ The Hon. the Attorney General-reports for the information, of the committee of the Executive Council:- , . , . That at the last session of the legislature an Ax;t was passed intituled ' An Act authorizing an inquiry into certain matters connected with the Central Railway Company and the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council was empowered to cause a commission to issue under the great seal to three persons, one of whom shall be a judge of the Supreme Court or County Court, or a barrister of not less than ten years standing, to hold an investigation or inquiry into the matters particularly mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), of the first section of the said Act, and to report the evidence taken before them and their findings thereon, and the proceedings of the commissioners so appointed, to the Provincial Secretary, to be by him laid before the Lieutenant Governor in Council. He now recommends, that in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act, that a commission issue to the Hon. Pierre A. Landry, one of the Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court of this province, Pulton MacDougali, of the city of Moncton, banker, and Almon I. Teed, of the town of St. Stephen, merchant, appointing them commissioners under the said Act to hold such investigation or inquiry so thereby authorized, and that for that purpose to have all the powers, rights and privileges vested in them by the said Act or by an Act of the legislative assembly of the province, authorizing the appointment of commissioners to make inquiries or hold investigations.

And the committee of council concurring in the recommendation of the Hon. the Attorney General,
It is accordingly so ordered.
Certified, passed June 5, 1908.
(Sgd.) JOS. HOWE DICKSON,
Clerk of the Executive Council of New
Brunswick.
Hon. gentlemen will see from what I have read that the present Minister of Public Works was Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick from the year 1900 to the year 1907, during nearly the whole period over which this tribunal was authorized to make inquiry, and was exofficio a director of this company. As such he occupied towards the people of the province of New Brunswick the position of a trustee, and it is well known that the first duty of a trustee is to keep clear and accurate accounts and that the second duty of a trustee is always to have his accounts ready for the cestui qui trust to look at and satisfy himself that the accounts are correct. It was his duty as director of that company, as Attorney General, the man who was the managing director of the company-


William Pugsley: I wish to correct the statement of my hon. friend. I was not the managing director of the company.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am simply making my observations based upon the judgment of this court.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must pardon me. I say that there is nothing whatever in the evidence which would justify a statement of that kind, and the statement is absolutely untrue.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not here for the purpose of discussing the evidence in this c9se.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss the evidence in the case.


William Pugsley: I am not surprised at that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am here standing on the judgment of a court.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend can find anything in the evidence which will justify some of the statements, in the report, I shall be greatly obliged if he will refer to them.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As I said a moment ago, I am not here for the purpose of discussing the evidence in this case. I am standing on the judgment of a court, and while that judgment stands we have a right to assume that it is a righteous judgment; and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the


Thomas Wilson Crothers: proper course for the gentleman to take against whom this judgment has been found, if he disagrees with the judgment, is in some way or other to appeal for a new trial.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I may say that that is what I have done. I have begun proceedings in the Supreme Court in Equity of the province of New Brunswick to have an accounting made of the receipts and disbursements of this company. I waited until yesterday to see if the provincial government would take action. They have not done so, and I have now done so.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I submit, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with well established practice in English-speaking communities, that the first thing for the hon. the Minister of Public Works to have done, when that judgment was pronounced against him by a court so constituted, was to step aside and resign his position as Minister of Public Works. I submit that while that judgment stands, it is an imputation, a compromise and a reflection upon the dignity of this House and upon the dignity of the people of this country. That was clearly his duty. I am not here to say whether that judgment is right or wrong; but I am here to assume that it is right, and I submit that it was the clear duty of a minister of the Crown against whom a judgment of that kind has been pronounced, in the meantime to stand aside. I was pointing out the position that the hon. Minister of Public Works occupied when that court was constituted. He was a trustee from the year 1901 after this company was inaugurated to the year 1907, and his first duty was to see that the sections of the Act giving the government power to guarantee $250,000 of bonds were strictly carried out by the company, that the company kept books, that the books were audited semi-annually, that statements were filed with the provincial secretary every six months under oath, showing that the transactions, of the company were in the best interests'*of the people of the province of New Brunswick, or at least straightforward and honest. The hon. Minister of Public Works is not unfamiliar with large financial transactions. He is perfectly familiar with such transactions. He is not an ignorant man; he is a man of capacity, an astute lawyer, and a man who knew that both law and equity required that in the position he occupied he should keep strict account of the transactions of that company, and be in a position to render a strict and accurate and satisfactory accounting when it was called for. On the 3rd day of March, 1908, the government of the province of New Brunswick changed hands. Those who had been opposed to him in politics for some years came to

power. He knew that this court had been constituted by the local legislature afteT the new government came into power. He knew that this court had been appointed to investigate the transactions respecting this company during the years that he was exofficio a director of it, and therefore a trustee of the people of New Brunswick. He was subpoenaed, as I am informed and believe, and was asked to produce all the documents and papers that he had in his possession to assist this court in ferreting out the matters for which they were appointed. He appeared before that court. There was able and devoted counsel there, perhaps not appointed by him, but I understand appointed at his suggestion to assist him in cross-examining witnesses. The evidence before that court was given under oath, and I understand that the court adjourned several times in order to give the hon. Minister of Public Works every opportunity to explain any points that had been raised.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that that statement also is absolutely without foundation. On the contrary, when I went there to give evidence, the counsel for the commissioners said he did not want to hear me.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I may say that counsel denies that statement.


Mr. CARVELL.: Mr. Speaker,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has the floor. It is customary in this House to allow an hon. member to ask a question. That rests with the hon. member for West Elgin, not with the other members of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I simply want to ask the hon. member for Elgin if he was aware that counsel was denied the right to be present during the first two weeks and the commission would not withhold their sittings until counsel could be present.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I answer the question of the hon. gentleman by saying that I do not know, that I was not present.


Samuel Hughes: Nor was he.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand that he was the counsel.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I repeat that I am standing on the judgment of a court, and I am glad to know that the people of Canada are so familiar with the findings of the court so constituted that they are able to rely on their judgment, especially in regard to matters of fact; and the remedy of those against whom the judgment stands is to appeal from that judgment to some other tribunal, and in the meantime to act as if the judgment were a righteous one. Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose, with your permission, to read portions of this report, of which I have a certified copy; and if any hon. gentleman desires to follow me and has a copy of the report, I shall be glad to give him the pages as I go along. On page 4:
On October 4, 1895, a contract was entered into by the New Brunswick government with the Central Railway Company for the construction of the fifteen mile section and the granting of the subsidy of $3,000 per mile. The following day $7,000 of this subsidy was assigned by Dr. DeBertram to the Hon. William Pugsley and Mr. Skinner. On November 1, 1895, $36,500 of the subsidy was assigned to James Barnes for the building of the niteen mile section. And on the 4th of sf.1?0 month $1,000 was assigned to Mr. W. T. White-


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think I will allow you to explain this as we go along.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to correct an error which I am afraid would be in the mind of my hon. friend, and I am sure that he would be glad to let me do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must be heard before I know what he is going to say.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The Minister of Public Works has the floor. He rose to a point of order.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Elgin will thank me when he hears what I wish to say.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I was not given time to get through with my parliamentary duties and the first two weeks of the investigation were conducted without me.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not propose to be drawn into any discussion of the evidence.


William Pugsley: Very wisely.


George Eulas Foster: What is the point of order?


William Pugsley: This is the point. The hon. member for Elgin has read from this report that in 1905 a subsidy was assigned to the Honourable William Pugsley and Mr. Skinner. My hon. friend is probably under the impression that I was then the Hon. Wm. Pugsley and a member of the

government. I wish to say that I was not then in the legislature or in the government, but was a private citizen.


George Eulas Foster: I rise to ask if that is a point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Here is the net result. The Minister of Public Works is practically being placed on trial here, contrary to the proceedings followed in England. I relieve myself of all responsibility, as the House has decided that this should be proceeded with. In the ordinary course I presume that the Minister of Public Works would be allowed to give a personal explanation on a matter which so intimately concerns him.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask you whether, under the rules of the House, under constitutional rules
these are what we are guided by- a point of order is a correction of a statement. If it is, the hon. gentleman has a right to make it. If it is not, the Speaker has no right to rule it so.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Speaker has not ruled anything of the kind.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is really the first time m my experience, Mr. Speaker, that a gentleman has felt that there was some imputation cast upon him by calling him the Honourable William Pugsley.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I ask my ^r*enc^ to take back that statement. What I meant was this


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I appeal to hon. members, for the sake of the decorum and dignity of the House. The time has not come when a member asking to be allowed to make a personal explanation should be refused the opportunity. The Minister of Public Works is replying to a word which I am sorry the hon. member for Elgin uttered. We have not got down to the level of supposing that any member of this House is not an hon. member. Every member of this House is an hon. member.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, what I meant, and I am sure that my hon. friend must have known what I meant, was that it was a very different thing to make the statement that I had, while a member of the government, received an assignment of that subsidy, from what it would be that I had done so while I was a private citizen and a solicitor for some of the parties interested, and not even a member of the legislature at the time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The whole objection made by the Minister of Public Works has


William Pugsley: arisen from his misreading the words themselves. There is nothing in what I read to show that the commissioners meant to say that at that time he was the Hon. Wm. Pugsley; but the payment was made to the man who is now the Hon. Wm. Pugsley. That is the proper reading of the words, so that there was no ground for making the objection at all. (Reading):
The Colonial Iron, Coal and Railway Company having failed to proceed with the construction of the unconstructed section, a contract was entered into on the 21st of May, 1899, between the provincial government and the Central Railway Company reviving the agreement of the 8th of August, 1883, the government to pay the subsidy not on progress estimates but on completion from time to time of sections of ten miles. So far as the records show, the work done by the Central Railway Company on the fifteen mile section amounted to $23,000 and on account of this outlay $8,000 of the subsidy was paid by the government and distributed as follows: $2,200 on the orders given as aforesaid to-
If my hon. friend objects, I will leave out the Honourable


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the reading of extracts from the report, I should perhaps refer to a point in my remarks of this morning to which the Minister of Public Works objected. I see from the dates I have that the hon. gentleman was Speaker of the legislative assembly of New Brunswick in 1887 and remained so until 1892, and that he was Solicitor General in 1892.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is wrong again.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He had been Speaker prior to October 4, 1895, the date of the $7,000 transaction. While perhaps it is not strict etiquette to refer to a gentleman who had been a member of the provincial government as the 'honourable' I think that it is customary to do so, and that it is generally considered as the proper thing to do in this country so that the commissioners in referring to the Hon. William Pugsley were perhaps relying upon that custom. I quite understand the objection of the minister and I want to be perfectly fair with him. I gather that what he objected to was that it might appear from this report that the intention of the commissioners was to say that when he was Attorney General of the province and a director of the company, this $7,000 was assigned to him. If any one should get that impression from that report I want to say in all fairness to the hon. gentleman that that is not the case; the $7,000 I was dealing with was not paid to the hon. gentleman after he became Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick, and ex-officio director of this company. While we are zealous to maintain the dignity of this House, we must be just as anxious to be just and fair to each other, and I want to be absolutely just and
fair to the Minister of Public Works. I quite understand that it is difficult to do that; sometimes we becomg over zealous, we are all human. Even the Prime Minister confessed to us the other day that he was human


Wilfrid Laurier: Very.
Mr. CROTHERS-and every hon. gentleman present, without any hesitation accepted his word, so that we are all in the same boat, and we all get a little overzealous on occasions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: You just want to down me if you can.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I desire in this case to be absolutely just and fair to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), so far as I can.
On page 7 of the report I find:
In the summer of 1904 the Coal and Railway Company applied to the provincial government for financial assistance and during the year from the 1st of July, 1901, to the 1st of July, 1905, the government advanced the company about $50,000.
In 1905 the Lieutenant Governor in Council, under the authority of an Act of the provincial legislature passed in April of that year, declared the title to the whole railway vested in the King in the right of the province, and appointed Mr. George McAvity and Senator G. G. King, commissioners to manage it.
Then on page 9:
No record embracing the whole transaction of the company with Evans and Elkm seems to have been attempted. In this ledger there are less than fifteen entries after the 1st of July, 1901, although the company's business extended to the first day of July, 1905. All the accounts put together cover only seven and a quarter pages of the book.
Mr. Sharpe began what is called a cashbook about the 1st of July, 1904, which was continued by Mr. Corbett after Mr. Sharpe's death on behalf of Mr. McAvity, first as president and afterwards as commissioner. This book was also made up from such data as was afforded by stubs of cheque-books, letters, &e., but not posted concurrent with the transactions. It shows the expenditure of part of the moneys advanced by the government in connection with the railway since the 1st of July, 1904.
Outside of these books, strange as the statement may seem, no books of account were ever kept by the railway company or by the commissioners in connection with the railway although the financial transactions connected with it involved the expendidture of over $900,000.	,
Then on page 10:
At one of the above meetings, held on August 2, 1901, a resolution was passed to the effect that ' five hundred shares of the capital stock of the company should be issued as fully paid up and non-assessable stock of the company, and that ten of these shares be is-

sued to each shareholder as a satisfaction of all their services as promoters of the company, and that such allotment be in lieu of any allotment which otherwise would be made by reason of shares subscribed by them, and in satisfaction of the shares so subscribed by them, and that the remainder of the five hundred shares, or four hundred and thirty shares should be issued to Charles N. Skinner in trust to distribute and allot ,the same to such persons as might in his opinion be entitled to receive the same as promoters of the company, and in consideration of services render ed to the company; and the acting of the said Charles N. Skinner according to his own judgment and discretion should be at all times considered a complete fulfilment and execution of the said trust.
Hon. gentlemen will notice that the number of 430 shares is mentioned in that paragraph and that, in a preceding paragraph which I read, the stock of the company was put at a thousand shares of $100 each, so that the 430 shares at $100 each would amount to $43,000 instead of $430,000 mentioned at another part of the report, clearly showing that nothing was added to the $43,000 making it $430,000. I mention that because it has been dwelt upon as a serious matter. In this way the 430 shares at $100 would clearly be $43,000 instead of $430,000. Another typographical error.
Then at page 11:
The first meeting of directors was held on ^May 10, 1001, at St. John. The following, having been duly elected, were present:
E. Byron Winslow, Fredericton. .1 share $100
Franklin Stetson, St. John	1 share $100
A. P. Barnhill, St. John	1 share $100
E. Hutchinson, Chatham	1 share $100
C.A.C. Bruce per E. H., Chatham.1 share $100
E. A. Irvmg, Buctouche	1 share $100
Willard Kitchen per E. Byron Winslow, Fredericton	1 share $100
Total shares held by directors___7	$700


Hon.  L. J.@: Tweedie, director ex-officio.
Hon. William Pugsley director ex-officio.
By by-law the directors were qualified as the holders of one share each (on which however, nothing was paid).
The following officers were elected at this meeting:
Ernest Hutchinson, Chatham, President. Franklin Stetson, St. John, Vice-President. George W. Allen, Fredericton, Secretary.
E. Byron Winslow, Fredericton, Treasurer. Mr. Hutchinson, the president, Mr. A. P. Barnhill, Hon. L. J. Tweedie and Hon. Wm. Pugsley were appointed a committee to confer with the Central Railway Company and others to see upon what terms the amalgamation, meaning the amalgamation of the Central Railway, might be made, &c. The last recorded meeting of directors was held in St. John, June 11, 1902.
Between the above dates the following directors' meetings were held: June 13, 1901; August 16, 1901; August 18, 1901, October 21, 1901; November 26, 1901.
It is recorded that at all of those meetings the Hon. Wm. Pugsley was present.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Then at the top of page 12 we find:
So far as the records show these were the only meetings held of the directors, in carrying on a work involving such heavy expenditures and extending over a period of more than four years. We must note here that the meetings of both shareholders and directors were few and unimportant and showed that at an early date there was a complete abandonment of corporate action and an assumption of individual control on the part of a few.
Then near the bottom of the page:
Mr. Willard Kitchen, at one time a director, was in the same position. Hon. L. J. Tweedie, who being provincial secretary, was an ex-officio director of the company, claimed to know nothing about its financial transactions except what happened in council, having left these matters to Mr. Pugsley and the officers of the company.
Mr. Pugsley, who apparently had the general management of the company's affairs, kept no accounts and did not give as much definite information; he had, he said, left the keeping of the accounts to Mr. George W. Allen and Mr. A. 1. Trueman, both of whom had died before the investigation. On inquiry we were satisfied that Mr. Trueman kept no books that could throw light upon the disposition of the moneys. Indeed from his position in the company we cannot see how it would be especially incumbent upon him to do so, and we are also inclined to believe, after examining Mr. J. J. F. Winslow, who acted as Mr. Allen's clerk, that Mr. Allen, were he alive, could furnish little more data that that produced by Mr. Winslow, his successor. . .
Mr. George McAvity, the president and managing director of the company from July 1, 1904, to July 1, 1905, kept no books at all in connection with the company's business.
From July 1, 1905, to March 1, 1908, when as one of the commissioners he had the management of the road he also kept no books whatever. In very many instances Mr. McAvity was unable to produce any vouchers, other than his own cheques and in many cases the papers produced as vouchers were very unsatisfactory, and did not purport to be even connected with the company. In his evidence he gave us little more information than if he had not been connected with its business at all. From his evidence it might be fairly gathered that he considered the position he occupied an honorary one.
Page 14:
So much of the facts are given to show the absolute want of book-keeping, and we say that if an auditor, confining himself to the records in the books of accounts submitted to us alone, was to undertake to produce a statement of moneys expended, hundreds of 'thousands of dollars would be shown to be unaccounted for.
Page 16:
The total aid from the Dominion and provincial governments combined, to the whole railway, previous to and since January 1, 1901, amounts to $1,255,244.22. Of this amount the provincial government contributes $190,064,844, and the Dominion government $190,400.
5665 MAY 5, 1909 5666	
ITEM No. 1. Provincial subsidy, $57,000 was given by the government purporting to act under the authority of the Subsidy Act of 1882, as a subsidy towards the railway Irom Uhipman to Gibson. Previously to this, as we have seen, $5,000 and $8,000 were given to the Central Railway Company or Dr. DeBertram, in 1891 and 1896, as a subsidy under the same Act for the construction of the same railway. In all, the provincial government has paid $70,000 in subsidies in connection with the railway from Chipman to Gibson, of which the fifteen mile section only has been built. As the Act of 1882 only authorized a subsidy of $3,000 per mile, the total subsidy which the government was authorized to issue in connection with the fifteen-mile section was $45,000. The question arises, why did the government give the remaining $25,000 of the $70,000 which it did give? Page 17: Of this $25,000 subsidy, $8,500 was, as it appears by the documents m evidence, paid on account of the orders to Mr. Pugsley, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Whitehead, which have been previously spoken of as given in the months of October and November, 1895. Mr. Pugsley in his evidence gave no further explanation of this matter. We find the whole of this $25,000 of subsidy bonds were illegally issued. This amount, we believe, has been misapplied, and should the government in the future seek to extend the line from the terminus of the fifteen miles section to Gibson, $25,000 of the subsidy authorized to be paid for that portion of the line will not be available as it has been drawn and used. ITEM No. 3. wSk was a euarantee by the province of $250,000 par value of the company s bonds. A mrge percentage of these bonds were guaranteed illegally. b Page 19: To briefly sum the matter up, the legislature authorized the guarantee by the province of $250,000 of the company's bonds, to secure the construction of forty miles of railway, tully equipped with rolling stock, and provided with a coal mining plant capable of mining 500 tons of coal per day. The province has obtained, not forty odd miles, but fifteen miles of railway, a few cheap sidings, a quantity of rolling stock costing between $20,000 and $30,000, with the work of construction on nearly thirty miles practically untouched, and not a dollar expended on the extensive coal plant. These bonds were guaranteed on reports showing the progress of construction of the fifteen miles section, which were signed by Mr. Evans, the company's engineer. On January 2, 1903, at which time less than $80,000 had been expended in the actual work of construction one of these reports attempts to show that $140,000 of the company's bonds were entitled to be guaranteed. Mr. Pugsley stated in his evidence that he himself drew up these reports and that Mr. Evans bad signed them. It is not our province to suggest whether any or what action should be taken on behalf of the province to hold the	members of the government who were instrumental in endorsing these bonds responsible for their illegal act. Page 20: ITEM No. 7 ($50,594.54). This item is a cash loan made by the government to the company between the 1st of July, 1904, and the 1st of July, 1905. No legislative authority had previously been given the government to make these loans. STATEMENT ' B.' This shows all the moneys which since the incorporation of the company in April, A.D. 1901, were paid as government subsidies, loaned on bonds guaranteed by the government, or otherwise loaned, or paid, for the purposes of the railway. The moneys amount altogether to $958,799.75. STATEMENT ' C: This shows the expenditures of the moneys mentioned in statement ' 44 ' so far as we have been able to disover in our investigation. These expenditures amount to $824,764.40, leaving a balance of $134,033.35 of these moneys unacounted for. Page 27: How many of the directors received .salaries, we cannot discover. Mr. Pugsley stated they received something, that he himself did not receive much. He thought Mr. Sharpe had once made a proposition that a round sum should be paid him (Pugsley) but that Mr. Tweedie would not admit it; however, Mr. Sharpe in the statement referred to inserted an item of $5,000 as salary to managing director, and only that Mr. Pugsley in his evidence stated otherwise, we would have taken the ' W. P.' item $5,000 referred to elsewhere m this report as being payment of this amount. Page 29. It will be noted that Hon. Mr. Tweedie retained 1 per cent commission, $500 on the sale of $50,000 bonds made by him in Chatham. Mr. Tweedie was provincial secretary of the province in October, 1903 when he made the sale and ex-officio director of the railway company and we do not see by what right he deducted this $500 commission. He stated in his evidence that he thought Mr. A. I. Trueman had authorized him to do so; where Mr. Trueman got his authority was not stated. This much must fairly be said of this transaction, namely, that (Mr, Tweedie sold $50,000 bonds in October, 1903, at par, which was 2i per cent more than the price received from Messrs. Robinson & (Sons, who purchased $368,000 of the company's bonds in March 1905, at 97|-, and 5 per cent more than was received by Mr. (McAvity, president, for $8,000 of the same bonds delivered by him to a client by instructions of Mr. Pugsley in August, 1903, about two months before Mr. Tweedie made the sale, Mr. McAvity getting only $7,000 flat with no accrued interest for $8,000 of bonds. Mr. Tweedie also promptly accounted for the accrued itnrest, $575.34, which in other cases we consider was not accounted for. Without condoning this transaction we think on the whole it is amenable to less censure than others spoken of in this report. It at

least has the merit when it did come to light of being clear cut and definite, without any effort being made to conceal it from your commissioners.
Item No. 4.-Paid for gravel pit, $3,000-
This was paid to Mr. G. G. Scovil for gravel
Eit. Mr. Scovil stated that some time before e sold this gravel pit to the Railway Company, after conference with Mr. Pugsley he had bought the farm, of about one hundred acres on which the gravel pit was located for $2,500, including the buildings, and afterwards sold that part of it to the company embracing the gravel pit about thirty acres for $3,000. As to whether or not Mr. Scovil bought the farm until he knew or had reason to believe he could sell the gravel pit and make $500 profit in addition to retaining the farm, which would cost him nothing, from the evidence we are inclined to think that he was sure of the sale of the gravel pit before he completed the purchase of the farm. He stated he had bargained for the farm before he negotiated with the company. He had heard there was a gravel pit on it. Mr. Pugsley had informed him of the company's desire to procure gravel and that Mr. Evans, the engineer, had examined the quantity and quality of the gravel before he completed the purchase of the farm. He received Mr. Pugsley's personal note for $1,000 on account which he never heard of afterwards but presumed it was paid. Mr. McAvity gave Mr. Scovil a cheque for $1,000 which we conclude was to pay this note. Afterwards Mr. McAvity paid Scovil the balance of the $2,000.
Page 32:
Mr. Pugsley in his evidence made the statement that if a desire was evinced by the commission to trace the expenditure in connection with the roads that a competent auditor could make up an account in two days: that it was intended the banks would keen a record and that all that was necessary was to inquire of the banks as to payments to Messrs Barnes and others and the whole matter would be made clear. Mr. Pugsley's statement fairly suggests the idea, in the first place, that it was never the intention of the company to keep books.	, . , . ,
We think the statement of facts which follow will show how very far astray he was in stating that a competent auditor by means of the information which the banks could supply or which could be gleaned from any other source could, during any period of time, much less two days, make up an intelligent balance sheet which would show the disposition of the moneys in question.
As the earliest financial operations, namely, those connected with the construction of the fifteen-mile section, were centred at Fredericton we began our investigation in that city on June 25, 1908, the first witness being Mr. Geo. N. Babbitt, Deputy Receiver General.
He showed us a statement made up from the department ledger account beginning August 31, 1904, closing on March 19, 1908, showing a total expenditure of $345,599,22; largely made up of payments to Mr. McAvity as president and as commissioner, payments to the People's Bank and old claims connected with the railway, and for interest, but he had no knowledge of bonds being guaranteed by the Provincial Secretary to the extent of $450,000 in 1903, until July 5, 1905. when the fourth half yearly coupons amounting to $9,000 were presented for payment.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
William Pugsley: There is another typographical error there, the date of the last cheque should be 1904 and not 1902.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It will be noticed that the above cheoues total $9,220.	1
As they were drawn eighteen months previous to the payment of the $5,000, Mr. Pugsley could not be certain that they represented advances to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company by his company; but from the fact that the cheques existed together with Mr. Trueman's statement that the railway company owed his company upwards of

$5,000 he concluded he was justified in drawing this $5,000. It was on the eve of his departure for Europe and matters were somewhat hurried. There was no record on the books of the railway company to show that loans for the latter had ever been made from the loan company, and Mr. Pugsley stated that his company kept no books.
If Mr. Pugsley is correct in his surmise that these cheques produced by him, amounting to $9,220 represented loans to the railway company it seems to us that it would logically follow that after the repayment of $5,000 above mentioned was made, the company still would be his debtor for $4,220, for there is no evidence anywhere of this balance having been claimed or paid. We, however, feel satisfied that Mr. Pugsley must have been recouped for all these moneys from the proceeds of bonds handled by himself or by Mr. Trueman for him, or in some other way.
On reference to a statement prepared by the late Mr. Sharpe, auditor, found among the papers, which purport to be a schedule of amounts owing by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company on the 31st ot May, 1904, we do not find that the name ot the loan and real estate company appears tor any amount. This statement was made up one month previous to the payment ot the above mentioned $5,000 to Mr. Pugsley.
Page 46:
Mr. McAvity states, though it is not confirm-pd anywhere else, that his directors fixed his *salary at $5,000 per annum. If they did so, then taking all the circumstances into consideration, the nominal supervision of the company by Mr. McAvity, and the fact that he had a manager at Norton at a large salary attending to the actual work of the company, we say that giving Mr. McAvity $5,000 as salary was simply one way of indirectly robbing the treasury of the province. $5,000 per annum was equal to the amount received by the experienced manager of the I. C. R. system in 1904, and only one thousand less than he receives at the present time, and would have secured for the company the exclusive services of a railway expert and able man of affairs.
Mr. McAvity was not a railway man at all, and during the whole period of presidency was busy with his own affairs.
From all the facts and from the manner in which Mr. McAvity gave his evidence we believe that the payment on November 22, 1905, shown in his cash book to be his salary as president to July 1, 1905, was intended as stated to cover his salary for the first year. That he was to receive $2,500 per year is confirmed in more than one statement made by the auditors.
Therefore we believe that the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, or their assigns, now that for the first time the full account from Mr. McAvity has been produced, have a right to recover from him the two first mentioned amounts in the above statement, namely, $4,880.19.
During the time Mr. McAvity was president and commissioner his firm received MY. CROTHERS.
large sums almost monthly for goods and materials supplied to the railway, at prices apparently fixed by himself.
The option given by Evans & Elkin to the Coal and Railway Company was simply for the purchase of the Central Railway for the fixed sum of $180,000 with no other special conditions in the document.
Page 49:
On October 31, 1901, the first payment on this option was made by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, but it was only $12,500 instead of $15,000, the amount of the first instalment. At various times afterwards payments were made Evans & Elkins, making altogether with the first payment $83,519.06. The agreement to purchase never was carried out, but in the summer of 1903 an arrangement was made between the company and Messrs. Evans & Elkin by which Evans & Elkin were to withdraw from the agreement of sale-the company to complete their option with Clark & Co. and Drexel & Co., and pay these firms the amount of $55,800, being the amount due on the option and for the loan of $5,000 and interest, the company also to pay an amount of $1,089.97 due the Intercolonial Railway. The agreement between the company and Evans & Elkin to withdraw, which was verbal, was negotiated for the company by Mr. Allen, Mr. A. I. Trueman and Mr. Pugsley, and under it Evans & Elkin agreed to forego the payment of the balance of $39,590.97 to which they were entitled under their agreement of sale.
The following is a statement showing the amounts paid to Evans & Elkin and the amount which they abandoned:-
To total amount due under option from the N. B.
Coal and Railway Company	 $180,000 00
By payments from Oct.
31, 1901, to June, 1904. .$ 74,769 06 By paid Clarke & Company on our account. 55,800 00 By paid balance due I.C.R	 1,089 97

Later payment, profit on
deal	 3,750 00
Later payment, profit on
deal	 5,000 00



on their own account a dollar at stake, is unsound if not vicious.
Second, On the face of it the motive of the promoters as stated was to develop the coal mines of Queens county. Responsible and respectable men from various parts of the province were obtained to lend their names as directors; and from the fact that

Here is where the jmistake occurs of adding a zero in each instance.


William Pugsley: Better read it as it is.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: attorney general remain outside the company. Then as members of the government they would have been in a position to have seen to it that stipulations safeguarding the provincial treasury were lived up to; as it worked out, by their position in the company as members of the government, their influence was paramount, representing as they thus did all the capital invested. By their presence in -he House of Assembly, on the other hand, they were able from their knowledge and control of the company's affairs to present such statements as were necessary to allay the suspicions of the legislature, and conceal from the country the true state of affairs.
Finally, we believe the directors of the company, and especially the ex-officio directors, are responsible to the province for an accounting. They should be called upon to submit an account showing the expenditure of $958,799.75 or at least that portion of it supplied by the province. What steps should be taken to enforce this finding we hardly feel called upon to determine.
We find, putting the most charitable construction on the entire transaction, that $134,035.35 stated in our recapitulation, following statement 'C ' given as unaccounted for, was misappropriated, and diverted from its proper and legitimate channel.
Considering that the doors were never locked-that nearly a million dollars were tossed about without any special guardianship, or any reasonable prospect of any one being called upon to account, that temptation in its most seductive form was continually in the path of the politicians interested, it is not very difficult to understand how an amount even larger than $134,035.35 might well have been switched from its legitimate course. The $39,000 underpaid Evans & Elkins on their option, we have not the slightest doubt forms part of the total shortage.
As to who personally got this money we are unable to state. The want of records as shown by illustrations given in a former part of this report, the fact that the secretary, Mr. George W. Allen, and a director, or solicitor, Mr. A. I. Trueman, had died before the investigation began, greatly enhanced the difficulties of discovering anything definite on the above point. Then, too, many of the leading actors in this drama did not in their evidence disclose with any certainty their relations with transactions with which their names appear in written documents. A notable case was that of Mr. C. N. Skinner, whose memory appeared almost a blank as to his acts and the reasons therefor. Even the amount of the remuneration he had received had passed from his mind. We cannot but believe that had Mr. Skinner felt more personal responsibility in the duties he performed and better appreciated the ones in which we were engaged his memory would have been much improved.
Leading witnesses, without unfailing monotony, referred us to the two deceased officers of the company, Mr. George W. Allen and Mr. A. I. Trueman, when any critical point as to the disposal of moneys was in question.

We have become painfully convinced after examining tbe evidence and the documents submitted to us that in the expenditure ^ of the public funds, provided for this enterprise, every person charged with a public duty in connection with the same, has been culpably negligent in the discharge of such duty. The degree of culpability attached to each individual has, perhaps, not been the same. Some were guilty of negligence in accepting positions of trust and in not acquainting themselves with what was transpiring in regard to same, but allowing others, unquestioned, to undertake the sole discharge of duties, the responsibility of which they themselves had assumed. They lent their names and allowed the moral influence of their high standing in the community to assure the province that legitimate business methods would be followed. The provincial secretary and the attorney general, ex-officio directors, who were specially appointed by the legislature to watch the company's doings in the interest of the province, we consider, by their conduct, open to the gravest censure. It is true the provincial secretary was not satisfied with matters as they were going, for more than once we find, by letter or otherwise, he registered objections-but it would seem he had assisted to call into play forces he could not control, if he wished to do so, and the bonds were in due course guaranteed and the moneys spent under the conditions stated in this report.
To sum up, on the evidence given before this court, under the sanction of an oath- the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) having appeared before the commissioners and counsel being present to act for and against him-this report constitutes the following findings:
1.	That he was appointed a director exofficio of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company specially to guard the people's interest and that he was in effect general manager of its affairs.
2.	That, while he was occupying this position of trust, charged with the performance of a public duty, in the expenditure of public funds provided by the people of New Brunswick for a public enterprise, he was culpably negligent and open to the gravest censure.
3.	That, although he was the controlling influence in the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, it never performed the functions usually exercised by an incorporated company and was in fact nothing but a disorganized department of the government.
4.	That in order to conceal the truth he adopted no system of bookkeeping for public information.
5.	That as a member of the Legislative Assembly and Attorney General of the Province, he made incorrect statements to the legislature'to allay suspicions and to conceal from the province the true state of ariairs.
179J


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me. will he kindly state in what part of the report it states that incorrect information was given to the legislature.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I said ' incorrect statements.'


William Pugsley: I deny that incorrect statements were made or incorrect information given to the legislature, or even that the report says so.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not know that I quite understood the hon. minister

 MTnnT 17X7	rnU/vwt T ty-1 o xr cnAfl.lr
lVir. rUUDLIil.	Alien,	-
again


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Just one moment. I understand that the minister (Mr. Pugsley) takes exception to the paragraph l have just read, namely that the report says that he made incorrect statements to the legislative assembly. What I said was: 'That as a member of the legislative assembly and Attorney General of the Province, he made incorrect statements to the legislature.'


Mr PUGSLEY.: The reason I interrupted is that this report, strange as it is in many respects, does not say that we presented false statements to the legislature. It says that we were able to do so, but does not say that we did so, and I defy my hon. friend to point to any single case where any erroneous statement was made to the legislature.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I can not only point to statements in the report bearing out what I have said, but I can point to statements in the New Brunswick Hansard ' on two occasions made by the minister in answer to questions that $180,000 had been paid for the Central Railway.
6 That a report prepared by him and made to the Lieutenant Governor m Council on the 2nd day of July, 1901, was absurd and was not founded on any reasonable grounds for the representations made therein.	.
7.	That as such director he is responsible to the province for an accounting for that nortion of $958,799.77 supplied by the
rovince.	.
8.	That in stating to the legislature on lore than one occasion that $180,000 had gen paid for the Central Railway, he ;ated what he knew was in fact untrue i he had conducted ^ the negotiations
000 from that sum.	.
9.	That he mixed up his private affairs with those of the company and of the public so that large amounts received by him are not satisfactorily accounted for.

10.	That while he stated before the court respecting the salaries of directors that they received something and that he himself did not receive much, he was really paid $5,000 under cover of salary which, however, he was unable to explain.
11.	That he was a party to the misappropriating of $134,035.35 and that the abatement of $39,000 aforesaid forms part thereof.
_ 12. That he authorized and participated in the illegal issue of $25,000 of subsidy bonds part of which was used to pay orders given to himself before he became a member of the government.
13.	That he engaged in the illegal issue of provincial bonds in connection with the Chipman-Gibson Railway.
14.	That he authorized and participated m the illegal loan of $50,000 to the company.
15.	In breach of the Act of 1902, he did not retain any of the $250,000 bonds to provide the mining plant estimated to cost $50,000, nor did he retain any thereof as security for the $40,000 for rails advanced by the Intercolonial Railway.
My attention has been called to page 51 of the report, part of which I read, but which I may now read again, in view of the hon. minister's statement:
It was stated in the House of assembly the full $180,000 was paid for the Central Railway.
This statement was made with the full knowledge that some $39,000 of the $180,000 had not been paid and was not to be paid. It was known besides that Mr. Sharpe had prepared under instructions, a statement that the full amount of $180,000 had been paid, and such statement was allowed by the government to be put on file at Fredericton without correction.
. That fully bears out what I stated. Now, in this report, we have the findings of a judicial tribunal composed of three men of the highest standing in their native province, men enjoying to the fullest extent the esteem and confidence of their fellow citizens, one of them a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court, eminent for his learning, integrity and absolute fairness, a tribunal constituted as a court by an Act of the legislature of New Brunswick, clothed with all the powers, privileges, dignity and solemnity of the superior courts of the land. Judgment having been given against the hon. Minister of Public Works, on all the foregoing indictments, serious imputations having thus been cast upon the business capacity and integrity of a minster of the Crown charged with the largest responsibilities, we are fully warranted in urging the government to take action thereon, to the end that the public interest may be safeguarded and the honour and standing of this House maintained. By this report and these findings the honour of this House is


Thomas Wilson Crothers: compromised As a member thereof I could not respect myself, if I had not the courage, in the face of this report, to do all in my power to remove the stigma it brings to this House and to the people of Canada. It must be the duty of parliament to purge itself from the unfortunate position in which it is placed by the continuance in the government of a minister of the Crown after such serious imputations have been cast upon him. Is there a member of this House willing that the indignity cast upon it by the findings of this court should continue without action or remedy? If such there be I venture to think he will not receive the approbation of the better thinking people of this country.
I have one other matter in this connection to present to the House. I have here the ' Hansard ' of the New Brunswick legislature for 1908.
I find that a certain return was brought down to the legislature of New Brunswick in answer to questions submitted to the government which show that while the Minister of Public Works was Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick from 1901 to 1907 both inclusive, he drew large sums of money from the public treasury that he was not entitled to draw.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement, a statement which is absolutely false. I never withdrew one cent from the public treasury of New Brunswick to which I was not entitled, never- one dollar, and therefore I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am simply stating what I find in the report.


William Pugsley: But my hon. friend cannot do that, it is not before the House. The hon. gentleman cannot make a false statement himself, and he cannot be permitted to read a false statement which Mr. Hazen or some one else may have made.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is customary by the usage of the House to accept the word of an hon. gentleman.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understood the hon. gentleman to be anxious that everything we had to say about him should be brought forward.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, one thing at a time. We are now dealing with this report of the Central Railway Commission.
I am prepared to deal with it at this time and upon any other appropriate occasion I am prepared to deal with any other charge or any other suggestion which may be made against me.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. gentleman has in all probability seen the motion which I propose to read at the close of my re-

marks and that motion sufficiently indicates this particular subject that I am about to deal with now.


William Pugsley: Withdraw.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He said he wanted a full investigation.


Mr.   SPEAKEB@: In the meantime, of course, if the word of an hon. member of this House is not accepted, I do not know what we will come to. It is customary to accept the statement of an hon. member.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Take it back.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I suppose, Mr. Speaker


William Pugsley: Withdraw.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Certainly I desire to obey the intimation by the Speaker-


Frederick William Borden: So far as this matter is concerned, the hon. gentleman, because he is founding upon his statement a motion, has a right to set forth the matters referred to in his motion. The motion, of which the Prime Minister has had a copy, refers to the authorized reports of the legislature of the province of New Brunswick for the year 1908 and the allegation is that these reports as well as the report of the Central Eailway Commission, contain serious matters affecting the public accounts and conduct of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). Under these circumstances to suggest that every statement with regard to the matter wiil be withdrawn upon the denial of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) would cut off any further discussion of the whole matter, therefore it is perfectly obvious that no such result can obtain under the rules of the House.


William Pugsley: If it were parliamentary, I would say that certainly there was an attempt made to deceive the House if it was intended to bring into this-
Some hon. MEMBEES'. Order.


William Pugsley: I say there would be an attempt made to deceive the House-
Some hon. MEMBEES. Order.


William Pugsley: What is the point of order.


George Eulas Foster: The point of order is this that my hon. friend has stated that an attempt has been made to deceive the House.


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: Yes he did. The hon. gentleman who has just made his speech (Mr. Crothers) has been the only speaker and has been the only person who .has made these statements. There could be only one
meaning to the minister's remark, namely that my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Crothers) attempted to deceive this House.


Mr. CALVEET.: No.
Mr. PUGSLEY What I was saying was that thdre would be an attempt to deceive this House if an effort were now made, by reason of the resolution, to mix up a matter which is entirely distinct from matters connected with the Central Eailway, a matter of which I certainly had no notice and which I did not dream for a single moment was intended to be discussed upon this motion. I ask my hon. friend whether, until this moment, any intimation has been given to the House that it was intended to discuss anything else except matters connected with the Central Eailway. Let us be fair and let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, if when we waived the rules to-day


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend need not proceed further, if he claims that this takes him by surprise.


William Pugsley: I never dreamt of such a thing.


Frederick William Borden: We will discuss it some other day, and we will not discuss it to-day; we will take some other opportunity.


William Pugsley: All right. We discussed it frequently before the people of New Brunswick and they have given their verdict.


Frederick William Borden: If we are not going to discuss it we had better stop the discussion now. I have just told the hon. gentleman that as he claims he _ is taken by surprise we will not discuss it, but if he desires to embark on a discussion, we will go on.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I quite concur in the suggestion of my honoured leader that we should not proceed with this portion of the indictment. As I said somq time ago, there is no desire to be unjust or unfair to the Minister of Public Works, and if he is taken by surprise by this matter being taken up to-day, there is no one on this side of the House who desires _ to_ press it. Every member in this House is interested in seeing to it that every other member gets absolute justice and absolute fair play. I shall endeavour to assist in securing for every member of this House, whether on this side or on the other side, absolute justice and absolute fair play, as I would desire to have myself.
As the position of the Hon. L. J. Tweedie, Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, differed materially from that of the hon. Minister of Public Works in the transactions referred to in the report re the Central Eailway, I have not introduced

his name in the motion I am about to read, convinced that he should be made the subject of a separate motion to be made later.
The motion, Mr. Speaker, which I propose to read is in these words:
That all the words after the word ' that' to the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor:
The unanimous findings, of the commission consisting of the Hon. Mr. Justice Landry and Messrs. F. MacDougall and A. I Teed, appointed by the government of the province of New Brunswick by order in council dated June 5, 1908, and the authorized reports of the proceedings of the legislature of the said province during the session of 1908 set forth Berious matters touching the public acts and conduct of the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, formerly a member of the government of the said province and now Minister of Public Works;
That persons occupying high offices of state as constitutional advisers of His Excellency ought to be free from just reproach and from reasonable suspicion in respect of their public character and reputation;
That to this end the said findings in so far as they impugn the public acts or conduct of the said Hon. William Pugsley deserve the serious consideration of this House and demand such action thereupon as may be necessary to enforce worthy and proper standards of public duty.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before you read the motion, may I suggest that, as there were some words in that resolution introduced for the purpose of bringing up the matter now abandoned, it be amended by omitting the words:
And the authorized reports of the proceedings of the legislature of the said province during the session of 1908.
Those words were introduced for the purpose of bringing up the matter which we have now, on the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, decided not to proceed with. Would the Prime Minister agree to that?


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman can take his own course.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not care to introduce the subject in the resolution if it is not to be discussed.
Mr. SPEAKER read the motion with these words omitted.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, while I am sorry that matters relating to what may be called the provincial sphere of politics, with which I was connected some years ago, should engage so much of the attention of this House to-day, yet, for myself, Sir, I am glad that the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has brought the matter before the House, because this report to which he has referred has been published broadcast in the newspapers, and the fact of his bringing the matter before parliament to-Mr. CROTHERS.
day gives me an opportunity of directing the attention of the House and of the country to it. I think, Sir, that, before I take my seat, I will be able to show that not only is this report one which ought not to be acted upon by men who desire to do justice, but that it is a report which, within the pages of the report itself, is discredited, shown to be of a partisan character and wholly unreliable. When I tell you, and when I tell this House that these commissi oneps, while attempting to give a statement of the interest that was expended by this company from the commencement of this transaction in 1901 down to the time when the commissioners, who had been appointed by the previous government went out of office, on the 31st March, 1908, only included two items of interest, one the interest upon the cost of the new line of railway during its construction and limited to the month of January, 1904, and another item beginning upon the 1st July, 1905, and closing upon the 31st March, 1908; when I tell you that these are the only two items of interest which they allow and which amount in themselves to, in the vicinity of, $5,000 more than the total interest which they allow; when I tell you that they leave out of this account every dollar of interest upon the total expenditure between the 1st day of January, 1904, and the 1st day of July, 1905, a period of eighteen months, and when I tell you further that they absolutely leave out of their calculation every dollar of interest upon the $180,000 which was paid for the Central Railway, upon the $77,000 of improvements which were made upon the Central Railway, upon the loss in operating, extending over a number of years, and upon other amounts, and that they have absolutely omitted these from the account and statement of interest which they give, I think you will be prepared to accept the statement which I shall make that this report is utterly unworthy of the consideration of any man who desires to see justice shown to a public man.
Without going further and dealing with other matters, let me prove this, because if I cannot prove this I have made a statement which ought to discredit me among the members of this House. Turn now, and let the hon. member for Elgin turn, if he wants to be fair


An hon. MEMBER.: He has gone out.


William Pugsley: I think he ought to remain here to hear the statement which I am to make, because I am satisfied that it will convince even him that this report, so far from having been prepared by an honest and non-partisan commission, so far from being a judicial report, has been prepared by a partisan counsel who has advised these commissioners in regard to it and who was instrumental in having it drawn up. My hon. friend has said that

upon this report and without considering whether it is true or false, without considering whether or not there is evidence to support it and to justify these commissioners in making it, I, as Minister of Public Works, ought to resign my __ seat. He quotes a statement of Mr. Fisher in the British parliament that when a charge was made against him he felt it his duty to resign. But in that.case Mr. Fisher said: I accept the judgment of the tribunal, in which I have confidence, and therefore I resign my seat. But, Sir, am I to accept the judgment of a partisan tribunal, a tribunal appointed not to inquire into the truth, but a tribunal appointed to find out something upon which a charge might be made against me in order that the wishes of those gentlemen who instituted these proceedings might be carried out, and whose typographical errors, as has been called to my attention, are already a joke throughout this country. I am prepared to take my position anywhere in this House or anywhere 'before the people of Canada and meet any charges which can be imade against me, and I do think, Sir, that it would have been the more constitutional course, the more dignified and the fairer course for the hon. member for Elgin, who reads this report and seeks to discredit me in the eyes of the people, to have read the evidence and to have seen if there was anything in the evidence which justifies the report. Then, if he had read the evidence the manly course for him, if he believed in the truth of these charges, would have been to have made boldly and openly a charge against me on the floor of this House. But, the hon. gentleman does not do that. He simply reads a report made in another place, made in reference to matters which in no way relate to this parliament or to Dominion affairs. In that report there is no charge made against my personal honour, there is no charge made that one dollhr of the moneys of this company ever came improperly into my hands. But the hon. gentleman, upon that report, taking up its various paragraphs charging neglect of my duty as Attorney General of the province, asks this parliament to take action and invites me to resign my seat. Well, Sir, while I am prepared to fight my enemies, and I have some, I am not prepared to lie down and let them crawl over me For twenty-four years I have fought them before the people of my native province, and whenever I have appealed to the people in my province I have not appealed in vain I said that these commissioners had absolutely omitted the interest upon this whole amount of indebtedness for a period of a year and a half. I stated also that they had omitted the interest upon all the amounts which were paid for the Central Railwav and the amounts which were disbursed for the improvement and operation of that railway, and I am going to prove it to you. At page 22 of the repott,
referring to the cost of the 15 mile section between Chipman and the coal fields of Minto and the branches to the various coal mines it says:
There is included in the above item of cost $316,626.33, the cost of the rolling stock $26,800, and we have included in the item ol interest in statement (c) the amount ol interest which he '(referring to Mr. Shannon, accountant of the Department of Railways) fixed at $28,231.63.
That is, Mr. Shannon fixed the interest at that amount. Then on page 23 it says:


Haughton Lennox: One moment, the hon. gentleman did not finish the sentence -and it is very important.


William Pugsley: The end of the sentence
-S:
both of which, Mr. Shannon omitted from his
statement of cost.
and it is not important at all.


Haughton Lennox: I think it is very important.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend says that because he does not know what bearing this has upon the discussion.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman will find I know a good deal about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: At page 23 the commissioners say:
and so far as the evidence shows they were paid they are included in statement (c). Mr. Pugsley also in his statement of cost adopts Mr. Shannon's statement of interest during construction, namely, $28,231.63.
That statement of interest was made by Mr. Shannon who was the accountant of the Department of Railways in connection with the contention which the railway company was making that the interest during construction of the new' line should be added to capital, should form a part of the cost of construction, and therefore should be considered by the Department of Railways upon the question of whether they should pay the increased subsidy or not. Now then, the commissioners say they adopt that statement of $28,234, as the interest upon the cost of construction of the new line and they say it for two reasons. They say that Mr. Sharpe the accountant who made the interest at $33,000 had made it too large, and they take Mr. Shannon's statement which would be to the time of the completion of the first of January, 1904. They adopt Mt. Shannon's interest for that
reason and they adopt it also


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the language of the report was that the hon. gentleman himself adopted it.


William Pugsley: Yes. Their other reason which I was about to state is that they say they adopted it because Mr. Pugsley him-

self adopted it at the time. When I adopted it was when I was urging the favourable consideration of the company's claim before the Department of Railways, putting forward that Mr. Shannon himself had found that the interest upon the cost of construction amounted to $28,234 and I urged that there was no other account to which it could be charged, that interest during construction should be properly added to the cost, and that therefore this should be taken into consideration by the Department of Railways. _ Now, we start there with the amount admitted by the commissioners and found by Mr. Shannon to be the interest upqn the cost of construction of the 15 mile section and branches to the 1st of January, 1904, when the road was substantially completed, or at all events I think the main line was entirely completed. Then if you turn to pages 79 and 80 of this report you will find they give a statement of the moneys received and the moneys paid out in connection -with the railway and branches since taken over by the province on the 1st of July, 1905. Let me read this again so that there may be no misunderstanding :
Moneys received and moneys paid nut in connection with the railway and branches since taken over by province, July 1, 1905.
Interest on loans and coupons, $68,770.65
Now, if you add together the $28,234 which they say was the interest upon the cost of construction of the new line to the month of January, 1904, and the $68,770 which they say was expended in interest subsequent to the 1st of July, 1905, and you get nearly $97,000 of interest, and yet, Sir, upon page 76 of this report these commissioners in arriving at this shortage put in the total amount of interest over the whole period and upon all the expenditures of the company at $92,000, being $5,000 less than the two items alone of interest to which I have called your attention. Is that another typograohical error?
Then, if you turn back a little bit farther in the report you will find that in giving a statement with regard to some moneys which were due to the Peoples' Bank at Fredericton alone, you will find that they show there that up to the 1st of January there was a note due to the Peoples' Bank of New Brunswick amounting to $169,314.94, and that interest charges to October 14, 1905, brought the total up to $176,611.53, or interest of about $7,000 which was paid to the Peoples' Bank of New Brunswick subsequent to the 1st of January, 1904, and with the exception of the interest between the 1st of July and October they have left that out of the account altogether as well. And as I have said, there is the total interest upon the cost of the new line, $316,000. which they find to be correct, upon the $180,000 expended for the purchase Mr. PUGSLEY.
of the Central Railway, upon the improvements of $77,000 which were placed upon the Central Railway according to the report of these commissioners, and they leave all of the interest upon that large amount out for a period of 18 months during a portion of which period as the commissioners themselves say the company was paying interest at a rate of from 6j per cent to 7 per cent. And in addition to that they leave out, prior to the 1st of January, 1904, all the interest upon the cost of the Central Railway and upon the improvements which were made to the Central.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall show a little later that in the desire of these commissioners to submit a report upon which some action might be taken adverse to myself, they either wittingly or unwittingly omitted to include interest which I venture to say would amount to somewhere in the vicinity of $60,000. And I would invite my hon. friend the member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) to explain how it is that he can justify the report of the commissioners who, in an attempt to arrive at the expenditure on this road utterly and absolutely ignore the interest extending over these lengthy periods and upon these large amounts of money, which would necessarily come to a very large sum?
Now, Sir, there is no excuse for these commissioners. They were not bound to take Mr. Shannon's statement of the interest on the cost of construction of the new line down to January 1, 1904, they were not bound to take my statement either, because under the authority which -the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crothers) has read the statute clothed them with power to summon before them every person who they thought might give evidence which would be of importance to the commission. They were empowered to bring any acounts before them and they could have subpoenaed the managers of the various banks. They were notified that the loans for this company had been negotiated at the Peoples' Bank of New Brunswick, at the Bank of Montreal, Fredericton, through Mr. G. W. Allen, the secretary of the company, at the Bank of British North America in Fredericton, through Mr. Allen, the secretary of the company; that an account had at my request been opened for the company with the Bank of New Brunswick in the city of St. John, and they had before them also the fact that loans were negotiated with the Canada Permanent Mortgage Company and that there were loans also from the Bank of Nova Scotia in St. John. They had before them the names of all these banks and of the loan company from whom the company had received loans from time to time. As every hon. member in this House knows, when a note is taken to a bank for discount the proceeds of the note

less the discount are paid to the credit of the person or company that obtains the discount. And in every case the accounts of these banks would show what was the discount taken off these notes from time to time and paid by the company. Therefore, these commissioners had it in their power to obtain from the managers and accountants of these various banks the interest which was paid by this company during that long period of seven years, extending from 1901 to 1908. But, Sir, 1 am told by my hon. friend who represents the county of Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell), and who was present at this investigation as council, that, so far as the evidence showed, never once did they inquire of those institutions what was the interest paid by the company from time to time during this long period of years; and from the beginning to the end they never hinted that they wanted any information from the company with regard to the interest, and they left me, and I presume my hon. friend to assume that they would, before they came to the close of their investigation, have an accountant go through the books of the banks, ascertain what the interest was, and make a correct statement with regard to it; because, without a correct statement with regard to the interest, 1 ask what is the value of this report? In making the statement that there is a great deficiency between the receipts and the expenditures, they simply convey false information to the people of this country. Surely, Sir, it was the very least of the duties which they owed to the public and to those whose reputation was 'to a certain extent involved in the investigation, to make an inquiry into the interest, instead of simply adding those two sums together, one on a certain portion of the cost down to January, 1904, and the other on the cost down from the 1st of July, 1905, lumping tho_se two together, and arbitrarily throwing off $5,000 and fixing that as being approximately the interest which the company paid during that long period of years.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I understand that the hon. gentleman had counsel there. If he had, why did not his counsel produce this evidence which he is bemoaning the loss of?


William Pugsley: I have already stated why. The commissioners subpoenaed the banks with the accounts. They had brought to the city of St. John, some two or three weeks before the general election, an accountant for the purpose of going into these matters, and we had a right to assume that they would endeavour to give an accurate account, and would not arbitrarily fix the interest at some $60,000 less than the interest amounted to.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But when the evidence was not given


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will ask the hon. gentleman's permission to ask him a question. I do not think the other hon. gentlemen opposite are acting very properly. If the Minister of Public Works does not want me to ask the question, I will not do so.


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to have the hon. gentleman ask it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then I ask that hon. gentlemen do not interrupt in that very rude way. I wish to ask: Was there not a time in the investigation when the loss of this evidence was noticed? If so, why was not the evidence produced by the counsel appearing for the hon. gentleman?


William Pugsley: It was never intimated that there was any loss ot this evidence. The commissioners never intimated to my hon. friend from Carleton or to me, but that they were having the interest accurately made up, and it came to me as a shocking surprise when I read this report and found that they had simply taken the interest during the cost of construction of the new line to January, 1904, and the interest for the last 18 months or so and added those together, ignoring some $50,000 or $60,000 of interest, the particulars of which we had a right to suppose they were obtaining from the banks. When I tell this House that there would be interest on the cost of the Central Railway amounting to $180,000, interest on the improvements amounting to $77,000 and upwards, interest on loss of operation amounting to some $19,000, interest on the cost of some of the rolling stock, which was not added to the cost of construction, and interest on other expenditures in connection with the preliminary work which the company did with a view to carrying on mining operations, and when, as the commissioners themselves say, in many cases interest at the rate of 6i or 7 per cent was necessarily paid to the banks, they will see to what a large amount the interest would necessarily run up, and how necessary it was for these commissioners, if they wanted to give an accurate statement of the receipts and disbursements, to have a proper interest account made up. That they did not is itself evidence of the grossest possible _ carelessness on the part of these commissioners. It is more than that: It is evidence of a reckless desire to injure me and other members of the government in which I occupied the position of Attorney General. It is evidence that they thought that if they could get launched a report sufficiently strong, they might accomplish the

mission for which they were appointed- bring about my resignation, and leave me afterwards to vindicate' myself as best I could before the people of this country. It is evidence that these. commissioners did not care whether they did justice or a gross injustice, because in order to do justice it was absolutely essential that the report should be accurate, and should show with as much certainty as possible what were the receipts, and expenditures of this company.
That these commissioners and those advising them were actuated by partisan motives, I will show by another fact. It is this, that the public reports of the province of New Brunswick, the report of the Auditor General for the year 1908, show that in the month of October last, just before the general election, these commissioners employed Mr. Dunlop, a chartered accountant of, as I understand, the city of Montreal, and brought him down to St. John for the purpose of going into these accounts, and he made up a statement for them. That statement was published by Mr. H. A. Powell, the solicitor and counsel for these commissioners, and for the government of New Brunswick, and it appeared in the 'Daily Standard,' the Conservative organ of the city of St. John, in its issue of the 14th of October, 1908. What do you think, Sir, of commissioners who were engaged, as the hon. member for West Elgin says, upon a judicial inquiry, and who had not yet terminated their inquiry, upon the eve of an election in which I was a candidate, sending to the city of Montreal for an accountant and bringing him down to the city of St. John at the expense of the provincial government to have him investigate these accounts, and having published through Mr. Powell, the counsel for these commissioners, a statement of the professed receipts and disbursements doing that, as I say, before the commissioners had ended their labours and made their report, and doing it for no other purpose than to influence the people of New Brunswick against me? That statement, Sir, is worse than the statement which these commissioners have presented because it showed a deficiency of $117,000, and in addition Mr. Powell was reported in the newspaper as saying that Mr. Evans stated that there was a shortage in his payment of $47,000 ; and they put it before the people of St. John and the people of New Brunswick that there was a deficiency of $164,000 in connection with the Central Railway and the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, and because of this alleged deficiency they asked the people of New Brunswick to condemn me and my colleagues. I say that this is evidence of partisanship of the grossest character. I want to know what Mr. PUGSLEY.
the commissioners had to do with the general elections of the 26th of October, and what business it was of theirs to employ an accountant for the purpose of spreading that statement broadcast before the people of New Brunswick pending the completion of their report. But they had that prepared and published on the 14th of October, some 12 days before the general election. Fortunately I was able to show, by facts of the most convincing character, that the statement published in the 'Daily Standard ' alleged to have been made by Mr. Dunlop, was absolutely erroneous. I showed that certain facts and information must have been withheld from him which, if they had been furnished, would have compelled him to present a different report; and after I had made my statement and the errors in his report were shown, we heard little or nothing more of that report during the last few days preceding the general election.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was that statement made before the minister was examined as a witness in that inquiry?


William Pugsley: Yes, it was made on the 14th of October, 1908, and the general elections took place on the 26th of October. It was made with a view of influencing the general elections in 1908.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the date of the hon. gentleman's examination?


William Pugsley: Between Christmas and New Years.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement was some two months in advance of the hon. gentleman's evidence.


William Pugsley: Quite so, but just twelve days in advance of the general elections; and it would not have done for these non-partisan commissioners to have kept that back until after the elections. That would not have suited one of the purposes they had in view and which they signally failed to accomplish.


Robert Laird Borden: Having had this notice on the 14th of October, and not being examined before the end of December, why did the hon. gentleman not produce all this evidence which he said was available?


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend why. This evidence was all available for the commissioners if they had chosen to ask for it; but from what I saw from the course of events in the newspapers-and my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) will corroborate what I say-these commissioners, perhaps because they were guided by their counsel, did not act as if they wanted it. They did not go along in a connected way to get the receipts and disbursements, but they got a little evidence

here and a little there, they called first one man and then another, and presented the evidence in a disconnected way, so that no one could follow it or suspect what these commissioners were going to do when they finally decided to make up their report. They did not do what they ought to have done, if they expected to treat this company as trustees and were going to have a report or an accounting from them. If they had wanted to do that, what was the proper course open to them? Their proper course was to notify the president of the company that they were commissioners appointed by the provincial legislature to inquire into this matter, and ask this company to file an account from beginning to end, showing its receipts and disbursements. That is what is done every day in a court of equity.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: When a trustee is called on to file an account, what does he first do? He prepares his account and files it with the referee and notice is then given the parties interested that evidence will be taken on a certain day.


Robert Laird Borden: Does he not file vouchers with it?


William Pugsley: when, the company took over the work from the hands of the contractors, that note is charged by the railway company t-o the construction company, and in the accounts of the construction company produced before Mr. Shannon that note is credited to the railway company by the construction company. And yet, Sir, there appears upon this report the damning insinuation that Hon. F. P. Thompson had received as graft the proceeds of this note of $10,000. Now, does not this impress this House, and even gentlemen upon the other side, particularly the legal members, that if these commissioners and their counsel had been actuated by any sense of fair play, when they came across the entry of this note in the bank marked with the initials ' F.P.T.' they would have sent for Mr. Thompson and asked an explanation? It would have been a simple thing to say:	We
find your initials on this note, we cannot trace the proceeds, and would like you to give us information concerning it. Would not that have been the fair, the honest, the decent thing to do?-to say nothing more. Now, I will give you another evidence of the unfairness of these commissioners. By the statement which the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has read, and by the order in council appointing these commissioners, they were limited in their duties to an examination into the expenditures which were made subsequent to January 1, 1901, in connection with this railway. Let me read it. You will find it at page 8 of the report:
By the terms of the statute authorizing the investigation, we were authorized and directed to inquire into and report upon the following matters:	,
1.	The expenditures of all provincial moneys from the 1st of January, 1901, in connection "dth the road from Norton to Gibson and all branches.
Well, Sir, when these commissioners went through matters-as I suppose-as they came to their notice, apparently they were not able to find that there had been any money that had come improperly into my hands or into the hands of the other directors of the company, because the evidence shows that the proceeds of any notes with the discounting of which I had nothing to do were handed over to the contractors and the secretary of the company whose duty it was to keep the accounts. Not finding anything to impeach my honour, or to show that I have received any part of this money, they thought that they would extend their duties a little further. Though the Act limited them to 1901, they thought they would go back. They thought they might find something against the government in 1890, when Mr. Blair was leader of the government, and. in order to gratify their hatred of an Mr. PUGSLEY.
old political opponent, they went back- how far do you think, Mr. Speaker? They went back to 1887, fourteen years before the time named in the statute and in the order in council appointing them. And they say that, in connection with certain matters regarding the subsidies, he was generously paid but the amount of which they had been unable to determine. And again they make a statement with regard to Mr. Blair in which they charge that there was a holdup or graft of which Mr. Blair, as leader of the government, was guilty, a statement which, I am informed by those who were interested in the company at that time, is absolutely untrue, a statement for which there is not a shadow of foundation. And yet these commissioners, in order to attack the memory of a man who never was afraid to stand up before them when he was living, and who has now passed over to the majority, go out of their way to make these charges of what took place fourteen years before the time concerning which their investigation was supposed to be held. They are not content to go back and attack the character of Mr. Blair, but they think they will get something against me by stating, as they do on page 4:
On October 4, 1895, a contract was entered mto by the New Brunswick government with the Central Railway Company for the construction of the fifteen mile section and the granting of the subsidy of $3,000 per mile. The following day $7,000 of this subsidy was assigned by Dr. de Bertram to the Hon William Pugsley and Mr. Skinner.
They say afterwards that upon that order $2,200 was paid. Well, Sir, I would ask any hon. member of this House if the commissioners might not reasonably expect that the inference to be drawn from that statement would be that this order in council, this order upon the subsidy, had been assigned to me while I was a member of the government, and that I received this $2,200 while I was a member of the government? They speak of me as the Honourable William Pugsley and say that it was to me that order was given, that it was to me it was paid jointly with Mr. Skinner. I-t may be said: 'They do not say that you were a member of the government at the time.' But they do not take any pains to inform the country that I was not a member of the government at the time. It happened that I had been a member of the government between 1890 and 1892, but in the latter year I went out of politics and remained out of politics for seven years; and, at the time when this transaction took place, I was not a member of the government nor even a member of the legislature, but I was solicitor for one of the parties interested in that contract and in the undertaking and had something to do with the transactions between Dr. de Bertram and the

James Barnes Company, -but my relations with them were wholly those of solicitor and client. Yet, notwithstanding that, the impression is sought to be created by this report that I was at that time a member of this government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the Minister (Mr. Pugsley) state that this also was for professional fees?


William Pugsley: I am not stating what it was for. I think that what I have stated is enough for this House, though it may not
be for those who would make insinuations or imputations against me. I know there are a great many small men in the province of New Brunswick, narrow-minded men who, though having no evidence or facts to go upon, are always willing to make insinuations against their neighbours, and particularly against those who have been a little more successful in life than they themselves have been. It is enough for me to say that I was in some way, I do not remember, just how, for it was a long time, 14 years ago, acting in that case, either for Dr. de Bertram or James Barnes, the contractor, but I was not in politics, I was not a member of the government and not even a member of the legislature, and yet these commissioners went back in this case six years before the time which was named by the commission in order to throw out something as against myself which might be taken hold of by people who were not thoroughly informed with regard to the facts.
The commissioners go on to say also that there was something wrong with regard to a payment of $5,000 made to Dr. de Bertram when Mr. Blair was leader of the government. What that has to do with the matter I am unable to say, but since they mention it I will say that I made inquiry with regard to that and the circumstances were these:	The provincial government, away back in 1889 or 1890, at a time when Mr. Blair was the leader, had entered into a contract with the Central Railway Company of which Dr. de Bertram was .the assignee and contractor, for the construction of the line between Chip-man and Fredericton. Shortly after he had commenced work, this House, at the instance of the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, passed an Act for the construction of a railway between Harvey and Salisbury, what is known as the Harvey-Salisbury line, and that railway, for a considerable part of its course, would traverse the same route as was provided for in the contract between the government of New Brunswick and the Central Railway Company. Mr. Blair was of the opinion that if the Dominion government was going to subsidize the line it should not be built at the expense of the provincial government
and that no subsidy should be given by the New Brunswick legislature. He introduced an act in the legislature or had an order in council passed, authorizing him to stop the Work which Dr. de Bertram was doing and had a right to do under the terms of his contract. Although Dr. de Bertram had done work to the extent of some $13,000, if I remember the figures correctly, or perhaps a little less, he was stopped and the work was not proceeded with for the reason I have mentioned. The government of New Brunswick then led by Mr. Blair, paid to Dr. de Bertram as compensation for this work, which amounted to some $9,000 or $10,000, or $13,000, the sum of $5,000, and that was all that Dr. de Bertram got out of the transaction at the time, even although he had a perfect right to go on with his contract, -and although it seemed to me that the provincial government might well have paid him a larger sum under the circumstances in view of their having prevented him from having completed the work for which the government had agreed to pay him a subsidy. The commissioners speak further with reference to that and say there was some $8,000 which was paid illegally by the old government. As they have referred to it of course it is my duty to speak of it, because I notice that the commissioners say, and this was dwelt upon by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Croth-ers), that the $25,000 of subsidy which was paid under the old agreement and upon the work between Minto and Fredericton, or if you like between Chipman and Fredericton, it makes but little difference which so far as the argument is concerned, was illegally paid. The ground on which they based that assertion is that the subsidy was not to be paid except as each ten miles was completed. These commissioners do not deny that the work was done, they admit that Dr. de Bertram did between $33,000 and $36,000 worth of work, but they say that he had not finished up his ten mile section and that therefore the government of Mr. Blair acted illegally in making a payment of subsidy to him. These commissioners have forgotten that although under the terms of the contract the government was not bound to pay until and unless each section of ten miles was completed, yet, under the terms of the statute by virtue of which the subsidy was payable, the government was authorized to make a payment of 40 per cent as $20,000 worth of work was done from time to time. In other words they could pay on progress estimates 40 per cent of the work actually done and if this work wa3 done to the extent of $33,000 or $36,000, 40 per cent of that would amount to some $13,000, which would quite justify the government of Mr. Blair in paying the total

amount of subsidy to Dr. de Bertram as they did. Yet it is strongly put forward in this report that the whole issue was illegal and therefore I suppose that is part of the indictment which my hon. friend says he has presented against me because I was at one time a member of the government of Mr. Blair. Now we will see if we cannot find a fourth misstatement in the report.


Mr.   POSTER@: On what page does my hon. friend find that statement of the commission with reference to the illegality and wrong of paying that $13,000?


William Pugsley: Page 17.
We find the whole of this $25,000 of subsidy bonds were illegally issued.
They go out of their way, as I have said, to show illegal conduct on the part of Mr. Blair away back many years before the time which was fixed by the statute and the order in council for their work, and show that money was wrongly paid by Mr. Blair and one of the grounds on which they put it is that the subsidies were not payable except on the completion of each ten-mile section.


George Eulas Foster: Was it Mr. Blair who issued the subsidy bonds?


William Pugsley: It was Mr. Blair who issued the $13,000.


George Eulas Foster: Was it he who issued the $25,000?


William Pugsley: He issued $13,000 of the $25,000. These commissioners mix all in together. Now there was a further amount. I am going on to show the misstatements of the commissioners, and how partisan and how reckless they were with regard to the facts of the case.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to contend that these commissioners were restricted in their investigations to 1901 and subsequent years?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Then how does the hon. gentleman explain the second clause of the matter referred to them?
The issue and sale and pledging of all bonds guaranteed by the government and the expenditure of money realized out of same.


William Pugsley: For the reason that no bonds were guaranteed by the province until after 1901.


Arthur Meighen: Were not the $25,000?


William Pugsley: The $25,000 were not guaranteed bonds, they were bonds issued for cash subsidy, simply cash subsidy.


Arthur Meighen: They were bonds?


Mr PUGSLEY.: 


William Pugsley: They were not guaranteed bonds, they were not what is referred to by the reference at all. The reference was distinctly confined to the year 1901, by the statute.
I wish to invite attention to another statement which I think is of great importance, and which no member of this House should have been prepared to practically support by bringing this matter before the House unless he had made some inquiry and satisfied himself of its truthfulness. I find, on pages 18 and 19 of the report of the commissioners, a very important statement, and I am going to press this with a great deal of force, if I can press any point with force. I am going to urge upon the consideration of this House, the fact that not only is the statement to which I am about to allude false, but that it is, I am obliged to say, either knowingly or recklessly false. It has been made either knowing that it was false or with an utter disregard of the facts of the case. On page 18 they say:
Notwithstanding this fact, it appears conclusively from the evidence that the whole $250,000 par value of these 3 per cent bonds had been guaranteed and delivered to the company up to the 6th day of August, 1903.
That is a charge of the most serious character to make against the provincial government. That is a charge that we, in violation of the statute, in violation of our duty, when we had no legislative authority to do it, prior to the passing of the Act of 1904, which extended the powers as far as the guaranteeing of bonds was concerned, prior to the 6th of August, 1903, guaranteed the whole of this issue of $250,000 of three per cent bonds and that they were delivered to the company. They say that that appears conclusively from the evidence. I say it does not appear, not merely conclusively from the evidence, but that it does not appear at all from the evidence and that the evidence is entirely contrary to that, statement. So far from the whole $250,000 having been guaranteed prior to the 6th of August, 1903, the total amount which was guaranteed was $138,500, a difference of $111,500, between what was actually guaranteed and the statement which these commissioners make as the amount having been guaranteed. There is no excuse for that and it cannot be a typographical error either.


Frederick William Borden: It is a typical error.


William Pugsley: Yes, it is a typical error though not a typographical one. On the 6th August, when the completion of the purchase of this Central Railway was about being effected and in respect to the Central Railway, the government was, by an Act of the legislature, authorized to guarantee bonds to the extent of $200,000.


George Eulas Foster: $180,000 for the purchase?


William Pugsley: Yes, but $200,000 altogether. There was a sum of $20,000 for improvements already made on the Central Railway by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. The legislature authorized the guaranteeing of $200,000 of bonds upon the title being completed and delivered to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, a mortgage being executed on the whole system of 60 miles of railway to secure the new issue. I have in my possession a copy of the order that I, as attorney general of the province, gave to Mr. E. M. Shadbolt, the manager in St. John of the Royal Trust Company, which was the trustee for the bondholders of this mortgage, and which is as follows :


Chief Justice Sir M.   M.@: Shadbolt, Agent Royal Trust Company at St. John.
,You will please deliver the bonds of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company guaranteed by the province, as follows:
To the Bank of Montreal, 140 bonds,
141-280	$ 70,000
To the Bank of British North America
40 bonds, 281-320	  20,000
To the Bank of New Brunswick, 54
bonds, 321-374	 27,000
To the Bank of New Brunswick, for People's Bank of New Brunswick,
140 bonds, 1-140	 70,000


To Arthur I.: Trueman, 171 bonds, 507677	 85,500
To Bank of New Brunswick, in addition to above, 132 bonds, 375-506 ..	66,000

(Sgd.) WM. PUGSLEY,
Attorney General.
August 6, 1903.
If you deduct the $200,000 which was authorized by the legislature to be guaranteed on the title to the Central Railway Company being acquired, there is a balance of $138,500 out of the bond issue of $250,000 which was previously guaranteed, leaving $111,500 still unguaranteed. Therefore, I cite that charge, that statement, as being false. Mr. E. M. Shadbolt, the manager of the Bank of Montreal and of the Royal Trust Company at St. John, in his evidence, produced a copy of this order before the commissioners, and it appears in the evidence upon which they ought to have made their report. If they had based their report upon the evidence, they would have known, they must have known that the total issue at that date included the $200,000 authorized to be guaranteed for the purchase of and improvements upon the Central Railway making a total of $338,500 or $111,500 more than these commissioners state had been issued.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister state that the whole of the $200,000 that was authorized to be issued on account of the purchase of the Central Railway was a new issue?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And that the conveyance was not made until the date that the minister has referred to?


William Pugsley: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. The conveyance was made at that time simultaneously with it, and I may say to my hon. friend that as a portion of the conveyance and showing the care which I, as attorney general, exercised in connection with it, I insisted that some $66,000 of the bonds should be used in the Bank of New Brunswick and that all the outstanding mortgage bonds upon the road, amounting to $540,000, should be transferred to the vaults of the Bank of New Brunswick and kept there for the protection of the government and of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company until we had the whole title completed and everything carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act of the legislature. The provisions of the statute were carried out to the letter and the complete title was vested in the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. Under these circumstances, when the hon. member for Elgin talks, and when these commissioners talk about our having deceived the legislature, if they will look at the synoptic report of the proceedings of the legislature for the year 1904 they will find a full, a complete and a true statement in regard to the issue of the bonds. I have here a copy of the synoptic reports from the year 1901 to the year 1907 which I will be glad to submit to any hon. member of this House. They contain a statement of the total cost of the Tailway, of which I am going to speak in a little while, and of the issue of bonds, and so far as the cost of the construction of this railway is concerned, so far as the receipts and disbursements are concerned, so far as the issue of bonds which were made from time to time are concerned, so far as the various orders in council which were passed from time to time are concerned, I challenge any hon. member to take these reports from 1901 to 1907, during the time when these matters were being discussed, and point out where a single erroneous statement in regard to the cost or the issue of bonds was made to the legislature or that we in any way deceived them. It is all very well for these commissioners to say, as they do say, in a part of their report, that the fact of our being ex-officio members of this company gave us the opportunity to present such statements as were necessary to allay the suspicion of the legislature and to conceal from the country the true state of affairs. Surely it was the duty of these commissioners, before making a charge of such a serious character against public men, and before send-

ing that report broadcast throughout the country without the evidence, because the evidence has not been printed to this day, the provincial government, when requested to do so by the opposition in the New Brunswick legislature having refused to print it, to have shown, that we had presented false statements to the legislature, that we had concealed from the legislature the number and amount of the bonds which we had guaranteed from time to time and that we had made false statements as to the cost of the construction of this line, seeing that they were a judicial, and an impartial body prepared to do justice. Do you not think that the hon. member for Elgin, in carrying out the strong desire which he expressed to do justice even to the Minister of Public Works, notwithstanding his recent visit to St. John and consultation with those who were seeking to post him in regard to this inquiry, and before he would have placed upon the records of this House the statement that the attorney general and provincial secretary, by reason of their being ex-officio members of this company, were able, from their knowledge and control of the company's affairs to present such statements as were necessary to allay the suspicions of the legislature and conceal from the country the true state of affairs, would have felt it to be his duty to have shown that we had concealed from the legislature the number and amount of bonds which had been guaranteed from time to time and that we had concealed the amount which this road was costing.
Why, Sir, if you will turn to the debates of the legislature you will find that this matter came up for discussion session after session for a number of years and that every information was given in relation to it. It was a fruitful theme for discussion, the people were interested; the road was costing more than we had anticipated, the Central Railway upon which considerable improvements had been made and which was the key of the situation as connecting the Intercolonial with these large, valuable coal fields, had been unfortunate because of an accident that happened to one of the bridges; large expenses had to be incurred and there was a great deal of disappointment. The people were taking a great interest in the matter and it was discussed from time to time in the legislature, and we were asked from session to session: What is the amount of bonds that have been issued, what is the cost of the road, to what different people is the company indebted, what is the output of the mines, what is, the traffic upon the road, what are the receipts and the operating expenses? And, session after session in the minutest detail all that information was given to the House and to the people. I defy any hon. gentle-Mr. PUGSLEY.
man in this House to take the synoptic report of the debates of the legislature and show that there was any mis-statement in regard to all this or any concealment in the statements presented to the legislature. I wish to point out another fact which will show the unfairness of these commissioners and the absence of a desire on their part to do justice. These commissioners say that the legislation was altered from time to time and that we were given power to issue bonds to a greater extent than the legislature gave us in the first instance. That is true. But is that the business of these commissioners to inquire into? Have they the right to set themselves up against and above the legislature of New Brunswick and to say that the legislature had no right to pass statutes modifying the original legislation? I never before heard that commissioners had the right to do that. I never heard that these commissioners were appointed for the purpose of questioning the policy of the legislature. I never understood that and I do not think anybody else ever did. But what these commissioners say is: It is true that by statute the legislature in 1904 made a change in the original legislation and authorized the granting of the whole issue of bonds upon and in respect of the new line and its branches without making a provision for a coal plant and without making certain provision for the building of the line through to Gibson. And then, at page 19 of the report the commissioners say:
After this the Act of 1904 was passed and an obscure section introduced which allowed the government to guarantee bonds for any section of the road to a greater proportion, and so on.
Well, Mr. Powell says this obscure section

1 beg pardon Judge Landry says:
This obscure section was put in the Act of 1904, which allowed us to do just what we did do, but these commissioners say that the members of the legislature who consented to it could hardly have understood that they were giving authority to the government to guarantee the whole issue of $450,000 of bonds. And this is one of the grounds of attack which they made on us: That we guaranteed the whole $450,000 of bonds without having a mining plant and without having the road built to Fredericton. In another part of the report they condemn us most strongly for that and they say we were guilty of a great breach of our obligations to the public, and yet on page 19 they say we were fully and completely authorized by the legislature to do exactly what we did, but that the members of the legislature could not have understood what was the effect of the statute. They speak of it as an obscure section. Well, Mr. Speaker, in 1904, when his Bill was introduced, we fully explained to the legis-

lature the situation of affairs. We explained to them the fact that whereas in the first instance we had entered into a contract which we supposed would have enabled the road to have been completed right through from Chipman to Fredericton or to Gibson, that owing to the difficulties of construction being greater than anticipated, owing to it becoming necessary to take the work off the hands of the contractor, that the company would not be able to establish a mining plant and that these bonds might all have to be used in connection with the 15 mile section and the branches and the repairs and improvements which were being made to the Central. We stated that fully to the House and if hon. gentlemen will look through the discussions which took place in 1904 they will find that one of the points which were made against us by Mr. Hazen, then the leader of the opposition, was that we were providing by this Bill so that the whole issue of bonds might be used and so that there would not be sufficient bonds left for the purpose of carrying the road right through to Fredericton. And yet these commissioners say that was an obscure section which the members of the legislature could not have understood. As against that statement I present the fact, which any hon. gentleman can see for himself, that in the discussions in 1904 in the legislature this very point was raised by the leader of the opposition, and that the premier of the province at the time explained what was the effect and the intention of the Act. And the legislature in full knowledge of what these provisions of the Act were, passed the Bill authorizing the government to do exactly what was done.


George Eulas Foster: Was the minister going to read a statement of Mr. Hazen?


William Pugsley: I had intended to but I could not find it at the moment. I have it now. At page 169 this discussion is reported :
Hon Mr. Tweedie,-When this company-started it was intended that they should establish a mining plant and they made every afford to obtain one. Their attention was directed to the Bntler elevator, which operated on what was termed the land dredging system. Mr. Butler visited the mines, but they were unable to come to terms with him. Mr. Butler would not sell his machine, which was valued at $150,000, but demanded a dollar and ten cents for every ton of coal mined. He also wanted a straight run of half a mile or a mile for the machine to operate in. It was discovered that the seams did not run so as to admit of this. It was then thought best to build branch lines to the mines that were already in operation. A line five miles in length was built to the Gibbon mine and it also served several other mines. A shorter line was built to Senator King s mine. There was no doubt as to the success of the mining operations in Queens county,
but the road had only been opened a short time and its possibilities had not been developed.
Mr. Hazen stated that the section with regard to the provincial secretary being allowed to guarantee bonds, although the amount of guarantee might be greater than the mileage completed justified, was the most objectionable in the Bill. It appeared that although only 15 miles of the road had been built most of the bonds had been issued so that there would be no funds with which to build the road from Newcastle to Fredericton.
There you have the statement made by the government that the idea of building the mining plant had been abandoned, that it had been thought better to build branch lines into the various operating mines and to encourage the existing mine owners and and you find the statement made by Mr. Hazen, the leader of the opposition, in criticism of this 'obscure' section, that it did just what we told the legislature it would do and what the commissioners admit in their report it authorized us to do. And you find also that not only Mr. Hazen but all the members of the legislature were fully informed of the necessity which had arisen to make the guarantee of bonds which had been made, and also of the desirability of abandoning the policy of establishing a mining plant and building branch lines to the various mines in order to encourage the exsting mine owners and in order to induce the development of other mines. Then I am going to cite another statement to show the reckless character of the report of these commissioners. This will be number six or numbeT seven ; I have about fourteen more before I get through. On page 71, referring to this Act of 1904, they say :
Before this provision was enacted, perhaps in anticipation of it, the whole issue of $450,000 bonds was out and had been nearly all, if not absolutely all, guaranteed and used.
And yet. in another part of the report they state that in June 1904, months after this statute had been passed which authorized the additional guarantee, this company had put into the Bank of New Brunswick $52,500 bonds, and received on these bonds an absolutely new loan, and those bonds were not guaranteed until after the statute of 1904 had been passed which fully authorized the guarantee to be made. There you find two utterly different statements on different pages of this report, showing either that the report was drawn by two different people and that the different parts of it had not been compared, or the utter recklessness of the statements which these commissioners made.
Let me speak of another matter to show the great length to which these commissioners have gone in their desire to make an attack upon the members of the late



government. At page 29 they say with regard to Lieut.-Gov. Tweedie:
It will be noted that Hon. Mr. Tweedie retained one per cent commission, $500 on the sale of $50,000 bonds made by him in Chatham.
Let me explain the circumstances of that. Mr. Tweedie was Provincial Secretary, but he was doing what the members of the government of New Brunswick did then, did before his time, and do to-day-he was practicing his profession. The Hon. Mr. Blair continued the practice of his profession while he was in the government, Mr. Tweedie continued his, I continued mine, Mr. Hazen continued his, and until the province pays larger salaries-I believe our successors have made a move in that direction, although they have not been very long in office-the members of the government will continue to practise their professions. Mr. Tweedie was at that time practising law in the town of Chatham in the county of Northumberland. This company had issued those bonds some months before the transactions which these commissioners refer to took place. They had got a loan from the Bank of New Brunswick on which they were paying 6i or 7 per cent interest, as these commissioners state. The company were desirous, if possible, of getting a loan on the bonds at a lower rate of interest, so as to save all the interest possible; but they did not want to sell the bonds, because at that time it was expected that the Grand Trunk Pacific would come through the town of Chipman, and that this road would form a junction with the Transcontinental at Chipman, as has actually taken place since, and they wanted to keep control of the bonds, so that in the future, if it was thought better, this railway might amalgamate with or be absorbed by or be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the bond issue might be cancelled and the liability of the government wiped out, and in that way the province be freed from this guarantee. Mr. Tweedie had a client, Mr. Hickson, living at Miramichi; my hon. friend from Northumberland probably knows him very well. Mr. Tweedie learned that he was anxious to make an investment in good securities, and he saw him and made an arrangement with him under which he took $50,000 of those bonds which were then held by the Bank of New Brunswick as collateral for a discount. Mr. Hickson took the bonds at par, they bearing interest at 4 per cent, and gave to the company an agreement that if at any time within five years they wished to redeem the bonds, they could do so on paying par and 5 per cent premium. This was an exceedingly good arrangement for the company. It at once saved them the heavy interest by from 2 to 2i per cent, and was to Mr. PUGSLEY.
all intents and purposes a loan, because of the right the company had to redeem the bonds at any time within five years by paying 5 per cent premium. And what do you think is the crime with which Mr. Tweedie is charged and which these commissioners cannot condone? That in making that sale of bonds he charged a commission of 1 per cent, amounting to $500, and did it with the approval of the executive committee of the company. It was done openly and aboveboard. If it had been done by brokers, the company would probably have had to pay a commission of 2 or 2i per cent, He made an excellent arrangement for the company, and the company gladly allowed him that commission on the sale, which was executed at his law office in Chatham. This is what the commissioners say:
This much must be fairly said of this transaction, namely, that Mr. Tweedie sold $50,000 bonds in October, 1903, at par, which was 2h per cent more than the price received from Messrs. Robinson & Sons, who purchased $368,000 of the company's bonds in March, 1905, at 97i, and 5 per cent more than was received by Mr. McAvity, president, for $8,000 of the same bonds.
They further say:
Mr. Tweedie also promptly accounted for the accrued interest, $575.34, which in other oases we consider is not accounted for. Without condoning this transaction, we think, on the whole, it is amenable to less censure than others spoken of in this report. It at least has the merit when it did come to light of being clear cut and definite, without any effort being made to conceal it from your commissioners.
What would you infer from that? Would you not infer that in some way those commissioners had brought that matter to light, and that when they had done so Mr. Tweedie had accounted for the interest, which was something others had not done. Sir, the bringing of it to light was this. When Mr. Tweedie was on the stand he was asked in regard to the sale of these bonds, and he replied:	'You will find a
full statement in the Bank of New Brunswick'; and he went to the bank and brought up a statement showing that four years before that time he had obtained from Mr. Hickson $50,575.34, being the principal and the accrued interest on the bonds, he had deducted his $500 of commission, and had then sent a cheque for $50,075.34 to the Bank of New Brunswick. And yet these commissioners speak of this as if he had accounted for it only when they brought it to light.


Haughton Lennox: Is that not what the commissioners say?


William Pugsley: I think it is not. I think the fair inference to be drawn from their report is that it had come to light

before them, and that then Mr. Tweedie had accounted for the interest. So far from his accounting for it then, he had accounted for it to the company four years before and had accounted for it in the proper way. The whole business was done openly and above board. Yet notwithstanding the fact that this was a purely business transaction, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Tweedie by this saved the company 24 to 3 per cent in interest, and that the company entirely approved of his commission as reasonable, these commissioners, in their anxiety to say something against Mr. Tweedie, who was formerly provincial secretary, say that without condoning the transaction, on the whole it is amenable to less censure than the others spoken of. There is the statement that these commissioners cannot condone that transaction. There is their statement that this transaction has one thing to commend it and that is that when it came to light, Mr. Tweedie promptly accounted for the interest.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman contend that this phrase means what he says or that Mr. Tweedie promptly accounted at the time he made the sale:
Mr. Tweedie also promptly accounted for the further interest of $575.34, but in another case we consider it was not accounted for.
Does that say he accounted for it at the time?


William Pugsley: One cannot tell, from the phraseology these commissioners use in their report, what they really meant, but it is clear that they endeavoured to convey wrong impressions. I cannot say what they meant when they used these words:
Mr. Tweedie promptly accounted for the further interest of $575.84. Without condoning thi9 transaction, we think, on the whole, it is amenable to less censure than the others spoken of. It has at least the merit, when it ' did come to light, of being clear cut and definite, without any effort being made to conceal it from your commissioners.
I appeal to the House if it is not a fair inference that this was something which had been concealed, but which, through the probing of these commissioners into the depths of everything, had come to light; that then Mr. Tweedie had promptly accounted for the interest, and in that respect he was better than the others.
At six o'clock the House took recess. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, before recess I was pointing out some statements contained in the report, which statements 1804
show how little reliance is to be placed upon this report. I am doing this without troubling the House by referring to the evidence. I may say that I could not refer to the evidence even if I desired to do so, because I have not been able to obtain a full copy. I have copies of, I think, two volumes, but have not been able to obtain the rest, because, though this report states (that the commissioners transmit to the provincial ^secretary the evidence, as a part of the report, yet the evidence has not been printed although request that it should be printed was made in the provincial legislature. Of course, it would be quite impossible, even if there were a copy of the evidence here, for hon. gentlemen who are called upon to base their opinion upon this report to form an intelligent judgment upon the evidence without having an opportunity of carefully perusing it. Therefore it is that I am limiting my observations mainly to the report itself. I was giving a number of examples of contradictory statements contained in the report which fairly show that portions of it are false. As evidence of the unfairness and carelessness of these commissioners, I wish to call your attention to the fact that in attempting to disparage and depreciate the value of the Central Railway, the part of the road between Norton and Chipman built some years ago, before the new road was undertaken, the commissioners say, at page 19 of the report:
The province has obtained, net forty odd miles, but fifteen miles of railway, a few cheap sidings, a quantity of rolling stock costing between twenty and thiity tnousand dollars.
Now, Sir, in the report itself it appears that the new rolling stock purchased by the company amounted to $26,000. The report shows also, at page 74, that there has been purchased additional new rolling stock to the amount of $23,779.88; These two items together make over $53,000 worth of new rolling stock, and this is addition to the rolling stock obtained as part of the purchase of the Central Railway. I doubt very much whether the $23,779 is correct, for the reason that the report of the Auditor General of the province of New Brunswick for 1907 states the new rolling stock at something over $30,000. But assuming that it is only $23,779, as this report states, you have there with all the rolling stock upon the road worth, including what was purchased as part of the Central, $78,500

a road fairly equipped with rolling stock.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the other
item?


William Pugsley: That is what was taken over as part of the Central. It may appear in one of the documents, and not in the report. In another reference, these commissioners speak of the promoters' stock. My

hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) has referred to that as evidence of a typewritten error in the report, to which very little attention should be paid. It can hardly be a typewritten error in the ordinary sense, because it is this printed report which is signed by the commissioners, filed with the provincial secretary and presented to the legislature as the report of these commissioners. That this report was gone over by the commissioners before they signed it and after it was printed is shown by the fact that they were careful to insert at the very beginning certain errata. For instance:
Page 55, 26th line: outside of the Salmon Eiver bridge, there are, &c., ' 60' instead of * 50.'
Page 55, 38th line: * company's engineers ' instead of ' provincial engineers.'
Page 55, 19th line, insert: 'as was intimated ' after the words ' it is not.'
These are the only errors which they corrected in this printed report before they signed it. They did not sign a typewritten copy, but they signed the printed report, and that is filed as the report of the commission. And on page 63 these commissioners seek to magnify the importance of the large amount of stock which is being distributed among the promoters, because they use this language-the language of exaggeration, calculated to throw ridicule upon the promoters, and show that they had visions of great wealth from the distribution of this large amount of stock:
On the face of it the motive of the promoters as stated was to develop tHe c'rl mines of Queens county. Responsible and respectable men from various parts of the province were obtained to lend their names as directors; and from the fact that $130,003 of the total $500,000 authorized capital was [DOT]to be distributed as founders' shares, we conclude that the interested parties had visions of ultimate large profits, with absolute certainty of no personal loss.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon minister (Mr. Pugsley) think that was a deliberate mis-statement?


William Pugsley: I have seen so many mis-statements in this report that it is hard for me to distinguish those which are deliberate and those which are the result of mistakes. I cannot imagine men of fairness, men exercising sound judgment, men desirous of simply stating facts, putting forward the statements which are contained in this report. Why did they ignore evidence on this point? These commissioners had it in evidence, in the testimony of Mr. Skinner, that, after this company was formed, those who were interested in the company started in to organize the company for the development of the coal mines, and they made a change with regard to any distribution of this stock and that these shares were handed over to Judge Trueman by Mr. Skinner to hold Mr. PUGSLEY.
in trust for the company. And, Sir, the statement was made, in the legislature, in answer to a question put by the leader of the opposition there, that this stock was held in trust for the company with the exception of a few shares which were sold to raise money in connection with the preliminary work looking toward the development of the coal mines. And what would you expect under those circumstances? Although Judge Trueman has passed away, would you not expect that in his safe, among his private and confidential papers, there would be found those shares of stock handed to him in trust for the company? And yet, Sir, so afraid were these commissioners that they would discover some of the truth in regard to these shares which would prevent the-suspicion going abroad that they had been delivered over for the benefit possibly of members of the government, that they never called one of Judge Trueman's executors to show whether or not this stock was there in his safe and from statements which Judge Trueman made to me in his lifetime I have not the shadow of a doubt that these shares of stock, whenever the examination takes place, if it does take place, will be found among his papers 'in the place where, being entrusted to him, it would be expected they would be found. In this connection I shall speak of one other matter. It was shown that by the order of the 6th August, 1903, bonds of this company, guaranteed, were handed over to Judge Trueman for the purpose of completing the title to the Central Railway, because, as I am going to explain to you, Evans and Elkin were not able to complete the title for the reason that they only owned the bonds and a portion of the stock, there being something like $300,000 of par value stock outstanding. They were aware that a quantity of the bonds were handed to Judge Trueman, in order that he and Mr. Allen might complete the title to the property, and these commissioners never made the slightest inquiry under oath, never called any one connected with Judge Trueman's estate, to ascertain whether or not there was a record of these bonds. What is the explanation they give of this? That having made some inquiry they believed there would be no advantage in having any testimony before them so far as the late Judge Trueman was concerned. Judge Trueman was a man of the highest integrity, a man occupying a very high and honourable position in St. John, a man who had been for a good many years judge of probates of that city and who at the time of his death, was chairman of the board of school trustees, a man universally respected and on whose honour and integrity every one would have the most implicit reliance. When these bonds were entrusted to him, to have the title to the

Central Kailway completed, we all knew that he would faithfully and honourably discharge the trust and when later on it was reported to Mr. Sharpe, the auditor, that it had cost the company the amount of the original option, the amount which the company was bound to pay to Evans and Elkin or to whoever should be entrusted with the money in order to complete the title, Mr. Sharpe believed and rightly believed and we all had the right to believe that the sum which it was agreed in the first place should be paid for the Central Kailway was actually paid to complete the title and that sum was $180,000. Yet, although the commissioners in this report seek to throw discredit upon the conduct generally of the officers of the company, they did not think it worth while to make any inquiry under oath as to what documents there were in Judge Trueman's possession or what record there was in his possession in respect to these bonds or any other matters connected with the New Brunswick coal and Railway Company.


George Eulas Foster: Unfortunately I came in late and I wish to understand the hon. gentleman clearly. Do I understand that he has been speaking of the 4,300 shares of stock which, according to the report of the commission


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is a thousand per eeht out of the way, it is only 430 shares.


George Eulas Foster: We understand there is a typographical mistake such as is sometimes made even by ministers. It is of that stock, however, that I am inquiring. Am I right in understanding that that much is reported as having been, per minute of the directors, handed over to Judge Trueman, and with reference to the shortage of the $180,000 for the purchase of the Central Railway that about $40,000 of those bonds were handed over to Judge Trueman to complete the title? Is that the statement my hon. friend makes?


William Pugsley: I will repeat my statement in order that there will be no misunderstanding. It appears from the evidence of Mr. Skinner that there had been a change in the plans of the company; it was proposed to form a coal mining company and Mr. Skinner had delivered to Judge Trueman this stock which had been issued to him, some 430 shares. It was stated in the legislature, as will appear from the synoptic reports in an answer to a question put to me, that that stock was for the benefit of the company and, as I have said, I have not a shadow of doubt that if the executors of Judge Trueman had been called and had been asked to look into the strong box where he
kept private documents, that stock would have been found there. I assume it would, it ought to be. These commissioners, notwithstanding that Mr. Skinner said that he had handed mat stock to Judge Trueman, and notwithstanding that there was in evidence before them the order given to the manager. of the Royal Trust Company on the 6th of August, 1903, when the title to the Central Railway was being completed, bonds to enable him to complete the title to the Central Railway, the commissioners did not call representatives of Judge Trueman's estate and they gave no explanation as to their not calling them beyond the fact that on making inquiry they had been led to believe there would be no advantage in calling such representatives.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister mean that the bonds were handed over to Judge Trueman to acquire the balance of the stock of the Central Railway?


William Pugsley: To complete the title to the Central Railway.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When the minister says to complete the title, does he mean to acquire the balance of the stock?


William Pugsley: Not at all, to complete the title; whatever was necessary to complete the title Judge Trueman was entrusted with.


Robert Laird Borden: What was necessary?


William Pugsley: All things necessary. During the progress of events the minority shareholders, so it was reported, claimed that these bondholders in Philadelphia were not the actual owners of these bonds, but that they had loaned money on them and that they were in the position of mortgagees in possession and objected to Evans and Elkin getting the whole amount of the $180,000 less what would be going to the American bondholders, and the evidence is that Messrs. Evans and Elkin, or Mr. Evans, engaged with Messrs. Allen and Trueman that anything reasonable which was necessary to quiet the minority shareholders and prevent any objection being made to enable them to get the title, they were authorized to do, and Evans and Elkin finally settled with them taking themselves a less amount by some $38,000 than what the original agreement and option provided for.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman said he had not all the evidence here but does he say that Mr. Evans gives evidence to the effect that they were at liberty to hand

over stock to satisfy the Central Railway Company in the way the minister indicates?


William Pugsley: The evidence is that they were authorized to use part of the purchase money to complete the title.


Haughton Lennox: I have never found that in the evidence although I have read it.


William Pugsley: That is my recollection of the evidence and as a matter of fact we have it in evidence that on one occasion, when Mr. Evans gave to the company a receipt for $60,000, being for the first four payments of $15,000 each, there was a deduction made by Mr. Allen pursuant to an arrangement they had, proportionate to the amount. That is in evidence and is referred to in the report. I will refer to that later. All I speak of now is that these bonds were used, and I have no doubt legitimately and properly and honestly used, for the purpose of acquiring the title. Evans and Elkins were not the owners of the Central Railway. They only had two-thirds of stock and the bonds and therefore, in order to procure the title and carry out their agreement to sell they would, unless the minority shareholders were willing, have been obliged to have taken foreclosure proceedings and my hon. friends opposite, especially those in the legal profession, will understand what it means when a mortgagee in possession undertakes to foreclose as against a minority interest. It would have taken months and perhaps years, there might have been protracted legal proceedings and they were quite willing to make an arrangement with Messrs. Allen and Trueman to satisfy the minority shareholders and to get a perfect title, and it was done in that way without the expense and delay of foreclosure proceedings.


George Eulas Foster: At what time did Mr. Trueman die?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend just at this moment. It would be, I think, two years ago. Now, I will show you another instance


George Eulas Foster: Did the minister, as representing New Brunswick and as being a member of the company as well, convince himself by seeing the documents and knowing exactly what had been done, that the title had been cleared?


William Pugsley: Yes, that the title had been completed. There was a certificate to that effect.
meantime, $540,000 of bonds were held as security until the deeds were recorded and the title was. completed. Messrs. Evans & Elkins agreed to give it, but they were not in a position to give it without the concurrence of the other shareholders. As another evidence of the recklessness of these commissioners, of the want of care, it will be found, at page 25 of this report, that they make this statement:
Large sums of money, amounting in all to $190,873.04, were from time to time expended it is alleged for improvements on the Central railway between July, 1902, and March 31, 1908; and on the fifteen mile section and branches from July 1, 1904, to March 31, 1908.
This is an allegation that a large amount of money was expended in improvements on the Central Railway, and the conclusion is sought to be drawn that the road could not have been originally worth as much as was given for it. Well, if you turn to page 74 you will find that out of an expenditure of $190,873.04 the large sum of $23,779.88 went for absolutely new rolling stock. Yet, in another part of this report they say that the whole of it was for improvements made upon the railway. I call attention to it as an evidence of the utter carelessness with which these commissioners apparently have had this report made up and have put it forward as a report of the facts when it is a report of everything else but the facts.
Then, I come to what is even worse. Take page 14 of this report. This is a dreadful statement to make. It is a strong indictment:
So much of the facts are given to show the absolute want of book-keeping.
What would be taken from that? Is it not that there was shown a total want of book-keeping, that there was no attempt to keep a record of the expenditures of this company? Then, again on another page of the report you will see that they state it was claimed that the Barnes Construction Company kept books, but that they were destroyed and not produced before these commissioners. Well, Sir, if you turn to another part of this report you will find that they are speaking of the reliability of Mr. Shannon's statement as to the interest and as to the cost of the construction of this road. They say, at page 22, that Mr. Shannon

had the benefit of Mr. Evans' statement,
the books of the James Barnes Construction Company
and of all information that he could derive from Mr. Sharpe, the company's auditor.


George Eulas Foster: From whom?


William Pugsley: From Mr. Trueman or Mr. Skinner. The title was searched, .everything was completed and, in the Mr. LENNOX.
There, they put forward the positive statement that Mr. Shannon had the benefit of the books of the James Barnes Construction Company, which they had not, and on another page they state that it was

claimed that the James Barnes Company kept books, but that they were destroyed, casting a doubt upon the sworn testimony of James Barnes that they had books, that the work being done, the accounts being closed, the business being off his hands four years before this investigation took place, they were either lost or destroyed, because he had no further use for them, and, in another page of that report, stating positively, as we all know was the fact, that Mr. Shannon had had the advantage of going carefully over the books of the James Barnes Construction Company. An absolute want of bookkeeping, say they! Turn to page 8 of this report and compare this statement that there was an absolute want of bookkeeping with what you find there.
Books of account

They say:

in connection with the operation of the
railway were kept in the company's otiioe at Norton. These books besides showing the revenue and operating expenses, show the amounts expended for betterment outside of the cost of the construction of the fifteen mile section and branches, and were well kept.


George Eulas Foster: Is the hon. gentleman satisfied that he is putting that fairly?


William Pugsley: Yes, absolutely word for word as the report gives it. Then turn again, Sir, to the statement of the cost of this new railway. These commissioners sent out their emissaries in all directions, issued their subpoenas to the officers, to Mr. Barnes, to Mr. Evans, to Mr. Fowler, the clerks at Norton and others, and, Sir, after it is all over, what do they do? They adopt absolutely the statement of Mr. Evans, the chief engineer and the manager of the company at Norton, as to the cost of the fifteen-mile section and branches Let me read what they say at page 21 in regard to it. After they had spent months and months endeavouring to find out what this road cost, hoping that they would be able to throw some discredit upon somebody connected with the government, or some friend of the government in connection with these matters, what do they say?
Mr. Evans' statement of cost is a very methodical and comprehensive one. He places the cost of the fifteen mile section and branches at $316,626.33, the figures which we have adopted.
Even down to the 33 cents. Who was Mr. Evans? He was the chief engineer and general manager of the company. He was looking after the office at Norton, where was situated the great spending department of the company and where it was proper that the accounts should be kept. We had presented to the legislature in March, 1904, a statement of cost down to March 31, 1904, being $321,000 or just $5,000 more than Mr. Evans made it on the 1st of January, 1904.
These commissioners, in the end, after all their inquiry for months, adopt Mr. Evans' statement as being the correct statement of the cost of the fifteen miles and branches. They say there was no book-keeping. How did Mr. Evans arrive at that statement. It was not made for this examination; it was made four years ago, it was submitted to the government and to the legislature at that time as being the correct cost of the new line and of the branches. I want to say, Sir, that from month to month dur* ing all the time that this work was in pro^ gress Mr. Evans as chief engineer furnished to the company and to myself as representing the government, a full and detailed statement of the cost, made up minutely as engineers of railway companies make up such statements, and we knew from month to month exactly what that road was costing. These statements of Mr. Evans were placed on file in the office of the executive council and I have a sample copy here which if any gentleman chooses to examine he will see is in minute detail. It seems to me to be a refutation of the statement that there was an absolute lack of bookkeeping. There were the books of the James Barnes Construction Company kept while they were working as contractors and also while they were carrying on the work under the force arrangement with their percentage added, and there were books, as the commission admits, at Norton, showing all the receipts and the expenditure of the road, and all the improvements made on the road amounting to many thousands of dollars. The statement of Mr. Evans, the company's chief engineer and general manager, the commission say, is a most methodical and comprehensive one, and they adopt that to the very last cent as being a correct statement of the cost of the construction of the 15 miles and branches.


George Eulas Foster: Am I right in thinking that Mr. Barnes was not a member of the company but a contractor?


William Pugsley: was about completed we felt it was necessary to have a thorough complete and correct audit-he also has passed away. Mr. Winslow has passed away and the vicepresident of the company has passed away. There are five gentlemen who were prominently connected with the company and all of whom have died since the road was completed. And these commissioners rather put that forward as if it were almost our fault and as if we ought to account for what was done or ought to have done by these gentlemen in their lifetime.
Now, Sir, what we did so far as bookkeeping was concerned at the start' in the way of organization was this: In the first place we had an examination made of the coal areas; we sent a committee of council there to look into the existing coal mines and we got that committee to inquire into possible markets. Communications were opened up with Mr. Blair who was then Minister of Railways and we informed him that we were about developing these coal areas if it were possible to do so and if we thought we would be justified in the attempt. Many attempts had been made in that direction in the .past, but because of the expensive nature of the work to get from Chipman to Minto it had not been found possible to make this extension, and here were lying close to the surface and capable of being easily mined these vast undeveloped deposits of coal estimated at about 100, 000,000 tons and belonging to the province. We opened up communications with Mr. Blair as I have said, and we asked him if the railroad were built whether he would undertake that the Intercolonial Railway should use a certain quantity of the coal per year. I have in my possession a letter from Mr. Blair which I am quite willing that anybody should see and he as Minister of Railways states that as soon as the road was finished, which it was contemplated would be early the next year, the government would take for the Intercolonial Railway 30,000 tons of coal provided it was of good quality and the price was reasonable, and further, that under these conditions the company might calculate upon a sale to the Intercolonial Railway of about 60,000 tons per year. That in itself opened up good prospects for the company. It would give a good traffic at about 60 cents per ton amounting to $36,000 per year, and it would give to the province a royalty of 10 cents per ton. Then, inquiry was made among the manufacturers who had been using this coal and it was found that it had been highly approved of and that a large market could be expected in St. John. Something has been said about the fact that the gentlemen who went into the company did not put any of their own money into it. Well, Sir, I state frankly-and it was so stated to the legislature and to the people


William Pugsley: in 1901, and we had a general election since and the people approved of out efforts to develop these coal areas-it was never understood that these gentlemen should put their own money into it. It is exactly like the ease of a company which was incorporated by the New Brunswick legislature the other day for the purpose of endeavouring to procure the construction of a railway down the valley of the St. John. People upon both sides of politics united for the purpose of forming a company to build that line in order to give accommodation to the people. It is not understood, it never is understood in cases of this kind that those people are going to put their own money into such an undertaking. These gentlemen were got together; men as the report says of high standing, men of integrity, men who patriotically desired to see these coal areas developed associated themselves in this company. I should also say that an arrangement was made with Mr. Blair at that time to get rails from the Dominion government which were to be paid for in coal from time to time. We believed that having made that arrangement we would be able, with guaranteed bonds amounting to $250,000, to secure the construction of the railway between Chipman and Fredericton. The estimates of the engineers showed there would be sufficient margin for this purpose and also to provide a small amount of rolling stock. Then the question was as to how this company could finance in the meantime, because under the terms of the legislation which we first proposed in 1901 and which was agreed to, none of these bonds were to be guaranteed until the whole road was completed. We felt at the time that even with that condition, hard though it was, the road could be completed. The James Barnes Construction Company put in a tender for the first 15 miles and there was another tender from Mr. Wheaton for the same section. Mr. Wheaton's tender was a little less than the tender of Mr. Barnes and I observe that a strong reflection is made upon the company, and made I suppose indirectlv upon myself as ex officio member of the company, because we consented to allow Mr. Wheaton to withdraw and gave the contract to the next tender, the James Barnes Construction Company.
If I had been consulted-I do not remember whether I was or riot, but very likely I was-I will tell you why I would have approved of giving the contract to the James Barnes Construction Company instead of to Mr. Wheaton. Mr. Wheaton was a contractor of considerable experience, it is true; but he had failed in railway construction work. He was without means, and it would have been utterly impossible for him to have carried on that work unless he was paid from month to month on pro-
5721 MAY 5, 1909 5722	
gress estimates. On the other hand, Mr. Barnes was able to arrange, through Messrs. Thompson & Whitehead, with the Peoples' Bank of New Brunswick, for advances of all the money necessary for the completion of the fifteen-mile section; and Mr. Barnes agreed to pay them the small commission of l of 1 per cent for endorsing the company's notes to enable him to raise the money for the work. Therefore, as be-ween the two contractors there is no question that the proper thing was to accept the tender of the James Barnes Construction Company, although it was $4,000 or $5,000 higher than that of Mr. Wheaton. And yet, apparently, without knowledge of the circumstances, these commissioners put that forward as a most reprehensible thing to do, and attribute the difficulties which occurred afterwards in large measure to the fact that the contract was given to the James Barnes Construction Company instead of to Mr. Wheaton. Mr. FOSTER. Could the minister turn to the page where they make that attribution? Mr. PUGSLEY. On page 6 they speak of it, but there is another page (p. 55). in which they attribute the difficulties which arose afterwards largely to that fact. I am told that the commission which Messrs. Thompson & Whitehead were to get was never exacted by them, by reason of the enterprise not turning out to be as successful as it was expected to be. Having referred to the fact that the commissioners speak of Mr. Evans' statement of the cost, $316,626.33, as very methodical and comprehensive, I want to call your attention to the fact that that statement does not include interest during construction, which is stated by the commissioners to have been $28,234. But you must bear in mind that that amount is limited to the cost of construction and during construction, which closed, so far as the main line is concerned, in January, 1904. Mr. FOSTER. I suppose interest on the cost of construction means interest on the moneys necessary- Mr. PUGSLEY. The moneys which made up the $316,626.33. Mr. FOSTER. That would be bank accommodation and the like of that? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes, discounts. Now, I thought it well, while speaking of Mr. Evans, to refer to the fact that he has seen this report of the commissioners; and observing the small amount which they have allowed for interest, he communicated with me to give me his idea of the interest which was paid out during the period down to	1st July, 1905, when the commissioners took charge, and I will give this statement to the House. I think it is one to which very great weight can be given, because of the accuracy with which Mr. Evans seems to do his work, and because of the credit which has been given to him by the commissioners themselves. This is his letter: Montreal, April 29, 1909. Dear Dr. Pugsley,-I inclose a statement of interest re Central Railway, which is my idea of a fair interest account on advances made for construction and improvement and the purchase of the Central Railway and loss in operation. Then the statement is as follows: MEMORANDA OF AMOUNTS FOR INTEREST COMPUTATION RE CENTRAL RAILWAY. $316,626. Shannon's estimate on interest to the first of January, 1904	$28,234 Interest January ' 1, 1904 to July 1, 1905 at 4 per cent.. 18,997 77.000.	Improvements from August 1, 1902, to July 1, 1905, divided as follows: $16,000. August 1, 1902, to July 1, 1905, 7 per cent.. 2,240 16.000.	August 1, 1903, to July 1, 1904, 7 per cent.. 1,120 45.000.	July 1, 1904, to July 1, 1905, 7 per cent. Estimate this amount would be on an average for 6 months.. .. 1,575 17.000.	Loss operating August 1, 1902, to July 1, 1905. Estimated an average of $10,000 for three years at 7 per cent	 2,100 180,000. July 1, 1903, to July 1, 1905, at 4 per cent	14,400 At least $70,000 of above had been borrowed before issue of bonds, for at least one year at 7 per cent	 4,900 Representing the total interest account to July 1, 1905	$73,566 Instead of $28,234 which had been allowed by these commissioners, I will give to the House before I get through a statement which I have endeavoured to make up. I do not know how accurately it has been made up. Probably it may be considerably out of the way, because, being engaged with my duties at Ottawa as I have been, I have not had the opportunity of going to the different banks, as the commissioners have had, and obtaining, if they had chosen to do so, an accurate statement of the interest. But I will give the statement to the House, and it will be for my hon. friends opposite, if they think it worth while to do so, to point out any error in the interest account as I have made it up. It is beyond question, as shown in Mr. Evans' statement, and as I showed this afternoon, that there is the interest from 1st of

January, 1904, to 1st July, 1905, upon the total expenditure of which these commissioners have evidently taken no account. There is also the interest upon the cost of the Central and on the other accounts of the road from the beginning down to 1st July, 1905, extending -over a period of four years, with respect to which they have paid no interest. There is also the loss in operation which began in 1902 and which reached pretty high figures in 1903, amounting altogether to $17,000, upon which they have also allowed no interest, and there are a number of other accounts, and also they even deducted some $5,000 off the interest during the last period.
Before I go to another part of the case, I would like to state what was the arrangement with regard to financing of the company and the way in which the road was to be built. As I have said, Mr. Evans-an engineer of considerable experience and of great ability and on whose report these commissioners placed reliance, because they adopted it so far as the cost is concerned-was in charge at Norton. Norton was the headquarters of the expending department in the way of construction work. Then it was arranged that all the financing was to be done at the People's Bank in Fredericton. From time to time, as the estimates of the engineer would be sent in, there would be a percentage deducted from the progress estimates, the company would give its note to the contractors, the contractors would have that note endorsed by Senator Thompson and Mr. Whitehead and discounted by the bank, and the proceeds would be taken by the constructing company. That is the way the thing was organized, and I think every one will admit that was a proper way, so far as the construction of the road was concerned. The business went on in that way for a considerable time. Mr. Geo. W. Allen was the secretary of the company. It was his duty to perform the ordinary work of a secretary. That was what he was paid for doing and what he was expected to do, and it is what, I cannot help believing, he did do. Mr: Allen was a good business man against whom nobody so far has said a word impeaching his integrity, and he would understand thoroughly what were his duties. He was in every respect well adapted for his position. From time to time Mr. Allen would receive these estimates, he would deduct the ten per cent and give the notes to the company, which would be signed by the treasurer and president or vice-president, and then given to the construction company, and that company would have them discounted. Then there came a time when it was necessary to obtain moneys elsewhere because the People's bank did not feel that it could continue to make advances very much beyond what


William Pugsley: were already made. The company therefore did some financing elsewhere. It will be found from the report of the commissioners that a loan was effected with the Bank of Montreal in Fredericton and another with the Bank of British North America in the same place. There is one peculiarity in the report of the commissioners. They make the statement that they cannot trace the moneys which were the proceeds of these notes discounted at the Bank of Montreal ar*d the Bank of British North America, because, they say, these notes were not placed to the company's credit but were drawn out on discount slips. They do not say who signed those slips, but they leave it to be inferred that possibly myself or Mr. Tweedie, as the other member ex-officio of the government, may have negotiated these loans. I presume however that they looked at the discount slips and that they saw that these loans wrere negotiated and those discount slips signed by G. W. Allen, the secretarv of the company. Yet these commissioners do not say so. They do not say who signed the discount slips, but lead the people to infer, according as might be their feelings and desires, who got the proceeds. But would it not have been fair and honourable for the commissioners to have said that they had seen the discount slips and that these slips were signed by
G.	W. Allen, the secretary of the company, which fact would trace the money directly to the company through its secretary? When I read the report and saw that extraordinary omission, I thought that these commissioners and their counsel wanted to throw out the inuendo that possibly Mr. Pugsleiy had to do with the negotiation of these loans, and that possibly the proceeds may have gone into his hands, which might go far to accomplish the mission with which they had started out, and that was to make a report strong enough to compel me to leave the government. Afterwards notes were discounted at the Bank of New Brunswick in the city of St. John and loans were also obtained from the Canada Permanent.
I want to refer, just for a moment longer, to Mr. Allen. I assume that he kept a memorandum of the notes given by the company from time to time. I assume that he kept a memorandum of all the checks he gave when the notes were placed to the company's credit, and that the check stubs, or the checks themselves, would show to whose order the moneys were payable, because he was not in the habit of paying out money except by cheque. And I assume also that he kept a cash-book or memorandum which would show the discounts from time to time. Well, these commissioners say that they could get no evidence of what these cheques were given for, so far as the banks at Fredericton are con-

cerned, because, they say, the banks gave up the cheques. But if they did, they must have given them up in the ordinary course to Mr. Allen, the secretary fo the company. There is nothing suspicious in a bank giving up its cheques. The banks always give them up each month when the credit or debit slip, as the case may be, is signed. Yet the fact is put forward as if it were something suspicious that these cheques were given up by the banks. When the late Mr. Sharpe was appointed accountant to audit these books and accounts, I know that the cheques in the banks in St. John were, by direction, handed over to him, and I assume that all the cheques on the banks in Fredericton were handed over to the auditor by Mr. Allen, the secretary, iand that the stubs and everything which would let in light on the accounts would be given to him, -including any memorandum or cash-books which the secretary of the company might have. After the lapse of years, and these accounts and books had not been got back from Mr. Sharpe, who unfortunately died just as he was completing his work, but who fortunately submitted an audit just before he died, because these cheques and Mr. Barnes books had not been got back, these commissioners sought to draw inferences against those of us who had to do with the formation of the company. I said, and the commissioners ridiculed the statement, that an accountant, sincerely desirous of getting at the facts of the case, could in two or three days make up a complete statement of the receipts and expenditures of that company. I am the more confirmed in that statement, the more I read the report of the commissioners. Because they say that at Norton there was a complete account of all receipts and expenditures so far as the betterment of the road and the operation of the road were concerned. They adopt finally the statement of Mr. Evans, manager and engineer of the road, and say that his statement is comprehensive and methodical. They eopld go to the Bank of New Brunswick, the Canada Permanent-and it appears they did have both of these before them-the People's Bank, the Bank of British North America, and the Bank of Montreal, and get a statement of the discounts put through from time to time the proceeds of which went to the company's credit or were drawn out by discount slips. In that way, they could get with almost absolute accuracy the interest accruing from 1901 to 1908. That is the statement I made before the commissioners and that is the statement I adhere to. I am sorry, not so much for my own sake as for the sake of these commissioners, that they did not think it worth while, with all the machinery, they had at their command, to endeavour to arrive
with some degree of accuracy at the amount of interest, but jumped at it in the way I have spoken of. When this report came out stating that the interest was $92,000, I thought it might be well to have an inquiry made in the legislature as to how that interest was made up, because I took it for granted that the commissioners, particularly when one was a judge, would be in a position to furnish all the details. I do not want to contradict the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) who says that this gentleman is an eminent judge, if he knows. But if any hon. gentleman were to tell me that Judge Landry, when appointed to the bench, was specially selected for his great eminence in his profession, I should feel that he had but little knowledge of the transaction of legal business in the province of New Brunswick and but little knowledge of the leading counsel who in the past have appeared before the various courts in that _ province. He is a judge as other judges are, but that he is specially eminent I am not prepared to admit. I am not here to-night to disparage Mr. Justice Landry. I have great respect for the bench, but I have more respect for those judges who uphold the dignity and honour of the bench, and I like to see them endeavouring to do that. I like to see them, when they go upon the bench, forget that they have been in political life, but I hate to see a judge, when a general election is coining on, begin to coquet with one of the great political parties with regard to his becoming a candidate, of the party. It tends to prevent his mind from settling down to that judicial calm which is necessary to enable one to adorn the high position of a judge. With regard to the other commissioners, I have but little to say. Mr. Macdougall has been a manager of a branch of the Royal Bank. He has been for a good while manager of a branch, and a not very important branch either. It has been his misfortune to see men younger, far younger, who have been appointed to minor and inferior positions long after he went there, passing on over him to higher positions in that great institution. He is a man who, for many years, while Mr. Powell was engaged in his profession in Westmoreland .county was engaged with Mr. Powell in business transactions, particularly with regard to one manufacturing company. It is a somewhat curious fact that, in selecting this commission, they did not look to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, they did not look to any gentleman who had been a Liberal before he had been appointed to the bench. They were careful to see to it that the three members of this commission should be good solid Tories,-at least that one of them, before appointment to the bench,

had been a good solid Tory and the other two should be such at this time. They were careful to see, also, that the counsel to guide them with regard to the evidence brought before them and to assist them in making up this report should be Mr. H. A. Powell, who has been a member of this House and has been a candidate in the Conservative interest in a good many contests in the province of New Brunswick, in not all of which he was successful in being returned to parliament. While this is the case, I am not of the opinion that I should bow down to and worship any member of this commission or give any undue respect to the report, but that I should only give to it that respect which the report upon its face seems to deserve. Now, as I was saying, when this statement was made of interest of $92,000, and when there was no statement as to how it was made up, and when we found other items put in in the lump and financial matters divided up in such a way that no person could tell from the report whether there had been left out large or small sums in the way of disbursements, I suggested to a friend of mine in the legislature that a question should be put to the government with regard to the interest-this amount of $92,000-how it was made up, to what banks it had been paid, what rate of interest had been charged, and also whether it was compounded. I took it for granted that these commissioners, while they only put summaries into the report, would have statements which could be readily furnished to the government, showing the way in which this amount had been arrived at. And this was the answer given:
In answer to questions 2, 3 and 4-
The items of expenditure making up the total of $77,611.82 referred to in the second question are contained in the books and schedules of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company at Norton.
The items making up the total amount of $28,325.30 mentioned in question 3 are given in the so-called ' cash book ' begun by Mr. Sharp for Mr. McAvity, president, and continued by Mr. Corbett for the commissioners, Messrs. McAvity and King.
The details asked for in question 4 of the total amount of $92,000 interest appear, the government is informed, in the report of Mr. Shannon and in the statement of Mr. Pugs-ley, both of which were in evidense, in the so-called ' cash book ' in the books ot fhe Receiver General at Fredericton and in the accounts of the different banks and monetarv institutions with which the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company dealt.
. As the items and details asked for in questions 2, 3 and 4 are very numerous, would require a long time to prepare, and would f^tail large expense in transcription, and the books, reports and schedules which contain them were open to the inspection of the counsel, Mr. Carvell, who stated he appeared Mr. PUGSLEY.
at the request of Hon. Mr. Pugsley for the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, and to Mr. Barnhill, who appeared for
Messrs. McAvity and King, commissioners, and to the Hon. Mr. Pugsley who was during several days present representing himself, the government feels that it should not go to the expense of furnisliing the details without the order of the House.
So, you have these commissioners submitting a report which jumps at an amount of $92,000, apparently furnishing to the government no statement as to how they made it up, and when the question is put to the government, they confer evidently with the commissioners-because the chairman was in Fredericton as I am informed on the very day that this question was answered-declare that it would take many months for them to make up a statement and would entail so large an expense that they could not undertake it without the order of the House.
Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this gives evidence of even the barest attempt to treat public men with any degree of fairness. It does seem to me that, before the commissioners sent broadcast over this country a statement which, though not charging me with the receipt, improperly, of a single dollar of the money of this company, yet is calculated to cast reflection upon somebody connected with the company as showing carelessness and want of regard to the duties of those who have to do with the company, they should have asked through their accountant the bank managers to make up for them a statement of the interest. For they were entitled to it. Bear in mind that, under the law, when Mr. Tweedie and I ceased to be Provincial Secretary and Attorney General respectively and Mr. Flemming and Mr. Hazen took these offices, they became ex-officio directors of this company. They have been since 1907 the ex-officio directors of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company and they had a right-


Haughton Lennox: It is not in business now.


William Pugsley: It is in business.


George Eulas Foster: What is it doing?


William Pugsley: It owns property today.


Haughton Lennox: That is not in business.


William Pugsley: That makes no difference ; they are the directors in law and they have a right to go to these banks and ask a statement of the account. But more than that, these commissioners, by the terms of the statute, were invested with the fullest authority to get a statement of this interest and they led us to believe that

they were making a full and searching inquiry, they led us to believe that among the disbursements they would have a statement of interest. Would that not go without saying, that they would obtain a statement in detail of the interst? We had a right to assume that; yet they issue this statement, simply jumping at the interest, and when they are asked how it was made up they say it would take many months to prepare a statement and would involve too much expense.
These commissioners say that the chief engineer's report made on January 2, 1903, in effect contained a false statement as to the cost of the road. At page 19 that statement is made. They suggest that somebody should be held responsible for that. In other words, they say that the chief enf-gineer of this company signed a statement prepared by me which in effect showed that $140,000 and upwards had been expended in the new work of this railway when as a matter of fact less than $80,000 had been expended. Is that not the inference to be drawn from that report? When I tell you, Sir, that I have here the report which shows exactly what had been expended upon the new line at that time, you will, I think, agree with me that that statement is entirely without foundation and one which ought not to have been made. It is in this report of January 2, 1903 that the commissioners say I induced the chief engineer to represent this new line as having then cost $140,000. Here is the report:
To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor id Council.
1, the undersigned having been appointed by Your Honour to report upon the work done upon the railway being constructed by The New Brunswick Coal and Eailway Company, with a view to determining as to the amount of bonds of the said company which it would be proper for the provincial secretary to guarantee on behalf of the province, beg to report as follows:-
This report will be a repetition to a large extent of the ones previously made by me, but I think it well to make it for easier reference.
The value of the work previously done on the first section of fifteen miles, including foundations of large bridges across Salmon river, acquired by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, which was estimated in 1896 to be $20,000.
Sir, is that statement false? These very commissioners, at page 4 of their report, put the cost at $23,000, or $3,000 more than as stated in this report.
In addition to this there was work done in 1890, which was estimated by the engineer to be of the value of about $13,000.
And the engineer's report is there upon Tecord to show that was his estimate of the cost at Fredericton.
There was paid by the companj for surveys of. the whole line and for rights of way, including plans,
&e., exclusive of the bridge plans.. $11,500 00 There has been work done on sidings of coal mines	 1,576 29
Engineering during construction paid by company to date:
Amount of proportion applicable to the second section of thirty miles
is	 2,000	00
There has been paid for rights of of way of second section of thirty
miles	
600	00There has been paid for engine house at Newcastle which, by reason of its central position and by reason of arrangements having been so made, will save one stall at the Frederiction end, being	a	saving	of.	1,000	00There has been provided track scales applicable to the whole at a cost of $500-proportion applicable to the second section	would	be..	..	322	00
The estimated relative cost of the first 15 miles, exclusive of rails, bolts
and fish plates is	 130,434	00
Original estimate of second 30
miles	
213,848	00Add for extra weight on bridges and ballast	
19,250	00Total	$233,098 00
Making the estimated cost of the first 15 miles relatively bo each 15 miles of the second section greater by $13,885.
It is proper to consider the above first 8 different sums and the $13,885 in arriving at a judgement in reference to the question submitted to me for my report. They amount altogether to $63,883.29, and it is also proper to take into consideration the following:-
The New Brunswick Coal and Eailway way Company found it necessary to purchase the Central Eailway, with a view to operating the whole road from Norton to Gibson as one system. Owing to the accident which occurred by the destruction of a bridge, it became necessary to rebuild the same, and in view of the large traffic which it is expected will have to be carried upon the road as soon as the railway is completed to the coal mines, and in order to ensure the efficient haulage of freight and to secure the safety of passengers, it was regarded as absolutely necessary to make extensive improvements to the Central Eailway, for which arrangements could not be made except through the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. These repairs were essential not merely in order to carry on the traffic when the road was completed to the coal fields, but in order to get in rails and other supplies which were essential for the construction of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company's line.
The New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company has actually paid upon the purchase of the. Central Railway the sum of $47,500 and there is a further liability of $12,500 upon an instalment of option now due, which the company is providing for.
As a part of the purchase the New Bruns-which Coal and Railway Company has acquired from the Central Railway Company:

2 engines worth $3,000		$8,000
1 passenger car (combination).. 1,800
15 flat cars, $200 each	 3,000
Snow plough and flanger	 500
1 motor and push car	 400

all of which will be available for operating the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company's line. Adding this to the above amount makes a total of $75,583.29, over and above said sum of $47,500 paid on account of purchase of the Central Railway.
The improvements necessary to be made by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company to the Central Railway for the purposes above mentioned will amount approximately to $25,000, of which to first December "$9,852.85 was actually expended. _
It is certainly proper to consider the improvements made to the Central, and more especially those in connection with the terminals at Chipman, in forming a judgment as to what amount of bonds it would be proper to guarantee.
The value of the work done by the present contractor upon the line between Chipman and Newcastle, including the branch to coal mines and engineering expenses during construction to 30th November, 1902, is $74,547.35.
Not $140,000 as these commissioners would have the public believe, but $74,543.35.
Having carefully considered the matter, and keeping in view the work done relatively to that to be done, I think it would be proper for the Provincial Secretary to guarantee bonds of the company on behalf of the province to the amount of $140,000. This amount, however, to include bonds previously guaranteed.	.
In making this estimate I leave out of consideration the amount paid on the purchase money of the Central Railway, although it seems proper to refer to it as above.
There you have a statement giving in minute detail the cost of the work done up to that date upon this line of railway. You have a statement of the cost of the ne|w work, of the bridge at Salmon river, a large and expensive bridge which had been previously bui-lt and had been taken over and had become the property of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company as a part of the purchase of the Central Railway, for which $47,500 had then been paid. You have a statement as to the engineering expenses, as to the cost of the rights of way, but as to the new work the statement was made absolutely, as was the case with the money actually spent up to that time upon the new work, that it was only seventy-four thousand and some odd dollars.
I speak of this in order to show that these commissioners have not hesitated, wherever they could do so, to cast reflections upon the late provincial government. Surely if they wanted fairly to criticise the judg-Mr. PUGSLEY.
ment of the chief engineer in furnishing this report and the judgment of the government in guaranteeing bonds, it would be proper to set these out in detail. But instead of doing that they make a statement which would leave the ordinary reader to believe that the engineer, although there had been only $80,000 of work done upon the railway, had actually represented that work to the extent of $140,000 had then been performed. I mention this as another illustration of the unfairness of this report. I want to call attention to still another matter as showing how thoroughly unreliable are the expressions of opinion which these commissioners give. They speak upon the 56th page of this report of what this new line of railway could have been built for and I mention this for the information of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. I had been urging, the company had been urging, the previous government had been urging that this company should have an increased subsidy because the cost of the road, instead of being $15,000 per mile, had reached $20,000 or $21,000 per mile. Mr. Hazen, the premier of the province, has been urging also that! there should be this increased subsidy, but his commissioners say that this new line, in their judgment, could have been constructed at an average cost of $11,000 per mile. Well, Sir, if Mr. Hazen and his government place any reliance in the estimate that these commissioners have formed as to the value of the road then good-bye to the application of this railway company for an increased subsidy and the provincial government will have to pay for the rails which were obtained from this government and for which it is owing to the Dominion. But, how absurd this is! Did they have an engineer go over the road? No, these commissioners never thought it worth while to get a Tailway engineer to go over this railway to make an examination of it, but, they say, forsooth, in eflect, that Mr. Powell and we went over this road and made an examination of it. Mr. Justice Landry, Mr. Mac-dougall, the manager of a branch bank, Mr. Teed, a small merchant carrying on, business in the town of St. Stephen's and Mr. Powell, a lawyer, going over this railway and estimating its value to be $11,000 per mile! As against that we had the report of one of the most experienced railway engineers in this country who had gone over the road, walked over every foot of it, examined it with the utmost care and he reported that although the rails were lighter than the rails upon the Intercolonial Railway, yet they were of excellent character and in all other respects this road) was built up to the standard of the Intercolonial Railway and was well worth $21,000 per mile. Yet, Sir, havirig a knowledge of that report, because we read it before the

legislature in 1904, and, I think again in 1905, these commissioners, without taking the trouble to have a railway engineer go over this line, coolly put forward in the report, in order to disparage us, the statement that this line, upon the average, is only worth $11,000 per mile. Hon. gentlemen can, from that statement, judge what reliance is to be placed on the opinions, at all events, which these commissioners give.
I want to call your attention to a very unfair statement which occurs upon page 38 of the report. They say:
To make the matter as clear as possible it is necessary to go back to June, 1901, when the first issue of $250,000 3 per cent bonds was made. These bonds being held in various banks for money advanced were replaced by Mr. Shadbolt, of the Royal Trust Company, in August, 1903, with $250,000 of the now total issue of $150,000 1 per cent bonds, leaving a balance of $200,000 which were handed to Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Trueman and afterwards found their way into various banks as security for advances.
I have already shown you, by the order which was given Mr. Shadbolt, the manager of the Royal Trust Company, on the 6th August, 1903, that this statement is false, I have already shown you that the total issue at that time, when the $200,000 of bonds which were isued under the authority of the statute upon completion of the title to the Central Railway, was $338,500 being only $138,500 beyond the $200,000 provided for the purchase of and improvements upon the Central Railway, I have shown you how these bonds were distributed, $70,000 going to the Bank of Montreal in Fredericton, $20,000 going to the Bank of British North America in Fredericton, $27,000 to the Bank of New Brunswick, $70,000 to the Peoples' Bank, who are financing the contractors, $66,000 to the Bank of New Brunswick, which were used for the purpose of taking over the bonds upon the Central and which were then owned by Clark and Company and Drexell, and Company and upon which Messrs. Evans and Elkin held an option and $85,500 which were handed to Judge True man the solicitor of the company for the purposes of the company. Can you place title and the balance to be turned over to Mr. Allen, the secretary, to be used for the purposes of th company. Can you place any reliance upon the report of these commissioners in view of the fact that this order not only gave the amounts of the bonds but gave the numbers of the bonds so that if these moneys or bonds were stolen as suggested, they could easily be identified. Do you think that I, as the Attorney General, would have given to the manager of the Trust Company not only the amounts of these bonds but the numbers of the bonds which were to be handed over to the
various institutions and to the various parties at the time of completion of the title of the Central Railway Company in 1903 if there had been any desire to misapply them in any way? Doing that as I did, these bonds could be traced in any bank in which they were placed because the bank would have on the hypothecation sheet and on the record a statement of the numbers and amounts of the bonds. But, what I complain of is that, having this record before them, having this order at their disposition, they make this general statement that it left $200,000 of bonds which were handed to Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Trueman and afterwards found their way into the various banks as security for advances. The evidence before these commissioners will show that every bond which came into my hands was hypothecated as security for the notes of this company and that the proceeds of these notes were placed to the credit of the company and were checked out by the secretary of the company with the exception of one or two instances when Mr. Barnes, the contractor, at a time when the company was hard up, at a time when it seemed as if they had nobody to turn to except myself, at a time when, owing to delay which was caused by having a thorough audit of the accounts of the company made, they could not get money to pay labour bills, when hundreds of men were clamoring for their wages and when material men were threatening to sue the company, come to me and asked me to help the company by going to the bank and assisting them in raising some money. I felt, as a director of this company, that my honour was involved in having that road completed and in seeing that the wages of the men were paid. I felt that if we allowed that enterprise to collapse and break down before the road was completed to the coal fields it would be a public disaster and, to assist the company, I remember upon more than one occasion going to the bank, to Mr. Stavert, who was then manager of the bank and who now occupies a prominent position in the Bank of Montreal-and I make this statement publicly because I know that he will remember what I am now stating-and that, upon my persuasion and upon my consenting, with Mr. Barnes, to endorse the notes of the company, moneys were advanced for the purpose of enabling Mr. Barnes to go to Norton and away to the end of the track by special' train that afternoon for the purpose of paying these men. These are the only cases in which the proceeds of any notes came Into my possession.
These moneys were handed at once to the contractor and they were necessary to enable him to pay the labour bills and the other charges. I want to say for Mr. Al-

len. the secretary of the company, that wherever there was a note discounted where it was not done through himself, and there were comparatively few except in the way of renewals, he always made an accurate statement with regard to the notes and with regard to the proceeds of them, and in every case he appeared to be and I believe was seeing that the proceeds were used for the legitimate purposes of the company. Mr. Allen is dead, but I am satisfied that were he living he would corroborate the statement I make. I am satisfied he gave satisfactory evidence to Mr. Sharpe, the auditor, that the moneys which came into his hands or into the hands of any others for the company were properly applied. Mr. Sharpe was appointed to audit the books of the company in the early part of the year 1904, I think, and his appointment was by direction of the government. At that time the company was making application to the government for further assistance, and we were greatly in doubt as to what course to pursue. We recognized that the cost of the road had run greatly beyond what we anticipated, and that if the enterprise was to be carried to a conclusion assistance would have to be given. It has been intimated in this report of the commission, nay it has been more than intimated that we had some object in view in not keeping accounts and that we were willing that the treasury should be looted, and that the moneys of this company should be taken by any one who wanted to get hold of them. I want to ask you, Sir, if it is consistent with such a suggestion, that when this company wanted further assistance in the winter of 1904, we said to them: 'We shall give you no further assist ance until an auditor has been appointed and the books have been gone over from beginning to end, and all the expenses of the company gone into most carefully, and then and then only will we consider whether or not we shall give assistance.' Is that the conduct of men who intended to do wrong; is that the conduct of men who were careless of the public interest? Notwithstanding that the company was greatly embarrassed, the government refused to give further assistance to them until that audit was made. Mr. Sharpe, who made that audit was the one man in New Brunswick who seemed to be recognized by all as most competent to do work of that character. He was an able man, he had a large practice, he was a man of great experience and I believe he did his work thoroughly. He made up an account of the cost of the road and I believe the commissioners say that if you take off the interest and the salaries from Mr. Sharpe's Mr. PUGSLET.
report which were not included in Mr. Evan's statement, there was only a difference of $159 between his report and Mr.. Sharpe's report. Mr. Sharpe was handed over all the accounts, he was given authority to get a full statement from the banks in St. John, he got all the cheques and all the vouchers-vouchers from Mr. Trueman and others, and he was directed to go into the accounts most thoroughly so as to satisfy himself as to their correctness. And Sir, I want to say that although Mr Sharpe had been engaged for months in this work, yet up to the time in the latter part of June, or the early part of July, 1904, when I left for England on business, although I had many conversations with him, he never intimated to me that he had found any difficulty in auditing the accounts or that there was anything in connection with the expenditures which was not absolutely proper and right. I received a leitter a few days ago from a gentleman who is not a political friend of mine but who I believe was actuated by a sense of justice. I refer to Mr. J. J. F. Winslow, of Fredericton and he states that in his judgment the interest allowed by the commissioners is not very much over one half of what it ought to be. He was in Mr. Allen's office and with the late Mr. Sharpe, during a considerable part of the time he was engaged in the work of auditing the accounts, and Mr. Winslow says:
I might add that during all the time in which I was engaged by Mr. Sharpe upon this work he never for one moment intimated in any way to me that he considered any moneys were misappropriated.
It does seem to me that the testimony of such a man should have weight, particularly in view of the manner in which this report has evidently been prepared, and in view of the criticism I have made on many statements contained in it.
There is another statement which is false. These commissioners make the statement that there was $11,500 paid by the company in 1901, to Mr. Evans, for bridge plans and surveys and transfer of subsidies, and they say at page 6 in effect that this was included in the option from Messrs. Clarke & Company and Drexell & Company. I suppose that in this statement they seek to convey the impression that it was improvident to pay the $11,500 in addition to the money which was paid for the purchase of the Central. There is no foundation for that statement. There is nothing in the evidence to warrant that statement. These plans, these surveys, these rights were for the part beyond Chipman, and formed no part of the railway between Norton and Chipman,

and did not pass in any way under the option from Clarke & Company and Drex-ell & Company to Mr. Evans. Then these commissioners say, on page 30, that the $11,500 paid for these plans were the first money which the provincial government paid to the company in 1901. That statement is also not supported by evidence. The government did not pay that $11,500. All the subsidies which were payable by the government were paid either to Mr. Barnes under the order he had, or were paid to the People's Bank of New Brunswick, which had an assignment of the subsidies from the provincial government. I do not know why this statement is made, but at all events there is nothing whatever in the evidence to warrant the commissioners in making it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This $11,500 was paid by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company have any money except what they got from the government?


William Pugsley: This money was borrowed by the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company from the bank.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the bank was paid by the government.


William Pugsley: Not at all, my hon. friend is wrong about that. What these commissioners state is that this was the first money which was paid by the government in 1901. That money was not paid by the government but it was paid by the company. The . money was borrowed from the bank, it formed a part of the expenditure of the company, and it would afterwards be covered by the bonds of the company which were guaranteed by the province. But it was not paid by the province in the sense in which these commissioners put it. They would lead the public to believe that this money was one of the first payments made and that it was paid out of the subsidy.
In that connection, I want to correct an impression which the report is calculated to convey, that from the very outset the government was to guarantee the bonds for the purchase of the Central Railway. It was nothing of the kind. The government, in the exercise of its judgment, thought it best that the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company should amalgamate with or acquire the Central Railway Company; but they had no thought in 1901 nor in 1902, of guaranteeing the bonds for the purchase of the Central Railway. If my hon. friend will turn to the synoptic report of the de-181
bates of the New Brunswick Assembly for 1902, he will find that the premier, in answer to a question, then stated that the company had made a proposition under which they were going to buy the Central Railway by means of an issue of six per cent bonds which they were then about negotiating; and Mr. Tweedie as Provincial Secretary stated that the government were in considerable doubt as to the propriety of allowing that to be done, because he said that in case there was one set of bonds on the Central Railway, which was the connecting link between this new line and the Intercolonial, and another set of bonds on the new line from Minto extending westward, guaranteed by the government, in case of default, the railways might again become separated into two systems, and the new line would be at the mercy of the line extending from Chipman to Norton. It was only when the legislature met in 1903, that the government came to the conclusion that they would guarantee bonds sufficient to enable the company to complete its purchase of the Central Railway and complete the improvements then being made, and make an issue of new bonds on the entire system, so that in reality and for all time the entire line, which is sixty miles in length, and including branches of eight or nine miles, should form one system of railway. I speak of that because the conditions would be somewhat different in the first instance if the government had guaranteed the bonds for the purchase of the Central Railway. At the time the option was acquired from Messrs. Evans & Elkins there was no thought of that. The acquiring of that option was the business of the New Brunswick Coal & Railway Company alone. It was some two years afterwards that the government decided, in the then condition of affairs to guarantee bonds on the entire system and wipe out the old issue which was standing against the new line.
I want to come to another statement which I think is unfair and not supported by the evidence. You will find on page 43 a reference to myself. Perhaps I ought not to deal with this, but rather leave it to my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) if he should do us the favour of making some remarks, because the matter was I think brought particularly to his attention. But as it concerns myself, I think I perhaps ought again to call attention to the unfairness of these commissioners. It appeared in my evidence that the $5,000 which has been spoken of as having the initials 'W.P.' opposite it, was a cheque given on the 30th of June, 1904, just before I was leaving for England, to the order of the New Brunswick Real Estate Loan & Trust Company.



These commissioners refer to this company as a loan company, and make the statement that it kept no books. Well, Sir, a loftn company carrying on the business of a loan company which kept no books would be an extraordinary institution; yet they convey that impression. As a matter of fact, although the name of this company is the New Brunswick Real Estate Loan & Trust Company, it has never done any business as a loan company or a trust company. It is simply a real estate holding company, holding the Pugsley Building in the city of St. John; and what I said was that Judge Trueman, who was the Secretary and the Treasurer of this Company, kept ordinary rent books, in which rents, taxes, and the general disbursements of the building would be entered. I explained that it was a real estate holding company and that was all the business it was doing. But these commissioners put forward the suggestion that it was a loan company in order to discredit the evidence I gave, a proceeding which it strikes me was not fair and not what one might expect from commissioners claiming to be regarded as non-partisan. I also stated that the cheques of this -company were given by myself and my wife, because we were the owners of the stock in the company, and we had in the Bank of New Brunswick a considerable amount of money which belonged to this company having been received from the sale of western lands belonging to the company, but which had been put in our names in order to ear-mark it, as it were, so as to keep it apart from the ordinary real estate business of the company; and I produced before these commissioners the cheques dated on the dates given on page 43, except the last one, which should be March, 1904, instead of 1902, and I stated what the amounts were for as shown in the cheque stubs and in the cheques themselves: one in favour of E. C. Elkin for $2,000, another in favour of E. G. Evans for $2,000, another to A. I. Trueman, for $2 750 another in favour of A. I. Trueman for $198; another in favour of E. G. Evans for $1,000; and another in favour of the Canada Permanent Loan Company for $1,272, being for interest for the half year due on the 1st of March, 1904. I stated that positively. I stated that I remembered distinctly paying the interest to the Canada Permanent, and loaning this money to the railway company for that purpose, and I actually produced before the commissioners the receipt of the Canada Permanent Company for the payment. I also stated that in order to make a payment to Evans & Elkins on their option, the company had borrowed money from a number of people in St. John, whom I Mr. PUGSLEY.
named-Mr. Frank Stetson, Mr. McAvity, Mr. Connell, Mr. Barnhill, Mr. Trueman, and Mr. Skinner. I said that the company had paid one-half of the amount, and that there was a balance of $2,750 due, for which those people held notes, and that was the amount of the cheque which we lent through Judge Trueman to the railway company. I not only gave the names of these people, but produced the cheque in favour of Judge Trueman. I remember as if it were yesterday that after I produced the cheques Mr. Powell said: 'You need not mind going any further; you have the cheques,' I said, 'Yes, it is fortunate that I have the cheques.' Yet, notwithstanding that, these commisioners choose to distort the record and say that I was not sure that these moneys were loaned to the New Brunswick Coal & Railway Company, but surmised that they had been loaned. The record shows that I stated positively that I loaned these moneys and produced the cheques and the cheque stubs to verify the statement I made; yet they chose to to throw doubt upon my statement and say that if I did lend it no doubt I got the money back. All I can say is there is the testimony which I gave, and I produced the cheque stubs which contain the memos made at the time; and if they wanted to discredit my testimony, they ought to have called Mr. Connell and Mr. Barnhill who, they say, gave exceedingly satisfactory testimony, and these other gentlemen, and asked them if it were true this amount was lent the company and this $2,750 was paid under the circumstances and the notes given^ up to Mr. Trueman. Should they not h'ave done that before throwing aside the testimony I gave that the loan was for the purposes of the company and was a loan to the companies.
There is another matter with regard to which these commissioners have done a great wrong to those who were interested in the carrying forward of this undertaking and to Mr. Evans, a member of the firm of Evans & Elkin who gave the option to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company upon the Central Road. * The statement which was made by Mr. Evans was-and the document was produced- that having an option on the bonds and two-thirds of the stock of the Central Road, he and Mr. Elkin gave an agreement to sell the road and give a complete title to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company for the sum of $180,000. He also said that there was then important work under way, work of reconstruction of bridges and trestles and certain other improvements, on which some $24,000 had been already expended and which, it was estimated, would cost something like $50,000 more, and he swore that they went on and completed those improvements be-

fore the New Brunswick Coal and Kailway
Company took over the road. They completed those improvements at their own expense, outside the money altogether which the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company expended on that line. But these commissioners say:	Why, we cannot believe Mr. Evans, because he was not under a written obligation to make those improvements; true, he was under a moral obligation, but not under a written obligation, and it passes our comprehension that a man like Evans could be so honest as to carry out what he was only obliged to do by a verbal and moral obligation. Well, the answer to this statement is two-fold. First, that there is nothing in the conduct of Mr. Evans, from beginning to end, which would warrant these commissioners in refusing to believe him; and second, that this was an option which the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company held upon the Central; and if Evans and Elkin had not carried out in good faith what they had undertaken to do, the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company would not have been bound to exercise, and would not have exercised, their option, and Evans and Elkin would not have succeeded in selling the road. But Mr. Evans produced a ledger showing the payments from month to month; and if these commissioners had wanted the details, all they had to do was to send to Mr. Fowler at Norton, who was keeping account of the expenditure, and he would show it in detail. But they did not want that, they did not ask it, and they tried to throw discredit on the testimony of Mr. Evans in this way.
They say that they got no explanations about' that expenditure. Well, I was on the stand and they never asked me about RJ. The commissioners go out of their way, in another part of their report, to say that they looked upon me-and my hon friend from Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has said the same thing-as having the whole management of the road-that I was, to all intents and purposes, managing director Yet, when I was upon the stand they did not ask me to explain why Evans and Elkin spent $74,000 on the improvement of the Central. Had I been asked, I would have been able to state that, before making a payment on the Central, the representatives of the railway company, which held the option, examined from time to time the accounts and books of Evans and Elkin and saw the moneys they were expending on improvements. And Evans and Elkin submitted to me, as I stated in the legislature, their statement showing they had expended a total of $74,000 on improvements on the Central Railway. Yet, without asking me a single question with regard to it, without apparently making any effort to get 'hold of the books
181 i
kept by Mr. Fowler, which would show the details, and in the face of the positive testimony of Mr. Evans, the commissioners discarded his testimony because they could not believe that any man would be honest enough to carry out an obligation which was only a verbal and a moral, one. If that be the idea of the commissioners, as to the motives and impulses which would influence an ordinary, honest man, they are welcome to it. But there is the fact that these expenditures were made and that the accounts were duly shown the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company before that company exercised its option and completed the purchase of the road.
On page 59 the commissioners say:
The apparent object of the company, judging from results, was to secure the moneys provided by the Act without any effort to establish a plant, and the apparent functions of the executive, judged hy the same standard, was to make the way easy and profitable to the company to accomplish that object.
Let me say that although, in the first instance, the legislature provided that a mining plant should bo established, y@t in the progress of events, that policy was departed from, and it was determined that the better way to secure the development of the coal areas was to encourage the men who were already engaged in a small way in these mining operations, to build branch lines to the various lines so as to facilitate the output of coal and to place it on the market. That was explained to the legislature prior to the passing of the Act of 1904, and by that Act the company was relieved from the obligation of establishing a mining plant. They were relieved of this obli-gaton because the legislature chose to substitute the obligation to build branch lines in the place of the obligation to establishng a mining plant.	.	,,,
Again the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) says that these commissioners justly attack the members of the provincial government, and particularly myself, for the statements which were made, when _ assistance was being asked from the legislature for this company, with regard to the coal deposits and the ability to turn out 150,000 tons per annum and the possibility of finding a market for the output. Sir, I do not take back one word of, what I said regarding the possibility of developing ^the coal areas of New Brunsiwck. Let me call attention for a moment to the development which has already taken place, notwithstanding the fact that we have not been able to sell as much coal to the Intercolonial Railway as we were led to believe we would be able to do. Let me show the progress this road has been making as a result of its extension to the coal fields. When the road was undertaken in 1901, the total freight carried over it was 5,410

tons and the number of passengers, 946. Here is a statement of the different years:
Freight. Passengers.
1901	5,410 tons. 946
1907	
40,358 "	14,2971907	
40,358	14,2971908	
54,860	20,087
And, Sir, I have no doubt, in a very few years, with the rising popularity of New Brunswick coal upon the market, with th increased number of men who are being induced to come there and settle down an live in cottages which the various coa owners are building, and in view of th fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific is com ing there, that the expectations which I held out to the legislature and people of New Brunswick will be far more than realized, and that it will not be many years before there will be considerably more than 150,000 tons of coal a year produced in these coal mines in the vicinity of Minto. And yet these commissioners make that a serious ground of attack upon us, say that we were deceiving the legislature, and that we ought to be condemned by the general public. And my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Crothers) says that for that reason among others we ought to be condemned by this parliament, and that action ought to be taken with reference specially to myself.
I wish to call attention to another instance of the unfairness of these commissioners. At page 33 they seek to convey the impression that there has been somei thing very lax. And here I would invite the attention of the hon. gentlemen who are seeking to figure out the interest:
As the bonds were dated July 1, 1903, it will be seen that three coupons on each bond, covering a year and a half, until December 31, 1904, being a year and a half interest on $450,000 bonds at 4 per cent (amounting to $27,000) had previously accrued. Apparently the most of these three coupons had never been cashed, and we could not find out what disposition was made of them. They should have been cut off by Mr. McAvity and cancelled, and a reoord kept of the same. There is no guarantee that at some time in the future some of these coupons may not be presented for payment by holders for value.
Well, Sir, four years have passed away and they have never been presented yet, and I think we may reasonably conclude that they never will be presented. As a matter of fact, I am informed, they were cut off and cancelled. These commissioners say they were not paid by the province. They were attended to by the company which had borrowed money upon them. They were cut off and cancelled, and though these commissioners say they 'could not find out what disposition was made of them,' they should have been cut off by Mr. McAvity and cancelled, Mr. PUGSLEY.
what will you say, Mr. Speaker, and what will this House say as to the fairness of the commissioners when I tell you that I am informed by telegram from Mr. McAvity that upon the stand he was never asked a single question with regard to these coupons?-his attention was never called to them. Yet these commissioners coolly put it forward as if there might be some dreadful harm come to the province if these coupons should turn up. Could not find out what had become of them! Why did not they ask those who knew? These commissioners seem to think that the way to find out these things is to ask the people who know nothing about them, and to refrain from asking those who do Know, and then throw out the suggestion that they have not been able to get the information. Again, they make the reflection, on page 33, because in the office of the Receiver General there was not a statement as to the amount of bonds which had been guaranteed. I am not sure but that that would have been the proper place to have that record; it may have been an oversight that it was not sent there. But in the office of the Executive Council to which Mr. Powell, the counsel, and the commissioners had access-because it is in evidence that Mr. Powell had gone over all the records of the Executive Council with regard to the company-there were the orders in council drafted from time to time for the guaranteeing of these bonds, and a statement of what had been guaranteed, giving the amounts and the date of guarantee. But these gentlemen say they have only got information on this point from Mr. Shadbolt, manager of the Royal Trust Company, of St. John, who had a clear record of the matter. I do not know whether misapprehension of Mr. Shad-bolt's duty led the commissioners into making some of the extraordinary statements they made as to the time when these bonds were guaranteed and the amounts, because they have evidently ignored the orders in council and have made absolutely false statements as to the amount guaranteed, in some cases going so far as to say they were guaranteed in advance of the legislative authoritv for that purpose. But Mr. Shadbolt, in the ordinary course of business, would not have the time when the bonds were guaranteed, what he would have would be the time when, as trustee, he countersigned the bonds, when the issue would be made. As a matter of fact, with regard to the $250,000, they were made as one issue, because they were to rank pari passu, and, if my memory serves me, were left with the People's Bank for safe keeping, to be issued from time to time as required. Mr. Shadbolt could show when they were counter-

signed, but not when the Provincial Secretary guaranteed them. I have a telegram from Mr. Shadbolt in which he says, confirming what I have said, that he knows when $338,500 was countersigned up to August 6, because that is the time when the exchange took place, and I think he knows when another small amount was guaranteed, but as to the others he knows nothing as to when they were guaranteed. Yet these commissioners have taken his evidence as to the time when they were guaranteed. But, as I have said, there were the orders in council showing the bonds guaranteed at different times. I repeat, and repeat as emphatically as possible, that the statements which these commissioners have made in various parts of their report, contradictory statements in some cases, are contrary to the evidence, and the commissioners have no warrant for making them.	,
Now, these commissioners say that, in figuring out this shortage, they have no doubt that this $39,000 which they say was the shortage on what they found paid to Messrs. Evans & Elkin form a part of the total shortage. How naive are these commissioners! They had to put that in to make the total shortage, and they made it for that purpose. These commissioners gravely say that they have no doubt it does form part of the total shortage, when nobody else would dream but that they had put it there for the very purpose of making the deficit as large as possible. Let me repeat just what I have casually mentioned, and that is that the statement that was made to the auditor, Mr. Sharpe, by Mr. Allen, the secretary of the company, that the amount .paid to the Central Railway was $180,000, that that, in my belief, was a correct statement, and that Mr. Sharpe was quite justified in making the statement in his audit.
Bear in mind that the agreement which was made in the first place was for $180,-
000.	No one questions that being a bona fide contract entered into between Messrs. Evans and Elkin and the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. It is true that these commissioners say that if the company had held out for a while they might have been able to squeeze these people into allowing the to ad to go at a smaller figure. I dispute that. There had been a very considerable public agitation before this option was acquired for the development of the coal areas. The policy of the government and the legislature, approved of by both sides of the House, was to develop these coal areas. Messrs. Evans and Elkin had an option upon the bonds of this road and knowing that it formed the connecting link between the coal fields and the Intercolonial Railway, where
the best market for the coal would be obtained, and they would not be disposed to part lightly with this road, particularly when it was well ironed, when it was well known that the steel rails, spikes and bolts alone would be worth pretty nearly $4,000 a mile, the amount which it had been agreed to pay for this railway, and bearing in mind also that Evans and Elkin were to complete the improvements they then had under way, and which, as their accounts showed, amounted to somewhere in the vicinity of $74,000, it did not strike the government or myself, as ex officio member of this company, that the price of $4,000 a mile was an unreasonable price to pay for this road. It did not strike me that, knowing this was our policy, to develop the coal areas, anything would be gained by waiting and we thought it wa9 a reasonable proposition to pay $180,000, or $4,000 a mile for the 45 miles, upon their giving a complete and absolute title to the line and also making these improvements which they then had under way. That was the agreement, Messrs. Evans and Elkin were entitled to the $180,000 on their completing the title, but not until then. As the evidence shows, as the matter went along, it was found that there were other shareholders besides those whom Messrs. Evans and Elkin represented, whose holdings amounted to something like $300,000. Among them Dr. de Bertram was only one. Whether there were others interested with Dr. de Bertram in his stock or not, I do not-know, but there were other shareholders for whom Messrs. Trueman and Allen were acting and they represented to Mr. Evans that their clients, people interested in the minority stock of the company, were not satisfied that they should receive the whole amount of $180,000 and it was stated that Messrs. Evans and Elkin, while they wanted to get out of it as much of their contract price as they could, did not want to have a foreclosure suit which would mean a long delay and great expense. The evidence shows that they were informed that it was claimed by these shareholders that the bondholders were mortgagees in possession and various questions as to what they had earned or might have earned would necessarily arise _ in a suit for foreclosure. They were willing that the amount should be given by Messrs. Allen and Trueman to the other shareholders and I find that along in the winter of 1903, when Mr. Evans gave to the secretary of the company a receipt for $60,000, the four first payments of $15,000 each, he did allow Mr. Allen to use a -part of that money to satisfy the demands of the other shareholders. It went on down to the summer of 1903 when Mr. Evans and Mr. Allen consented to take something in the vicinity of $140,000, leaving it to Mr. Trueman and Mr. Allen to

do what was reasonably necessary to acquire the property and satisfy the minority shareholders in this company.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the minister say that Mr. Evans allowed Mr. Allen to use the amounts that were deducted from the cheques for that purpose?


William Pugsley: It is evident that he did. He must have done so for he signed a receipt on behalf of himself and Mr. Elkin to the company for that $60,000 and gave it to Mr. Allen, the secretary of the company, who handed it into the government as being the receipt and showing the payment of $60,000. Mr. Evans says that a question was raised with regard to the title and without having a very clear understanding of the matter he left himself in the hands of Messrs. Allen and Trueman, and in the end, in August 1903, he was content to take the $140,000. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has intimated, and I suppose my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) who has asked these questions will intimate and contend, that this money should be accounted for to the government. Sir, I am not able to see why they should do so. I could understand if, in the first instance, inJ stead of. it being understood that the price of $180,000 should be paid, it was understood that a smaller price should be paid and that there should be a commission or a rake-off or something of that kind, the hon, gentlemen might make the contention they do, but conceding as these commissioners do, conceding as all the evidence shows that this was a bona fide arrangement in the first instance for the sale not of the bonds and stock which Evans and Elkin held upon which they had an option but of the complete title to this property for the $4,000 a mile, amounting to $180,000, whatever money Mr. Evans and Mr'. Elkin allowed to Messrs. Allen and Mr. Trueman, was their money, not the money of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, not the money of the government and it was no part of my duty to inquire what was the arrangement between Allen and Trueman and Evans and the minority shareholders whom Allen and Trueman represented. What we were concerned with was to get a complete title, bona fide made in the first instance and the title completed and as I have said, Messrs. Evans and Elkin, not being able for reasons best known to themselves, to complete that title and feeling that they did not want to run the risk of expensive and tedious foreclosure proceedings-whatever arrangement they made with Messrs. Trueman and Allen was their own business and not the business of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company or of the government because they Mr. PUGSLEY.
were dealing with the money of Messrs. Evans and Elkin and not the money of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company.
Mr. Allen, as the secretary of the company, handed into the auditor the statement that the $180,000 had been paid, as I have no doubt whatever it was paid, and we were quite correct in making the statement that it was paid. We did not say it was paid to Evans and Elkin, we said it was paid for the title to the property according to the option taken in 1901 or 1902, and which all parties agree was a bona fide option, and the price for which was finally agreed upon and fixed at $4,000 a mile.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the minister
say who were the persons who got the balance and what each of them got?


William Pugsley: No, I do not know. I did not feel it was part of my duty to inquire. It was a matter entirely between Messrs. Evans and Elkin and Allen and Trueman. All I know is that we were asked to make the provision which we did that the payment was to complete the title, and the title was obtained. Evans and Elkin handed over their part of it and the company executed the title.


Robert Laird Borden: What conveyance or assurance, if any, was given by the persons to whom the money was paid?


William Pugsley: The title was obtained.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean the balance
of $30,000 which Evans and Elkin did not receive. What conveyance or assurance was given by the persons to whom that was paid?


Mr. PUGSLEY  .@: I am not able to inform my hon. friend as to that. Messrs., Allen and Trueman were to complete the title and did complete the title.


Robert Laird Borden: How?


William Pugsley: For that purpose they settled with the shareholders. There were no proceedings taken and a purchase was made from Dr. de Bertram for which, I think, Mr. Skinner made the statement that he paid a small amount.


George Eulas Foster: Very small?


William Pugsley: It was a small amount as far as Dr. de Bertram was concerned. As to the other people interested, in the stock concerned we have no evidence. They got enough to give them three-quarters of the stock and then the president made the transfer under the seal of the company. I Tepeat that it was a matter entirely between Mr. Evans, on the one hand and Mr. Trueman and Mr. Allen on the other. I did not feel that it was a part of my duty to intervene. What we wanted for the company was a complete title. We
wanted that pursuant to the agreement which we had approved of, pursuant to the agreement which had been in existence for two years and upon which all parties had acted. Evidently Mr. Evans thought i was of advantage to make the arrangement which he did. The arrangement was made, it was carried out in good faith, the title was obtained and the mortgage to secure the $540,000 of bonds was discharged so that a complete and unencumbered title was vested in the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company and the mortgage, as secur-ings the bonds to the Royal Trust Company, was also registered giving a first security upon the whole system from Norton to Minto and also including the branches to the coal mines.
Now, as I stated, I have obtained from Mr. Evans, in a letter which he has written me giving me his statement of the interest I have also the letter of Mr. Winslow, who was in the office of Mr. Allen, the secretary of the company, giving me his statement./ I have taken occasion to make up a statement myself and I may say that in doing so I have been obliged to accept many of the figures which have been given by the commissioners, because, from the way in which they are given in the report, it is impossible for me to tell whether they are correct or not. Therefore, for the purpose of this statement which I have made up, I assume that they are correct as far as they go. If you will allow me I will read this, statement and it will very near close the remarks which I have to offer to the House.
Taking Cornissioners' Statement ' C ' beginning on page 74 of report.
Cost of 15 miles section and branches to January 1, 1904, as per estimate of E. G. Evans, accepted by commissioners as correct, which, however, does not include interest during construction	$31b,bZb.33
Amount paid Clarke & Co., and Evans & Elkin for bonds and portion of stock, as per commissioners
statement on page 74	 140,409.03
Improvements by company to July 1,
1905, as per commissioners' statement, page 74	 77,611.82
Expenditures by government from July 1, 1905, to September 30, 1905,
as per statement page 74	 4,642.79
Paid Brown Bros, under contract to improve Central Railway, as per
statement, page 74	 56,234.72
Expenditure by government to complete Brown Bros, contract upon Central Railway, as per commissinners' statement page	74 .... 28,603.83
New rolling stock as per commissioners' statement, page	74	 23,779.88
Loss in operating road from August,
1902, to March 31, 1908, as per commissioners' statement, page 75..	..	19,921.10
Miscellaneous expenditures exclusive of interest, as per commissioners statement, page 75	 14,907.54
Legal expenses as per commissioners'
statement, page 75	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] $4,595 00
Commission paid L. J. Tweedie on sale of $50,000 of bonds to Mr. Hickson, as per commissioners'
statement, page 76	 500	00


Paid M.: Robinson & Sons expres-sage on $368,000 bonds and exchange, as per commissioners'
statement, page 76	 225	00


Paid George G.: Scovil for gravel pit as per commissioners' statement, page 76	 3,000	00
Paid for plans, right-of-way, &c., less portion included in cost of 15 mile section, as per commissioners'
statement, page 76	 7,300 00
Sundry other items paid by company, not already included, as per commissioners' statement, page 76.	859 94-
Sundry expenditures paid by government, not already included, as per commissioners' statement, page 76 28,325 30 Cash paid over to new commissioners,
Messrs. Archibald & Stone, as per commissioners' statement, page 76.	4,372 12
Down to that I have taken the different items of the commissioners' report and I have assumed that they are correct. Then, I take the interest that the commissioners say is correct upon the cost of construction as found by Mr. Shannon down to the 1st January, 1904.
Interest on cost of construction of the 15 mile section to Jan. 1, 1904, as per S. L. Shannon's report adopted by the commissioners' as correct (see pages 22 and 23).. .. 28,231 00 Interest paid from July 1, 1905, to March 31, 1908, as per report of commissioners, page 80	 68,7-0 65
Now, I add the following items which have been entirely omitted from the commissioners' report:


Raid George G.: Scovil for ties purchased for 30 mile section and subsequently used on Central Railway 7,000 00
I understand that these commissioners have ignored and omitted that because they say that the payment of the subsidy was illegal. As a matter of fact, Sir, that $7,000 was paid under the contract which the government had with the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company for the completion, of the second section between Minto and] Fredericton. Mr. Scovil had delivered along the line of railway something like 60,000 sleepers and the government thought proper, in the exercise of its best judgment, to pay to the company, on account of that material, the sum of $7,000 which forms a part of the payment upon subsidy account.


George Eulas Foster: What became of these ties?


William Pugsley: They were used upon the Central Railway which is now owned by the government.


Paid E.   G.@: Evans for bridge plans
for 20 mile section	 $1,025 00
Paid James Barnes amount of order given by Central Railway Company against subsidy on account of work done prior to 1901, and paid out of the subsidy	 8,500 00
They paid over this to Mr. Barnes. As hon. gentlemen will see by the statement given by these commissioners upon page 4 of the report, he had done work upon the Central Railway, and particularly in connection with the building of the Salmon river bridge, to the extent of $23,000. He had an assignment of the subsidy contract. He had received on account $8,000, but Dr. de Bertram had gone away owing him a considerable amount of money and Mr. Barnes refused, and I am not going to blame Him for doing so, to transfer the subsidy contract to this new company unless they would agree to pay him $8,500 more on account of this $23,000 worth of work which he had done and which this company acquired on taking over the new line of railway. The company agreed that out of the subsidy of $3,000 per mile they would pay Mr. Barnes the sum of $8,500 and he assigned over the subsidy contract to the new company. That accounts for $8,500.
Paid for right-of-way on the 30 miles section, $300.
It would appear from a report from Mr. Evans, the engineer, that that should be $600.
Paid Barnes Construction Company loss on boarding house account, noted on page 80 of commissioners' report, but not included in Evans' statement of co6t, $6,789 02.
Mr. Evans has informed me that that is not included in his statement.
Balance of purchase price Central Railway improperly deducted by dommssoners, making the $180,000 $39,590 97 Interest on $60,000 paid on account purchase of Central Railway from, say, Jan. 1, 1903, to July 1, 1905, at average of 6 per cent, 2 years and 6 months	 9,000 00
That I am satisfied is a low rate of interest because during a .considerable portion of the time, the interest, as these commissioners themselves say would be 61 to 7 per cent.
Interest on $120,000, balance of purchase price of Central Railway, from August 6, 1903 to July, 1905, an average of 5 per cent say 2
years	$12,000 00
Interest on $60,000 expended for improvements between August, 1902, and December 31, 1904, given on page 08 of synoptic report of legislative assembly, to July 1, 1905, this amount forming part of the item of $77,611.82 shown on page 74 of commissioners' report, say 2
years at average 5 per cent	 6,000 00
Mr. PUGSLE1.
Interest on balance of the $77,611.82,
$17,611.82 for say 3 months at 5
per cent	$	240 00
Interest on loss on operation from August 1902. to December 31, 1904,
$17,508, say 1 year at average 6 per
cent	 1,050 00
Interest on cost of construction of the 15 mile section and branches, from completion of main line January 1, 1904, as follows:-
Evans' statement	$316,626 33
Add interest during construction as per Shannon's report	 28,234 00

Deduct advances by I.C.R. in rails and iron as per statement, page 73.. .. 39,485 00

I think it is fair to deduct the advance by the Intercolonial Railway because the company would not be paying interest on these rails and so I take it off.
Interest on this amount of $305,375.33 from January 1, 1904, to July 1,
1905, If years, at average 5 per
cent	$ 22,903 00
i	$940,903 03
I think that is a low average rate of interest because as I have said these commissioners recognize that for a considerable part of the time the company was paying from 61 to 7 per cent. For a part of the time they would be only paying 4 per cent on the bonds actually sold and therefore I average it at 5 per cent.
Forward	$940,317 03
Additional new rolling stock Amount given in Auditor General Report of 1907,
page 228	$30,500 00
Amount allowed by commissioners	 23,779 88
$ 6,720 12	6,720 12
Snow plough not included in Evans'
statement	 1,880 00
There you get $948,000 in all or within $10,000 of the total receipts from the bonds and from the subsidies both provincial and Dominion. But, Sir, that does not include the salaries which were included in the statement of the audit by Mr. Sharpe and therefore I think it is not unreasonable to take the difference between the cost of construction as given by Evans including interest during construction and the statement of Mr. Sharpe.
Difference between cost of construction as given by Evans, including interest during construction.. ..$344,860 33 And cost as given by auditor Sharpe	 368,056 33
23,196 00 23,196 00

5753 MAY 5, 1909 5754	
Amount received from sale of guaranteed bonds and Dominion and province subsidies as per statement of commissioners	Jpyos.uuu uu Difference. .$ 14,033 15 Adding these altogether you have a total of $972,033.16 or $14,033.15 more than the total receipts which were obtained from the b nds and also from the provincial and Dominion subsidies. I assume therefore [DOT] that we may very well deduct for salaries a part of the amount which was allowed by Mr. Sharpe. These commissioners think a certain amount ought to be deducted and if you do deduct in the vicinity of $14,000 you will have the receipts and expenditures about balancing each other. I do not know and I cannot say whether I have figured this interest correctly or not, but what I do say is that no statement is correct, no statement ought to be given to the people of this country, no statement ought to be presented to this parliament which does not take account of the interest during that long period from 1901 to the 1st of July 1905, upon the cost of the Central and upon all the improvements to the Central. No statement ought to be presented to this House or to the country which does not take account of the interest upon the cost of construction between the 1st of January 1904 and the 1st of July 1905. I have endeavoured in this statement of interest to figure upon a moderate basis. I have not figured at the higher rate, but I figured upon a low average and I am satisfied that if these commissioners had gone to the trouble of ascertaining what the interest actually paid was and had sought to make out an interest account, it would be larger than the amount I have stated to the House. At all events I leave the matter for the consideration of the members of this House. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Before the minister leaves that-he has reflected upon the commissioners two or three times in respect to their alleged default in not obtaining data as to the interest, and he says that the whole account could be made out in two days. It is two weeks since he has had notice of this matter. Why has he not procured a correct statement of the interest if it is so easy to ascertain it. Mr. PUGSLEY. I will tell my hon. friend why; I have not access to these various banks. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Why not? Mr. PUGSLEY. Because I have not the right to have access to them. That was the duty of the commissioners and why did they not do it? These commissioners were charged with the duty of doing it. They	were charged with the duty of reporting as to the receipts and the expenditures of this oompany. Although Mr. Hazen, the premier, is a director ex officio of this company and was then, and although the provincial secretary was then and is now an ex officio member of this company they did not choose themselves to ascertain what had been the expenditures but they charged this commission with the duty of doing it and they gave them power of summoning before them all parties and having, brought before them all books, and all accounts. And the hon. member from Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has put this before the House as a report which is worthy of the confidence of this House and upon which the House should Act. And, when asked as to how this interest account was made up, the premier of New Brunswick said it would take months to make out a statement as to how they arrived at the interest. What I do submit to the members of this House and to the people of this country with all confidence is that when these commissioners issued this report they ought to have ensured that the interest amount was absolutely accurate; they ought to have known that it could be relied upon. Now, Sir, what do these commissioners recommend? They recommend that the directors of this company, and more especially the ex officio directors, the Hon. Mr. Tweedie and myself, should be called to render an account to this company for its receipts and expenditures. Sir, I have always been ready to render an account of my dealings with this company as an ex officio director. I would have been glad if, instead of transferring the matter to this forum and taking up the time of this parliament, the provincial government had taken some steps to carry out the recommendations of these commissioners and to have an account taken. But, Sir, the legislature of New Brunswick has now been prorogued and no action of any kind was taken on this report by the provincial government. The only reference that was , made to it so far as I have observed, and I read the papers daily, was to put two series of questions to the government, one of which was answered in the manner to which I have directed attention. Sir, I have waited until now, waited since the last of March, when this report was signed and published. I have waited until now for some action to be taken on the part of the provincial government to have the report of these commissioners carried out and to have some steps taken to have an accounting. They have not chosen to take any steps to that end, although under the law the present Attorney General and the present Provincial Secretary are ex officio directors of the company and are entitled

to call upon me and every other director for .an accounting. They have taken no steps to do so, and whv ? Because they knew that if they brought an action in the Supreme Court in Equity, the objection would probably be raised in this parliament that the matter was sub judice and therefore could not properly be brought up in this parliament, and they would have been further away than ever from their cherished design of driving me from the government. They have not done so, and I have taken the only course open to me: I yesterday instructed my solicitor-the legislature having prorogued only a few days ago, to issue a summons in the Supreme Court of Equity of the province of New Brunswick, making the New Brunswick Coal and Kailway Company and the other parties defendants, so as to bring all parties before the court for the purpose of having an accounting as to the receipts and expenditures made by that company, and for the purpose of having a decree made as to the state of its accounts. Having taken that course, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I have done all that I can properly do, and what it is right and proper that I should do.
While I may not perhaps be as careful as I ought to be, particularly in reference to my own affairs, and although in respect to those loans which were made to the company, I ought perhaps to have taken a receipt or a promissory note from the company, yet I want to say that the man has yet to live who can stand up and say that I have ever wronged an individual or the public in respect to a single dollar. I have always been prepared, in the legisla ture of New Brunswick, where I spent many years, and before the people of the province, who know me, to meet any charges that have ever been made or can be made with regard to myself. In this parliament I am a comparative stranger, but I have endeavoured to present the facts of the case as I believe them to be. I have endeavoured to point out errors, inconsistencies, falsehoods, inaccuracies of the grossest kind, evidences of the greatest partisanship, in this report. I think I can acquit my conscience of having done anything but what I should do in presenting the facts of the case to this House.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit myself to the judgment of this House. I recognize that I could not remain a member of this House or a member of this government if I ceased to have the respect and regard of the members of this House. I feel that I could no longer be worthy to sit among hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in this House if I had been guilty of any act unworthy of a public man. I desire therefore to leave my case in the judgment of Mr. PUGSLEY.
this House; and, Sir, with your permission, in order that the members on both sides of the House may feel the more free to discuss this case and comment upon it, I will ask the liberty to retire while the discussion is going on and until the House comes to a conclusion upon it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Speaker, I would not have thought that any hon. member of this House, much less one occupying the responsible position of a Minister of the Crown, would have ventured to defend himself against such grave findings as are contained in the report of this Royal Commission, upon such flimsy pretexts as those that have been advanced by the Minister of Public Works this afternoon and this evening. I ask hon. members on both sides of this House to ponder for a moment the passages which have been quoted from that report by my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), and then ask themselves if in all the heat and verbosity and repetition which the Minister of Public Works has exhibited, there is one single statement that breaks dowm or in any way impairs the force of the arraignment with which he stands confronted before the country to-day. 1 ask the members of this House what they think of all this talk about a typographical error, which does not affect in the slightest degree one single transaction of the very many transactions for which this commission has condemned the Minister of Public Works. My hon. friend from West Elgin Iras already dealt with that typographical error. I was surprised that the Minister of Public Works would attempt in this House to represent that that error in the statement regarding the_ capital stock of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company was a deliberate attempt on the part of the commission to deceive the public. Why, if the hon. minister had looked at the opposite page of the report he would have seen that the commission set out fully that the capital stock of the company was $100,000 and that the number of shares Mr. Skinner disposed of amounted to $43,000, and could not possibly have amounted to $430,000. But, Mr. Speaker, as in a former case in which the Minister of Public Works was involved, this typographical error has been used for the purpose of drawing a herring across the trail. Now, Mr. Speaker,
I have read with the greatest care this report, I have Tead also with the greatest care the evidence on which that report is founded, and I am prepared to say, speaking as a member of this House, thatothere is not one accusation or finding in that report that is not absolutely borne out by the evidence. The Minister of Public Works has stated in his closing remarks that he has endeavoured to show the inconsistencies and errors and mistakes that

appeared in that report. I am here to-night to show by the evidence, which I have with me, that the statement which the hon. gentleman has made to this House to-night with reference to these matters is absolutely contradicted by the evidence, and much of it by his own statement before the commission; 'and I regret very much that the Minister of Public Works, under the pretext of giving us an opportunity of discussing this question freely should have seen fit to withdraw from this House, because I intended to put a few questions to him in reference to the matters which I say he has represented, in a false manner before this House.


George Eulas Foster: Let him be called back.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: ing to the Liberal machine in the province of New Brunswick. And also as has been pointed out, not one of them put a single dollar into the treasury of the company; every dollar that the company handled they got out of the treasury of the province of New Brunswick or out of the treasury of the federal government at Ottawa.
Now, the Minister of Public Works has sought to cast discredit upon this commission by representing to this House that they were not justified in the statement that this company kept no books, and he- rather ingeniously, I thought-quoted from the report the statement in Teferertce to the books which were kept at Norton and which related to the portion of the Central road from Norton to Ohipman, and asked the members of the House, in view' of that statement, what they thought of the statement that this company had no books or records. Why, at the very bottom of the page from which the minister quoted was a statement that outside of these books there were no records kept by the company, and more than once in their report the commissioners state that the books at Norton and so far as that portion of the road was concerned were well kept. But the books, the lack of which the commissioners comment upon, are books relating to the construction of the so-called 15-mile section and the other expenditures in connection with the purchase of the Central Railway and the receipt and disposal of moneys^ procured as subsidies and raised upon bonds, &c. This company was incorporated in 1901 to build a line of railway from Chipman to Gibson, opposite the city of Fredericton, a distance of 45 miles. A contract was entered into between the government and the company, the government grants ing the subsidy for the building of that line. There is not a book to be found, and there was not. a book available for the examination of this commission with reference to that portion of the work. There was a secretary to that company, and a treasurer and a president. The Minister of Public Works referred to J. J. F. Winslow, of Fredericton, who became, after the death of Mr. G. W. Allen, the secretary of the company, and who, in Mr. Allen's lifetime, acted as his clerk. And it appears by the evidence of Mr. Winslow, who was actually the secretary of this company, that he did not know even who the treasurer of the company was, that Mr. Allen kept no books, that he (Mr. Winslow) after he became secretary, endeavoured to make up a book from scattered data which Mr. Allen furnished him, a statement which is on the face of it incoml-plete, and which never professed-and nobody ever stated that it professed-to represent the complete transactions of the company. It is in the evidence of Mr. McAvity that he had no books. He states


Oswald Smith Crocket: in his evidence not only that he had no books, but that he could not find any books except the books of the company at Norton. And there had been no contention made, until the effort of the Minister of Public Works to-day, to controvert the statement that there were no records or books of account that could be relied upon to show the expenditure of the large amount of money that passed through the hands of the company. Not only had this company no books of account, but the books of account of the Barnes Construction Company to whom they let the contract for the construction of the Fredericton-Gibson section were not available. The Minister of Public Works sought this evening to create the impression that again this commission had attempted to deceive the public by stating that the company had no books by making reference to the statement that Mr. Shannon, the auditor of the Intercolonial Railway, made when he examined the books of the Barnes Company that he was making up a statement of cost for the purpose of obtaining a federal subsidy. Why, that statement appeared in the report itself, that Mr. Shannon had access to the books' that the Barnes Company had at the time. But when the commission sought to obtain these books, they were not available, the books had disappeared and the commission made an effort to find the books of the Barnes Construction Company, and notwithstanding this they were not produced before the commission. But I propose to read from the evidence of Mr. Barnes with reference to that. I refer to page 643 of the evidence:
Q. Have you any cheques or drafts that were given by you or accepted by you in connection with this transaction A. I did not keep track of them.
Q. Have you any cheques or drafts in connection with this matter between you and company?
A. I don't think it. The business was wiped out and that was the end of it.
Q. Did you destroy your drafts?
A. I did as a general thing. iQ. Your cheques?
A. I destroyed them. At the end of the year the cheques are checked over and that is the end of them.
Q. Is that your invariable custom ?
A. As a general thing I do.
Q. Have you heard any one tell of your books since?
A. No.
Q. Have no idea w'here they are?
A. No.
This is the evidence of the manager of the Barnes Construction Company with reference to the books which this commission sought to get before it, to determine as to the correctness of the payments made to him. Not only with reference to the Barnes Construction Company were books found to be missing, hut when we come to

the loans alleged to have been made by the New Brunswick Beal Estate, Loan, Trust and Investment Company, of which the minister was practically the sole owner, the evidence is that there were no books. I desire to give the evidence with reference to that, which will be found at page 697. Judge Trueman, of whom the Minister of Public Works made mention, was the secretary, it appeared, of this company, a company that kept no books and made loans without any record, and without charging interest:
C* I should like to know about the credits or payments made to you before this $5,000 was got by you?
A. If Judge Trueman were living, I would assume you could get it from him or from Mr. Allen, the secretary.
This, it will be understood, is the examination of the Minister of Public Works.
Q. Mr. Allen had no books?-A. Mr. Allen told me he was keeping a correct account.
Q. You cannot give us the amounts that were paid to you on account of these advances you made to Mr. Evans or the company or for the use of the company, down to the 1st day of July, 1904?-A. No, I can't; my reason is this, I keep no personal trace of my money matters at all.
This is the evidence of the Minister of Public Works:
Judge Trueman had a power of attorney and my secretary had power of attorney as well; these accounts I know were loaned and Judge Trueman reported to me on the 30tli of June that there was considerably more than $5,000 due to the company.
That is the New Brunswick Real Estate Loan and Investment Company.
Q. I was asking you if you could give us the amounts?-A. That is the reason.
Q. We are to understand that you did not keep books of your own financial transactions?-A. Yes, I could say that, I can say that I did not. Since I have Been in business I have kept partial books of accounts, no credit amounts. All these matters I trusted entirely to Mr. Allen and to Mr. Trueman.
Further, on page 698:
Judge Trueman was treasurer and secretary and was running the transactions.
And yet there is the statement of the Minister of Public Works that the secretary and treasurer of that company, with this name, the New Brunswick Beal Estate, Loan and Investment Company, carried on its business without keeping -any books. Yet the minister reflects upon the commission because they -had not brought before them the executor of the Trueman estate to question him with regard to Judge Trueman's books and papers. He does this although when before the commission he himself stated that there were no books kept by
this company. Not only in reference to these two companies-the Barnes Construction Company, to which thousands of dollars were ostensibly paid out of the treasury of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, and the New Brunswick Real Estate, Loan and Investment Company by which loans were 'alleged to be made to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, were the books missing and the records lost, but even in regard to the firm of J. M. Robinson & Company, who discounted bonds to the amount of $373,000. Would you believe that when Mr. Robinson was before that commission and was -asked about the record of that transaction, he stated that he could not find his books or the record of that transaction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want my hon. friend to tell me where he finds that evidence, because h-e must know that Mr. Robinson produced his books, statements and accounts for every cent of it and we have the accounts submitted to the commissioners containing every cent of that amount. I think my bon. friend is not doing himself justice.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Do not worry about him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: At page 649 this evidence of Mr. J. M. Robinson will be found.
Q. -Did you -find your books of that year?- A. No.
Q. Have you instituted a search for them? -A. I searched all over my papers and was not able to find them; I presume they were destroyed.
Q. Were the books of that year destroyed? -A. Yes,-well I cannot find them.
Mr. Robinson's brother was also brought before the commission and gave precisely the same -evidence, that the books could not be found. I think, after hearing these extracts from the evidence, the House will be -able to measure at their true value the statements made by the Minister of Public Works with reference to the books and records of the company.
Furthermore there is the evidence of Mr. Corbett who was appointed to make an audit and who claimed that he could not make an audit from the data put before him. At page 175 of the evidence, Mr. Corbett said that he could not find any book of account from which he could make these things up. So I might quote from several other witnesses. Mr. C. N. Skinner has been referred to. I believe he acted as solicitor for this company. Mr. Skinner was asked in reference to an item of $1,800, that he seems to have got out of the treasury of the company. He stated that he had nothing to show what he got the $1,800 payment for and he had no account against the company. That was the class of evidence with which the commission had to

deal. As I stated before, every officer of this company, including the president and every director who was living, was summoned before the commission and questioned in regard to all these transactions, and there is line after line and page after page in that report of nothing but: I cannot remember, I do not remember, I do not know anything about it. Yet in view of a record of that kind, the Minister of Public Works has the temerity to come before the parliament of Canada and draw upon the fact that the great majority of the members of this House are not familiar with these transactions, making a statement which he hopes to spread broadcast throughout this country for the purpose of discrediting this commission.
One of the first errors in the report which the minister pointed out was a statement that there was a note of $10,000 which was discounted by the Hon. F. P. Thompson in the month of November, 1902, of the proceeds of which no trace could be found. The minister stated that if the commission had turned up the account of the Barnes Construction Company they would have found that amount credited there. I have the account of the Barnes Construction Company with me here now, and I would challenge the Minister of Public Works, if he were here, or his counsel the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) to show-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I accept the challenge-


Oswald Smith Crocket: In the month of November, 1902-
Mr. CARVELL

if my hon. friend will
permit me-just give me time to look up my papers. I presume my hon. friend has the Barnes Construction account here. I ask him to turn to page 502.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes, find me a payment of $10,000 in the month of November.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, I will tell the hon. gentleman that if he will look down under the date of February 21,-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hold on, now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I tell my hon. friend and he knows it, the $10,000 is there and-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And if he will turn up to


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Chairman, I ask


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. I rise to order and the hon. gentleman will please take his seat. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) ,wm^ speaking, I understand, with the permission of the hon. member and in that case he should be heard.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I was quite willing that the hon. gentleman should point out that payment. He accepted my challenge to point out the payment in the month of November, 1902, of $10,000 and he has not done it.	'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, ini accepting the challenge and privilege granted to him should confine himself ex-i actly to the terms of that privilege.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will explain this at a later date.


Oswald Smith Crocket: for the 15 miles which were constructed would be $37,500, $13,000 having been paid under the prior contract. That would leave a margin of $22,500 between the amount of the subsidy fixed by the legislature at $3,000 per mile and the amount that the government contracted to pay over to this company. There is a very interesting story in connection with how that difference of $22,500 was disposed of. I have already referred to the order in council of the 2nd of July, 1901, and that order in council, after providing for the payment oi a subsidy of $2,500 per mile to the company although the Act provided for $3,000 per mile, makes this further provision:
The Provincial Secretary also reports that there has been paid by the Receiver General to the Central Railway upon and on account of the subsidy of $3,000 per mile, payable under the said Act, 15 Vic., chap 34, in respect to the line between Chipman and Fredericton the sum of $13,000, and the said Central Railway Company has also lodged with the Receiver General orders against such subsidy to the additional amount of $8,500, and as the subsidy payable under such Act is $3,000 per mile, and the work done on said line has by reason of thfe lapse of time since it was done and for other reasons become of comparatively little value, he recommends that the said sum of $13,000 shall not be deducted from said subsidy, and also that the amount of such orders or such portion thereof as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may deem just, shall with the approval of the legislature be paid to the holder or holders of such orders, said amount to be paid pro rata as each section of 10 miles is completed.
Now, the orders for $8,500 which are there referred to are orders, $7,500 of which were held by William Pugsley and C. N. Skinner and the order in favour of Mr. W. F. Whitehead for $1,000, Mr. Pugsley had himself received $2,250 and Mr. Whitehead $300 on these orders previous to the passing of this order in council. And yet this order in council makes that provision, an order in council which on its face appears to have been drawn by the then Attorney General himself. There is another order in council passed on the 12th of April, 1902, which is to be found on page 44 of these documents and that makes further reference to the $8,500 of orders which were held by the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Whitehead. This second order in council on this subject is rather interesting and it sets forth


George Eulas Foster: What is the date?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 12th of April, 1902.


George Eulas Foster: He was then Attorney General?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 6, 1909.