1910-04-21

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 213) respecting the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Sifton.
Bill (No. 214) respecting the Alberta and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Herron.
Bill (No. 215) to incorporate the Buctouche Railway and Transportation Company.-Mr. Carvell.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I inquired of the Prime Minister a few days ago whether or not the government would lay upon the table of the House the papers in connection with the petition for disallowance of certain legislation of the [DOT] province of Ontario. May I again bring the matter to the attention of the government ?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: There is no objection, and the papers will be laid on the tabls as soon as they can be copied.



SUPPLY-THE RICHIBUCTO WHARF.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding ' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Crocket thereto.
['The House will be moved into Committee of Supply, and I believe there will be discussion on that motion. In Supply the estimates of the Minister of Interior will be taken.']
Mr.  F. B.@: CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, I desire as briefly as possible to review some of the facts in this case, which my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) discussed for three hours and a half yesterday afternoon; and it seemed to me that just before he closed he was attempting to take away from the hon. member from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) the distinction which he holds of having made the longest speech on record during the present session. If the hon. member for York could have held out for another 40 minutes, I think he would have carried off the palm; and as he spent three-quarters of his time in reading disjointed portions of the evidence, if he had read a little more, he could have occupied four hours and ten minutes and could have gone back to New Brunswick with a record equal to that which he established last year. It is remarkable that his record of last year was made in an attempt to besmirch the character of the Minister of Public Works, and he attempted to make his record this year with the same object in view. If he does not succeed any better on the present occasion than he did last year, he will have spent a lot of energy and wasted a
7C51

great deal of the time of this House in a very useless way. My hon. friend spent four hours .last year on a subject to him of so much importance that he divided the House upon it-a subject which had been investigated by an arbitration in the province of New Brunswick under the direction of the provincial government at a cost of from $12,000 to $15,000, and which his own friends in the provincial legislature had not the courage to refer to when the report was laid on the table of the House, and the matter has not been referred to in the province of New Brunswick from that day to this. Now. he has used three hours and a half of the time of this House in the closing days of this session to discuss a matter which is so paltry that it seems to me even the hon. member for York might have been ashamed to have discussed it in the manner he has done. I am sorry that the labour of my hon. friend for the past year has come to naught to the extent that it has in this case. In a political sense we know of nothing that the hon. member has looked after during the last year except this sawdust wharf proposition. This matter came up in the House of Commons last year on the Estimates, and my hon. friend got some information; but that only whetted his appetite for more, and as soon as he got back to New Brunswick he started off on the search. It is well known that in the month of October he spent about a week in Richibucto and the vicinity in company with Mr. Richard O'Leary for the purpose of obtaining whatever information he could on this subject, and it is very strange that he went to no one els? for information. It is within the memory of many hon. members of this House who are members of the Public Accounts Committee that on the very day the committee was organized my hon. friend was so anxious to give the public the benefit of his year's research that he demanded that the committee be called together for the very purpose of giving him a chance to have subpoenas issued to certain people in New Brunswick to give evidence on this subject. I do not want to impute unfair motives to my hon. friend, but I want to state the facts, because to my mind they are an indication of the spirit with which my hon. friend has approached this matter from the very beginning down to 12 o clock last evening. He knew that in the following week the Minister of Public \\orks would be in the city of Washington and I would b? in New Brunswick attending court. He had this knowledge, because I sent a note to his desk mate, the hon. member for the city of St, John (Mr. Darnel) asking for a pair, and when he called for the investigation of this matter the next week I asked him if he could not Mr. CARVELL.
as a matter of courtesy delay it until after Christmas. He said that it was impossible, because certain of the witnesses could not come after Christmas; and it was only after pleading with him that it was put off for another week. The Minister of Public Works went to Washington and I went to New Brunswick to attend court, and came back for two or three days for the purpose of being at the meeting of the committee. The only witnesses he brought from beginning to end v->re Messrs. Murray and O'Leary, and they came before Christmas and gave their evidence, and could have come after Christmas notwithstanding the statement of my hon. friend that he had to bring this mat-tar on before Christmas, otherwise he could not get these witnesses.
Now that is the spirit in which my hon. friend approached this matter. That is the spirit in which he conducted the examination of the witnesses. That is the spirit in which he approached the matter last evening, and that is the spirit in which he has discussed the matter from the very beginning. As I understood him last evening the case resolved itself into two branches. The first is whether there was any collusion between the Minister of Public Works or any official of his department, and Mr. Murray, in the purchase otf this wharf, and the second is, though my hon. friend tried to slide over it, the value of the property. It may be interesting to some members of the House who have not been members of the committee and who have not followed the discussion, to give a short history of the transaction from the beginning. The village or town of Richibucto is a town of about 1,000 people. It is the shire town of the county of Kent. It is the centre of a large lumbering industry and the centre of the most important fishing industry in the province New Brunswick. There is one railway which enters the town, the Kent Northern railway. It is an independent railway which should be and will be, I hope in the near future, a branch of the Intercolonial railway. The railway enters the town in the rear, and at a point probably a quarter of a mile from the water front. For a number of years there has been a spur running down to what is called the municipal wharf to the water front, but the municipal wharf was only 129 feet in width and when a car was sent down to the wharf, it was impossible to turn it around and lay it alongside the wharf, and any freight to he transhipped from a vessel had to be placed on the wharf and carried around to the car. There is no doubt, however, that the people of Richibucto, the owners of the railway, everybody concerned, were anxious to have these wharf facilities extended for the

transhipment of freight between the water and the railway, and with that object in view, in the month of March, 1908, the Department of Public Works purchased from tire municipality of Kent this wharf that is called the municipal wharf, for which they paid $1,500 and on which they have already expended $5,000 to place it in proper condition. My hon. friend did not hesitate to say yesterday that this wharf was a wharf in a splendid condition, all equipped with a railway track upon it for use, and thought it had only cost $1,500. He used the argument in order to show that the other wharf property with which I will deal later, was not worth nearly so much as the municipal wharf. Now, if the wharf was fully equipped, if it required nothing more to make it a workable wharf, is it reasonable that the Department of Public Works would have spent $5,000 already in order to bring it up to the condition in which it ought to be. More than that my hon. friend made this statetment with the fact staring him in the face that the resident engineer submitted a report that it would require $11,000 to rebuild this *wharf and place it in the condition in which it ought to be. Then there is no doubt that the owners of the Kent Northern railway, with which Mr. T. O. Murray is connected, wanted further accommodation. I am not going to discuss Mr. Murray. He is only a human being and he is doing exactly what hundreds of other people all over the country are doing. He realized that in order to make this railway profitable he must be able to tranship freight from the water to the railway in order to benefit the town of Richibucto. It was necessary to have more wharfage facilities in the town of Richibucto and there is no doubt that he did what he could to secure the additional accommodation. He bought this wharf, this property we are discussing, from Mr. O'Leray, for the sum of $700. Now my hon. friend says because he got this property for that amount of money, and sold it for $5,000 that that is evidence of collusion between him and the department, and evidence of bad faith on the part of every person connected with this transaction, from the minister to Mr. Murray. I do not propose to discuss the question of good or bad faith. So far as the Minister of Public Works is concerned, he is perfectly capable of looking after himself. I do, however, propose to discuss this matter to some extent along the lines of what the evidence adduce in that connection, and then I want to discuss it to some extent along the line of value. My hon. friend contends in the first place that Mr. Murray first went to O'Leary and
wanted to buy the wharf, and then hied himself off to Ottawa and made a trade with the Minister of Public Works. Well, Sir, I am not going to read the evidence as my hon. friend did; I am only going to show-we have on page 6 of this evidence-the positive statement of Mr. Murray that he never spoke to Mr. O'Leary in his life before he went to Ottawa and that what Mr. O'Leary stated about that is untrue, or rather it is a case of bad recollection, if you want to put it in that way. I know my hon. friends will say Murray is a perjurer and therefore that we should not endeavour to give his evidence any credence. Well, before I am through I will try to show without any spirit of animosity to Mr. O'Leary, that Mr. O'Leary's evidence is not worthy of any more credence than is the evidence of Mr. Murray, or half a dozen other gentlemen who have given evidence in the matter. I am sorry Mr. O'Leary finds himself in an unpleasant position at the present time; I am very sorry that Mr. O'Leary has been dragged into the net of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) and his friends over this transaction. I can only say that if Mr. O'Leary wishes to hunt with the member for York he must take his share of the game, no matter what it may be. In the province of New Brunswick Mr. O'Leary and my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) are not getting any sympathy. In fact this matter has become so much of a laughing stock that one witness referred to it as the Richibucto novel.


Mr. CROCKET.: What witness?


Mr. CARVELL.: Andrew Loggie. It is called the Richibucto novel because in the opinion of this witness it had a great deal more fiction than fact in it, and I think it is well named. Mr. Murray did go to Ottawa to see the Minister of Public Works on other matters, and he says this question of the wharf was never referred to at all. Later on he bought this property from Mr. O'Leary for the sum of $700 and he at once entered into negotiations with the department to sell it to them. Now, I am not trying to slide that over in any particular whatever. I want to make that just as plain as I can make it, that as soon as he got this wharf he started out to sell it to the department. I have no doubt that when he bought this wharf he bought it in the hope that he might sell it to the department and get better wharfage facilities for the transhipment of freight from the water to the cars. I am not holding up Mr. Murray as immaculate in this transaction.' No man can read the evidence without admitting that Mr. Murray was working for

himself, but I do deny that there was anything corrupt in the transaction so far as the department is concerned. Now I come next to the value of the property. My hon. friend read the evidence last night, as I have already said, for nearly three and a half hours, but it is a remarkable thing and it must have taken a great deal of research on his part to have been able to read so much evidence and studiously avoid referring to the value of this property, except in the evidence of Mr. O'Leary. It is another remarkable fact-my hon. friend had the whole resources of the government at his back in order to bring witnesses from any portion of the Dominion to prove the value of this property if he wanted to, and yet he never brought a solitary individual here except Richard O'Leary, and I think his brother, to give a word of evidence. There were seven or eight gentlemen from the county of Kent brought here, most of them by my hon. friend. Among them was Mr. James, who was Mr. O'Leary's'personal attorney. And my hon. friend examined, and cross-examined and re-examined every one of these gentlemen, and not one of them gave any | evidence to support his theory except Mr. O'Leary. And, in the case of Mr. James, who was his own witness and who, no doubt, to a very large extent is under the control and influence of Mr. O'Leary, he never dared ask him one question as to the value of the property. And Mr. James gave evidence and left the witness box without having been asked a question as to the value.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Why did not you ask him ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) I think has had enough experience in law never to fool with a bumble bee. If you have a witness who, you are pretty sure, is against you, it is good enough tactics to leave him alone. I am not giving away any secrets of the profession, I think, in making that statement. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) will understand pretty well why I did not ask him. But I might retort, why did not my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) ask him ?


Arthur Meighen: I was not there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was his neglect- he should have been there. Now, we have the evidence of five or six gentlemen some of whom my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) will say, are prejudiced, but some of whom he cannot say are prejudiced. And I propose to refer briefly to the evidence of these gentlemen as to the value of this property. The first is Mr. Wm. D. Carter. Now, Mr. Wm. D. Carter is a friend of Mr. Murray. He is a prominent Liberal in the countv of Mr. CARVELL.
Kent, and is not ashamed of it. He is a member of the executive committee of the Liberal party in the county of Kent. But Mr. Wm. D. Carter is as independent an attorney as is at the bar of New Brunswick to-day and a gentleman whom even my hon. friend from York (Mr. (Crocket) would not dare to besmirch in his native province of New Brunswick, and whom, I am glad to say, he did not say very much against in his tirade against almost everybody connected with this transaction. I refer especially to page 104, and I will read very briefly from this evidence. Mr. Carter was. asked about the value of this wharf :
Q. If you wanted it for business purposes, you would consider it worth $5,000 ?-A. I would, it is a wharf that could not be built for that if a man wanted it.


Mr. J. D. REID.: That is no evidence of its present value.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that if the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Reid) will read this evidence carefully, he will get enough to satisfy him as to his present value. I refer also to pages 106 and 107, where Mr. Carter gives a description of the wharf :
With the facing I should say that it is a good wharf.
Q. With the facing you would say that it was a good wharf ?-A. Yes, with the repairs that would naturally have to be made and the facing.
Q. Do you tell me that, Mr. Carter ?-A. I do.
Q. That that wharf is a good wharf to-dav with the facing?-A. I said with repairs and facing it would be a good wharf.
Q. Have you been on that wharf this last year?-A. Oh, yes, I have.
Q. Is not that wharf full of holes? Is it not composed of decayed sawdust, so that if you step on any part of it you are not certain that you may not go through?-A. No, I do not say that. Inside where the old saw-mill was filled in between the crib-work with decayed sawdust. On the outside, as far as I can remember-I have not examined this particularly in order to tell 3ou-but my recollection is that outside it is ballast.
Q. Outside?-A. Yes, and what is more, it was stated here, as I understand it, that the outside

(J. That is under water?-A. No. It is the highest wharf in town, the outside of it
Q. The highest wharf in town?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear Mr. Stead yesterday state that he had reported to the department in his official statement that this wharf was washed away ?-A.' That would be down

My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) as usual, interrupted.
Q. Down to low water level?-A. That is not so. Along the edge may be, but there is a place inside where they 'keep boats and that sort of thing. In high tide-and we

had the highest tide there probably a couple of mouths ago that we have had for some time-the other wharfs were submerged, and that inside was submerged, but the part outside was above the level.
There is the 'evidence of Mr. Carter, a gentleman who will not prejure himself and has no interest in doing so, who states facts which any man can prove by going there-that this is the highest wharf in town, that the outside is a solid gravel bank which is washed away down to low water, and, as I will read in a moment, below the water there must be crib work, because there is ballast which has been discharged for years from vessels coming with lumber, so that all you have to do is to dredge away the ballast in front of the wharf and you have a wharf with thirteen or fourteen feet of water, filled with ballast, and extending soma hundreds of feet. Here is the evidence at page 109, the answer being to a question by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggia):
Q. And you ooulld bring vessels drawing a considerable depth of water and load them there when within reach of the wharf with 15 or 18 feet of cribwork-originally there must have been 15 or 18 feet of water there?-A. I could not say as to that, but originally it must have been built up with cribwork or the ballast would not have been there.
Q. The ballast has fallen out over the ether portion of the cribwork, and it woull appear as the shore?-A. Yes, that is it.
Q. But if you look below the water, why you have 13 or 14 feet of cribwork along 600 or 700 feet of water front?-A. I could not tell you anything about it, all that 1 know is that the cribwork must have been there, because the ballast is there, and the crib-work could not get away while the ballast is there.
Q. And if it were washed away by easterly storms in a block it would show up along the shore farther up?-A. I would t hink so.
Q. Did you ever see any portion of it along the shore after a storm?-A. No, I do not remember doing so.
Q. There is no evidence, except that it is not in sight at low water, but that it is there still?-A. I think so.
There is the evidence of a gentleman, whether interested or not, as to the condition of the wharf at that time.


Mr. BLAIN.: Was not the wharf in the same condition when it was sold for $700 ? And why did not the government buy if for $700 ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was practically in the same condition, except that Mr. O'Leary, after the sale, had carted away some hundreds of loads of ballast and put it on his own wharf. Why did not the government buy it for that ? Surely, the hon. member is not sincere; he knows they could not buy it for that.


Richard Blain: It was bought for that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the government would extend the railway to the sawdust wharf?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no evidence that they would do it, but we know there was a track placed upon the municipal wharf, and either the government or the owners, or somebody else, would be inter-[DOT] ested enough to have a railway track laid



along the face of this wharf. Now Mr. O'Leary is no child, and when he sold that wharf, believing it would go to the Public Works Department, he knew there would be railway tracks upon it in a short time, and he knew that those tracks could be easily extended to his own wharf, and he knew that in that way he would get the benefit of railway accommodation which he could get in no other way, because there is no other place in Richibucto where the railway can get to the water front excepting over this very wharf.
Now, there is another thing to which I must refer, and that is the value of this wharf from Mr. O'Leary's standpoint. Mr. O'Leary says in his evidence, it is true, that $700 is all it was worth. But when the government wanted to buy a right of way for the sewer three or four years ago, he did not know what to ask for it, but finally he sold, not a piece of land 50 feet wide, as he thought it was, but merely the right to lay a sewer under this wharf extending out 200 feet, and he asked and received from the government $100. Why, Sir, that would not be one-hundredth part of the value of that wharf, because you could^ utilize it for the purpose of a sewer, and it would not affect its value in any way for wharf purposes, or even for building purposes, and yet he asked and received for this right $100 from the government. There is no doubt that the sewer was not successful, they had to get more right of way, and he wanted more money, at least, according to his own evidence he wanted another $100, and according to the evidence of Mr. Murray, he wanted $300 or $400 for extending this on a few feet further towards the water front. Yet he comes here and swears that the wharf was only worth $700 at that time. You have got to take these things into consideration if you want to judge of the honesty and sincerity of Mr. O'Learv in the statements he has made before that committee. Then again Mr. O'Leary says that a few days ago * he offered the department the whole wharf for $1,000. He not only swore'' that, but 1m produced what he says was a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of Public Works, which was not a copy at all. However, there was a letter written to the Minister of Public Works, I think in the autumn of 1908 or early in 1909, in which he says that he offered this whole wharf property to the department a few years previously for the sum of $1,000. You will find that on page 46 of the evidence. I am reading now a copy of the real letter, not the one which he produced before the committee:
Richibucto, December 7, lf08. Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pugsley,-Your letter received and carefully noted. With regard to the sawdust


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: wharf property referred to in same, I would say that this property was sold to me by Mr. Murray-May 23-with the understanding that Mr. Murray was acting as agent for the Department of Public Works, at $700. When the price was arranged between Mr. Murray and me, I felt that it was for the full market value. I had a short time before offered the property to the department through their Mr. Waterbury at $1,000, since when I have sold three different lots at $100 each, leaving the property then standing as if the sale were made at $700.
I do not propose reading the remainder of the letter at present, because nothing turns upon it. Now that was the statement made by Mr. O'Leary to the minister, and that is the statement which he swore to when he appeared before the committee on the first occasion. Now, Mr. Speaker, after Mr. O'Leary made this statement, an official of the department in St. John to whom this offer had been made commenced to look around to see if Mr. O'Leary's recollection was correct, and here is what we find. We find that Mr. O'Leary made this offer on the 22nd of April, 1904, to D. H. Waterbury, who was the architect of the Public Works Department in St. John. The letter was brought before the committee, it was in Mr. O'Leary's handwriting, admitted bv bim to be so, and it was not an offer to sell the whole wharf for $1,000, but it was an offer to sell less than one-third of it for $1,000, he would only sell one-third of it for $1,000, though it left the other two-thirds to him which were worth more to him than they would be to anybody else. I will read that letter, which is found on page 72:
Richibucto, N.B., April 22, 1901.
D. W. Waterbury, Esq.,
Richibucto, N.B.
Dear Sir,-With further reference to your conversation in re land opposite to public building in Richibucto, I will sell the whole lot on the eastern side of Water street, the full width of the present lot owned by the government, that is 227 feet in width and running back to the channel 625 feet for $1,000. Or I will sell the 227 feet on the street running back to a depth of 100 feet for $500.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) R. O'LEARY.
P.S.-Or I will sell a piece 50 feet by 100 feet opposite the public building where the sewer is for $250.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to state that this sawdust wharf practically contains about 10 acres of land, and part of it has water over it at high tide.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does not tne deed simply describe the property as containing 7-88 acres of land?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be true, and I will refer to the evidence, on page 73, of Mr. Stead, who made the survey, and prepared * the plans from the survey, and brought the plans before the committee. In that he states that the land contains

something near ten acres, as you will find in the evidence on page 73. Now, Sir, this wharf lies 725 feet or 730 feet along the river front, extending from the main street down to the river front on the one side, and on the opposite side of the main street is the post office and Dominion building. The Dominion building has a frontage on the western side of 223 feet, the sawdust wharf property has a frontage on the main street on the opposite side of 730 feet. Mr. O'Leary offered to sell to the department, by this letter, 227 feet opposite the post office building for $1,000. If you figure that out for the whole area, you will find that, in a writing which he cannot deny, he wanted over $3,000 for the whole lot. If you take his second offer and figure it out, that is the offer of a piece of 227 feet by 100 feet at $500, he wanted at the rate of $10,000, and if you take the other proposition, that is 50 feet bv 100. he wanted at the rate of $20,000 for his wharf. This is in the letter produced in evidence, Mr. O'Leary cannot change his evidence, and this is the man who says the whole thing is not worth more than $700.


Mr. LALOR.: Is it not a fact that he sold the property for $700?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why, of course it is, and I have explained that half a dozen times. I trust my hon. friend when he interrupts me again will put a question that there is some common sense in.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) seriously contend that the figure an owner asks from the government for a property is any fair criterion of its value?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not said so. I say that Mr. O'Leary, a good Conservative, wanted this government to pay him that for one-third of his wharf.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: And contrary to what he swore to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And when Mr. O'Leary came here, forgetting that the offer was in writing, he said he told Mr. Waterbury that he could have the whole wharf for $1,000, but when the letter was produced it was shown that Mr. O'Leary's recollection was at fault and his failure of memory combined with other things showed that very little credence can be attached to anything that Mr. O'Leary said before the committee.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Is your argument that if a man does not ask the government five times what a property is worth he is insane?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Surely the hon. gentleman does not want an answer to such an absurd question. I don't wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite squirm when this case 243i
is put before them in the proper light. But, we have not aione Mr. O'Leary's evidence as to the value of the property; we have amongst others the evidence of Mr. J. D. Irving, a gentleman who I admit is a member of the Liberal party of the county of Kent, and is not ashamed of it. Mr. Irving is a gentleman who has been so successful in business that he Is probably the largest property holder and is doing the largest business of any man in the county. But, the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) to show his venom cannot discuss even a business man like Mr. Irving without attempting to throw mud upon him, and to infer that he was not a man worthy of credence. Mr. Irving had nothing to do with buying this property and he received no benefit from it. I did hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) for once in his lifetime-at least once since he became a member of this House-would try to be perfectly fair and read the whole evidence jn that point, and not emasculate it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) said Mr. Irvine was not worthy of credence, because he was doing business with the government and rented scotvs to the government at $2 a day, but the hon. gentleman did not tell the House that Mr. Irving only rented the scows to the government for 20 days and that last year he refused to let the government have these scows because a private contractor was willing to pay him more for them and to give them permanent employment as well. And so the scows were taken from the government and given to the private contractor, and Mr. Irving has been getting $2 a day for them during the whole season.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I stated that Mr. Irving had received upwards of $600 at the rate of $2 a day for a scow which he admitted was not worth $150, and that statement is true as shown by the records.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My recollection is that there is no such evidence as that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I made it up from the Auditor General's Report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then it is not in the evidence, and furthermore it is not true. The truth about it is that Mr. Irving rented an engine for which he got $8 a day, and with that engine he furnished the engineer the fuel, the oil and did the repairs. He did all the work to the engine for some three or four years, and with the scows and all put together he has received from this government $600. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) cannot show that Mr. Irving got more than $40 in any one year for the scow which he referred to. That is another evidence that mv hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) did not deal fairly with the members of this House who were not present in the committee when he was discussing the evi-
7G63

dence taken there. He should have quoted all the evidnce on that point as it was incumbent upon him to do as an honourable man, and not to cite emasculated portions of it. The hon. gentleman also spoke of Mr. Irving as being a contraqtor for furnishing stones to the government for some breakwater, and he alleged that Mr. Irving was getting a great big profit on it, but he did not read to the House Mr. Irving's evidence which went to show that in one year he figured out his accounts and he found he had made the enormous profit of $46, and for the last few years Mr. Irving has not and will not furnish stones to the government at the price they offered him. Then the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) told the House that Mr. Irving had property in Buctouehe extending half a mile along the water front and for which he only paid $200. That is not true. The evidence shows that he has half a mile of property along the water front and that 15 years ago he bought one and one only of these wharfs for $220, but the hon. gentleman did not state that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I did; I read the evidence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman did not read from the evidence the statement of Mr. Irving that that wharf was to-day worth to him $500 per annum, and that he would not sell it at any price. I am not going to take three and a half hours to make a speech as the hon. gentleman did, but I cannot discuss the question without showing the glaring inaccuracies of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket). You could not prick his whole speech with a neddle that you will not find some inaccuracy or some omission which if stated would have shown the true state of affairs.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You can point it out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I am making a good attempt to do it. The next man who gave evidence on the value of this property of one J. D. Forster-my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) smiles, and I should think he would.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Everybody smiles.


Mr. CROSBY.: You make us all smile.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, Mr. J. D. Forster is not a member of the Liberal executive in the county of Kent


Adam Brown Crosby: He hopes to be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that I believed that every man in the Liberal party was a thief or a perjurer?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What about the member for Carleton?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He usually tries to take care of himself. I certainly do not believe that every man on the opposition side of the House is a thief and a robber. We have our political differences, but I would be very sorry to feel that I could not go to the other side' of the House and be just as friendly as with my own friends on this side. I am happy to say that I have been treated as well by members on the other side of the House as by members on this side, and I wonder if the hon member (Mr. Crocket) can say that. Pin-ally Mr. Andrew Loggie came here and was examined, and when his evidence was finished no one was more surprised than my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket). Andrew Loggie had sent a telegram to me during the progress of the investigation authorizing me to purchase Mr. O'Leary's wharf for $2,500. It was the policy of the member for York and of Mr. O'Leary to try to minimize the value of the property in the town of Richi-bucto to the greatest extent possible. They produced every argument they possibly could from the registry office showing where insignificant pieces of property were sold for insignificant prices, and enooa' vouring to bolster up their contention that the town of Richibucto is the most godforsaken place in the Dominion. Mr O'Leary stated that he had a wharf, that it was well constructed and equipped with warehouses and a freezer, that he bought it for $1,500, that he expended $500 on ll>
and that he would sell it for $2,000. I quote his evidence on page 36:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the conclusion l would draw from the statements made by my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) last evening. If he wishes to withdraw the imputation I have no objection to giving him the privilege of doing so.


Mr. CONMEE.: He won't withdraw.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought he would'nt.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is not necessary for me to deny such an absurd statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You can depend upon it that the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) is convinced that there is no virtue in the Liberal party; I think I should go further and say that he believes that there is nothing in the Liberal party but vice. I have never heard the member for York say one decent thing about any member of the Liberal party or any transaction of the government that was under discussion. The man is born that way and I am sorry to say he is cultivating his birth proclivities to the fullest extent.
'Q. What do you value it at now?-A. Yith the improvements we have added dur-.ng the year we would sell it at $Z,uuu.
That is the wharf over which Mr. O'Leary is doing business, and which he said he would sell for $2,000. The firm of A. & R. Loggie are doing business in the same town and are rival merchants except that they are now doing about two-thirds of the business. There was a time when Mr. O'Leary was doing practically all the business in Richibucto, and when by some financial arrangement with a New York firm he was able to pay higher prices for supplies than any one else in the town of Richibucto.
I do not know how far Mr. O'Leary contributed to it, but unfortunately two and a half or three years ago this firm went to the wall with liabilities of $2,000,000, and since then the Loggies have been doing the business. They have a wharf half a mile from the sawdust wharf, about a mile from railway facilities, and extending to only about three feet of water, so that it is

practically useless for business purposes. They wanted better accommodation. They would have to extend to their present wharf at an enormous cost or buy another. Seeing in the papers the statement that Mr. O'Leary would sell his wharf for $2,000, they promptly wired me to offer $2,000 and stating that they would go to $2,500 if he would sell. I do not think it is necessary to go very far into this matter, but owing to what, the hon. member for York said last evening, I think it is necessary to explain my position. I thought he might have been fair enough to have told the whole story regarding my connection with the transaction. It is in evidence; I made the statement before the committee that I had never before had a letter, a telegram, or a communication of any kind, verbal or written, with this firm in my life; that I had never done business with them or seen them until Andrew Loggie appeared in Ottawa for the purpose of giving evidence in the Public Accounts Committee. They simply sent that telegram to me, knowing that I was a member of the House of Commons from the province of New Brunswick. I asked Mr. O'Leary in the Public Accounts Committee if he would sell that wharf. I offered him $2,500 for it, offering my own personal cheque for $500 to bind the bargain. I did not know that Mr. O'Leary would not sell his wharf. I have known Mr. O'Leary for many years. I have been on important corporation boards with him; I have had some business relations with him; I believed that he was an honourable man and when he pledged his oath, as he did on page 36, that he would sell this wharf for $2,000, I believed that he would do so; and I was never more surprised in my life than I was when he refused to sell it to the Loggies for $2,500. But I learned then that Mr. O'Leary was bluffing; I learned that the hon. member for York was bluffing; I learned that the property was not of the small value they were trying to make out. Having learned a little later that this property was worth $7,000 or $8,000, I difl not wonder that Mr. O'Leary would not accept my offer of $2,500. Then Messrs. A. & R. Loggie offered to buy the whole sawdust wharf for $5 -500. I do not propose to read these letters. They are all in the evidence; they will be found on pages 190, 193 and 194 In the first letter the firm of A. & R. Loggie offered to purchase the sawdust wharf for $5,500, or $500 more than the department had paid for it.	On page 193 is the
answer of the deputy minister, asking if they would be willing to purchase about two-thirds of the wharf, leaving the	government	200 feet	from the
street to channel, along the municipal wharf property. On page 194 is the Mr. CARVELL
answer of A. & R. Loggie to the department, accepting the department's suggestion and offering $3,500 for the balance of the property described in the deed, with certain conditions attached, one of which was that they should have a free right of way to lay railway tracks across the municipal wharf property and also across the 200 feet strip retained by the department, and that the department make a survey of the property before the transfer was made. I am in a position to state to the House that that arrangement has been concluded; so that the result is that the wharf will cost the department only $1,500.


John Dowsley Reid: How much frontage does that leave the government on Water street?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 200 feet plus the municipal wharf, which is about 120 feet wide making 320 feet in all. But that strip of 200 feet runs directly along the municipal wharf which the government now owns, and that makes it much more valuable for their purpose than it would be if it stood alone. But the hon. member for York, with his suspicious character, not to use a harsher term, says that these Loggies are interested parties, that thev are contractors with the government, and that they had received $144,000 from the government for dredging. The evidence is that they received $44,000, but of course, $100,000 is nothing to the hon. member for York when he is discussing the Department of Public Works.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. gentleman has misquoted my statement. My statement was_ that the Loggies had received $44,000 in the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1908, and the answers given by the Minister of Public Works to questions on the order paner show that in the following year they had claims against the department amounting to $90,000, and that they had large contracts still continuing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only say that my hon. friend did not say so last night. That is what I object to in my hon. friend, that last night there was not anything stated by him correctly in regard to this whole transaction. It is true, he read certain portions of the evidence, but there was not a solitary instance in which he completed it. He always stopped at the critical point, where it might lead to something which would militate against the argument he was making. I do not care how much Messrs. A. & R. Loggie have received or are going to receive from the government. They are contractors with the government, and honest contractors. The contracts they have received only after due advertisement by public tender; but my hon. friend, in trying to besmirch the characters of these

honourable men last night, said not only that they were contractors with the government, but dishonest contractors.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I must rise to a point of order. I did not make any such statement. I said that they received some contracts from the Minister of Public Works, and that the Minister of Public Works had illegally awarded the contracts.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am willing to accept n\v hon. friend's version; I think he is putting it better than I did, that is, he has made a more vicious statement than 1 attributed to him. He is now charging the Minister of Public Works with crookedness, while my statement was that his charge was only against the Loggies. As he has corrected his statement, he has given the reason. He tried to make this House believe that the Loggies were unworthy of belief, because they were interested witnesses. I want to tell my hon. friend and he knows it, that these men have never done a dollar's worth of work for the Department of Public Works except by fair contract after public tender advertised in the newspapers. They have had three or four contracts simply because they were in every case the lowest tenderers, and they got the contracts in the ordinary course of business. The only exception is a contract for a little dredging done at the town of Bathurst in the fall of 1908. In October or November of that year, authority was given by the department to have a little dredging work done at Bathurst I do not know the exact amount, but it was under $5,000. The Messrs. Loggie had a contract for dredging at Caraquet at 41 cents per cubic yard, and another contract for dredging at Dalhousie at 50 cents per cubic yard. Bathurst is somewhere between these two points, and they weTe asked by the department to tow then* plant from Caraquet to Bathurst, but instead of giving them the higher price, which they were getting for the Dalhousie work, they only gave them 41 cents per vard, the same as they received at Caraquet. If my hon. friend wants the people of this country to believe that this is an illegal transaction, then I am willing he should do so, and he can take all the glory he can get out of it, but I want to tell him and the members of this House that among the people in the province of New Brunswick he will not get much credit for holding up a transaction like that and calling it an illegal transaction. Now, these are the men forming the company of whom Andrew Loggie is not only one, but the senior member, and Andrew Loggie stated that they considered this wharf was still worth $5,000 and were willing to pay $5,500. They have already paid $3,500, over two-thirds of the price.' But I want to call
the attention of my hon. friend and of members of this House to a very significant fact away back in 1908 before Andrew Loggie had any idea that he would buy the wharf, in fact before the government had bought the wharf, which shows his idea of the value of the property at that time. 1 refer to his evidence on page 176. This evidence was partly given by Mr. Murray, but as my hon. friend will say that Murray is a perjurer, I will not take his evidence, but will give Andrew Loggie's version of it. He speaks about a conversation he had with Mr. Murray at the Matron, I think it was Kent Junction station, when they were waiting for a train. They were sitting down and talking, and finally, Mr. Loggie asked him about the property, and Mr. Murray told him he had sold it, and then this conversation took place:
Q. What did he tell you?-A. That is what I am going to, if he will allow me. He said,
' Andrew, I have sold the sawdust wharf to the government.' I said, 'Yes,' I said,
' What did you get for it? ' He said, I got $5,000 for it.' I said, ' Tom, I think you sold this too cheap.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friends say, hear, hear. I also say, hear, hear, and I repeat that this statement was. made away back in August before he had any connection with the property or expected to have any connection with it.
I said, ' Tom, I think you sold it too cheap.' He said, 'I got a fair pro6t on it, md I was satisfied to sell it for that.' I said, 'What did you pay for it?' He said,
' I paid $1,000 for it.'
The evidence goes on.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: He did not tell the truth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now there is the evidence of Andrew Loggie as to why he buys this property, and as his connection with the Minister of Public Works. But my hon. friends even went further. They started to insinuate that probably he had contributed to- the election fund, and to their surprise, and horror I at once asked them to go on and press the question. When they saw what they could get they were more surprised than at any time I have seen them in the committee. When they realized they had the fullest liberty to question him as to the election fund or any other fund. Then they were as dumb as oysters, .and would not go into that question. That is the man they are holding up here as a perjurer, the man they are advertising throughout Canada as a man not worthy of belief, that is the man they say who is buying this property from the government to help the department out of a hole. Well, I am willing to leave it to the judgment of the people of New Brunswick, and there will not be much doubt as to the verdict in a question between my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) and Mr. R. A. Loggie. Then they say that he was once offered this property for $1,000 or $800. It is true that that statement was ma;de by one of the witnesses, O'Leary; it is equally true that A. R. Loggie denied that statement positively and you will find his denial on page 222:
Q. What do you say to that?-A. I say that it is not true, absolutely not true that \\ m. O Leary offered me that property.


John Dowsley Reid: He does not swear that he did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He says that on that page. It is true my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) read something from the next two or three pages. But he says he has no recollection of it, and he is satisfied he did not receive an offer from O'Leary to buy the property.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Read the evidence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the hon. member- Some hon. members. Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the hon. member ask me a question to which he desired an answer? '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not just now. Later on the hon. gentleman can make a speech if he wants to.	.
Now, I have discussed this question at greater length than I had intended, and have practically nothing further to say. I have tried to show by the evidence-and I have not wandered outside of the evidence-what is the value of this property.
I have contended, and still contend, that the government got good value in this property. The only fault I have to find with them is that they have sold two-thirds of the property for the sum of $3,500. It would have paid the department better t-o keep the whole property, for then they would have a property which, for all time, would assure the success of the shipping, interests of Richibucto and vicinity. However they have decided to sell, and I am not going to find fault with their decision.. One thing is assured, however-the property will be rebuilt. I am pleased to note that there is an amount of $5 000 in the supplementary estimates to be applied toward the rebuilding and repairing ot tfie wharf. I am glad that there is this assurance that the people of Richibucto will have the transportation facilities to which they are entitled. I hope that, in a very short time, the Kent Northern railway may become a branch of the _ Intercolonial. When that comes about, this wharf will not only be a benefit but an actual necessity I sympathize with my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) in the predicament in which he finds himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. oh


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I sympathize with him because he was compelled to talk for three hours and a half last evening in an effort to make what is recognized in the province of New Brunswick as a dismal failure appear something like a success. I know that he will be able to have all this transcribed in full, and under glaring headings m his newspaper, and that he will attempt, so far' as he can, to recover some of the ground he has lost. But I make the prediction now, that as long as he is a member of this House, he will never again go on a junketing tour around the north shore of New Brunswick to hunt up scandals, for this one has proven such a boomerang that it will be long ere he recovers from its effects.


John Dowsley Reid: I desire to say a word on this subject, because I happened to be present in the Public Accounts Committee when the matter was under investigation, ihe hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell1 began his remarks with the statement that the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) had tried to besmirch the character of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), in fact he said that was what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) had been trying to do for the last two years. Let me point out the difference between such actions as this of the hon. member for York, and the position of such members of this House as the hon. member for Carleton. When an hon. member of this House tries to learn the facts of any public expenditure under the Minister of Public Works, or any other minister, is that to be considered an attempt to besmirch the minister in whose department the expenditure is made? I have always held that every member of this House, Conservative or Liberal, had laid npon him the clear duty of protecting the public treasury. If any member has a suspicion that anything is wrong in relation to public expenditures, it is his duty to have the matter investigated, and the proper place for that investigation is the Committee on Public Accounts. Well, Mr. Speaker, since 1896 when the present government came into power, I have not seen one case of a Liberal member who had the pluck to go before the Public Accounts Committee and investigate any expenditure made by this government, and this notwithstand-mg the fact that, time and time again, cases have been brought to attention in which there was at least the suspicion of wrong doing. I remember when the hon member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) first entered this House. Several other hon. gentlemen made their first appearance in parliament at the same time. There were the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), the hon member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr McCraney) and the late hon. .member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) who has left this House. The Prime Minister, and I suppose the Minister of Finance with him, selected these four gentlemen to watch the Public Accounts Committee and defend the expenditures there. What is the position to-day? The hon. member for Saskatoon was so ashamed of the whole matter that he never attends the Public Accounts Committee at all; the hon. member for Pictou is in the same position, so ashamed of what is being brought forth in the Public Accounts Committee that he has abandoned it also. Mr. Maclean has_ left the House in disgust to accept a position in the provincial parliament, and the whole thing is left to the non. member for Carleton. Now, let me tel] the hon. member for Carleton some of ' Mr. CARVELL.
the things that he stood up for in the Public Accounts Committee and defended, because he is in the Public Accounts Commute representing the government, representing the scoundrels that have been brought before that committee, and the investigations prove that they were scoundrels. He has a retainer, he has practically a retainer from this government in the way, I have no doubt, of a judgeship, or something of that kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member's language is not parliamentary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want the hon. member to withdraw that statement in toto. I want to tell him that I have no promise of a judgeship, I have refused a judgeship, I do not want a judgeship, and I want him to withdraw that statement. I have no retainer, and no promise of a retainer.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, Mr. Speaker I withdraw it in toto. The reason I said so was because I have known cases that happened before where members sitting in this House have held the promise of a position in their pockets, and they carried on just such work as is being done by the hon. member for Carleton. I want also to state that, judging from the actions of the hon. member for Carleton, he has been acting as the solicitor for some of the witnesses-without a fee, I admit, without promise of a fee. But there is the fact of Mr. Loggie swearing that he telegraphed to the hon. member to act for him, and said he considered that the hon. member was his attorney or solicitor, the ihon. gentleman was willing to come into the Public Accounts Committee and there offered $2,500 on behalf of Mr. Loggie.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Again I must rise to a point of order. I must ask my hon. friend to confine himself to facts. Mr. Loggie did not state that he said that to me because I was the attorney.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member has raised a point of ordeT, let him make his
point.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want my hon. friend to withdraw that statement that Mr. Loggie stated that I was there as his attorney Mr. Loggie stated that he sent the telegram to me because I was a member from New Brunswick, and he had faith in me and he wanted me to act for him.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the hon. member for Carleton is a member of that committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am. I think the hon. gentleman is not acting the part of a man

when he discusses this matter in such a way, and without giving the whole transaction.


Mr. J. R. REID.: The hon. member for Carleton acted for Mr. Loggie as respects the offer of this $2,500 for this wharf to Mr. O'Leary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is correct.
Mr. J, D. REID. And having done so- and mind you I say without any expectation of a fee, although Mr. Loggie swore that he expected to pay the hon. member. But notwithstanding that fact, the fact of the hon. member receiving the telegram and walking right up and giving his own cheque for $500, he thereby assumed the responsibility of being the solicitor for Mr. Loggie in that matter. Now let me state some of the actions which the hon. member has been defending in the Public Accounts Committee. During the time that I was present I remember the hon. member was willing to stand up in that committee as one of these four blockers, if you wish to call them so, he was willing to stand up and defend Phillip Wagner, the crook who stole money from immigrants and afterwards got a better position; he was willing to defend and did defend the grazing land deal, the lands that were robbed from the settlers; he was willing to stand up and defend Phillip Wagner, the crook to friends of the government; he was willing to stand up and defend the grant of the fishery licenses for $10 a year, all the fishery licenses in the Northwest; he was willing to defend the Saskatchewan land deal; he was willing to defend the North Atlantic Trading Company. Is there any hon. member who stood up and defended more vigorously the North Atlantic Trading Company, insisting on the names of the gentlemen who composed that company not being divulged for fear some of them would commit suicide? He was willing to stand up and defend the subtarget business, where there was a large amount of money being spent; he was willing to defend the Ross rifle


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: And the whole country defends that.


John Dowsley Reid: Only that part of it sitting on the other side. He was willing to defend" the Canadian Fog Signal Company. When it came down to the Minister of Public Work's Department, he was willing to defend the notorious Geo. Mc-Avity, who was getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of this government, and who was the chief Liberal organizer in New Brunswick. He was prepared to defend B. F. Pearson, the man from Halifax,, who was purchasing ties for this government. He was willing to defend these dredging contracts. The other dav he was
willing to stand up and defend this Gas-pereau dredging contract which was given illegally and wrongfully; I do not hesitate to say that the statutes of this country were violated, because the contract was given before tenders had been received in accordance with the advertisement. He v ent further than this, he was willing to defend Joseph Nixon, the man who robbed the mails, and afterwards he was willing to defend this government for giving him another position. He was willing also to defend the government and tried to save the Igovernment from 'the effect of the scandals in regard to the steamer 'Arctic.
He fought for a month or six weeks trying to bring in a report which would clear the government. And worse than that, when | I made the statement in this House that the government were paying 50 to 100 per cent more for goods than I could purchase them privately for, that was the Merwin transaction, there was not a man in the Public Accounts Committee who defended Merwin more energetically than the hon. member for Carleton, and who tried harder to prevent us from going on with the Merwin business. He knows to-day that ibis country was robbed, publicly, robbed, and he was not man enough, or at least he did
not__I will withdraw that expression, 1
do not want to say anything for which the hon. gentleman can call me to order; but he would not get up and prosecute Merwin for Tobbing this country Why, Sir, when we wanted an investigation into the' Merwin business the Hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) tried to prevent it, and it was only when it became so conspicuous that the government were forced to it that an inquiry was granted. And the result was that three appointees of the government as well as his honour Judge Cassils decided we were ri^rlit, and yet tne non. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) has never up to this day expressed regret for his conduct in that transaction. The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) sympathizes with the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket), but the hon. member for York does not need his sympathy-it is the hon. member for Carleton who needs the sympathy, not only of this House, but of every man in this country, for the position he takes here in trying to defend men who have robbed the country and who are continuing to rob it, and he is the only member on the Liberal side who will stand un in that committee and fight the battles of these rascals who are brought Ithere for robbing the country,' The hon gentleman complains that the hon. member foT York (Mr. Crocket) only brought Mr. O'Learv here as a witness to prove the value of the property. Why should it be necessary to bring anybody eise? Mr. O'Leary was the man who sold it and he is the man who could tell what I he got for it. This morning the hon. mem-

ber read the names of a number of gentlemen who had signed a certificate since the inquiry to say that the wharf was worth what was paid for it, but there is a wide difference between signing a certificate and swearing before the Public Accounts Committee. The men brought here by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) to prove the value of the wharf were afraid to say what they thought. They brought here three men who are under pay and receiving money from the Department of Public Works. I defy the hon. member to name any one who was examined as a witness, except some man who was practically under the control of the Minister of Public Works owing to money being paid him. Let us see who these men were. The hon. member stated that one of them, Mr. Forster had been dismissed from office because he was a Conservative.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On account of violent partisanship.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been told that tnat man was dismissed because of irregu

anties, and I wish to add that, that is, it what the hon. gentleman states be true.


William Pugsley: That is rather a mixed statement.


Sir.   J D. REID@: If that is a mixed statement, the hon. gentleman was mixed the other day himself. Do. I understand the hon. member for Carleton to say that no one had any conversation with Mr. Eorster before he gave his evidence?


Mr CARVELL.: Except the member for Halifax.


John Dowsley Reid: Why didn't the hon. gentleman state that Mr. Forster swore that he had had a conversation with some gentleman from Richibucto?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They were not members of the House; I referred to members of the House.
irwh J'-P'	Here was Mr- Foster
in the city of Ottawa, and what was he
dcung He was seeking the assistance, or he intended to seek the assistance of the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) and the Minister of Public Works and other members from hew Brunswick, for the purpose of getting the superannuation he would have been entitled to if he had not been dismissed The hon. member for Carleton won t deny that. He was a nice man to bring as a witness. In addition to that, he was I should think about 70 or 75 years of age, and he swore he left Richibucto when he was 28 years old, and he had been 45 years a non-resident of that municipality, and then he swears to the value of property there.	1


Sir.   J D. REID@: 


William Pugsley: Did he not wear he had been there over and over again in the interval?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, and what he swore was that the wharf was worth so much money if he was in business there and wanted the property. Why, any man could swear it would probably be worth $100,000 if he wanted it.


William Pugsley: People don't usually buy property unless they want it.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes they do, and did not the minister himself buy this property wdien he did not want it?


William Pugsley: The minister wanted it for public purposes.


John Dowsley Reid: No, he did not, but I will tell him why he did want it. They had been trying to sell the municipal wharf to the government since 1906, and within a few months after the minister came into office he purchased the wharf for the government, and on the 10th day of March, two months before purchasing the sawdust w'harf, it was recommended by Mr. Stead that it should be purchased.


William Pugsley: The wharf was not purchased for six months afterwards.


John Dowsley Reid: On the 10th of March the municipal wharf was purchased and on the 7th of May, Mr. George W. Robertson and Mr. Murray came to Ottawa and then they went back and immediately purchased the wharf on the 10th of May, that is about two months afterwards. I take it for granted that at that time the government had indirectly purchased the wharf.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman takes a great deal for granted.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I think what I say is correct.


William Pugsley: There is not a particle of evidence as to that.


John Dowsley Reid: The municipal wharf was purchased because this Kent Northern railway is owned by five men: Mr. Murray, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Jardine, Mr. Carter and Mr. Finnie, and these five men had the wharf rented for $50 per annum, and it was in need'of repair, and Mr. Murray, who was an official of the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Robertson, who was also an official of the Minister of Public Works


William Pugsley: Not at all, there is no evidence of that; he was not an official of the Public Works.


John Dowsley Reid: He was an official because he is getting $3 a day as an inspector of work which was being done by the

Public Works Department; he was receiving pay from that department. And Mr. Jardine was practically an official because he had a large contract from the	Department	of	Public	Works;and Mr? Carter	was the	solicitor
for the Public Works Department in all these transactions. Let me show you how these men were all connected. Mr. Murray wanted this wharf repaired and he gets the Minister of Public Works to buy the municipal wharf. Then he immediately gets the minister to let him go and repair it by day work, and puts himself on as inspector and spends $2,500 of the money of the people to repair a wharf that was practically for the benefit of these men themselves. Mr. Jardine has work at the Richibucto pier and Mr. G. W. Robertson is the man who inspects the work and certifies to it. There is the connection between these men. There is no check on them, and in my opinion, from the very fact of their being all Liberal heelers down in that section, and one inspecting the work of the other, there is no doubt about it in my mind, but that they are robbing the people of this country.
At one o'clock, the House took recess. House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr J D REID.: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch, I was explaining the connection of these gentlemen with the selling of this wharf. Mr. Murray was the general manager of the Kent Northern railway, which is about twenty-eight miles long According to the evidence given m the Public Accounts Committee, and admitted by Mr. Murray himself, the traffic on this railway consists of one tram each way per day, the train being _ composed of one passenger car and one freight car. Mr. Murray is one of the owners of the railway, Mr. Robertson another, Mr. J ardine another Mr. Carter another, and Mr. Finnie another. Mr. Murray admits that he had a rake-off, or that he was the middleman between Mt. O'Leary and the government, to the extent of $4,300.


William Pugsley: He does not admit anything of the kind. He was the vendor.


John Dowsley Reid: 
William Pugsley: But whan?


John Dowsley Reid: It went through practically then.


William Pugsley: It did not. It did not go through till the fall.


John Dowsley Reid: It did not go through for this reason. In September Ml Murray telegraphed, asking if the order in council had been passed.


William Pugsley: Telegraphed to whom?


John Dowsley Reid: To the chief engineer.


William Pugsley: He did not. He telegraphed to Mr. Valiquette. He was not the chief engineer. The evidence shows that that telegram did not come to the knowledge of the chief engineer, and certainly not to the knowledge of the minister, until long afterwards.


John Dowsley Reid: However, he sent that telegram, and within a day or two the order in council was passed, therefore, it must have come to the hon. gentleman s attention.


William Pugsley: That telegram had nothing to do with it.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the story all through; but it must have come to the knowledge of some one, because an order in council was passed a couple of days afterwards. Here is the telegram and the reply taken from the public records in the minister's own office:
Ottawa, September 24, 1908.
To Thos. Murray, Richibucto. Matter of wharf purchase has passed council. Waiting for Department Jnstice to furnish title. Signed for the Chief Engineer.


William Pugsley: Signed by whom?


John Dowsley Reid: This is the official copy of the telegram furnished by the hon, gentleman's department. The signature is not on it; it just says, ' for chief engineer,' the money was sent down to Richibucto about October 10, and the deed was then got, but it was not registered till away on after the general elections. If that is not sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Murray was- the middleman, I do not know how you can make out a better case. That is the kind of man Mr. Murray is. Besides that, I stated in the Public Accounts Committee, and I state now, that Mr. Murray deliber-

ately and willfully perjured himself. In order to prove that, all you have to do is to turn up his evidence. He was askecH
Q. Did you ever ask more than $5,000?- A. No more than $5,000, sir.
Here is what Mr. Stead said:
Q. Now, was $5/000 the amount that he mentioned to you in the first place as the Fiim he wanted to get from the government, or did he mention any other sum?-A. There v.as a mention of $10,000.
Q. Did you hear Mr. Murray give evidence yesterday?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear Mr. Murray state that he never asked more than $5,000?-A. Yes.
Q. Notwithstanding that you heard Mr. Murray swear to that yesterday, you swear to the contrary to-day?-A. Yes, I have re-coJlection of having heard $10,000 mentioned.
Q. Then you say that Mr. Murray was wrong in his statement?-A. Yes, I ' think so.
Q. You say that he asked $10,000; was ihat Ills first figure?-A. Yes, his first figure,^ so far as I know.
O. You declare that do you? Was there any talk of $15,000?-A. No.
Q. Why did he write the minister ' that there was?
Hon. Wm. Pugsley.-He did not write to the minister that there was. "Why do you say that he wrote me to that effect?
By Mr. Crocket:
Q. Do you remember writing the minister a letter in connection with this matter ?- A. ies.
Q. I call your attention, Mr. Stead, to a letter which you wrote to the minister on the 21st January, 1909, in which you state (reads):
' $>5,000 was mentioned as the price, but I think not seriously. $5,500 was asked, and $5,000 was the lowest figure I could get.
Now, there is Mr. Stead's evidence. He certainly was not a party interested as Mr. Murray was, and he swears directly opposite to Mr. Murray. That is the kind of man Mr. Murray is. Now, Mr. Robertson, as I have stated, was an official of the department. He was an inspector of works in that district and was getting a certain pay per day. Therefore, he was absolutely interested with Mr. Murray, not only as an official of the department, but as' one of the owners of the railway. Mr. Jardine had been taking money for years from the department as a large contractor with the department, and there is no doubt that he was one of the owners of this failway And Mr. Carter, as I have stated, was not one_ of the owners of the railway, but he is the general solicitor in that district >or the government. Now, these men were interested in this matter. 1 would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for. Carleton (Mr. Carvell) to a statement which he made. If the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) will give me his attention for one moment I will call his Mr. J. D. REID.
attention to the statement he made that what the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) said was not a fact, insofar as Mr- Irvine received $2 a day or something like $600 for the usei of a scow that cost $150. I think he stated there were only 20 days on which he had received $2 per day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said 20 days in a year.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the hon. gentleman admits that probably he received $600 for the use of a scow that cost $150.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say so.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) tells me that he went over the Auditor General's Report to see if this were a fact. He collected his information from the official record. I had a few minutes to spare and only a few minutes, and, of course, I could not go over the whole department to find out how much had been received. But to satisfy the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) that he received a great deal more for the use of his scow than the value of it, I will give him a few items in the Auditor General's Report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon . gentleman must remember that this man had more than one scow. All these scows are now employed by another contractor.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the same scow, because the evidence here shows it was the only scow. In 1905, he used this scow 15 days; in 1906, 10 days; in 1907, 30 days; in 1908, 40i days and in 1909, 28 days. The total amount paid to him for that work was $247, and I have just taken it out in about ten minutes. I think that should satisfy the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) that this man received a great deal more than the scow was worth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That covers a period of five years.


John Dowsley Reid: That does not make any difference. Now, so far as the use of this wharf to the railway was concerned, let me say this. It is quite evident that these gentlemen, all owners of this railway, conspired to sell the railway to the government and they solicited the influence of the Minister of Public Works so that he might throw his net around the Minister of Railways and Canals and get this deal shoved through. The evidence shows that every time-they recommended the purchase of a wharf, the municipal wharf or this sawdust wharf, it was on account this railway being extended The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) forgot to mention one point, He said it was necessary to 'have this sawdust wharf to extend the railway, but why did not he read the evidence sworn to by Mr. APRIL 21, 1910
O'Leary, and not contradicted by Mr. Murray or any other witness, that Mr. O'Leary had offered this wharf to the railway company, or at least had offered the right to put tracks on there and give them a lease for all time to come for $1 per annum. They were willing to give the right to run their tracks over the sawdust wharf and use the wharf.


William Pugsley: If they would carry it down to O'Leary's warehouse.


John Dowsley Reid: The sawdust wharf.
Mr. PUG8LEY. And carry it down to O'Leary's warehouse.


John Dowsley Reid: But the railway company would not accept it. There was no business for it down there. But they recommended it to the government and what struck me when th ?,y recommended the government to purchase this wharf was, that if they could get the government to purchase it, they would be in the same position, these men I have mentioned, as they were in the case of the municipal wharf. Now, when they wanted to put on the government the municipal wharf they saw that they could get an opportunity of spending the money themselves, one as a contractor and the other getting the contract 'expenditure. Then if they could sell the sawdust wharf they could make a lot of money out of it. It had to be all fitted up: according to Mr, Stead's evidence it would require many thousands of dollars to repair it and of course Mr. Murray was a government official at Riehi-bucto who would have the superintending of the building of this wharf. It strikes me if I remember rightly that in the Public Accounts Committee it came out-I heard it some where-that Mr. Murray made a profit on the lumber "that went into the municipal wharf.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No evidence of that.


John Dowsley Reid: Well I heard it, and if he is the kind of man he was shown up to be in the Public Accounts Committee I have no doubt at all he would do it. Now these are the kind of men that are running affairs down in Richibucto and what surprises me is that the member for Richibucto (Mr. LeBlanc) does not know anything that is going on. They simply elect him and this is the way they get the money, because the telegram shows that the money was needed for the election of LeBlanc.


William Pugsley: It does not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: It says it would be a great help to LeBlanc, that it would be important to LeBlanc.


William Pugsley: Might not the inauguration of a public work there be an advantage?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the inauguration of a couple of thousand dollars for a corrupt fund would be worth more.


William Pugsley: It would take more than that to face Richard O'Leary.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course the hon. gentleman had the experience last time and knows, and is in a better position to judge than I am, but I am glad to hear that he admits putting money in there.


William Pugsley: I know the length of O'Leary's purse in election time.


John Dowsley Reid: Now, let us see who are the witnesses that were brought here to prove the value of this property. Mr. Loggie comes here as a witness and of course Mr. Loggie, as we all know is a large contractor for the Public Works Department, and only since the present Minister of Public Works came in.


William Pugsley: Oh no, before that.


John Dowsley Reid: He gets Mr. Loggie a contract in his department.
Now, certainly, Mr. Loggie is not going to do anything to injure the Minister of Public Works. Especially so, in view of the fact, admitted by the minister the other night, that there was some $48,000 in his hands waiting to be paid to Mr. Loggie. When Mr. Loggie was giving evidence he knew that there was this $48,000 that the minister might squeeze him or hold him out of. He might, therefore, stretch his conscience to the extent of saying that if he wanted this property for some business purpose he would pay so much for it. But when he sent a telegram to authorize the purchase on his behalf of this property which he said was worth $8,000, all he offered was $2,500. Another witness is Mr. J. D. Irvine, another contractor, another servant of the Minister of Public Works, a man who has been making his bread and butter out of the minister's department for some years and has got his contracts regularly every year. He knows well enough that he may meet the same fate that Mr. Mayes did in St. John if he does not toe the mark. But I want to give my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) credit for one thing-the only time I ever knew him to do right in these matters. Last year, when one of the most outrageous cases ever heard before this House was under discussion, the Minister of Public Works said that the hon. member for Carleton would take the matter up for him. And the hon. member for Carleton sat tight and said nothing. Not a single man would defend the case, and the member for Carleton walked out in disgust for fear he would be compelled to take part in the defence. Now that I recall the case, I really must apologize to the hon. member for Carleton. But I am

sure the opinion I expressed of the hon.< member can hardly be wondered at considering the zeal he has shown in defending these rascals in the Public Accounts Committee.


Mr. SPROULE.: It must have been an. awfully bad case.


John Dowsley Reid: It was. Another witness was Mr. Foster, who, as I have already said, left Richibucto when he was twenty-eight years of age, and has been, living elsewhere for forty years, though he has been back to Richibucto a few times. And he was here trying to get the assistance of hon. members from New Brunswick to get superannuation which he _ thought he was entitled to.


William Pugsley: Therefore, you think he lied.	i


John Dowsley Reid: Even he did not swear that the property was worth it.


William Pugsley: Yes, he did.


John Dowsley Reid: He swore that if ho was in business and wanted a property of that kind, it would be worth $5,000 or $10.000 to him. But there was an ' if ' in it- every one of these witnesses put in an ' if. ' When it comes to selling the property the hon. member for Carleton tried to provei that this 200 feet was cheap at $1,500. I think that is the impression he wanted to leave with the House. He should have told the House that 227 feet, practically the same property was offered to Mr. Water-, bury by Mr. O'Leary for $500.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A thousand dollars.


William Pugsley: A thousand dollars, and leaving the strip between it and the railway, which was the valuable part of the property.


John Dowsley Reid: I will read it, so that' I may be sure. Here, on page 72, is the offer:



[Stage Direction]
Manufacturer of Lumber, Exporter of Canned Lobsters and Fresh Fish.
Richibucto, N.B., 22nd April, 1904.
D. H. Waterbury, Esq.,
Richibucto, N.B.
Dear Sir,-With further reference to your conversation in re land opposite the public building in Richibucto, I will sell the whole lot on the eastern side of Water st., the full width of the present lot owned by the government, i.e., 227 feet in width and running back to the channel 625 feet for one thousand dollars ($1,000). Or I will sell the 227 feet on the street running back to a depth of 100 feet for five hundred dollars ($500).
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) R. O'LEARY.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Just to put the hon-member (Mr. J. D. Reid) right, I may explain that the government have now sold


John Dowsley Reid: all but 200 feet, and that strip runs from( Water street, the six hundred odd feet to the river front. So, they are now getting practically the same amount of land which Mr. O'Leary wanted to sell to the government five years ago at $1,000.


William Pugsley: And much better situated.


John Dowsley Reid: But $1,000 is what he offered it for-227 feet. And now the government are paying $1,500 for 200 feet.


William Pugsley: Yes, but infinitely the best part of the property.


John Dowsley Reid: Why?


William Pugsley: It is a part next to the railway wharf, and must be the best.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know how it was that on March TO, when he was so anxious to assist these gentlemen by buying that wharf-


William Pugsley: Not anxious to assist them.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, on March 10 he bought this municipal wharf for these four gentlemen.


William Pugsley: Not for them-for the public benefit.


John Dowsley Reid: For the use of the Kent Northern railway, and they are practically the only ones who get any use of it. I ask how it was that he did not realize then that it wras necessary to have the other wharf too? Within a few months, the minister comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to have so much more wharf property at Richibucto. And there is another peculiar thing. The minister wrote to Mr. Stead censuring him for not taking a little more care in finding out the value of the property. We know that Mr. Stead was there on the 20th of May, and there is every reason to believe that he saw the deed and knew the consideration. But, he never went to Mr. O'Leary to find out anything about what he had sold the wharf for. The minister censured him for that. But, is it not a fact that the minister has increased Mr. Stead's salary since then? That goes to confirm the statement I made in this House many times, that the minute an official in any one of these departments commits a wrong act his salary is immediately increased. But, what I cannot understand is how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) allows them to pull the wool over his eyes. Of course, I do not attribute any personal wrong to him-no one would do that-.but we can hardly acauit him of great carelessness when he allows the money in his charge to be frittered away in this manner.

Now, the hon. member for Carleton spoke of these men in Richibucto as being Liberals and said he was proud of them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hear, hear.
Mr' J. D. REID. He is proud of this kind of work. He is proud to see these people rob the public as they did in this case, and proud to defend their actions in the Public Accounts Committee. But I for one do not believe-I cannot believe- that this is the feeling of Liberals generally in this House or outside of this House. But we see that these gentlemen are offered no choice but either to swallow a transaction of this kind or be excommunicated from the party.


Mr. TALBOT.: Will the hon. member permit me a remark or a question? Does he challenge members on this side of the House on this point and tell them that they act under compulsion in these matters? Has he any doubt as to the honesty of the transaction or of our sincerity in endorsing it?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no doubt whatever of the dishonesty of me transaction. And as to the members of the Liberal side being obliged to swallow them, I only speak from what I have seen in the past


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. member permit me to say


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member (Mr. Talbot) has a speech to make


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member has a question to ask

Mr.1 TALBOT. Does the hon. gentleman refuse


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly, I am finishing


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Does the hon. member refuse me opportunity to say


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what the hon. member wants. But he can speak when I have finished.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) has the floor.


John Dowsley Reid: There are some hon. members on the other side of the House at least who have had positions promised them and who have letters in their pockets to show it. I mentioned that the hon. member for Carleton practically has a retainer or the promise of a judgeship. I do not wish to say that he has an actual promise, but I wiil take the hon. gentleman's own words for it. That admission came from the hon. gentleman himself in a 244
speech at Woodstock. He made the statement that he intended staying in public life even though they were throwing judgeships at him. When that hon. gentleman will stand up here, as he did, and state that he has no promise and that he is doing all this good work for the Liberal party simply in the interest of the party or the country, he certainly must expect that we will take the meaning out of his words which we think was intended. Therefore,
I feel that while he may not have the promise of a judgeship at the present time, yet it must have been thrown at him and that he may pick it up at some future time; he has to carry on the good work he has been doing in the Public Accounts Committee, i


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And he refused it, too.


John Dowsley Reid: If he does not continue the good work there the judgeship will be withdrawn, and he would lose all the good effect of the work that he has done in the past. Now, the very fact of the existence of a case of this kind convinces me that there are many members on the other side of the House practically in the same position that he is. The hon. member for Belleehasse told us that his name was never mentioned in connection with a matter of this kind.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I never said anything of the kind.


John Dowsley Reid: It was stated in the public press that the hon. member for
Belleehasse was doing his best to be appointed Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries when that position was vacant.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I deny the statement as being made out of whole cloth and absolutely untrue.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not saying it is true; I am saying what was in the press-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Mr.  J. D.@: REID, -and the best evidence we have that it is true is that if the state-* ment published in the pTess was untrue


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


John Dowsley Reid: An hon. member, when an untrue statement is published, generally gets up and denies it, but that statement was never denied by the hon. member for Belleehasse, either in or out of this House.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I deny it now.


John Dowsley Reid: He denies it now, because the position.has been filled and he knows he could not get it. Now, if there are any other gentlemen on the other side of the House like the hon. member for Belleehasse, and if they kindly get up, probably I will be able t1' give them a lit-



tie history that they do not think is known b.y hon. members on this side of the House. I have taken up longer time than I intended.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear; go on.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I have taken up so much time. I promised the hon. member for Carleton that if he would let me have half or a quarter of an hour before one o'clock, I would finish the few remarks that I intended to make. However, he trespassed a little on my time, and I was compelled to continue after three o'clock. I apologize for taking more time than I intended. The only thing further that I wish to say is that I regret that there is not a member on the Liberal side of the House who had the pluck to stand up as the hon. member for Bellechasse has done and make the same statement that he has made. But, hon. members are looking for 'senator&hips,, deputy ministerships or something of that kind, and they swallow this thing


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE (Quebec).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member, I think, has no right to cast aspersions on a whole section of the House, I mean on those hon. members who support the government, by charging them with holding promises of rewards, in such a way as to prevent their giving an independent vote. It is contrary to the dignity and the rule of this House to discuss political issues on such lines. I shall await your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


John Dowsley Reid: I am very sorry that I do not understand my hon. friend because I certainly would have been very pleased to reply to the hon. gentleman if he had addressed me in English, which, of course, I know he could do. However, I simply wish to say before taking my seat that I condemn this transaction as one of the most outrageous that has ever been before this House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Turcotte) raised a point of order to the effect that the hon. member for Grenville had no right to say that members of this House had voted for certain measures because of promises that have been made or might be made of rewards in the shape of senatorships or judgeships,
I think that as a rule these assertions should not be made, and that these are things that had better be left unsaid. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of the rule directly, it being such a general charge, and not directed against any one in particular, but that is the substance of the point and I am sure the hon. member for Grenville has no intention of insisting upon it.	'


John Dowsley Reid: 


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to say that members on the otJjer side of the House all voted for that reason, but I say that there have been members on the other side of the House who have had promises in their pockets, and who have voted knowing that they were going to be appointed to judgeships and senatorships.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Who are they?


John Dowsley Reid: There are records to show who they are. If the hon. member for Bellechasse desires it I could name some of them.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Name them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the House had better come back to the question before the chair.


John Dowsley Reid: I simply wish to conclude by stating that although this is a small transaction it is a sample of many
that have been going on in the past in the Public Works Department, and it is time that something was done in order that this should not be allowed w>
continue any longer.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: A change of power.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, if we had my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as premier he would not have a man supporting him who would do such a thing. It is a surprise to me that the Prime Minister of this country should allow such rascality to go on as is going on in these several departments.


William Pugsley: As the amendment moved by the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) not only seeks to attack the judgment of the engineering branch of my department in connection with the purchase of this wharf at Richibueto, but also goes further, and asks this House to declare that that was a corrupt and fraudulent transaction, I think it becomes advisable that I should address some observations to the House before hon. gentlemen are called upon to vote upon this motion of want of confidence in the government. Now I desire to say, first of all, that if any hon. gentleman will take the trouble to read carefully the evidence which was given before the Committee on Public Accounts he cannot help being struck with the evident desire and determination upon the part of the hon. member for York to give to this House only a part of the case, and to withhold evidence which was, and which is of a most material character. I desire just for a moment to call attention to one striking fact in the remarks of the hon. gentleman, which afford a key to his whole conduct in the discussion of this question. The hon. gentleman

stated that when an application was presented to my department by the Kent Northern Railway Company in the month of May, 1908, for additional wharf accommodation at Richibucto, immediately on receipt of that request I sent an order to the chief engineer of the department that an examination and report should be made without delay. Those are the words of the hon. gentleman, that ' an examination and report should be made without delay ', thus seeking to convey the impression to this House that I lost not a moment in having this report made, that I was particular to give the unusual direction to the chief engineer to have report made without delay. Now, in order that there may be no mistake in that regard, I will call the attention of the House to the language of the hon. gentleman. It will be found on page 7780 of the * Hansard ':
No mention then of the report of the 10th of March, what it seems to me would necessarily have been made had the minister not been cognizant of the plans of Geo. W. Robertson and Thos. O. Murray. On that very day he issues an instrnction to the chief engineer to have a report procured upon the matter of this letter without delay.
And the hon. gentleman emphasized that. Now, when I call your attention to the fact that the order which I gave to the chief engineer, was the order which is usually given, the order which is almost universally given for making a report, simply instructing the engineer to have an examination and Teport made upon the property, not using at all the words 'without delay', giving no directions to the chief engineer as to when he should have the report made, giving no directions that an unusual hurry should be exercised, when you find that the hon. gentleman has used these -words, supposing, I presume, they would escape the notice of the House, when they are not contained in the order, I think you will be able to form some idea of the desire which the hon. gentleman has had with reference to the information which he should give to this House to enable the House to determine how they should vote upon this question. In addition to making that erronous statement, the hon. gentleman all through his remarks is careful only to give a portion of the evidence which was submitted to the committee. For instance, I happen to have in my mind one striking fact. The hon. gentleman, in referring to the negotiations which had taken place during the present year with the Messrs. Loggie for the purchase of thi3 property, and to the proposition submitted by my department offering to them a portion of the property they declined, he says that Mr. Loggie stated that if we sold to him all the property except 200 feet, it would entirely de-2444
feat the plan which the department had in view for establishing terminal facilities at the port of Richibucto. The hon. gentleman was careful not to refer to a further part of Mr. Loggie's evidence in which, although he said that he was acting on business principles, not having regard to the interest of the department, but rather to the interest of his firm, a little later on, and the hon. gentleman must have been aware of this, when the question was put to Mr. Loggie he stated that he could not say that it would at all interfere with the plans of the department because, reserving as they did 200 feet, it would give them a large frontage on the Richibucto river in connection with the railway terminals of the Kent Northern railway. I might go on and call attention to other portions of the evidence in which the hon. gentleman has, I will not say wilfully, Mr. Speaker, I would rather be charitable, and I would say with an ignorance of the duty which the hon. gentleman owes to the members of this House to give them full information, the hon. gentleman has failed to discharge that duty which, as a representative, he owes to the members of this House anil to the people of this country.
Now what further? The hon. gentleman said that if so and so is the case, if it is true that Mr. Murray and Mr. Robertson, came to Ottawa and consulted with me with regard to the purchase of this property, then the Minister of Public Works will be implicated as the originator of this transaction. But, Sir, unfortunately for the hon. gentleman, there is no such evidence as that; unfortunately for the position taken and the charges made by the hon. gentleman, there; is no evidence that either Mr. Murray on Mr. Robertson spoke to me one single word; with respect to this Richibucto wharf when they visited Ottawa. On the contrary, there is the sworn testimony of Mr. Murray, and the hon. gentleman did not choose to ask the committee to send for Mr. Robertson. He may say that Mr. Robertson is in a distant part of the country, but if he had applied to the committee the committee would no doubt have ordered his production here as a witness, the same as the committee ordered the production of every witness whose name was given to the chairman by my hon. friend. But Mr. Thomas Murray swore that when he and Mr. Robertson visited Ottawa, the subject of the purchase of this wharf was never mooted between himself and myself, or between Mr. Robertson and myself in his presence; and yet, although I affirmed it to the committee, and although he knew that a charge of that kind would necessarily involve my honour as a member of this House, as a member of this government and as Minister of Publ'o Works, the hon. gentleman had not thei

manliness to ask me whether I spoke of this wharf transaction when these gentlemen were in Ottawa. But, Mr. Speaker, in face of his omitting to do that, in face of his omitting to do what every honourable man would feel it to 'be his duty to do in the discharge of the fair obligation which one man owes to his fellowman, in face of his neglecting to do that, in face of the positive evidence of Mr. Murray that we said not one word with reference to this wharf transaction when he "was in *Ottawa, the hon. gentleman asked this House to believe that Mr. Murray and Mr. Robertson came to Ottawa and advised with me, or were advised by me, to go back and buy this wharf property for $700 in the expectation that they would sell it to the government for the sum of $5,000.
Sir, could a more heinous charge bei made against a public man than is insinuated by the hon. gentleman-did I say 'made'?-no; the hon. gentleman has not the courage to make a charge like that upon the floor of the House. He has been, here long enough to know that if he made a charge of that kind and failed to prove it he would be placing in jeopardy his seat in the House, and there would be meted out to him the punishment which should be meted out to every man who without) good reasons makes a reckless and villainous charge against a fellow member of this parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I repeat, Mr. Speaker-


Arthur Meighen: I wish to ask a question.
Some. hon. MEMBERS. Sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member addressing the House can only be interrupted with his consent.


William Pugsley: I have no objection at all.


Arthur Meighen: If an hon. member of this House were to make a charge in the form the minister prefers, by whom would! that charge be investigated; would it bo' by a committee of this House?


William Pugsley: There is a regular and well established procedure for the investigation of such charges and the hon. gentleman should know that.


Arthur Meighen: Will you answer the question?


William Pugsley: It is enough for me to say now that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) although he has had the courage to insinuate, has not had the courage to make a direct charge which would in-* volve-


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister-


William Pugsley: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.
Mr. PUGSLEY-which, Sir, would involve serious consequences to him.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have already said several times that the hon. member addressing the House cannot be interrupted.


Arthur Meighen: I have asked a quesr tion and he refuses to answer it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has not had the courage to make a charge which would involve upon him the serious consequences which a member of this House should suffer if he makes a cha'rge which he cannot substantiate. Now, Sir, I declare to this House that the evidence of Mr. Murray is absolutely true: that when he and Mr. Robertson visited Ottawa the subject of this Richibucto wharf was not mentioned between us, was never referred to in any conversation which we had while they were at Ottawa. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket)- has not ventured to say that he would question any statement I would make, but he says that he would not believe the statement of Mr. Murray, and that he would rather take the evidence of Mr. O'Leary than the evidence of Mr. Murray. Well, Mr. O'Leary cannot tell what took place at Ottawa and Mr. Murray would know whether he had a conversation with me or not, and whether he received any advice or instruction or not, and Mr. Murray swore positively that he had no conversation with me on the subject of the purchase of this wharf property. And, if it were to become a ques tion as to who was telling the truth as to what took place in Richibucto- in regard to which I am in no way concerned, with regard to which the chief engineer of my department is in no way concerned- with regard to which the deputy minister of my departmnt is in no way concerned- but if I were called upon to determine from what has taken place in this case as to which of these two men is entitled to the greatest credence, I would say that I would infinitely prefer-and the members of this House who have read the evidence _ carefully w/ould infinitely prefer-to give credence to the evidence of Thomas O. Murray rather than to the evidence of Richard O'Leary. And, I will tell you why. Mr. Richard O'Leary came here determined if he could to make out a case against my department and against me-l say that advisedly-and he showed a willingness to swear to anything which would tend to the accomplishment of that end. Let me show the House the grounds

upon which I make that statement. To begin with, Richard O'Leary swore that I wrote him a letter in the fall of 1908, which I did, and which I shall invite the attention of the House to, as the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) has not chosen to do so. Mr. O'Leary swore that he wrote me a reply and he produced what purported to be a copy of the reply he had sent me. Hon. gentlemen will find that at page 45 of the evidence and in that pretended letter to me Mr. O'Leary writes that Mr. Murray came to him, apparenty acting as agent of the Public Works Department and gave him to understand that he was buying the property for the government. Well, if that had been true, if Mr. Murray had represented that he was the agent of the department as is stated in that pretended letter of Mr. O'Leary's which he says he sent me, then Mr. Murray would be obliged to account to the department for the difference between the '$700 and the $5,000 which he received from the government. I cannot but think that Mr. O'Leary deliberately intended to make the committee believe that he had sent a copy of that letter to me. It was a confidential letter. He supposed I had not kept a copy of it, and he came here before that committee intending to make the committee believe that Mr. Murray represented himself as being an agent of the department. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I had the letter which I had received from Mr. O'Leary, and I produced it, and you will find it on page 46 of the evidence, but you will find no statement in it that Mr. Murray represented that he was acting as agent of the department. That letter which I received is a letter entirely different in character from the letter Mr. O'Leary said he sent to me so far as that most important fact is concerned. I say Sir, that that incident stamps Mr. O'Leary as being a man upon whose evidence but little reliance can be placed. But, what further is the position which Mr. O'Leary occupied as a witness? When seeking to depreciate the value not only of this property but of all property in the town of Richibucto he went so far as to declare that the wharf property occupied by himself and which had cost him $1,500, was only worth $2,000, and he said he was willing to sell it for $2,000. Before the committee he pledged his solemn oath that he was willing to take $2,000 for that property. And, the hon. member from York said: Oh, could any one for a moment think he was willing to sell it for $2,000? Well, I would say probably not in the light of the other testimony we had from Mr. O'Leary. But assuming that Mr. O'Leary was a truthful man upon whose evidence reliance could, be placed one had a right to believe he would sell that property for $2,000. Well, Messrs.
Loggie saw in the newspapers that he had made that sworn statement before the committee and they being willing, nay, they being anxious to secure a good property at a low price, they at once telegraphed to Mr. Carvell asking him to offer Mr. O'Leary, if necessary, $2,500 for the property which he swore he would sell for $2,000.
But when Mr. O'Leary found that there were people who were willing to buy, he at once went back on his oath and said he was not willing to sell the property for either $2,000 or $2,500. Mr. O'Leary, in order to-influence the committee in respect to the value of the property which the department had bought, deliberately swears that a property which the evidence showed to be well worth $8,000, is worth only some $2,000;. and yet although he had sworn he would, do so, when a purchaser presents himself he would not consent to sell it for that amount or even for $2,500. What further have we as tending to discredit the evidence of Mr. O'Leary? He went further and said: * This property is absolutely without value; I held it for years, it was of no value to me, and I offered the whole property to Mr. Waterbury, the agent of the department, a few years ago for the sum of $1,000.' If we had not the documents to disprove Mr. O'Leary's statement, we would have been placed in this position, that the department had bought at a larger price a property which a few years ago had been offered to it for the sum of $1,000. In the face of what I am going to tell this House, we cannot believe that Mr. O'Leary had forgotten what had taken place. We cannot believe that he, having offered only a small part of this property for $1,000, was telling what he believed to be true when he said that he had offered the whole property for $1,000. But that was the statement he deliberately made in the committee, evidently believing that the offer had not been put in writing, and that we would not be able to produce any documentary evidence to show that he made a statement to the committee which he knew to be untrue. After that statement was made, I sent for Mr. Waterbury, who is the superintendent of buildings in New Brunswick for the Department of Public Works, a man who is very careful in the way he looks after the business of the government, and asked him if he had not some document to show what had taken place between him and Mr. O'Leary at that time. Although it was four or five years ago, he was fortunately able to produce a letter written by Mr. O'Leary at that time. His evidence was that Mr. O'Leary having told him what he would sell a portion of this property for, he had asked Mr. O'Leary to put the proposition in writing, and he produced a letter containing Mr. O'Leary's

proposition, which he said was the only proposition Mr. O'Leary had made to him. tf hon. gentlemen desire to see what Mr.. Waterbury said on that point, they will find his evidence at pages 168, 169, 170 and 171. They will find the letter of Mr. O'Leary set forth on page 72. It is a little out of its order, not having been given in the evidence of Mr. Waterbury, but in the evidence of Mr. O'Leary. You can see, Mr. Speaker, how important that letter was. You can understand what a strong point would have been made against the government if, having had an offer from Mr. O'Leary some five years ago to sell this whole property for $1,000, the department, without making any further inquiries, without going to see Mr. O'Leary, without Telferring the matter to the Exchequer Court, without having an arbitration or anything of the kind, had actually paid $5,000 for the same property. But upon an examination of that letter, we find that what Mr. O'Leary at that time was careful to do was to reserve a space of about" 150 feet between the railway wharf and thd piece of property he proposed to sell to the government. He was careful also to reserve another strip of about 200 feet, or perhaps even more, between the property he proposed to sell to the government and his own wharf property farther along the river; offering the department a strip out of the centre, and reserving a space on each side. That is what he proposed to sell for the sum of $1,000, based on a valuation of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000 for the whole property. He made the department a second offer of [DOT] another small piece for $500, which was based on a valuation of $10,000 for the entire property ; and he made a third offer of a smaller piece still, which was based on a valuation of $20,000 for the entire property. When we had on the' stand, a glib witness like Mr. O'Leary,' who is one of the strongest partisans in the province of New Brunswick, and when' we found him deliberately swearing that he had offered the whole of that property' to the government for the paltry sum of $1,000, was it not a fortunate thing that we were able to face him with his own letter, in which he made the proposition' to sell a small piece at the rate of $20,000 for the whole, a larger piece at the rate of $10,000 for the whole, and a still larger and less valuable piece at the rate of $3,000 for the whole? Having been able to corn front Mr. O'Leary with this documentary evidence, I repeat with all confidence the statement I made a short time ago, that I for one would infinitely prefer to take the evidence of Mr. Thomas O. Murray to the evidence of Mr. Bichard O'Leary. I think it is important that Mr. Murray has made the statement-and his evidence was in no Mr. PUGSLEY.
way contradicted or discredited-that no communication, either verbal or written, ever took place between him and myself before the report was made upon this property, and which was made in consequence of an application submitted to my department in the regular way.
Having made these preliminary observations, let me just state briefly what took place, so far as my department was concerned, and so far as I as Minister of Public Works was concerned. Early in the spring of 1908 I was urged to purchase what was known as the municipal wharf in Richibucto. That matter had been pending before my department for some two or three years. After I became minister, I freely confess, I became impressed with the desirability of doing what would be reasonably necessary in order to give improvements to the harbour of Bichibucto, as I had been doings in respect to a great many harbours all over Canada. It is part of my business as Minister of Public Works to encourage the transportation interests of this country so far as they concern our rivers, lakes and harbours. Therefore, I felt it my duty to give respectful attention to the representations made to me on behalf of the very important town of Richibucto. I say important advisedly, because that town has a glorious history. It is a town which in the early days of the province of New Brunswick did an enormous business, a business which to a certain extent has passed away; but it is a town splendidly situated for business. Situated as it is, it can become an important point for the distribution of coal from the rich coal mines of Nova Scotia; it is a most important fishing centre; and although Mr. O'Leary may think that the business of the town is declining, that simply means that his business is declining and is being done by Messrs. Loggie, Mr. Forbes and the other people who are coming in there and helping to provide facilities for carrying on a large and profitable trade. Well, although Mr. O'Leary thinks that, or appears to think that, yet Richibucto is improving. That is the evidence we had before us. I say again it is splendidly situated several miles from the mouth of the Richibucto river, and very large ocean steamers can pass and repass right in front of this wharf and the other wharfs in the town of Richibucto. Well, Sir, of recent years this government has undertaken a system of improvement of the port pf Richibucto. We are building breakwaters, we are giving protection to the harbour. We have been endeavouring for some years to afford to vessels better facilities, and we believe we are accomplishing a good work. Therefore, in view of what we are doing now, in view of what I thought were the possibilities of traffic in the future, I was willing to lend a favourable ear to the

representations made to me as to the necessity of making harbour improvements in the port of Richibucto. Now, hon. gentlemen will say that these improvements are largely for the benefit of the Kent Northern railway. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a case where you make improvements for the transhipment from the water . to the railway in which you do not generally benefit the railway. Take the city of St. John. Take the great national work which we are doing there upon the western side of the harbour, giving to the people of western Canada the means of getting the products of their fertile prairie lands to the markets of the world through Canadian ports. Are we not benefiting the Canadian Pacific railway? Every ton of freight which comes over the Canadian Pacific railway and every ton of freight which is transferred from the steamship to the railway or which is transferred from the railway to the steamship, to a large extent benefits the railway company, but it benefits the public at the same time. You cannot improve the transportation facilities of this country without conferring a benefit upon all. So with regard to Richibucto. By giving facilities to the steamers that come to the wharf immediately adjoining the railway, giving greater facilities for the transfer of goods from the vessels to the railway and from the railway to the vessels, we will necessarily improve the trade of the port and advance the interests of the public, while at the same time we must necessarily render some advantage to the railway company, because by doing that we will increase the facilities for carrying on their business. Therefore, Sir, I decided to do there what I am doing in all other parts of this country, that is, seeking to improve the transportation facilities for the people. Later on in the spring, in the month of May, when it was urged upon me that this municipal wharf which we were buying had onlv a frontage of about 150 feet, certainly not exceeding 200 feet, and that the Tailway track which was going down the wharf was such that it would be necessary to back a train down in order to get a car near the edge of the wharf, and that the end car would necessarily be at right angles to the face of the wharf, and knowing from mv experience in the city of St. John and other places what a great inconvenience a track so located would be, so far as transferring freight from the railway to the vessels, and from the vessels to the railway, was concerned, I made up my mind that it would be desirable to have that wharf extended so that the railway track could be carried along the face of the wharf and made parallel to the vessels as they lay off the wharf.
Every man who knows anything about terminal facilities will recognize the force
of what I am saying, that to afford a convenience to the merchants and the manufacturers and the railway company to which they are reasonably entitled, it is necessary to have a greater frontage, so far as a wharf is concerned, than 150 feet which is I believe the frontage of the municipal wharf. Therefore, although I did not decide what I would do, and although I gave no indication as to what I intended to do, yet when that request was made to me on May 20, 1908, I thought it was my duty to have the matter looked into and to have a report made. And, Sir, that is what I did, and so far as this record shows and so far as any facts which have come to the knowledge of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) will show that is the first step which my department took in connection with the purchase of this wharf property. The request came to me dated May 20, 1908, made in a regular way, made on behalf of the Kent Northern Railway Company, urging that additional terminal facilities were required at the port of Richibucto, and asking if I would take the necessary steps to secure these facilities. All I did was in the usual and ordinary way, to make an order to the chief engineer to have an examination and report made. I have not given the exact words, but hon. gentlemen will find them there in the evidence. It was the usual order, an order made in hundreds of cases. It is always my practice when an application comes which I think is worth being inquired into, it is always my practice to hand that application at once to my secretary, and to ask that an order for the chief engineer be made out. In this case the language used is identical with that used in hundreds of other orders which hon. gentlemen will find upon the files in the department. Well, Sir, it went to the chief engineer. The chief engineer some four days afterwards sent it forward to the resident engineer with directions that he should as early as possible have a report made with regard to the additional wharfage required at Richibucto and generally upon the subject. Well then, what next took place? It appears from the evidence that Mr. Stead goes to Richibucto for the purpose of making 'an examination and report, and while at Richibucto he meets Mr. Murray, also Mr. Robertson and others. He makes the examination as to the wharf and he asks Mr. Murray so that he might report to the department, what he is asking for this property. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that at that time, this property had been bought by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray was the owner and when my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) says that Mr. Murray was a middleman, I say he was not. Mr. Murray had become the owner of that property and he had become the

owner as this record shows, and as I declare to this House without any intimation from me or from anybody acting with my authority that the department would purchase that property. Mr. Stead says that after talking the matter over with Mr. Murray he asked him to name his lowest price so that he might make a statement to the department and give it information as to the amount it would take to purchase the property if the government should decide to buy, and Mr. Murray fixed the price at $5,000. Now, what next comes to my department? We find a report from the resident engineer which hon. gentlemen will find on pages 56 and 63 of the evidence. The fust report is on page 56 and is dated June 9, 1908:
Sir,-As requested in your letter of the 27th May. I have looked into the matter of the wharf accommodation which has been asked for at Eichibucto, Kent county, New Brunswick.
On the 10th of March, 1908, I reported ou the proposed acquirement by the department of the municipal wharf at Richibuoto.
It is now asked that the wharf known as the ' sawdust wharf,' formerly used as a site for a saw-mill, which is situated immediately below the municipal wharf, he also required. Included with this wharf is the area in the rear which has a frontage on the main street of about 443 feet and lies just opposite the lot already acquired by the government for the site of the new public building. The total length of the area measured parallel to the main street is <30 feet.
And I would like hon. members who know anything of the value of water frontage, and particularly those hon. gentlemen who so vociferously applauded the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) when he was presenting his half-measured case for their consideration, to bear in mind what that means. This property is right in the heart of a town of 1,000 people, and fronts upon a river up and down which ocean steamers drawing from 18 to 20 feet of water can pass without difficulty. Measure in your own minds what that means-to have a wharf property in the centre of a town of that size, with the prospects of Richibucto, a property 730 feet on the water, and 400 feet frontage on the main street of the town.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to say that the postal revenue of the town is small.


William Pugsley: I do not care. I know what Richibucto is; I know the business that is being done there. Besides, we have the evidence of men from that town-of Mr. Carter, of Mr. Irving, also of Mr. Forster, and others. And we have the statement of Mr. Forbes and twenty or thirty others of the prominent men of the town.
The report of the engineer further states:
The shallow point lying between the municipal wharf and the sawdust wharf, former-Mr. PUGSLEY.
ly used as a timber pond in connection with the mill property is also included. The area which the government is asked to acquire is 9 acres of land, and land on the water reaching to the channel, that is, to about the face of the wharf. Four acres of this -is land and wharf above high-water line.
Including the 200 feet pier head of the municipal wharf, this would give a frontage on the river of about 775 feet
It is looked upon as certain that the Kent and Northern railway will shortly he taken over by the government and this land and wharf will furnish a very desirable and central site for the station, railway yards, and especially for an ample deep-water terminus.
An offer to sell the wharf, water rights and land area for $5,000 is inclosed herewith.
While the outer faces of the wharf are gone to about low-water level and new crib-work will he required there, the wharf forms a wide approach to deep water, and could not he built now for several times the amount asked. Taking into account also the value of the frontage on the street, and its central position, the price asked is reasonable.
A right-of-way through this land must shortly be bought by the government for a sewer for the public buildings.
The correspondence received with your letter and also a plan of the property are inclosed herewith.
Yours obediently,


GEOFFREY STEAD,
[Stage Direction]
Resident Engineer.
E. D. Lafledr, Esq.,
Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, Ottawa.
Then, on page 60 is a supplementary report from Mr. Stead:
10th June, 1908.
Sir,-In my report of yesterday's date, on Richibucto sawdust wharf, instead of saying that the wharf ' could not he built now for several times the amount asked ' I might have stated more definitely that it contains about 1,000,000 cubic feet of cribwork, slabs and mill refuse, ballast and gravel. Classing this all as filling-new cribwork faces being required-it would cost about one and a half cent per" cubic foot or $15,000-three times the price asked for the property.
Yours obediently,

[Stage Direction]
Resident Engineer.
Now, it is important, I think that, when a charge of corruption, misfeasance and fraud is being made against, I do not know whom-it may be either against Mr. Stead, the resident engineer, the chief engineer, the assistant engineer, the deputy minister, or myself; the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) has not specified against whom he makes the charge-it is important, I say, to bear in mind that, down to the time when the resident engineer makes that report, there is not a tittle of evidence that either I or any officer of my department made any suggestion to Mr. Stead with reference to the report he should make. I was on the witness stand; Mr. Stead was on the wit-

ness stand. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) suspected that any influence had been brought to bear upon Mr. Stead by any suggestion made to him, surely it was his duty to make inquiry upon that point. He did not do it; and, as I have said, there is not a particle of evidence that any suggestion was made by me or by any officer of my department to the resident engineer as to the report he should make upon thi3 property. And we find that the report and supplementary report show the nature and position of the property-show that there were 1,000,000 cubic feet of filling which could -not be put there for less than $15,000 and contained a plain declaration that the price of $5,000 for the property was fair and reasonable.
Now, what next took place? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) would have you believe that I was anxious to purchase this property, that I had arranged to purchase it and was only awaiting the report of the engineer-whose report, he says, I told the chief engineer in writing to get without delay, a statement which as I have stated, is absolutely without foundation. I did nothing further in the matter, so far as the records show, between the time when this report comes in on June 10, to about the 9th of August, a space of two months. During that time, my attention was given to other matters. I presume that I read the report 

I do not recollect at the moment; my attention was given to other matters of great importance in all sections of this country.
I am pressed again to acquire this property.
I have not then made up my mind what I shall do; and, in August, I make an order for another report. Hon. members will find that report at page 60 of the evidence. This report came in. It was dated at Chatham, the 8th of August, and wa3 as follows:
Sir,-In reply to your letter No. 4255 of the 4th August, in which you ask for a report on the value of an additional wharf property required at Richibucto, New Brunswick, I give the following extract from my report on the property, dated 9th June, 1908, and a copy of my note in further reference to the subject, dated 10th J une, 1908.
Then follows this quotation:
' An offer to sell the wharf, water rights and land area for $5,000 is inclosed herewith/
While the outer faces of the wharf are gone, to about low water level and new crib-work will be required there, the wharf forms a wide approach to deep water, and could not be built now for several times the amount asked. Taking into account also the value of the frontage on the street, and its central position, the price asked is reasonable.
A right of way through this land must shortly be bought by the government for a sewer for the public buildings.
So,. you will see, Mr. Stead reiterates the report he made on 9th and 10th June. I mention this to show that I was displaying no eagerness in reference to the purchase of the property. After the report of June 9, I took no action until I ordered the next report in August. I do not remember at the moment whether I wanted further information or what the point was. I considered the matter very carefully, and am free to say that I thought the price of $5,000 stated by resident engineer Stead, and approved by the chief engineer was a reasonable (price;. I had nothing within my knowledge to indicate that it was anything but a reasonable price. I have some knowledge of wharf property, and its value, both upon the north shore and in the city of St.. John, and I have the report of the engineer that this was a property having a frontage of 730 feet on the Richibucto river, a property where there was a million cubic feet of mill refuse, gravel and ballast-there must have been a large quantity of ballast, because it showed above the water, and there must have been a vast amount of cribwork underneath or that would have been washed away years ago. It was a property with a frontage of 400 feet on the main street, and with a depth of over 600 feet, which meant nearly ten acres of land. I confess I thought that $5,000 was a ridiculously low price for this property. I was prepared to act upon the report of the resident engineer, approved of as it was by the chief engineer of my department. But the hon, gentleman says that later on-and I am going to call attention to that-later on I wrote to the resident engineer that he should have called my attention to the fact that there had been a recent transfer of this property and he should have stated the price. The hon. gentleman says, why, when that report came in, and when you acted upon it, you knew just as well then as you knew afterwards that he had failed to make reference to transfers. The hon. gentleman has omitted one important fact, and that is that I had no knowledge, and the evidence does not show that I had any knowledge, and I affirm 'before this House that I had no knowledge, that Mr. Murray had bought this property from Richard O'Leary. I had no knowledge whatever upon the subject, there was nothing in the report, there was nothing in anything that had taken place, to indicate, but what Mr. Murray had been for a considerable time the owner of this property. Therefore when I saw this report making no mention of any recent transfers, I took it for granted that Mr. Murray had been the owner of the .property for a number of years.
Robert Laird Borden: Is it the practice to report recent transfers in giving valuations?


William Pugsley: With regard to buildings it is. The department makes very few purchases of wharfs, and it had never been the practice to issue instructions to engineers to make reports with regard to transfers. But with regard to buildings there are specific instructions that go out to the valuators to report recent transfers by the valuators, and there are forms provided for that purpose with regard to purchases. But with regard to wharf purchases there has been no regular practice in the department. So far as I had any information, Mr. Murray was then, and had been, and I had no reason to suppose, but that he had been for years, the owner of this property, and I was of the opinion that his price_ was a fair and reasonable price. Now I wish to emphasize this fact, that although Mr. Murray was upon the stand, and Mr. Stead was upon the stand, although Mr. Lafleur was available, and I am not sure that he was not on the stand, and the deputy minister of my department and myself were on the stand, there was no attempt made to show that I had any knowledge until after this property was acquired as to Mr. Murray having purchased it from Mr. O'Leary, and I repeat my declaration to this House that I had no knowledge as to Mr. Murray having purchased it from Mr. O'Leary, and there is no evidence which would tend to show that I had any knowledge whatever on that subject.
Now, upon these reports being submitted, to me, the recommendation was made to council that' this property should be purchased, the chief engineer stating that in his opinion the price was a fair and reasonable price. It appears that some time in September, Mr. Murray sent a telegram to Mr. Valiquet. Mr. Valiquet was not the chief engineer. It may be that Mr. Lafleur was away at that time, I think possibly he was ill during the summer of 1908. However, Mr. Murray sent a telegram to Mr. Valiquet, asking as to closing up the wharf property, and saying it was important for Leblanc, meaning the gentleman who was running in the county of Kent in the interest of the government. Now the hon. gentleman seems to think that telegram is material, because he says that telegram forges the last link in the chain of evidence which connects the Minister of Public Works with this transaction; with all the dramatic effect which my hon. friend can show he declares that this is forging the last link in that chain. Well, Mr. Speaker, in considering whether that is so or not, is it not important to ascertain whether I ever saw that telegram? Is it not important to know whether it was ever brought to my notice? The evidence does not show that it was, and I declare that it was not. I never knew that Mr. Mr R. L. BORDEN.
-	Murray had sent that telegram to Mr. Val-r iquet, Mr. Valiquet does not appear to r have thought it his duty to bring it to my ) notice. Business was going on in the >
usual way, it was not brought to my s notice, and I never knew, and I do not ; suppose the Deputy Minister of my depart-5 ment knew, of that telegram until in the
-	usual way we returned it to the Committee
-	of Public Accounts with a record of i this whole transaction, because we had . nothing whatever to conceal with regard to . it, and we wished the committee to have , all the facts as quickly as possible. But ; the hon. gentleman says that shows that ; Mr. Murray wanted this money for cam, paign purposes in order to assist Mr. Leblanc; and I suppose he would go further
, and intimate that Mr. Murray wanted Mr. Valiquet to know that he needed the money for campaign purposes. Is not that the inference to be drawn from the language of the hon. gentleman? Now, does he think that if Mr. Murray wanted that money for campaign purposes, and I, as minister of the department, was willing to assist him in getting that money for campaign purposes, does he not think that Mr. Murray would have wired me or seen me instead of wiring an official of my department? What does the hon. gentleman think of that?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, I do not think so.


William Pugsley: No? The hon. gentleman thinks that Mr. Murray, wanting this matter put through, wanting to get. the money for campaign purposes, wanting to help Mr. Leblanc, would send a telegram to an official of my department and convey to 'him that meaning, that he wanted this money for campaign purposes, and that he would not communicate at all with the minister and try and get him to hurry the matter along! Well1, I thank the hon. gentleman for his suggestion that Mr. Murray would not dare to send such a telegram to me, but that he would send it to one of the prominent officials of my department. Now is that not open to this other interpretation, that in view of the election coming on, it would be of interest to the people of Richibucto to know that they would be likely to get in the near future the improved terminal facilities which the purchase of this wharf would affords. Hon. gentlemen know that when votes are taken for public buildings they are anxious that as soon as reasonably the sites of those buildings may be acquired, and why? In order that people may know that their expectations with regard to public improvements are likely to be fulfilled in the not distant future. And so it may well be that in that telegram which Mr. Murray sent to Mr. Valiquet, he wants him to understand that the people of Richibucto were anxious to know as to whether

the government was bona fide going on with the purchase of this property for which provision had been made in the estimates in the year 1907-8. That, I think, is a fair and reasonable inference to be drawn from the telegram which Mr. Murray sent to Mr. Valiquet, and not the very extraordinary inference which the hon. gentleman sought to draw from that telegram. At all events, it is important to bear in mind that there is no evidence whatever given before the committee which would tend to show that I ever had any knowledge of the sending of that telegram from Mr. Murray to Mr. Valiquet.
Now, then, the purchase is completed. The hon. gentleman says there is another strong link, and it is that the Minister of Public Works recommended that W. D. Carter should be appointed agent to t'he Justice Department, and what is the suggestion of the hon. gentleman with regard to that? So that he would know when the cheque came forward, and I suppose he would be able to get his hands on the money and use it for campaign purposes. Well, in determining as to the weight which should be given to that insinuation of the hon. gentleman, it is important to bear one thing in mind. They had Mr. Carter on the witness stand, and they had an opportunity of examining him, brought here by themselves as their witness, but he does not appear to have handled a single dollar of the proceeds of the cheque which was sent in payment of this property.
There is another thing that I think you might very well bear in mind, and that is that Mr. Carter is one of the most prominent lawyers in Richibucto. He is and has been for years the friend of the government, and he is the one man to be found in that place who would naturally be selected for the purpose of completing the transfer of this property. He acts as the agent of the Justice Department, and was not he, of all men, the one person who would properly be selected for the purpose of seeing "that the title was all right and that the government was getting what it was paying for? Yet, Sir. the hon gentleman, with his distorted imagination, with-if I were outside of this_ House 1 would sav-his inexcusable desire to do wrong and injustice to a political opponent, seeks to put away all that circumstance and seeks to show that if Mr. Carter was selected as agent of the Minister of Justice to perform the legal business in connection with this case, it was done from some sinister motive in order that Mr. Carter might get a part of the proceeds of this cheque, and use these proceeds for the purpose of assisting his friend, Mr. Leblanc, in the election. The hon. gentleman makes that insinuation without a' shadow of evidence to sustain him in so
doing. I am no more surprised at that act on the part of the hon. gentleman than I am at the greater portion of his conduct all through this inquiry and all through his participation in this case now before the House. As I say, the transaction was completed by the Justice Department. The evidence shows that. I had nothing to do with it, that after I had sent my recommendation to council I had nothing further to do with it, that I did not know how the transaction was completed or how this money was paid. But later on, I think in the month of December, I wrote a letter to Mr. O'Leary, the letter which my hon. friend has referred to. I wrote to Mr. O'Leary because my hon. friend the member for Kent, New Brunswick, came to me and told me that he had heard some criticism of the payment which had been made for this property, and I felt it to be my duty, in consequence of the representations made to me, to look into the matter. Who was the first man to whom I ought to apply? It was Mr. Richard O'Leary, the man, who I had been informed, had owned this property. I wrote to Mr. O'Leary a letter. It had been marked 'confidential,' but when, before the Public Accounts Committee, he said he had received a confidential letter from me to which he had sent, not the reply which he produced before the committee containing this false statement to which I have already invited your attention, but the reply which you will find upon the page to which I have alluded. I wrote Mr. O'Leary a confidential letter, and I said at once that I had no objection to the letter going in evidence. Although it was confidential, I felt it was Tight that the committee should have the benefit of it, and it was read at my request. It is as follows, and it appears at page 44 of the evidence:
Office of
The Minister of Public Works of Canada.
Ottawa, 2nd Dec., 1908.
Confidential.
Dear Mr. O'Leary,-My department has recently purchased from Mr. Thomas Murray a wharf property at Richibucto known as the ' sawdust wharf.' It contains a frontage of 570 feet, and joins the municipal wharf. I purchased this with a view of making necessary improvements for the accommodation of vessels at Richibucto, and did it upon the report of Mr. Stead, the resident engineer, who stated that the price asked, namely $5 000, was fair and reasonable, and that tbe wharf could not be built now for several times the amount asked; also that it contains about a million cubic feet of cribwork, slabs and mill refuse, ballast and gravel. He says 'classing this all as filling', new cribwork faces being required-it would cost about 11 cents per cubic foot or $15,000-three times the price asked for the property.
I have learned within a few days that this property was formerly owned hv you, and have also been informed, whether reliable or


William Pugsley: From Mr. Leblanc ,the member for Kent. Mr. Leblanc thought whom he had learned that CFLeary owned he property, from whom he had learned tnat the price was excessive?


Mr PUGSLEY.: From Mr. LeBlanc, the member for Kent, Mr. LeBlanc thought it was excessive and told me that he had understood that Mr. O'Leary had bought it for a considerable smaller sum and that his profit was larger than it ought to be. lhat was the criticism of Kent county as my non. friend told me. Later on my hon. friend from Kent told me that when he made the statement to me he was under the impression that we had only bought a ^er-7 small piece of this property, and that he had spoken of the price being excessive because he believed that that was the case. When he learned afterwards that we had bought the whole property he thought that we had given a fair and reasonable price for it.


William Pugsley: Now, I may say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I and the chief engineer of my department had relied upon the report of Mr, Stead. I had made up my mind that if Mr. Stead had not acted in good faith, if he had not exercised good judgment, but had acted from any improper motive and by collusion with the vendor, it would be not only my duty to dismiss him from the department, but it would be my duty to take steps on behalf of the Crown to recover back the money which had been paid for this property and to have the transfer of it cancelled and set aside. That is what I had made up my mind to do in the discharge of my public duty and upon the I3th January I wrote Mr. Stead. My hon. friend says that the letter of the 13th Januarv is conclusive evidence that the whole thing is a fraud, and that I was a party to it from the beginning. I would appeal to all fair-minded men on both sides of this House and I would ask if the hon. gentleman is warranted in making that statement? Bear in mind that it was my duty to act fairly towards my employee, that it was my duty to hear all that he had to say. Surely I would not be acting in the fair discharge of my duty, if I did not give him an opportunity to vindicate himself if he could. Surely it would not, in order to save myself from criticism, in order to prevent-shall I say a narrowminded, bigoted and prejudiced man-a man actuated by partisanship, from criticising my action in this matter to do an injustice to a public official. Would I have been acting the part of a man if I had discharged this official, who for years had so far as I know worthily and honourably, and faithfully discharged his duties as an emnloyee of the Public Works Department under my predecessors and under myself? No, I do not think that would be a manly part for me to take and I determined I would give him an opportunity to justify himself if he could, and to show that he had exercised his best judgment in regard to this property. Accordingly, when he saw me in St. John during the Xmas season, having come there to see his family and expecting to speak to me about different matters connected with the department, seeing me for a second when I could not give him the opportunity' of an interview, I told him I would write him-not telling him what the contents of the letter would be-and this is another matter which the hon gentleman concealed from the House: that Mr. Stead says that although he was expecting a letter from me he was surprised at the contents because it was not what he was expecting to receive. In pursuance of what I had said I wrote him on the 13th of January, 1909, as follows:

January 13, 1909.
Dear Sir,-It has recently been brought to my notice that the wharf property at Richibucto purchased by my department for the sum of $5,000 had been acquired by the then owner for a very much less amount
At that time I had a letter from Mr. O'Leary in my possession informing me he had sold the property and the price at which he had sold it and I proceeded to say:
As the price which 'he paid for the property would under ordinary ciroumstances be regarded as a fair criterion of its value I should like you to furnish me with all information which you had regarding the property and its value when you reported that the price of $5,000 was fair and reasonable.
I would also remind you that in your report to the department you made no reference to any previous transfers. This is information which should be ih the possession of the department, because it might, as you can Teadily understand, influence the judgment of the officials as well as that of the minister in determining upon the purchase. In the future, you will please keep in mind, and report all previous transfers, together with the consideration, made within two or three years previous to your report, and also all other facts which might in any way afford information to the department as to the reasonableness of the price asked.
I am, yours very truly,
(Sgd.) WM. I'UGSLEY
Now Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you and I appeal to the members of this House as to whether, never having known, as I did not know until I had heard it from Mr. Leblanc in the month of December, and had it confirmed by the letter which Mr. O'Leary wrote, learning that Mr. Murray had bought this property from Mr. O'Leary for a very small sum and that the resident engineer-the man in whose judgment we had to trust because a minister must give trust to his officials throughout this country-knowing that the resident engineer had made a report that this property had a fair value of $5,000, I ask you, Sir, whether or not it was a reasonable and a proper thing that I should write to Mr. Stead that letter of the 13th of January? Is there any man in this House who will say I did anything but what was right and fair and proper and just to an employee of my department in writing that letter? Now then, Mr. Stead replied:
Resident Engineer's Office,
Chatham, N.B., 21st January, 1909.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, and to say that I very much regret not having mentioned in my report of the 9th June, 1908, the previous transfer of the wharf property, at Richibucto lately acquired by the department, and I will carefully observe your instructions in this respect in future.
In the case of this property the previous transfer appeared to be a matter of common knowledge. I saw a notice of it in a newspaper and presumed that it was published in the legal records and supposed you would have heard of it, otherwise I would have mentioned it.
The consideration mentioned was $1,000, but I do not know what the actual amount paid was. In the case of my small property at Chatham, if I had known at the time that it was a usual thing to do, I would have saved myself $10 or $20 yearly in taxes by making the consideration in the deed a nominal figure.
Will you pardon me in saying that in many cases I do not consider that the price paid can be taken as a fair criterion of the value of the property.
In Richibucto properties have been bought which immediately after and continuously since their purchase have yielded thirty-three per cent of the price annually in rent, showing that they must have been worth at least three times the price paid.
The fact is that the former owner nad sufficient wharfs for his owrn use in this neighbourhood of his store, warehouse, Ac., and the wharf property in question was there practically useless to him.
Even so, I heard many expressions of surprise that he had sold it, and especially at the above, supposed, price, and a Buctouche merchant said he would gladly have bought it if he had known it could be had.
No such property could be bought in Chatham, Loggieville, or Buctouche for $10,000, or even more.
He speaks here of the different lots which had been sold and on page 67 of the evidence his letter continues:
A wharf must reach deep 'water to be of general use. Where deep water is close to the shore the expense of the approach will be slight. At Richibucto the channel is about 500 to 550 feet from the shore, an approach twenty feet wide of this length, which would ordinarily be built of cribwork at seven cents per cubic foot, would cost about $7,000.
The wharf property in question, however furnishes an approach to deep water about 250 feet wide at the outer end and 450 feet wide at the shore. At the very low' value of one and a half cents per cubic foot, which would be the cost of the cheapest filling material, the approach would cost $15,000. If valued at the usual price of stone ballast it would cost about four cents per cubic fc ot, or $40,000.
This large area, together with the shallow pond included in the property, will furnish not only convenient and ample accommodation for a railway wharf with a possible liver frontage of about 560 feet, but also for a station, railway yard, engine house and general terminal facilities, and lies in a central part of the town. The present terminus of the Kent Northern railway is in the rear of the town and rather out of the way. The area is very limited and will accommodate two engines and about nineteen freight cars, but with no room for expansion ; and should the Kent Northern railway be acquired by the government

great benefit will, I believe, result to tbe railway and to tbe town by removing the terminals to the wharf property. This property also offers the only way to extend the railway along the remainder of the wharfs and river front.
And that surely is important when you are considering the value of a wharf property:
A short time ago two of the principal firms had. a survey made at their own expense for a frack from the Kent Northern railway to reach their wharfs, freezers and stores and a sawmill belonging to one of tbe firms. For this track a right of way would he required across the property.
From these considerations I have stated that the price asked was reasonable and this view is upheld by several disinterested parties from Buctouche, Chatham, &c., who know the property and the value of wharf property generally.
$15,000 was mentioned as the price but I think not seriously. $5,000 was asked and $5,000 was tbe lowest figure X could get. I was of course not empowered to make any cash offer.

And these gentleman in the face of that statement and in the face of the sworn testimony would have the members of this House believe that I and my department had determined to buy this property, and so informed these men away back in the month of May before that property was purchased. But, Mr. Stead says, and says truly:
-I was of course not empowered to make any cash offer as is often done to get a better bargain, and I had in my mind when making my report the great expense of arbitration proceedings and also the case of tbe Shives' wharf property in Campbellton.
The Bichibucto property is considerably more extensive than the Shives' wharf, though in a worse state of repair, hut both wharfs required new faces. Allowance must, however, he made for the greater population-roughly about double-and much more extensive shipping of Campbellton. The Shives' wharf was bought in 1890 for $1,700 and was offered to the department in 1895 for $8,000. Mr. Shewen then valued the wharf at $5,335, the value being placed on the cubic contents similarly to the method in my report, Mr. Sliewen's figures were, however, 2J cents per cubic foot, or 67 per cent higher than my valuation, though prices of wharf material have increased very largely since 1895. Between 1890 and 1895 the owner had added about 20 per cent to the contents of the wharf which being deducted leaves Mr. Sliewen's valuation $4,268 against $1,700, the cost price.
Mr. Day in 1903 estimated that the Shives^ wharf could be built now for about $14,000 and in 1902-3 the wharf and smaller water front are connected with it were acquired by the department at a cost of $35,000, to which expropriation proceedings added an additional cost of $2,180.71.
I am, dear sir,
Tours faithfully, GEOFFREY STEAD,
Resident Engineer.
[ If my hon. friend from York had been animated by a desire to give to this House all the facts of this case, would he not have felt it to be his duty to have read that answer which Mr. Stead made by way of vindication to my letter of the 13th of January? It seems to me so. What does Mr. Stead say there? He gives full in-; formation in regard to the area of this property; shows its advantageous situation; speaks particularly of the fact that it immediately adjoins the railway wharf and affords the only opportunity which exists, in Bichibucto for the extension of the railway along the water front. He also refers to arbitration proceedings, and mentions the case of the Shives property at Campbellton, which had been bought for $1,700, and afterwards expropriated by the government and an award of $35,000. I happened in that case to be counsel for Mr. Shives; and this Mr. Day, whose name was mentioned by Mr. O'Leary, who was an appointee of the Conservative government, and who told him. as O'Leary swears, that he could not sell his property to the Liberal government, had valued that property at $5,000, and afterwards in the arbitration proceedings swore that the full value of the property was $5,000, while the department, on the advice of Mr. Shewen, offered Mr. Shives $8,000 for the property. I advised Mr. Shives not to take it. I said that the fact that he had bought it for $1,700 was no criterion of its value, that the judge of tire Exchequer Court would look to the future prospects of business from the wharf, and would' fix the valuation accordingly. The matter was referred to the Exchequer Court, and the late Mr. Justice Burbidge appointed as arbitrators:	Mr. Wm. H.
Thorn, who was for many years president of the Conservative Association of the province of New Brunswick; Mr. George McLeod, another gentleman who stood high in the ranks of the party; and Mr. George McKeen, one of the most prminent business men of New Brunswick. These three gentlemen were appointed arbitrators and heard evidence in the case, and the result was that instead of the government getting that property for $8,000, which was the amount they had offered on the advice of the engineer, the arbitrators allowed Mr. Shives the sum of $35,000 for it, and that amount the government had to pay. I suppose that if the. government had bought that property for $10,000, gentlemen like the hon. member for York would have been found to criticise that payment and to declare that it was an outrage that Mr. Shives, who had bought the property only a short time before for $1,700, should receive the magnificent sum of $10,000 for it. And yet, Sir, these arbitrators, men of judgment and integrity, who stood high in


William Pugsley: the province of. New Brunswick, awarded to him the sum of $35,000. And, Sir, with the report of Mr. Stead, with the evidence which he furnished as to the contents of this property, I was of the opinion that if we simply expropriated it and put the matter into the Exchequer Court, with men like the Messrs. Loggie ready to testify that they were willing to give a larger sum for this property, with other men like Mr. Irving and Mr. Eorster ready to testify that it was worth anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000, I felt that the government would in all probability have to pay considerably more than $5,000 by virtue of proceedings in the Exchequer Court, besides a large amount in the way of costs, before they could get rid of the liability in respect of the purchase of this property. ' Knowing all that, I was prepared to believe, and did believe, that the resident engineer, Mr. Stead, had acted in perfect good faith, had made a report according to his best judgment, and that it would be very much better for the government to act on his report and complete the purchase of the property than to throw the case into the Exchequer Court. And, Mr. Speaker, I had other experience in respect to wharf property. It is a class of property, the value of which cannot be determined at all by the methods applied to other properties. Wharf property may fall into decay, but if you begin to build wharfs or breakwaters and give facilities for traffic, there are many people who will then be willing to make an investment in wharf property and trust to the future. My hon. friend who represents Queens and Sunbury (Mr. McLean), but who lives at St. John, knows a property near where the Long Wharf now is, that was purchased at public auction for an insignificant sum, but which in a short time realized to the owner many times-I think I am almost safe in saying scores of times-what they paid for it. I have in mind Mr. Joseph Likely, who bought a property from the Fisher estate at Chubb's Corners for $1,700, and in a short time received for it at the hands of arbitrators $50,000 or $60,000. I happen to know property in that same vicinity which many years ago was bought by the late Dr. Stockton, who so Worthily filled a considerable place in this House as the representative of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, the present Judge McLeod and myself. That property had become comparatively derelict. We bought it for the sum of $25,000, made improvements on it, built it up, put on some additional cribwork, put a cover on it, built a warehouse on it, built a highway bridge at a cost of $2,000 or $3,000 to connect it with one of the streets of the city, and on arbitration we obtained an award of $118,000 for that property; and one of the witnesses.
the manager of the Bank of Montreal, swore that the property was worth $280,000.
I know another most remarkable instance. One day I happened to see in the newspapers that five pieces of land facing on Sand Point slip on the western side of the harbour of St. John were for sale. I happened to be at Chubb's Corners, and I thought I would see what took place. I found one of the aldermen of the city of St. John there to watch the sale in the interests of the city, the lots being held under lease from the city. There were five lots of 250 feet frontage. He bid them up to $23.50, and I bid $25, and the whole five lots were knocked down to me. The wharfs were in a dilapidated condition, the logs floating out and drifting about the harbour.
I sold them out a short time afterwards for $120. It was not very much, but the man to whom I sold them, before many months, sold them for $6,500, and the man who brought them for $6,500, within a short period sold them with, I think some small additional property to the city of St. John for the sum of $20,000, and to-day you could not buy that property for several times that amount even without the improvements. These are instances showing that when you begin to make improvements in a port, wharf property begins to take a different value from what it has when everything has been allowed to go back. I am happy to say to you that all over this country, in Richibueto as well as in hundreds of other harbours, which extend along the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast and the great lakes, this government is engaged in the great _ work of improving ports and giving facilities to aid and encourage the transportation interests of this country. Well now I should not sit down without referring to the offer which Messrs. Loggie made for this property. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has said it was an extraordinary thing that Messrs. Loggie should send a cheque for $5,500 for this property without knowing that the Minister of Public Works was prepared to sell, that the whole thing must be stamped with fraud and that for that reason the House ought to condemn the minister and declare the whole transaction fraudulent and corrupt. Now, Sir, let me explain why I think the action of Messrs. Loggie was a reasonable one. Remember that they had written a letter to Mr. Stead stating that in their opinion $5,000 was a low price for this property and that if they had had it, they would not have sold it for that price. Remember that when Mr. Murray and Mr. Andrew Loggie had a talk about the property, and he informed Mr. Loggie that he had offered the property to the government for $5,000, Mr. Loggie asked him, if he would not withdraw that offer and stated that his firm would gladly

give more for the property. Now, Sir, when this investigation came on, I stated to the committee, and this appears in the proceedings, that as Mr. Stead had inclosed to the department that letter from Mr. Loggie, and as Mt. Murray had stated that that was Mr. Loggie's opinion of the property, I wanted Mr. Loggie here as a witness. Mr. Loggie would know that that was the object of calling him as a witness. He would know there was no other purpose in calling him as a witness because he had had no other connection with this transaction in any shape or form. At my instance Mr. Loggie was subpoenaed, but unfortunately he was taken ill-he was suffering from a very severe attack of asthma, as the certificate of his attendant physician showed. He was unable to come to Ottawa, but knowing as he did that the object of calling him as a witness was to have him testify as to the value of this property and as his firm had been willing to buy it, Mr. Loggie did what he thought was even better* than giving his evidence; being unable to come to Ottawa by reason of his illness, he sent a certified cheque from the firm for $5,500 being of opinion that that was the best evidence he could give that he was desirous of purchasing this property for the benefit of his firm. Does it strike you, Mr. Speaker, that that was an unreasonable thing for Mr. Loggie to do ? It does not so strike me. It seems to me that Mr. Loggie, knowing that all what he was wanted for as a witness, was to give his testimony as to the value of this property and to corroborate the statement he made to Mr. Murray that he would pay upwards of $5,000 for it, he sent his cheque for that amount. Was it not a reasonable thing that when through illness he was unable to respond to the subpoena and come to Ottawa, he should send forward his certified cheque with an offer to buy the property for the sum which he had previously said he was willing to give foT it ? He did so and sent forward the checque for $5,500. He came here afterwards and under oath swore that the property was well worth the sum of $5,500 and that the government had got a good bargain when they got it for the sum of $5,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, some reference has been made to the fact that the department under my direction decided not to accept Mr. Loggie's offer, but that we agreed to sell a portion of the property for the sum of $3,500. Well, I am free to admit, Sir, that in three or four years if any criticism is passed upon my conduct, when this wiharf is extended, when the railway track is built along the wharf, and when as the result of that the people of Ridhibucto get much needed railway terminal facilities, and when so great an advantage as that has accrued to the place by reason of the improvements we shall have made-if any criticism be then pass-Mr. PUGSLEY.	1
| cd upon my conduct in connection with this property, it will be, not that we purchased this property for $5,000, but that we have sold two-thirds of it for less than it was worth and that we should have held on to it in the public interests or else insisted upon getting a larger price. That will be the criticism passed on my conduct before three or four years have passed away. But, Sir, I have felt that at present or in the near future, all we intend to do is to extend this wharf a distance of about 200 feet along the front which will give us a frontage of from 350 to 400 feet. That will enable the railway to be carried along parallel with the face of the wharf so that the cars will lie face to face with the steamers, and other_ vessels that come there. That will be given reasonable accommodation to the people and I thought that as I had the opportunity of disposing of the remainder of the property for the sum of $3,500, it was not an unreasonable or an improper thing that we should accept the offer made to us, or rather that we should carry out the counter offer made by us to Messrs. Loggie. One condition is attached to it, it is true, but it is not in any way contrary to the public interest. It does not militate in any way against the public interests. They will put a face on the wharf and they are desirous of having the railway extended to their own wharf and in order to do this, it will be necessary to have tracks made across the portion which the government has reserved for public properties. They have stipulated for that and we have agreed that two tracks of railway shall be laid by them, but in such a place as the chief engineer shall determine, and under the supervision of the engineer of the Department of Public Works. In that way,
I think the public interest will be reasonably safe-guarded. I think it is not an unreasonable thing to sell this property to Messrs. Loggie for $3,500 being the portion of the property to which I have referred, leaving to us, to the Crown, 200 feet immediately adjoining the wharf upon which , the railway track, which is the vital part of the property, so far as extending the terminal facilities in connection with the Kent Northern railway is concerned will be laid. Therefore we get for the sum of $1,500 the most valuable part of this property, the part which so far as the' government is concerned, so far as extending these terminal facilities is concerned, is worth as much as all the rest of the property and when we have extended the wharf, we shall have very excellent terminal facilities, sufficient to meet the requirements of the town for many years to come. At the same time we are happy to know that we are selling the remainder of the property to the firm of A. and R. Loggie, one of the most enterprising firms in the maritime provinces,

men who develop any property which they acquire, men who are going to improve and build up that wharf and extend the railway along it, thus giving facilities for the transhipment of fish and other products of the province of New Brunswick. It seems to me that in doing that we have made an arrangement which is not contrary to the public interest, but which the public will say is very greatly and very clearly in their interest.
Now, just- a word in regard to the evidence as to the value of the property. I think that too much stress cannot be laid -and I appeal to hon. members opposite who were not before the committee if I am not correct in this-upon the fact that the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket)- who has taken practically the whole time of the Committee on Public Accounts in connection with matters relating to my department, and particularly matters in the province of New Brunswick, and who has been able, by simply making his request to the chairman, to bring any witnesses he pleases, whether they live in Vancouver or in Richibucto-has not been able to produce a single witness, outside of Richard O'Leary, the strong, prejudiced partisan who sold this property, not a single resident of Richibucto, not a single inhabitant of the county of Kent, who was prepared to say that we paid a single dollar for this property more than its fair value. To the contrary. We had the evidence of Mr. Forster, a man who knew Richibucto as any hon. member of this House knows the village in which he was born and spent his boyhood and early manhood. Mr. Forster lived at Dorchester, not far from Richibucto, had been in Richibucto frequently, and knew the property thoroughly. He swore that if a man wanted it for a business property he thought it was worth $10,000. Mr. James D. Irving, who knows that part of the country well, placed the value at $5,000 to $10,000. Mr. Carter, a gentleman called by the other side, placed the value at not less than $5,000. And we have Mr. Loggie, who not only swore that it was good value, for $5,500, but backed up his opinion with a certified cheque which he was prepared to give on receiving the conveyance of this property. This is in addition to the fact which I have already mentioned, that this hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) did not call-because he could not-any respectable resident of the town of Richibucto, except Mr. O'Leary, who would say that we paid too much for this property. They had one man, Mr. James, who has, lived all his life in Richibucto, their own solicitor, a man employed by Mr. O'Leary, to draw the papers, yet they did not venture to ask him whether or not we had paid too much for that property. So the case stands to-day with the absolutely conclusive evidence that this
property is worth more than, or, at all events, as much as the government paid for it. It is absolutely proved that the resident engineer of the department acted in good faith and in perfect honesty when he certified that the value of this property was $65,000. And, in the absence of any evidence that I ever knew, but that Mr. Murray had been for years the owner of this property, in the absence of any evidence that i acted otherwise than in good faith upon the report sent me by the resident engineer, approved by the chief engineer, and in face of the fact that all the witnesses, with the exception of Mr. O'Leary himself-the unreliability of whose testimony I have already pressed upon your consideration-declared their opinion that the price paid was fair and reasonable, I think thijs House will hesiflate before adopting the want of confidence resolution proposed by the hon. member for York, that this is a corrupt and fraudulent transaction deserving of the censure of this House.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley)-nor do I think he will find much encouragement in the reflection-on the contrast which was forced tipoh our notice between the violent enthusiasm at the commencement of his address by his followers-four-fifths of whom never heard the accusation, and I venture to say ninety per cent of whom had never read the evidence-with the slight attention paid him by a waning attendance, and the dribbling hosannas which marked the close of his remarks. Nor do I think he would be much comforted by noting that the hon. gentleman beside him received his address in alternate fits of sleeping and wakefulness, and that the hon. member (Mr. Leblanc) for the county concerned in this matter received every remark made by the minister respecting himself with a very significant smile.
The Minister of Public Works when he commenced his address this afternoon, clearly signified the character of the reply he would make. He called in question the motives of the hon. member for York, and tried to detract from that hon. gentleman's reputation in thi3 House, and in the country. And with forceful declamation, which I shall not be able to imitate, and with an artificial irritation and a form of righteous indignation of which he should be proud- and which also I shall never be able to imitate-he told the hon. member for York that the key to the character of that hon. gentleman's address was contained in its first remark concerning a certain letter written by the Minister of Public Works on 23rd May, 1908. I accept the challenge of the minister and am prepared to ad-



mit that the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Crocket's) remarks on that point are a fair sample of the correctness of his statements. Did the hon. member for York make any mistake in his reference to that point? He stated that a letter was written on the 20th of May, the very date when the transaction was closed by Mr. Murray with Mr. O'Leary. This was written by George W. Robertson who accompanied Mr. Murray to Ottawa to see the minister. It was written from Richibucto to the minister in Ottawa, requesting on behalf of the Kent Northern railway, that further wharf accommodation be provided by the government at Richibucto. And the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) remarked that the minister wrote and instructed the chief engineer of the department to have an investigation made without delay.
Now, the hon. member chose to put the words ' without delay ' as applying to the minister's letter. That is a logical and, in fact, truthful statement of the relation. For, if ever the minister acted without delay, he acted without delay on that occa sion. T)ie letter of the Kent Northern railway was dated May 20, 1908. It could not have been posted before that date. It had to travel from Richibucto to the city ol Ottawa, and by no possibility could that letter have been received and answered earlier than it was received and answered by the Minister of Public Works. He had not, as he admits himself, any other communication on the subject; he had the communication only of Mr. George W. Robertson, who had seen him a few days before in the city of Ottawa on behalf of a two-by-four railway that runs into the village of Richibucto; he had no other. Does the minister always act on a single representation like that with that wonderful degree of promptness? I have not found that to be the case, and I do not think that any member of this House has ever found the minister acting with that degree of promptness, without delay '. Did the minister act without delay or did he not? My hon. friend from York was correct.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to call his attention to page 7779, where the member for York stated:
On tliat_ very day he issues an instruction to the chief engineer to have a report procured upon the matter of this letter with-cut delay.
You see he says that is contained in my instructions to the chief engineer; I say that is not the case.


Arthur Meighen: Those are the words of my hon. friend from York just as I quoted them, and I say again that the words ' without delay ' in that report were attributable to the minister on the part of my hon. friend, and the minister acted Mr. MEIGHEN.
with a promptness unprecedented in any department of this government. Now the minister asked me permission to ask a question, and I will let him know that all through my remarks I will never take up the attitude he. assumed, that no member shall ask me a question. He proceeded after that point to read a lecture to my hon. friend from York on the subject of duty, and of course wre bow to the Minister of Public Works on that subject. He complained that my hon. friend from York had not fulfilled his duty because he quoted sparingly from the evidence, but the minister followed the hon. member for Carleton, the wdiole burden of wdiose complaint was that my hon. friend from York had quoted so liberally from the evidence that he took up three hours and a half. The minister in the course of his criticism did not add. so far as I can recollect, one single quotation from the evidence that was not already put on record by my hon. friend. Now, Sir, he struggled, just as he has struggled before in this House, and the contest in which he is now engaged is by no means new to the minister. He has had experience before of being imprisoned by evidence just as conclusive as the evidence is now, and he has adopted the same means he adopts to-day. Just as in a previous session he clung to a typographical error in an affidavit, so to-day he clings to straws of a like character. Wherever he can find a little technical, meaningless error he clings to that, and he uses all his power of declamation to ridicule a person who may have fallen into that error.
The minister proceeds to call in question the testimony of Mr. O'Leary. That was certainly to be expected. The minister cannot possibly square his own conduct with the testimony of Mr. O'Leary; consequently if he is to continue to enjoy the confidence of the government-I do not say the confidence of the people of this country because that he has not-if he is to continue to enjoy that, he must necessarily bring down the character of Mr. O'Leary. Now, Mr. O'Leax-y is contradicted on one point alone, of importance, in the whole course of this controversy; he is contradicted by Mr. Murray, and by the Minister of Public Works, of course, on the question as to whether there were negotiations previous to the 19th of May as "to the procuring by the Department of Public Works of this sawdust -wharf at a price. Mr. O'Leary says on that point that he offered to give the department permission to put through that sewer for $100, the same as they had paid before, and that nothing else whatever was mentioned in the month of April, 1908, between himself and Mr. Murray with reference to any purchase except the right of way for that sewer. He says that on the

4th of May, Mr. Murray telephoned him that he was going to Ottawa to see the minister about it, and would like to know if the offer to sell that right of way for $100 was good, and if he could keep all there was in it over $100. The fact is he came to Ottawa, the fact is he and Mr. Robertson saw the minister. My hon. friend from York stated why. Mr. Murray denied having mentioned anything about this matter to the minister, and the minister affirms that again to-day. But this country, and this House cannot lose sight of the fact that Mr. Murray, in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, or since, or in any other way whatsoever, has never explained to this House or to the country what he did come to see the minister about. The minister has made the statement and has closed, and the minister has never told nor indicated to this House the subject of the conversation he had with Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray stated on his oath in the Public Accounts Committee that he had no knowledge of what he came to see the minister about, that he could not state what the subject of that conversation was.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend
turn to the page of the evidence which says that he came to Ottawa to see me at all.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that the hon. member stated that he came to Ottawa to see the minister, I said that Mr. O'Leary's evidence was that he said he came to Ottawa to see the minister. Not only did he come to Ottawa to see the minister, but to this hour he has not told us any other reason that he. came to Ottawa for, or any other reason that he saw the minister for. Now, the very best witnesses that ever stood in a witness box in any court or before any committee will make errors attributable to inaccuracy. Sometimes it is argued, and argued successfully, that this is rather an evidence than otherwise of their truthfulness. But no witness will come to a court and, in sixty per cent of the answers he gives relative to transactions less than two years ago, will state that he does not know anything about them, and cannot remember anything about them. If there is one argument that weighs with judges and juries against the credibility of a witness it is the fact he repeatedly answers that he cannot remember, particularly whenever the question is one that is vital to his own honour and to the success of his case. Mr. Murray stands in that position in the transaction, and he is the support which the minister has. He stands in a similar position in every other case wherever his word is opposed to that of another. He cannot remember what he did with the $5,000. He swears that he 2451
paid out that $5,000 in five and ten dollar bills to various people, and he can only tell the name of one man that he paid a dollar to although this only occurred a year and a half. He stated that he is so much of a business-man that he had put $5,000 in his wife's hands instead of putting it in the bank and that he paid out $2,000 of it as nearly as he could, tell to Mr. Robertson, the campaign manager for the Liberal party. He could not tell us to whom he had paid out a dollar of the other $3,000 of that money. Nor could he tell us what he owed Mr. Robertson. If ever a man gave evidence that stamped him as a perjurer, Mr. Murray stands in that position before the public to-day, and the minister seems satisfied to have only Mr. Murray's support behind him in this transaction.
Now, the minister resorts to his old plan. He calls upon the members of this House to make charges against him in a certain form. I asked the minister, if I were to take the responsibility as he calls it, of such a charge, by whom would I be tried? He refused to answer that question:	The
fact is, and the minister knows it, that if any member of this House made such a charge and staked his position in this House on the verdict he would be tried by a partisan committee on which there would be a majority of the hon. gentleman's supporters. There was a time in this country (and there is a time still in other countries) when a man can afford to trust his honour to the judicial temperament of even members of parliament. But Sir, in this country under the influence of this government that time has gone by. 1 venture to say that there is not a a single member of this House who would trust the fortunes of his family cat to the tender mercies of a committee of a majority of the partisans of the party in power. So that, when the hon. gentleman calls for such a charge, he might as well make his position plain and say: I want to unseat the man who has the temerity to make a charge against me, and in order to unseat him he must throw himself politically into the keeping of a committee which I shall name.
The minister proceeded to complain of Mr. O'Leary on the ground that he had stated that he wrote a certain letter to the minister on the 5th December, 1908, which letter he had not written, and he stated that in the actual letter Mr. O'Leary did write the minister he said that Murray had repeated to him when he purchased this property that he had acted as the agent of the government and that in a subsequent letter which he actually sent he did not make that statement, i want to tell the minister that neither in the first nor in the second letter did Mr. O'Leary state to the minister that Murray had re-

presented that he had acted as the agent of the Public Works Department, and that Mr. O'Leary said in both letters that he was given to understand and did understand that Murray was purchasing this property for jthe Department ofj Public Works. I do not think that Mr. O'Leary was very far out in that regard. I believe that Mr. O'Leary believed, and believed .correctly, that Murray was purchasing this property for the Public Work's Department directly or indirectly. You can read the letter that the minister received and the copy that O'Leary presented, and there is no hon. member in this House who can point to one particular in which they are materially different. Still, the minister stands up in his place and condemns Mr. O'Leary as a perjurer because he did not present the exact copy. He had not the manliness to tell the House the very clear explanation that Mr. O'Leary gave of that transaction. Mr. O'Leary stated that after dictating the letter to his stenographer he decided to change the phraseology of it, that he dictated another, that he intended the second one to go, and that evidently the stenographer so intended it


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the hon. gentleman show me the page of the evidence at which any such statement appears?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot quote all the pages of the evidence at a moment's notice, but the hon. gentleman will find it immediately after the page that the minister pointed out-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman cannot find it in the evidence.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry for the hon. member.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I make that statement, *and I would like you to prove what he said. He stated that that may have been the case, but he did not state that it was the case.


Arthur Meighen: Evidently hanging this case on a very slim technicality again. I affirm that the minister endeavoured to lead this House to believe that in the letter of the 20th May, which Mr. Robertson, on behalf of the Kent Valley railway, wrote to the Department of Public Works, he indicated that the municipal wharf, which the government were negotiating for, would not suffice for the purposes, of the village of Richibucto. If the minister did not say that, let him say so, and we will refer to 'Hansard' to-morrow. I understood the minister to lead this House to believe that Mr. Robertson, in his letter, had given the dimensions of the municipal wharf and had indicated that the wharf was not sufficient to answer the wharfage purposes of the village of Richibucto. now, Sir, you may be surprised to know that the letter
of Mr. Robertson

Mr. MEIGHHm


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman say that I said that the letter stated that the wharf did not give sufficient accommodation?? I made no such statement.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister had listened he would have understood better what I said. What I stated was that the minister led this House to believe in clear language that in a letter of the 20th May, written by Mr. Robertson, on behalf of the Kent Valley railway, he had stated to the minister that the municipal wharf was not of sufficient dimensions and did not answer the wharfage purposes of the village of Richibucto, and that consequently more wharfage was needed.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is entirely in error. I did not say that the letter referred to the municipal wharf at all. That is my recollection.


Arthur Meighen: I listened very carefully to the hon. gentleman and I took down what he stated, because I was surprised. The minister knows just as well as I know that that letter made no reference v'hatever to the municipal wharf, as the minister will see, because he is not intellectually dull, that it would have been entirely out of the course of Mr. Robertson's purpose to have made any reference whatever to the municipal wharf. But I will tell the hon. minister now what was most remarkable; it was not that Mr. Robertson left out of his letter all reference to the municipal wharf, but what is startling and incredible is the fact that the minister in his reply to the letter written by Mt. Robertson did not tell Mr. Robertson that they had already under negotiation the purchase of that municipal wharf. Mr. Robertson wrote the minister on the 1st of May, just a few days after he got back from Ottawa, and the very day they closed the transaction for the purchase from Mr. O'Leary of the $700 sawdust wharf; he wrote to the minister and pointed out that the government had no wharfage accommodation whatever in the village of Richibucto, stating that they required wharfage there, and he asked the government to examine and see at once whether or not that was correct. And notwithstanding the fact that for two months the minister had had under consideration the purchase of a wharf in the village of Richibucto, he saw fit to make no reference to that in his Teply to Mr. Robertson, and that omissioh has not been explained by the minister. One would think that would be in the mind of the minister when he received a letter from a friend complaining that there was no government wharfage at Richibucto. Is it not to be supposed that he would say in his reply: It is true, we have no wharfage in the village of Richibucto, but for two

months past we have been negotiating for the municipal wharf in that village. And, Sir, the fact that th.e minister did not state so is consistent entirely with his knowledge of this transaction from its very inception, and it is consistent absolutely with his determined purpose that he pursued right through to the end for which it was intended. Now, Sir, I must compliment the minister at least on the physical energies which he summoned to the unhappy task which was before him. The hon. minister, it is true, _is not wanting either in physical energy or in intellectual gifts. We must do him that credit. He has performed certain feats in both lines that must deserve the admiration of the House. But, Sir, the regrettable fact to most, and I think to all hon. members, is not that he lacks in either of these particulars, but that to these qualities are not united these other qualities which would command the confidence of the people of this country and which would warrant some trust in the department over which he presides. What the hon. minister lacks is not the ability of a lawyer to meet a desperate case; what he lacks is that moral courage which would estimate at its true value what a party advantage is, and which would also estimate at its true value what real political progress is, and which would resolutely determine him that he would not pay too big a price for either.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could more aptly resume my remarks than by satisfying the curiosity of the hon. member for C-arleton, who just before six o'clock challenged a statement I made to the effect that Mr. O'Leary had given a very sensible, and no doubt correct explanation of the fact that the wording of the copy of the letter to the hon. minister which he produced did not agree with the letter which the hon. minister received and produced. I told him that I would undertake to produce the words of Mr. O'Leary from the evidence. If the House will look at page 124, of the evidence they will find that Mr. O'Leary states as follows:
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to make an explanation. I have brought, my letter-book with me, when I was here there was a difference in the letter read here as having been written by me to Dr. Pugsley and the copy which I produced from my letter-book. Not that I imagine it makes any difference, but the St. John ' Telegraph,' had a very interesting telegraph despatch on it, headed ' O'Leary reads a typewritten document entirely different to the letter he sent to the
minister.' When I went home 1 hunted up my letter-book and I found that my letter-book had copied in it the very letter I read here, and the letter which I actua'ly sent Dr. Pugsley is not in the letter-book. The stenographer I had at the time is no longer with me, and the only explanation I can give is that when I dictated the letter the girl brought one letter to me which did ret suit me and that I dictated another and she copied the wrong letter in the copy book, sending one to Dr. Pugsley and copying the other in the letter-book. What 1 read to the committee here is a copy of the one in the letter-book.
This is exactly what I stated to the House, and, as I said before, there is no material difference between the copy produced by Mr. O'Leary and the letter the minister actually received. The fact is of importance in considering whether Mr. O'Leary meant, as the hon. minister so. loudly asserted, to deceive the committee. Even' if they had been different, Mr.. O'Leary could not possibly have dreamed of deceiving the committee, for he would know that the letter he wrote was in the possession of the minister. I observed that when the hon. minister was reciting this circumstance, instead of saying that he had the actual letter, he kept repeating that he had copy, as if it were a letter he had written that was under discussion instead of one he had received, and which every sensible business man knows would be in his possession. This among other straws of a like nature shows the desperate straits to which the minister is. driven when he seeks out of that circumstance to make a case against Mr. O'Leary. While the hon. minister himself, and the hon. member for Carleton were apparently in danger of breaking their backs struggling to pick up little pieces of chaff and straw like that, they did not meet squarely the charge levelled against the minister and supported by this evidence. They did not attempt to shoulder the burden of that charge that is crushing the last remnant of respect out of the department, and its, head in the eyes of the people of this country. How does the hon. minister explain such an array of circumstances as these? The hon. member for Carleton wisely did not try to explain them; he said he would leave that to the minister. Let us see how the minister explains them-the sworn, and unretracted evidence of Mr. O'Leary that Mr. Murray told him, at the very hour of his departure for Ottawa, that he was coming here to see the minister about this wharf; the further fact that as soon as he gets back from Ottawa, his partner and joint owner of the railway and joint manager of the Liberal party in the county of Kent writes a letter to the minister suggesting that they should make a start to procure for the people from the govern-

ment wharf accommodation in the village of Richibucto; and that in reply t-o that letter the hon. minister does not do the only natural, the only conceivable thing that he would do if his attitude in this regard was what he asserts, namely, state clearly to Mr. Murray that they had already made a start to procure for the people wharf accommodation at Richibucto, and ask him if he really meant that more than that should be provided. How does the hon. minister explain the remarkable circumstance, that while the question of the advisability of purchasing the munici-by the department before there had been under consideration for two or three years by the department before there had been an order for an inspection and valuation, the proposition to purchase an additional wharf, this sawdust wharf, was before the minister, not for two or three years, but two or three hours, probably two or thi-ee minutes, before he ordered an inspection, and the further fact that it was not before him on the authority of a requisition from any board of trade or any village or city council, or on any petition of the residents or taxpayers of Richibucto, but that it was before him on the authority, and at the instance of one man alone, Mr. George W. Robertson, the associate of Mr. Murray, and the companion of Mr. Murray in the mission to Ottawa? How does he explain the further fact that a short time afterwards, within a very few days, Mr. Geoffrey Stead, the engineer of the department, goes down to Richibucto, and in company with Mr. Murray, actually sees, as he does not deny, the deed under which Mr. Murray holds that property, and forthwith values the property at $5,000, sends his report to the minister, and omits to state the most significant fact that would be in his mind or in any other man's mind, that only a few days before that property had been purchased by Mr. Murray for $700?
The minister attempted to make use of the fact that he did nothing in the department for two months, or until the month of August : Why, Sir, who would expect him to take action, if this transaction bore the complexion that the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) attributes to it, and attributes rightly, I think. Who would expect him to have taken action in the month of July. There was no election pending then. There was no election close at hand at that time, and it would not have been advisable to put this money in the hands of Mr. Murray away back in May, or June, or July. But no sooner had the writs issued for the election of 1908, no sooner had the writs for that election issued I say, than the message goes from the department to Mr. Murray that this wharf is purchased. The hon. Minister states that he never saw that telegram. But is the House going to Mr. METGHEN.
forget that the telegram was. only received a few days when the very action which could only be taken at the minister's instance, and on his authority was taken and Mr. Murray notified thereof. Now, Sir, the significance of that letter cannot be too firmly impressed on this House. If there was one subject which the minister slid over with that gTace of which he is master, it was the subject of that telegram. What is the telegram? On the 18th September, Mr. Murray sends this telegram to Mr. Valiquette, an officer of the department of the Minister of Public. Works. It appears on page 13 of the evidence:
Kent Junction, N.B., Sept. 18. A. Valiquette, '
Chief Engineer, Public Works,
Ottawa.
Please let me know if wharf matter passed council. This matter important to Mr, Leblanc. Please rush it.
Now, Sir, let me make this remark first in reference to that telegram. Mr. Loggie, whose praises both of these gentlemen have sung so loudly, swore before the Public Accounts Committee that as soon as he heard that Mr. Murray had purchased this wharf and had offered to sell it to the government for $5,000, he remonstrated with him for his foolishness, and urged him to cancel the offer and instead to sell it to him. Now, Mr. Loggie took the position that he had asked Mr. Murray to cancel the offer to sell to the government, and instead to turn it over to Mr. Loggie. The offer to sell to the government had not been accepted, so far as the records show at all events. Whether it had been accepted before being offered or not, of course we can't tell. But, Sir, the records show that it had not been accepted. Mr. Murray magnanimously took the position that having offered it to the government, he could not withdraw his offer from them, no matter how anxious he might be to do so. But here is the telegram coming on the 18th September in which he urges the government to accept it, notwithstanding the fact that it did not make any difference to him because as he states he could get more money from Mr. Loggie. Now how do these two circumstances sleep together. Why would Mr. Murray be urging the government to accept in his telegram of the 18th September, if all the while he had a standing offer from Mr. Loggie to purchase it at the same price. Here is this telegram, and I invite any member of this House to state to me one sensible reason why that telegram should have been written, if it had not been that Mr. Murray wanted this transaction put through in order to procure funds for himself and for the Liberal committee of Kent. ' Important to Leblanc.' The minister says it is very important in this connection before we

ascribe anything to him to see whether he received this telegram. And he invited me, and the members of this House to be bold enough to say that if it was intended to get money for the purposes of an election campaign, the telegram would have been sent to him instead of to an officer of his department. I told the minister then, and I tell him now that if the purpose of that telegram was to get funds for the Liberal campaign in New Brunswick, at would have been sent just as it was sent. Sir, the path of treachery is not the path of daylight. The thief does not walk in open day and steal from his victim. He gets out in the darkness of mgnt. He 'adopts a subterfuge. He goes underground, .if necessary, and tries to avoid of all things publicity. And that is what Mr. Murray was anxious to avoid. He had in his mind, that if he addressed the telegram not to the minister, but to a mere subordinate official of his- department, it would never perhaps reach the files of the minister, and would never perhaps reach the light of day, and the committees of this House. He had the idea in his mind that he could reach the ear of the minister without going through the public telegraph, and addressing the telegram to his name. That is exactly the course, and every sensible man in this House knows it to be exactly the course, that Mr. Murray would have adopted, if he had been desirous of screening this transaction. ' Important to Leblanc.' Yes. imnortant to Mr. Leblanc, the Liberal candidate for the county of Kent. The minister says it had nothing to do with him unless it is shown that he was a party to that telegram. Sir, if I am a co-conspirator with another man, and I am charged with being a conspirator and there is found in my possession a letter from my fellow conspirator outlining the whole plan of attack-I can only explain ihe receipt of that letter and the possession of that letter on two grounds. The first is that I am a conspirator, and the second is that if I am not, the other fellow is putting up a job on me. There is no other explanation but these two. Now, which one does the minister take. The most daring actpr would not take the position that Mr. Murraay was putting up a job on the minister. The minister would not dare to take that position himself. Secondly, it must be that the Department of Public Works to whom that telegram was address was a party to the intention which was embodied in that telegram. Now, Sir, what is the intention with which that telegram clearly sets out. The hon. minister tells this House that the telegram did not mean that Mr. Murray wanted funds for his Liberal committee in Kent, but that it meant that he wanted the government to purchase the wharf in order that the mere advertisement of that fact, would assisst Mr. Leblanc in his constituency. Now, how does that square with the other facts. The hon. Minister of Public Works took good care not to mention some of the other circumstances when he was bold enough to set out that the advertisement of the purchase of the wharf by the government would assist Mr. Leblanc in the county of Kent. The answer, the final answer to that, is that it was never advertised, that from the very day on which that telegram was sent, the purchase was kept concealed from the public and purposely concealed. Why, Sir, according to the evidence of Mr. Carter, whose praises the minister so loudly sang, turning to his evidence of page 100 what do we find was the attitude of the Liberal committee in respect to this wharf? Does it indicate that Mr. Carter, or Mr. Murray was anxious that the purchase of that wharf should be heralded far and wide for the purpose -of assisting Mr. Leblanc. It shows the very opposite. Mr. Carter was afraid to register the deed of purchase for fear the public would know about their action^ and in disgust vote against Mr. Leblanc. Mr. Carter was compelled to admit it and did admit it before the Public Accounts Committee. Here is what he said:
Q. And you held that deed over for a month, until the election was over, before recording it?-A. I held it for about a month, yes.
Q. When was the deed recorded? On the 2nd November, I think.-A. That is what is stated there and I presume it is correct.
And that only six days after the election.
Q. Will you explain why you did that?- A. There were two reasons.
Listen to the two reasons. The first one is worthy of the Minister of Public Works himself:
A. The first reason was that I was very busy at the time
He was so busy that he actually had not the time to dictate a letter to the registry office to register that document. That is the first reason, and I hope the House will be so generous to Mr. Carter as to give due weight to that very important reason. What was the second reason?
The second reason was because I did not want to at the time.
Q. And why did not you want to?-A. I did not want to because there were some people making inquiries about it, end I did not want them to get the satisfaction of getting the information.
So, the favourite witness of the Minister of Public Works is on record as swearing that he deliberately, for the purpose of concealment, declined to register that deed until the election was over. And still the Minister of Public Works suggests to this House-for on no other suggestion can he square himself or his honour in this trans-

77.36
action-that the transaction was put through for advertising the merits of the government in the county of Kent. Now, let me add to that one or two other facts, which, I am sure, are at this moment present to the mind of the Minister of Public Works. This purchase of a wharf was not asked for by any public meeting in Riehi-bucto, by any board of trade, by a municipal council, by any public body, or by general petition. It was not asked for even in a newspaper. It was all done quietly, secretly, secretively-indicative of the character of which it partook. And not only was *it not asked for publicly, but the fact that it was procured was neveir made public, either by the registration of the deed or in any other way. Can the hon. minister point to a newspaper in Kent county that announced the fact that the government had purchased the sawdust wharf for $5,000? Not a newspaper in Kent county was made acquainted with the fact -not even one citizen was informed, beyond those interested in its procurement. Outside the perpetrators of the fraud, nobody was permitted to know the facts. Is there one hon. member who will stand in his place and say that Murray meant to suggest in that telegram that the very advertisement of the fact that the government had procured the wharf from him was a matter ' important to Leblanc '? Surely there is not one. If further testimony was needed, we have it from Mr. Murray himself. And that testimony is absolutely inconsistent with the theory of the minister, and it is on Mr. Murray that he depended again. When Mr. Murray was asked about the telegram, what was his first answer? The first was an absolute denial that he had sent a telegram to the Minister of Public Works or any officer of the department. How does the minister square the much-vaunted credibility of Mr. Murray with the fact that, in answer to question after question covering a third of a page of evidence, he persistently and emphatically denied that he had sent the telegram, and stuck to it until the telegram was produced before his face? He denies and again denies; the telegram is produced. The next question is: What do you mean by saying in the telegram that the purchase of that wharf was ' important to Leblanc '? What was his answer? I submit to the members of this House that if Mr. Murray had meant to say in that telegram that it was ' important to Leblanc ' for legitimate purpose, in the first place, he would not have denied sending the telegram, and, in the second place, he would have had in his mind at once the purpose for which the telegram was sent, and would at once have answered that it was ' important to Leblanc 5 from the public point of view that it should be known that the purchase was made. But Mr. MEIGHEN.
what was his answer? I think it is at page 66 of the evidence, but, at any rate, his answer was: I cannot tell you what those words mean. Here he was faced with his telegram stating that the procurement of this wharf by the government, and of $5,000 by himself, was ' important ' to the Liberal candidate, yet he tells the hon. member (Mr. Crocket), in answer to his question, that he has no reason to give for and no meaning to attach to the words ' important to Leblanc.' How does the minister square this with his theory? It is absolutely impossible. And it is just as impossible for him to square the reputation and honour of his own department, and of the head of that department, with the sending of that telegram by Mr. Murray. I make the assertion that, if that telegram stood alone surrounded by the explanation given of it by Mr. Murray, it would be conclusive proof of every assertion made by the hon. member for York. And the Minister of Public Works, in his laboured defence of his position, deigned to take some three or four minutes to refer to that telegram. Sir, if that telegram had not been sent, I venture to say he would have had more courage in addressing the House this afternoon. That telegram cannot be concealed, the signature to it can never be denied, and the existence of that telegram marks the exact position in which the minister stands in relation to this whole transaction.
Now, what is the next thing that occurs? Mr. Murray procures the $5,000. He got that money, I think, between the 12th and 15th of October, 1908-at any rate, in the first half of that month. He gets the cheque cashed, and he is careful to cash it in $5 and $10 notes. Now, why did he cash it in $5 and $10 notes? Is that the usual way in which $5,000 cheques are cashed? But, in the first place: would a gentleman of the extensive business, that of Mr. Murray-so extensive that he professed he could not remember the transaction-be likely to cash a $5,000 cheque at all? The minister knows that that is absolute nonsense; that it is not the habit of business men in this country or any other country. A gentleman of extensive business, part owmer of a railway, would not cash in $5 and $10 notes, or any other notes, a cheque for $5,000. He would deposit that cheque with his banker, and, if he had debts to pay, he would cheque the money out like a business man. Why did not Mr. Murray do that? Because the cheques would tell the whole tale of the transaction. But the Minister of Public Works asks, why did not he deny that he got the cash in $5 and $10 bills?-nobody -was there to make known the facts. But Mr. Murray knew it would be marked oil the back of the cheque, and there would

be no possibility of denying it. But, to go on:	What did he do with this $5,000?
Took it home and gave it to his wife. Is it usual for a business man of the province of New Brunswick, receiving a cheque for $5,000, to draw the cash in $5 and $10 notes and take the money home and give it to his wife? Especially, is that usual just about fifteen days before a general election? The man who does it is one of the campaign managers of the Liberal party in Kent county, New Brunswick. But the mystery does not end there, and to call it a mystery would be a euphenism. He pays out $5,000, and he cannot tell any of the persons to whom he paid it except to another campaign manager of the Liberal party, and he does not know what on earth he paid him. Now, Mr. Speaker, have you, in the course of your business or public career, ever seen a transaction like that? Is there a precedent for anything of that sort in the history of honest dealing in this country? $2,000, he wont deny it was that, which he paid to Geo. W. Robertson, who saw the minister in the matter, and who later on accompanied Mr. Murray to Ottawa to see the minister in St. John, and who was a partner with him in managing the Liberal party in the county of Kent, paid him $2,000 in cash in payment of a debt, but he cannot tell what the debt was for or how much the debt was. But it does not end there. He knows nothing about all the rest of the debts which he paid with the other $3,000. But strange to say the only debt that up to that time had come to light as touching Mr. Murray, is the debt that he did not pay at all. He owed Mr. O'Leary a large sum of money, but he did not see fit. to turn in -any of this money to Mr. O'Leary. Perhaps the explanation, is that Mr. 0;Leary was not a joint manager of the Liberal party campaign fund in Kent Now, what is the next thing? The next thing that occurs after this deed is registered, is the public scandal, it becomes a matter of notoriety, it passes from mouth to mouth, that the old heap of sawdust has been purchased by the Dominion government shortly before the election for the colossal sum of $5,000. That comes to light just after the general election. A scandal ensues, as tlie minister practically admits, and that scandal proves that Mr. Carters judgment was sound when he decided that this deed should not be registered until after the general election was safely passed. The scandal ensues, the Minister of Public Works hears of it from the member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Leblanc), a gentleman of parts, and so far as we know, a gentleman of honour. The member for Kent, who, strange to say, knew nothing about this transaction, who had never represented to the Minister of Public Works that there was any earthly use for this heap of sawdust, goes to the Minister of Public Works and complains that it is a scandal to the honest community that the government should pay $5,000 for a wharf like that. Then the Minister of Public Works gets busy and he begins to write letters. He writes a letter to Mr. Stead and a letter to Mr. O'Leary, and in those letters he betrays those same symptoms of injured innocence that he manifested to the House this afternoon. And he proclaimed it as a great credit to himself that he wrote to Mr. O'Leary after the election was over and after the facts about this transaction had been disclosed.
A great credit to him when the notoriety of the scandal was rampant throughout Canada, and when nothing but this was possible for him to do in order to cover up the evidence of the job that has been committed. Now, Sir, the minister writes to Mr. O'Leary; Mr. O'Leary replies, just as one would expect him to reply. The minister writes to Mr. Stead, and here is something that is certainly worthy of attention ; the ingenuity with which the Minister of Public Works met this was something that should go down as of scientific importance, if for no utner cause. Now, Mr. Stead was in the witness box in December, and he swore that he did not see the Minister of Public Works about thi3 transaction from the time of his report on the 10th June, 1908, until the minister wrote him a letter on the 13th January, 1909. Now, the minister's letter was meant to convey the impression to those who read it that he had very recently been informed that Mr. Murray had purchased this wharf for a small sum of money, and had within a few days turned it over to the government for $5,000; he meant to convey'the impression to Mr. Stead that he had only just been informed of this, and was innocently waiting for information. No other meaning could be taken out of that letter of the 13th of January; the letter is in the Hansard, and I need not quote it again. Do you believe. Mr. Speaker, thajt these were the facts, that the minister had just been informed of it, and that he was for the first time apprising Mr. Stead of the position? The minister tried to convey the impression to the Public Accounts Committee that those were the facts. But those were not the facts. Worse than that, the minister actually endeavoured before the Public Accounts Committee to put into the mouth of Mr. Stead a statement which was not a fact, and which it is impossible to believe the minister did not know was not a fact. The minister himself was the gentleman with whom Mr. Stead consulted on the 26th December about this very transaction, 20 days before he wrote the letter. He meant to put into Mr. Stead's

mouth that he had never seen the'minister about the transaction at all between the 10th June and the 13th January, and Mr. Stead, after the words were put into his mouth, positively swore that he had never seen him about it. But when Mr. Stead was brought before the committee, and when he was compelled to produce his diary, he was compelled to admit that he had seen the minister about it, and had actually discussed this transaction with him on the 26th December. That is something the minister did not bring to the attention of the House. Not only that, but the minister told him he had better get out and produce some evidence, discover some facts, in order if possible to support the transaction. That is what took place on the 26th December, so - far as the evidence shows. The evidence does not show that anything more was said; but it does show that the matter was discussed between these two gentlemen, and Mr. Stead also stated that the minister told him he would write him a' letter about it, and that Mr. Stead expected the very letter that he received on the 13th January, 1909. And how does the minister square that with the contents of the letter itself; and why did the minister not frankly state that, he had discussed this matter with him on the 26th December, if the minister was as innocent of the whole transaction as he would have this House believe?
Now, Mr. Speaker, put all these circumstances together, and what is the only conclusion? That is for the members of this House to decide. It is what the minister has not answered, it is what no hon. member on the other side of the House has attempted to answer. What is the significance of the chain of circumstances-a chain of circumstances on half the extent of which more than one man in this country has been hanged? The hon. member for Carleton and the minister himself tried to wipe out the shame of this transaction by bolstering up the value of this wharf. Whether this wharf is worth $i or $5,000,000 is of very little consequence in so far as the guilt of the minister and the shame of his department are concerned. If this wharf is worth $10,000,000 to-day, what does it signify and how does that affect the direct and plain responsibility of the minister for the whole fraud connected with this transaction? How does that impair the chain of circumstances that all along show the cognizance of the department of the deliberate attempt that has been made to filch out of the treasury of this country money for the carrying on of elections in the province of New Brunswick? If that wharf was sold at $700 and then, a few days after, sold for $5,000 I venture to say that to the unprejudiced electors of this country there will be no explanation for


Arthur Meighen: it except the explanation that I hope this House will accept.
On the matter of valuation I do not propose to say very much. On the question of valuation, in order, if possible, to divert public attention from the enormity of the crime, they dwelt long. Valua-* tion ! In every trial or legal procedure in this country at which questions come up that involve expert testimony, expert testimony and information can be procured. If it were a matter of valuation you could procure valuations for any purpose whatsoever and every lawyer in this House knows it. But, Sir, the fact that stares the people of this country in the face is that a wharf that had laid idle for fifteen or twenty years, worthless and unused, in a village of 700 people, constantly declining, in numbers, is sold for $500 in 1905 to one Frank Ingersoll, who pays $50 down, then rues his bargain and forfeits his $50 because he believes that the wharf is not worth the other $450. The minister had it in his power, if he disbelieves Mr. O'Leary in that regard, to call Frank Ingersoll, but he did not do it. The wharf remains from that time on until May, 1908, when Mr. Thomas Murray suddenly buys it after visiting the Minister of Public Works, for $700, and in thei course of eight days has virtually completed a transaction by which he sells it to the government for $5,000. The sale of that wharf for $700 on the 4th of May, if it were worth what the minister and his friends claim, is only accounted for by one hypothesis, and that is the absolute insanity of Mr. O'Leary. Nobody says for a moment that Mr. 0'Learj>
is a dupe. He was not away down in the southern states, or in South America, or in India, he was living right there on tne ground, the largest property owner in the town, admitted by every person to be shrewd, capable business man. He sells that wharf for $700 on the 4th of Mav and the government are actually forced to make this country believe, if possible, in support of their position, that when he sold it is was actually worth from $5,000 to $15,000. That is what the government are faced with. But, that is not all. AVho else has given evidence as to the value of this property?
I submit to the minister and to you, Mr Speaker, that the assessor of Richibucto is a man who ought to know what this property is worth. It is on record that the assessor of Richibucto, after Mr. O'Leary had sold the wharf, refused Mr. O'Leary's request to reduce the assessment by reason of the wharf being sold and gave as his reason that the wharf was of no value whatever, and that, consequently its alienation did not detract from the value of the whole property. If the minister disbelieves Mr. O'Leary in that regard, why did he not call the assessor? The minister

did not call the assessor, and he did not call Ingersoll; he is obliged to call those who have intimate connection with his own department and in whom the obligation to be on good terms with the department heavily rests. The assessor is therefore on record. But what more is on record? What is the criterion of t'he value of property anywhere? It is, first, what shrewd business men will buy it for; it is, secondly, what other property sells for in the neighbourhood, and I submit to this House and the minister that every record of sales in Richibucto absolutely gives the lie to the position of the Minister of Public Works. Case after case was put on record by the hon. member for York. I do not need to go over them again, but we have it on record that this wharf for which the government paid $5,000 was sold for from seven to twenty times what it was actually worth. Against this the minister can call till Doomsday those who have [DOT]contracts from the government, those who are making money out of his department to give evidence, but the people of the country have too much common sense to listen to any evidence of that sort after the evidence of actual facts.
When is the time coming in this country, when is the time coming in this House, when hon. gentlemen opposite will venture to throw off the garments^ oi party and vote what they actually believe to be correct and true with respect to a resolution before the House. When is the time coming when we can rely on hon. members of this House to vote against transactions that are exposed as this one has been in the light of day and whose true character must be admitted by every member of this House? If the minister says:	Make a charge-for what purpose
make a charge? In order that there may be an investigation? I tell him that this has already been investigated and that the minister has been there to defend himself. He was there throughout the whole inquiry. What more does he want in the way of investigation? The evidence is there. Now, I aver that while this class of transaction does not stand alone, this is one of the worst that has ever been brought to light against this government. It is true that this is only a breath from that atmosphere of political depravity that envelopes this government and supplies the only nourishment upon which it can subsist but this debate is surely not without a purpose, and I hope it will have this result that the minister will never again proclaim in this House or on the hustings that he carried the province of New Brunswick and thereby vindicated his own character and the administration of the department over which he presides.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been so fully debated that I do
not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments. The amount involved is not a large one, but the question at issue is not without importance, because I think we may learn from the methods disclosed in this transaction some of those which perhaps are applied to transactions of greater amount. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works did not seem to be so much at ease as usual when he was undertaking to defend this transaction this afternoon, and I do not wonder at that. He made some rather curious suggestions in the course of his speech. For example, he argued strenuously-and I am inclined to think that we ought to accept his word-that if any telegram with regard to campaign funds had been sent by Mr. Murray, it would have been sent to him and not to Mr. Valiquette. My hon. friend was ready to give his assurance to the House in that regard, and I am, inclined to think that, according to the well understood usages of parliament, my hon. friend from York and my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie should have accepted this statement.
I do not propose to quote any evidence, but to consider certain facts seriously disputed. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has based his defence, if you can call it a defence, upon certain theories as to the value of this property derived from the evidence of certain witnesses given before the Committee on Public Accounts. I prefer to take events and transactions when there was no controversy at all about the value of this property, and when men acted upon what they believed to be its value. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie has put in a very few words what I desire to say in that Tegard. Here was a property purchased for $400 in 1902, sold for $500 in 1905, just three years before this transaction, sold to a man who put up $50 and preferred to lose that sum rather than carry out his bargain. The owner of the property, Mr. O'Leary, according to the judgment of the Minister of Public Works, and according to the judgment of the hon. member for Carleton, is as shrewd and capable a business man as is to be found in the province of New Brunswick. That man, after having had this property on his hands for years, after having paid $400 for it and having vainly tried to sell it for $500, sold it in the month of May, 1908, for $700, and thought that in doing so he made a very good bargain. In addition to that, when he went to the assessor of the town afterwards, and endeavoured to get the taxes on his property reduced by reason of the fact that he had parted with this property, he was not able to get one cent taken off his taxation, for the reason that the assessors considered the property of so

trifling a value that they could not conscientiously reduce the value of his remaining property on the municipal records.
Is there any dispute about these statements?


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? In the province of New Brunswick real estate and personal property are assessed at exactly the same ratio, and the personal property that Mr. O'Leary got in the shape of money would take the place of his real estate, so that he would not be entitled to any reduction


Frederick William Borden: Will any hon. gentleman in this House be good enough to tell me what answer I ought to give to the hon. gentleman's 'question'? Let us go on a little further. There had been some negotiations between Mr. Murray, the purchaser of this property, and Mr. O'Leary, the owner of the property, previous to the occasion on which this property was actually purchased. There may be some dispute between these two gentlemen as to whether or not in the first instance there was a negotation as to a purchase of the whole property. I have listened very attentively to this debate. I have endeavoured by examining the evidence itself as the various speakers went along, to follow up this matter, so that I could come to a correct conclusion about it; and so far as the various controversies are concerned that have arisen between Mr. Murray and Mr. O'Leary with respect to matters of fact, I venture to think that any 'hon. gentleman in this House who gives an intelligent consideration to that evidence, cannot fail to accept the statements of Mr. O'Leary and reject those of Mr. Murray. If my hon. friend from Carleton should have evidence of that kind presented to him when he comes to accept one of those judgeships which have been alluded to this afternoon,
I have sufficient confidence in his judicial fairness to believe that without one single moment of hesitation he would accept the statement of Mr. O'Leary and reject that of Mr. Murray. I say further than that, that if my hon. friend from Carleton, sitting as a judge upon the bench, had evidence of this kind presented to him upon the motion of my hon. friend from York, he would not stop to reserve judgment, but would give judgment on the spot in favour of my hon. friend from York upon the evidence adduced. I am glad to see that my hon. friend from Carleton smiles assent to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Almost any man would smile at a statement like that.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see why my hon. friend should smile at the idea of his possessing judicial fairness. Let us look a Mr. R. L. BORDEN
little further into this matter. According to the testimony of Mr. Murray, the only purchase spoken of in the first instance wras the purchase of a right to place a sewer through this property. It is established that Mr. Murray went to Ottawa afterwards. It is established again, although the evidence was extracted with great difficulty, that he saw the Minister of Public Works. Is Mr. Murray so much in the habit of coming to Ottawa and visiting the Minister of Public Works that he cannot remember what took place or what induced him to come on any particular occasion? Will any hon. gentleman have the hardihood to rise in his place and say that he can credit the testimony of a man who came to Ottawa on an occasion of that kind, saw the Minister of Public Works, and when interrogated on the witness stand, was absolutely unable to give any explanation of his visit except the one that has been suggested by my hon. friend from York? Well, he went back to New Brunswick, and what occurred then? He wanted to purchase this property outright. There is no dispute about that; he admits it, and O'Leary stated it. He had suddenly,for some reason, acquired the idea that it would be greatly to his advantage to become possessed of this property as its owner.
He did become possessed of this property for the sum of $700. Mr. O'Leary was not only willing but absolutely delighted to get rid of the property at that price. Now, Mr. O'Leary had held this property for a number of years, he had carried on business in that town for a number of years, and according to all the evidence given he is a shrewd business man. But in parting with this property for $700, Mr. O'Leary must have been absolutely bereft of his reason if the property were worth anything like $5,000. Then, some further things happened which are not without significance. There had been a proposal in the previous March, that a certain municipal wharf should be acquired by the government and a report had been" made favouring the acquisition of that wharf. The resident engineer of the Department, of Public Works was sent to make and he did make a new report, and changing his view of the situation for some reason which he did not very satisfactorily explain, he arrived at the conclusion that it would be desirable to purchase this property and he advised the purchase of it for $5,000. If his report is to be trusted he regarded that as a very reasonable price Indeed. Now, in the course of his examination, not at first but during his subsequent examination he was compelled to admit that at the time he signed that report he knew that that property had been conveyed by Mr. O'Leary, by means of a deed of conveyance which expressed upon its face that the purchase price of this pro-

perty was not more than the sum of $1,000; and this purchase had taken place barely one month before the time he reported that $5,000 would be a fair and reasonable price for that property.


An hon. MEMBER.: Only sixteen days before.


Robert Laird Borden: Sixteen days. I did not know it was so close as that;_ I was certainly not exaggerating the peculiar feature of the situation in that regard. Now, I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works whether he would have put through that purchase if he had known that that property had sold for $700 in the previous May. The Minister of Public Works did not give us any explanation in that regard. He did write a letter on the 13th of January, 1909, and I am bound to say that that letter has fully served the purpose for which it seems to have been written-it has been quoted in this House. That letter expresses the disapprobation of the Minister of Public Works of the course this engineer pursued in not reporting that that property had been sold for not more than $1,000 just sixteen days before he made his report. To show how deep was the disapprobation of the Minister of Public Works of this action of his engineer, I am informed that he not only _gave_ him the statutory increase of $100 in his salary, but he gave him a special bonus increase to the extent of $200 besides. I venture to say that having been taught a lesson, such as that, this engineer will never sin in the' same way again. I do not- know of more condign punishment that can be visited upon a man for negligence of that, kind than to give him the usual statutory increase and give him a special increase of $200 besides. Still, matters did not proceed rapidly enough, and later, on the 13th of September, Mr. Murray sent a telegram to Mr. Valliquette, whom he designated as chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, and Mr. Valliquette was entreated by the terms of that telegram to hasten this transaction for the reason that it would be very important to my _ hon. friend (Mr. Leblanc) who is the sitting member for the county of Kent. I do not know whether my bon. friend from Kent agrees that this transaction was important to him; I have rather understood that he dissents from the view of Mr. Murray. At all events the telegram was so effective that the Minister of Public Works, on the 24th of September, made a report to council, an order in council was passed, the transaction went through and the money was paid to Mr. Murray about the 10th of October. Mr. Murray describes himself as a man of large business transactions. He is part owner of a railway and his transactions with Mr. Robertson
and other gentlemen are so extensive, and they have become so confused in his mind that he is unable to recollect the details of a single transaction. And in order that there may be absolutely no question in regard to this he received the whole $5,000 in $5 and $10 bills. I want hon. gentlemen to realize what this amount of bills would mean. Assuming that the sum of money was equally divided between $5 bills and $10 bills, Mr. Murray went home with no less than 750 bank notes in his pocket, and he handed them over to his wife. Then, he proceeded to deal with that money according to his usual business methods, and in the first place he paid to Mr. Robertson, the gentleman who had accompanied him on his visit to Ottawa, the sum of $2,000 in partial payment, or in entire payment, ot in over-payment, or in some kind of payment, of a" debt, the nature of which or the amount of which he is absolutely unable_ to describe. He had taken the precaution in the first instance to carry home the 750 bank bills and after that he paid the $2,000 out. Is there any hon. gentlemen in this House so simple minded as to place credence in a story of that_ kind. Is it not taxing our credulity a little too much to ask us to believe that this was an ordinary plain business transaction as the Minister of Public Works would have us believe. Why, the story is absolutely incredible upon its face. Sir, this is an absolutely undefended case. I will not take up the. time of the House further than to say that every credit is to be given to my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) for exposing this transaction. ,1 tor mv part con-gradulate him upon his action in this case. I may say that when he brought this resolution and submitted it to me before presenting it to the House, I said to him: its terms are preitty strong; can you make them good; do not go any further than that which you are able to maintain by reference to the evidence upon the floor of parliament. And my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) said to me: I can make it good. And Sir, at this moment I have only one criticism of his resolution and that is that I do not think he made it strong enough.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Crocket).

Messieurs.
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
I Burrell,
Campbell,
Macdonell,
McCall,
Magrath,
Meiglien,
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Owen,
I'aquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,

Chisholm (Huron), Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Eraser,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Kidd,
Da lor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lortie,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn,
W allace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-63.

Messieurs.
Allard,
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Belaud,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm
(Antigonish)
vrxutigumsu/,	i\ esoi
Chisholm (Inverness), Neely
fllurtn	ai; ..
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), Major,
Marcile (B.agot), Martin (Ste. Mary's Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington) Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Delisle,
Demers,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geofirion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Graham,
Ilarty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
La^e'gne,
Law,


Robert Laird Borden: Oliver,
l'apineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sea ley,
Seguin,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Talbot,
Tern pieman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet),
Leblanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
MacNntt,
McCoig,
McColl,
Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Warburton,
White (Victoria), Wilson (Laval).-111.

Messieurs.
Ministerial.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Brodeur,
German,
Stratton,
Low,
Sinclair,
Gordon (Kent),
Clark (Red Deer), Currie (Prince Edward),
Harris,
Guthrie,
Devlin,
Emmerson,
McAllister,
Chew,
l'rowse,
Verville,
Lachance,
Gladu,
Roy (Montmagny),
Opposition.
Doherty,
Foster,
Haggart (Lanark), Gordon (Nipissing), Smyth,
Monk,
Osier,
Northrup,
Maddin,
Rhodes,
Bristol,
Forget,
McCarthy,
Barker,
Lake,
Best,
Price,
Marshall,
Thornton,
Jameson,
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
For the development of the live stock industry, $52,000.
Mr. .1. D. REID. Give us some explanation about that,
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: By way of explanation, I have to say that we have been continuing the same work as was done in years past in regard to this branch. It has been under the guidance of Dr. Rutherford, who is not only director veterinary general, but also live stock commissioner. He has as assistant, Mr. Spencer, who is in more immediate charge of this work. The work consists in aiding the development of the live stock interests of the country by the encouragement of local live stock associations, and the distribution of information among those and among men interested in the live stock work. In this connection we have been supplying judges to fairs or exhibitions, and assisting those exhibitions by supplying speakers to address them, and give illustrations and information. We have also a staff of men who have been attending institutes where live stock interests are being discussed. We have also sent out a great number of bulletins. It was under this branch that what is known as the sheep bulletin was sent

out last year, and just recently a bulletin, or report of the Swine Commission was sent out. We have also undertaken work in connection with the breeders of pure bred cattle. The breeders of pure bred cattle, dairy cattle especially, have asked that steps should be taken to make what is called an advance registry of dairy cows, and for this purpose they wish to have authoritative tests. We have appointed inspectors to go about and supervise these tests, and we give the necessary service.


Richard Blain: Who are the commissioners?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The first inspectors are Mr. Drummond, Mr. Clements, Mr. Mason, and Mr. McNish. There are four of them now. When the work first commepced a few years ago, it was thought that on& man would be able to attend to it, but there has been such a demand that as time went on we have had to add to the number, until now there are four engaged, and occasionally we have to employ temporary men for outlying parts which these four inspectors could not conveniently, or economically reach. This work has been demanded by the breeders of pure bred cattle, especially, and it is one which I think of importance for the improvement of these breeds. It has met with great favour among the people interested, and also among those who wish to buy sires for breeding stock and improving their own herds. We have also made some money grants to certain fairs in the west and in the east. The grant to the Maritime Stock Breeders' exhibition at Amherst, and to some fairs in the western provinces, has come out of this grant. We have been doing a little work in the direction of the developing of the sheep industry. We have tried to give instruction and information in regard to that. In that connection, we have been arranging and managing the sales of sheep by auction in different parts of the country. This is a general resume of the position, but I shall be glad to answer any question.


Mr. W. H SHARPE.: To what fairs in the west is assistance given through this vote?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Brandon winter fair, the Regina fair and the Calgary fair.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Will the minister explain further with regard to the dairy herds?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have inspectors who supervise owners' tests of individual cows which are entitled, if successful to entry in what is called the advanced register. A thoroughbred cow, for instance, a Holstein, is registered with other pedigreed stock entered in the registry which the Holstein breeders manage. But, besides this, an animal may be tested for a year.
This test is supervised by the officials of the department so as to give authority and credence to the work, which, if done by the owner without supervision or correction, might be looked upon as suspicious. The milk is weighed and tested by the Babcock test, and if the Teeord shows that the animal produces up to a certain quantity, she is entered in the advanced registry with the amount of this her production in a year opposite her name.


John Albert Sexsmith: It is not necessary that she should be a thoroughbred?	I


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, we make these tests only of thoroughbred animals,


John Albert Sexsmith: When does the minister expect to put in a Holstein herd in the experimental farm?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope, this coming year.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am glad to know that the minister is taking that up. Last year,
I asked why he did not have Holsteins there, and I think his answer was that they had all they had room to house or something of that kind. It seems to me a very mild excuse, if I may say so. I have no particular fancy for one breed, but I think that, in the interests of the dairy industry, all leading dairy types should be found at the experimental farm. I agree with the hon. minister in what he said the other day that it would not^ be wise for the department to make a distinction between one breed and another. There are different types of dairy cattle, and every man thinks that the one he fancies is the best, The Holstein is considered one of the best dairy types in America today, and when those who favour that type fin'd they cannot get any information from the experimental farm based on actual experiment wtih that type, they are apt to think it a great mistake. I am glad to hear that the minister is going to put in a Holstein herd.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: At what points are these inspectors to which the minister has referred stationed, and what are their salaries? I suppose this item covers their salaries?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Two of these gentlemen are stationed at Ottawa, and their salaries are paid out of civil government, I think they l'eceive one $1,350 and the other $1,300. The other two have their headquarters outside of Ottawa, and one receives $1,050, and the other $1,000.


William Henry Sharpe: The minister spoke of sheep in connection with this item. Will he be good enough to explain further.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We instituted some sales of sheep, bringing the sheep, most of them,

from the province of Ontario, which is the great sheep breeding province of the Dominion. The result is to distribute sheep in different parts of the country, including portions of Ontario where comparatively few sheep were raised. I think none have been sent to the west, except that there was one sale in British Columbia. Some were sent to the maritime provinces, and some to Quebec. I may say to the hon, member (Mr. W. H. Sharpe) who comes from Manitoba, that we have just arranged to put a small flock of sheep on the Brandon farm. A portion of that farm, we think, is suitable for sheep husbandry, and we hope this summer to get in a flock of sheep and show what can be done on the portion of a farm set apart, for that purpose. Of course, that will not come under this item, but under experimental farms. The sheep bulletin issued a year ago, and which has found such wide favour in the country, was issued by this department.


William Henry Sharpe: Do I understand that the department collects sheep, takes them to different parts of the Dominion and makes sales?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We make arrangements, advertise and manage the sales, and pay expenses. We do not provide the animals, we ask the breeders of sheep to do that.


William Henry Sharpe: Do you conduct these sales in western Canada?'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Where there is a demand. We go in and try to create a demand, for, of course, the breeders will not send the sheep unless there is a chance to sell them. We prepare the ground in the neighbourhood beforehand, and arrange for the sale, and then invite the breeders to send their sheep.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I was not aware that there was a bulletin with special reference to sheep.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was sent to every member of the House last year.


David Henderson: I was absent from home, or there was some other reason which prevented me from seeing it. Is it published annually?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it was of the same general character as the one the hon. member saw this _ session the report of the swine commission. It was a very fine book and much the same in style as a book as the one on swine husbandry.


David Henderson: Is it distributed only to members?
Mr. FISHER, No, it is sent all over the country.


David Henderson: How- does the minister ascertain who the sheep breeders are in any county?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Our officers know them pretty well, they know the men who are exhibiting sheep. We have constant questions from sheep breeders all over the country, and there are sheep breeders' associations in most of the provinces, with which we are in constant touch, and we have lists of practically all the sheep breeders. The members of the House were asked, many of them, to give us the names of the sheep breeders in their respective counties. We still have many of those bulletins on hand, and can supply those who have not been supplied. But we do not send them to all the farmers, because a good many farmers do not Dreed sheep.


David Henderson: In a county such as mine, I daresay there are 40 or 50 men who are actively engaged in sheep breeding. I suppose the minister prefers to send them out from the department than through the members.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We would ne willing to send them to the members. But if there are 40 or 50 men in the hon. gentleman's county who are interested in sheep, I am satisfied they have all got the bulletin already. If there are any sheep breeders it- his county who have not received it, and if he will send us their names, we will supply them at once.


William Henry Sharpe: How many hundreds of them does each member get?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think about 30,000 were printed, and we have sent out something over 20,000; so if anybody will send us a list of men to whom these bulletins would be useful, we can meet the demands. I do not want hon. members to send us any names except those who are breeding sheep, and these will be sure to get them.


William Henry Sharpe: We all like to get a little credit for what we do for our constituents, but when these books are sent out through the department under the frank of the Minister of Agriculture, he gets all the credit and we get none.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are just doing our duty.


William Henry Sharpe: But we don't get anything out of it at all. In connection with this matter, I might mention those who are engaged in the hog industry to whom the department also sends books. Both these are splendid books. There are many men in my constituency who would like to get them, and I would like to be able to send them the books, and send them through my own name.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly. The difficulty is that we are already sending them out by hundreds to all the men whose names we know throughout the country, and if hon. members were also to under-

take to send out large numbers, without doubt a great many men would get two copies, and thus the books would be wasted. They are rather expensive books, they cost about 30 cents a piece, and we cannot afford to waste them. It has been the custom in the Agriculture Committee to supply every member in the House with a certain number of the evidence taken before that committee, and I have been told over and over again that there were stacks of these books in this building which have never been distributed. I am afraid that if I were to send to every member a quantity of these publications, the result would be the same.


David Henderson: I share a good deal the feeling of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe). For a number of years I have taken a good deal of interest in sheep raising. I am not boasting about it, but I make it a practice to give a prize for a certain kind of sheep at each township fair in my county. I visit these fairs as I give the prize, and I go amongst the sheep men and find out who have the best sheep. In that way I come in contact with the sheep breeders and know pretty well who they are in that county, not only men who raise Leicesters, but those who raise Shropshires and Dorsets. But whilst I am doing that, I am not doing it to give the Hon. Mr. Fisher all the credit for furnishing this information. I think the minister should help the men who do that sort of thing, and allow us to share a little in the glory. I do not know what names the minister has on his list. I might go to the trouble of writing out a list of 40 or 50 names, and, perhaps, he has those names already. But if the minister will send me a list of the names of the sheep men he has on his list, I will go over it, and I think I can tell him pretty accurately whether he is supplying all those who take an interest in sheep breeding in the county of Halton.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall be glad to do that.


David Henderson: Then will he follow that up by supplying those who are short? Now, I know these men would read the books with a great deal more interest if they saw my name on it.


Mr. MILLER.: Then they would feel sheepish if they didn't vote for you.


David Henderson: I do not say that all the sheep men vote for me, I^know they do not. But that makes no difference so far as the distribution of that book is concerned. Some of the men who got my $5, or whatever it may be, are my friends, and some are not my political friends; "it is the man who has the best sheep that gets the prize. I remember one instance where serious fault was found because I 246
gave a prize in the county year after year for the best Cotswold yearling ram, and it was said that I ought to vary the prize and give it to something else. I do not know whether the minister would agree with me, but I think that is the proper way of giving a prize to help an industry. Men know at the beginning of the year that there is going to be a certain prize for a certain class of sheep, and it is for them to go to work and bring their sheep up to the noint that they can secure the prize. I think it creates a far healthier competition bv continuing the same thing year after year. When I go on the show grounds, say at Oakville, in the township of Trafalgar, I am told that this is Billy Paterson's prize-not the Hon. William, but another of the same name He has taken the prize year after year. I say: If you bring a better sheep than Billy Paterson you will get the prize, and last year somebody else did. The man who won it did not live in the county of Halton. Some person from the constituency of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) carried away the prize. They, unfortunately, did not limit it to the county of Halton, and it went into the county of Peel, contrary to my wish, because when I gave the prize I desired to limit it to my own county, because I thought it would create a good healthy competition in the county. If the minister would supply me with the names, he has of the sheep breeders, I would be glad to revise it and tell him whether he has these men on his list or not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would be very glad to do that.


William Henry Sharpe: I think there is a great deal in what the minister says about the supplies given to each member. I know that in our own room there are a great many supplies that are not sent out. But, when we supply the minister with lists of names of people in our own counties we should at least get the credit for sending these out, and I think the minister; should make some arrangements along that line.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will be very glad to try and make some such arrangement. If anybody is particularly interested in the sheep bulletin and wishes to send it to a certain number of people I think we should let them have it, but I do not want to have them wasted.


William Henry Sharpe: Suppose I .send you in twenty-five or thirty names from my constituency; you have your list and you might mark off the names of those to whom it has been sent, and then send the bulletin to the balance with my compliments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will be glad to do that. If my hon. friend sends in a list I will



compare it with ours and send the bulletin to those who have not received it.


Henry Horton Miller: I have followed this plan. I have sent in a list, retaining a copy of it, and then written a short letter to each of the parties whose names are on the list stating that I have asked the department to send to their address a copy of the bulletin and that I hope they will receive it. In that rvay they think a great deal more of it than if you simply send the booh without a letter.


John Albert Sexsmith: You are conducting some experiments on the farm w'ith sheep at the present time, are you not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a small flock of sheep on the farm.


John Albert Sexsmith: Do you issue pamphlets showing the expense?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, it is all in the farm report.
Health of animals-$250,000.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: This is a large' amount.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes; the size of it is due to dealing with glanders and hog cholera.


George Taylor: How much was spent last year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $85,000 was paid in compensation last year for horses affected with glanders and for hogs slaughtered because of hog cholera.


George Taylor: How much of the total vote of $250,000 was spent in connection with the health of animals?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was all spent. That covers the veterinary staff and quarantine work on the sea coasts and the American frontier as. well as internal work.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Did that cover the whole of. Canada, or does the Ontario government pay any compensation for animals slaughtered?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think I am safe in saying that no provincial government pays any compensation.	i


John Albert Sexsmith: How many veterinary surgeons have you?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 108.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: Are they under salary or are they just paid for their services?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Practically all under salary. We found years ago that it did not work at all to have men in private* practice and at the same time working for the government. They were so mixed up with their clients in their private practice that they could not do justice to governs ment work, and we had to put them on


Sydney Arthur Fisher: permanent salaries. There are some men allowed to take fees to give certain certi-.' ficates that are required for export to the: United States, but the amount which they get in that way is very small.


John Albert Sexsmith: What is the amount of salary?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $1,000 to $1,200. I think, the highest salary in the office 'here is $2,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What territory do they cover?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They go wherever we order them. W7e keep certain men in one district because otherwise their travelling ex-, pense would be too great. WTe sometimes: change them about.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How many have you in Ontario?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About ten. Some of these -are engaged on the frontier and some in the interior. A great deal of the work iiii Ontario is done by the headquarters staff.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: How many in Manitoba?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Six.


William Henry Sharpe: Are they all employed in the city of Winnipeg?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Three in the city and three on the boundary. Some of the boun-; dary work is done in the city.


Joseph Russell: How many of these of-[DOT]officers are employed on the headquarters; staff here in Ottawa.	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not counting	office	staff,,
about six.	>


Joseph Russell: I mean in the labora-i tory?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Rutherford and three1 others in the office who do consulting work1 here and go out as they	are	required
through the country. Then there are two in the bacteriological laboratory at the farm, making six altogether. Doctor Rutherford and three others are doing consults ing work and going out as they are re< quired, and there are two in the laboratory, making six.


Joseph Russell: Have they much work to do?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Joseph Russell: Y'ou couid not take up that other branch I spoke of the other night?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is worth considering.


Joseph Russell: A duly qualified veterinary surgeon would be the best for that work?

Mr. FISHER, I think so; I am informed there are specimens of diseased chickens constantly sent into the laboratory, and they are always examined and information given.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What are the names of the three men employed on the boundary in Manitoba?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Messrs. McKenzie, Stephenson and Thompson, and there is also a Mr. Bonnet, who is also employed by us, but paid by fees.


William Henry Sharpe: $250,000 to be spent on the health of animals is a large amount. Dr. Rutherford is here to-night, and he will be able to give us better information on this subject than we had last year. In 1905, the last year the Roblin government had charge of the health of animals in Manitoba, it only cost $3,600y for that service, but last year the same service cost the Dominion government $16,000 in Manitoba. Why this heavy expenditure?
_ Mr. FISHER. In the first place the Roblin government had no duty to perform on the . frontier. That is our work in Manitoba as elsewhere. I do not know what work the Manitoba government was doing, and I cannot compare the details of the cost, but I do know that to-day we are working our own men in Manitoba very, severely indeed. There was about $3,500 expended in Manitoba on the boundary, and $7,000 in addition to that.


William Henry Sharpe: $16,000 was expended the year before last; you will remember it was the year of the election.
^ Mr. FISHER. Does my hon. friend include claims for compensation?


William Henry Sharpe: No, that cost $15,000 in addition.


Mr. EDWARDS.: If a diseased animal is slaughtered by order of the department on a report from, one of the departmental veterinary inspectors the owner is reimbursed for the loss of the animal. But, the government department will not take the diagnosis of a duly qualified veterinary surgeon who is not in the service of the department. If such a practitioner is engaged by the farmer, the government will not take his certificate that a horse is suffering from glanders, for instance, but the farmer runs the risk of having his whole stock infected while he waits for the departmental inspector, or else if he slaughters his horse he will not get any compensation. It does seem to me that that is unjust and^ unreasonable. I do not see why the certificate of a duly qualified veterinary surgeon should not be taken as well as that oi a government official, who has just 1 2461
the same qualifications. Several farmers have complained to me in regard to this matter, and I think the law ought to be changed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On account of the spread of glanders in the country, some years ago, I asked parliament for a handsome appropriation to try and eradicate the disease, and in order to meet with any success I found it necessary to pay compensation. The hon. gentleman from North Toronto and others pointed out the danger of raids on the public treasury in such cases, and I assured the House that we would pay compensation only upon the certificate and responsibility of officers of the department. The ordinary veterinary surgeons are the employees of the owners who are asking for. compensation, and other countries as well as our own have suffered in the payment of compensation for slaughtered animals by reason of that fact. It is a very simple thing for the owner of a horse to isolate the animal if he is affected with glanders, and if he telegraphs he will get a veterinary surgeon within a day or two at the outside, generally the next day. If other horses have been in close contact with the diseased animal, then, probably the whole stable of horses will have to be slaughtered, and it would be very dangerous to undertake that responsibilty on the certificate of any but an officer of the departs ment. We do that for the safety of the community at large, and it is on that plea and that plea only, that we are entitled to pay compensation. I do not know any country in the wnrld that pays compensation upon the certificate of a private practitioner. I think it would be unwise and unsafe and contrary to the pledge I gave to parliament when this money w-as placed at my disposal. I am glad to say that while in the first year we spent over $150,000,'-the year before last -we spent only about $40,000, and in the year just past about $70,000, and I hope that in a short time we shall get the disease so thoroughly under control that it will not be a menace to the horses of the country.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume that the reason that the hon. minister, and the hon. member for North Toronto objected to paying compensation on the certificate of regular practitioners was the danger of collusion between the veterinary surgeon and the farmer. I cannot see what is to, prevent collusion between a farmer, and a veterinary surgeon who is made by the government one of their inspectors." If a farmer has a horse he wants to get rid of and the veterinary surgeon is disposed to be dishonest, I suppose he could make as good an arrangement with a man appointed by the government, as with any other veterinary surgeon. It seems to me that

difficulty could be got over. If veterinary surgeons were in danger of losing their diplomas, as medical doctors are when they engage in reprehensible practices, the likelihood of any collusion between the veterinary surgeon and the farmer would be done away. I know that farmers are put to considerable inconvenience, and sometimes loss in this connection-perhaps not so much now as some years ago, because now according to the hon. minister's statement the disease is not now so prevalent as it was. While I daresay the minister is thoroughly convinced that his course is the right one, I do not think that it is.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is Dr. Little, of Bois-sevain, one of your officers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Little is not doing any work for us now, although he is entitled one of our inspectors, and I think can issue certain certificates.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How long is it since he has been working for the government?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About two years.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I presume Dr. Thompson was appointed in place of Dr. Little?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Thompson was appointed at Brandon to attend the Great Northern railway at the time it entered Manitoba. Boissevain ceased to be an inspection port in consequence of the change of railway, and therefore Dr. Little ceased to work for us.


George Henry Bradbury: Is Dr. Biscoby, of Stonewall, on the staff?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is on another staff, the Meat Inspection Staff, but has been on leave for some time, and is not working for us just now.


Mr. STAPLES.: Who has taken the place of Dr. Molloy since he became a member of this House?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Still, of Winnipeg, I think, is doing that work at present.


William Henry Sharpe: I would like to ask the minister if he has ever heard of any cases of collusion between a farmer and a veterinary surgeon on his staff?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have never had any case against any of the staff in that respect. In the first place, the members of the staff are not in private practice, and they are, therefore, not engaged by the owner of the animal, and have no relations with him except that of a government official. In the second place, they most generally do not belong to the immediate neighbourhood, and consequently are removed from that influence which a man living in the immediate neighbourhood, and employed by the owner would necessarily have. If it were not dishonest Mr. EDWARDS.
collusion, it would be sympathy and a desire to please the neighbour and employer. Moreover, the private practitioner would have no official responsibility, whereas the responsible official knows that he is open to attack, and that he is doing a greater wrong to be careless, or easy, than the private practitioner who is employed by the person concerned.


William Cameron Edwards: Who is the government inspector at Kingston?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We employ Dr. Bell on fees. He is not one of our permanent staff on salary.


William Cameron Edwards: Have you also an inspector at Napanee?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Joseph Russell: Where do the specimens that are examined by the staff come from?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They come from all over the country.


Joseph Russell: Have you had any from the other provinces?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, from all over the country.	.


Joseph Russell: Does some one man undertake this investigation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have two bacteriological workers, Dr. Higgins and Dr. Wick-ware.


Joseph Russell: I think that if one man were assigned to that work, he would come to know a great deal more about it than different men. How far do they go-do they just analyse the parts and make a report?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a microscopic examination of the specimen, and a report is made out and sent to the Surgeon General, and it is sent from his office to the person who sends the specimen.


Joseph Russell: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether that goes far enough. When they make out these reports, they do not investigate to see what caused the disease. That is what we are trying to get at. the different diseases of the chickens.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will send my hon. friend a statement, which he might look over, of the kind of examination that is made. It is rather technical and I would not like to undertake to describe it. The microscopical examination shows the practitioner the nature of the disease. I suppose in most cases, the practitioner would be able to tell what the disease resulted from. I am not sure that the practitioner could always tell the cause. The causes might be different, though the results were the same, but I am not technical enough to say much on that point. If my hon. friend will send

me some statements with regard to the diseases, we will do our best to tell him what the causes are.


Joseph Russell: I understand there is no work on the diseases of poultry. There is very little information. It is rather a new departure, and from what I have been able to learn from men who are extensively engaged in the poultry industry, they need some one to go into this subject and work out the causes of the diseases.
I would take it that the experts in the department might be able to examine affected parts of the poultry, but they would not be able to say what caused the disease. It would need some further experimental work or investigation to determine all these different diseases. I believe that if a man were appointed for this work, the different provincial institutions and the different breeders could furnish enough specimens to keep him employed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I guess so. However, it is an interesting question that has been raised and it might be worth while to set a man to this particular kind of work. 1 confess I was not aware of what my hon. friend says that the diseases of poultry were so obscure and that so little was known about them. I believe some other governments have been doing some work along that line and I should have supposed that tire diseases of poultry were fairly well known. But I will make inquiry into that, and if we can see our way clear to make an investigation with respect to the poultry, we might do so. It is a matter of great importance to the country and might be worth while.


Joseph Russell: The reason I have mentioned the matter was that the discussion seemed to be going in that direction. In the United States they have a man, Dr. Morse, who has done some good work. I believe that the Veterinary General sitting beside you will bear me out when I say that little is known of the diseases of poultry. My authority for that is Professor Graham, who has made quite a study of the matter.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think the question raised by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Russell) is an important question, and the Minister of Agriculture would be doing a good thing if he would appoint an expert to work constantly along these lines. There is no doubt in the world that thousands of dollars worth of poultry is lost through disease, the causes of which are not known. Take for instance the raising of turkeys. I know that in many parts of the country, farmers will not try to raise them because of the diseases that occur. Perhaps when they are a couple of months old, they show signs of disease, and in many cases die. And the farmers have
no means of knowing what causes their death. I think if would be a very wise thing to have a competent man to work for a year or two or for a greater length of time if necessary.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to call the minister's attention to a suggestion I will be bold enough to make. We have in Kingston as in Montreal, and in other centres, universities. Those universities have on their staffs some very able men. Take McGill University, for instance, and Queen's University, than which there is no greater or better on the continent of America. We have in those universities, pathological experts. Now, would it not be well to make use of the laboratories of those universities and the expert knowledge we have there. These men, so far as I have been able to observe, throw their whole heart into their work and would devote 25 hours of the day, if there were 25 hours iu a day, to their work. I think it would be a good idea not only to make use of tlie universities in this regard, in the way of making tests and researches, but also for the veterinary inspectors and veterinary surgeons in the immediate vicinity of those universities to come in contact with those men, and have conversations with them on this matter. In tjiat way you will be more likely to get results than by all the efforts of the department, no matter how sincere and how well directed they may be. It seems to me that that could be done with great advantage to the country in general.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say we have done that to a certain extent. We have asked professors of universities to undertake microscopical investigations. Very often we have found that they were so busy with their own work that they could not undertake it in a reasonable time and we have had to do it ourselves. But sometimes they have assisted us. I remember Dr. Gordon Bell of Winnipeg, doing some work and we have had Dr. Adami of McGill, while Professor Todd is now doing work for us. I also remember some years ago a professor of Queens university doing work for us, I forget his name at the moment.


William Cameron Edwards: Dr. Connell, I presume.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: You could not have had a better man.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course all these gentlemen have their own work in connection with investigations and teaching in the university, and not infrequently they would be' very glad to take up work of the kind mentioned if they had the time. We have two other pathologists besides the two in Ottawa, one in British Columbia, and

the ether in Lethbridge, Alta., investigating special diseases. So we are fairly well equipped. Still there is more to be done.


Richard Blain: The minister has referred to the new regulations under which veterinary surgeons must give their whole time to the service. Can he give the date of that regulation?
Experimental farms, $110,000


George Taylor: I see that the Minister of Agriculture has an item of the same nature in the supplementary estimates. The one discussion would do on both. We do not want to sit too late to-night.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, we might as well pass this.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has always been in existence applying to cases where we pay an annual salary, as is done in the case of the majority of these veterinaries. It has come more into practice since the change of the head of the branch. Dr. McEachern when head of the branch only gave a portion of his time and a good many of the men under him did the same. When Dr. Rutherford was appointed he gave his whole time to the work, and we are working that idea in.


Richard Blain: Is the regulation in force now?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not absolutely. Some of the old appointees are still on. In Montreal we have the same officers who were managing the inspection of cattle and horses for export. They practise in Montreal privately, and receive so much a year from us. There are Dr. Baker, the second Dr. McEachern and Dr. Sugden.


William D. Staples: If they engaged in practice, would they be disqualified? Would the minister dismiss them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should consider it very objectionable. I would prefer to deal with each case according to circumstances. If I found a salaried man not giving his whole time to the department, I should be disposed to warn him. Where we give a salary we expect the man's whole time.


George Henry Bradbury: And do I understand that the salaries are $1,000 and $1,200 for veterinaries in the west?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Some do work as low as that. The highest, I think, receive $2,000.


George Henry Bradbury: If a veterinary in the west were given only $100 a month he would have to be allowed to practice and -earn extra money. Because $1,000 or $2,000 is no salary for a veterinary surgeon in the west.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We give them enough to keep them busy.
Arts, agriculture and statistics-census and statistics, $50,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Some hon. members asked me to hold this over for some information. A question was asked as to the regulations in regard to census taking I have that information.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


George Taylor: That is what I was going to suggest. Then we could have the discussion on the supplementaries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have three items in the supplementaries. Perhaps we could take them up.
Department of Agriculture-
To provide for two clerkships in second division, subdivision A.. $3,200 To provide for seven clerkships in second division, subdivision B, 4 at $1,200; 1 at $1,125; 2 at $800..	7,525
Contingencies-Further amount required	 2,o00


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are two things in which extra assistance is required. One is the archives and the other the experimental farms. In the archives we have a mass of documents which are not catalogued and, therefore, not properly available to the public. Many are interested in these documents. For instance, lawyers are constantly coming to get information concerning cases which turn upon old documents. I have asked for further assistance in order to proceed more vigorously and rapidly with the cataloguing, so as to make these documents more available to the public.


Richard Blain: Will these officers pass the examination and come under the Civil Service rules?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. In the experimental farms, I have to make some slight reorganization. Dr. Saunders has asked to be relieved of certain detail and routine work with which he has concerned himself personally, but which ought not to be imposed upon the head of such an important system. I have to throw that work on other officers, and so I ask for two assistants on that part of the work at the farms
Arts, agriculture and statistics-experimental farms-further amount reauired $20,000. '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have already explained the increase in the number of experimental farms and the need of a larger sum for their administration. I now hope to be able to establish more of them than I thought would be possible when the main estimates were prepared, and, therefore, I am asking for this supplementary vote.


William D. Staples: Will the minister explain what methods he intends to pursue in the selection of these experimental stations?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to place them where they will serve a large area-to place each in a piece of country that seems to he as near a large area of adjoining country as possible. Then I wish to place each of them in a conspicuous place. And I wish to place each of them at a point easily accessible. These are the main objects.


William D. Staples: How is the minister going to acquire that information? By his own observation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, so far as the area of the country is concerned, we have a fair record of that in the various departments, and the people themselves know pretty well the places that are characteristic of a large area. This last summer I had an experienced officer going about and examining the best sites. I am constantly deluged with offers of farms, and when I receive such an offer, if it seems to me to be in a suitable locality, I send a person to examine it.


William D. Staples: Has the minister had any inquiry from the Carman district in Manitoba? It is one of the best railway centres in that western country, and very suitable for an experimental farm station. There are three lines of railway, the Great Northern, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern, and another line is projected.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember that we have had an application from Carman. I would like the farms to be spread over the province, not to have them in too close proximity.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I presume the new farms will be under the direction of the managers of the experimental farm we have now; if so, it would be convenient to have them situated not too far apart. Now, if you place a farm down near Boissevain, your manager could come down there and inspect it and go back the same night.


Mr. BURRELL.: Has the minister arrived at a decision with regard to a farm in the interior of British Columbia?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We still have that matter under consideration.


George Henry Bradbury: I would suggest to the minister that east of the city of Winnipeg we have a large area of very fine land, but there has been so far no effort made by the government to direct settlers into that part of the country. It strikes me it would be a splendid thing to put one of these stations in some place east of Winnipeg,! and I would urge the minister to do that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have had some repre-: sentations to that effect, and they will receive consideration.


William Henry Sharpe: How many stations does he propose starting this year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have in mind- at least half a dozen new ones. I have instructed an officer to examine suitable sites in Manitoba.


John Albert Sexsmith: Are you going to establish any more in Ontario this year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hardly think so, this year. I have had representations from New Ontario, and possibly there will be one there.


George Taylor: My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is not present tonight, and I would suggest that we allow item 421 to stand, so that when it is taken up again any hon. member may discuss anything in relation to experimental farms.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will consent to that on condition that we take it up again not later than to-morrow, as I have to be away early next week.
Grant to Charlottetown exhibition for 1910, $10,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a new vote. We have been giving $50,000 for exhibitions in each of the provinces, but we have never done that in Prince Edward Island. Some -years ago when the Dominion exhibition wa3 at Halifax they asked us to give them $10,000. This year the Dominion exhibition is in St. John, and Prince Edward Island has asked for the same consideration, and we do not think it unfair that they should have $10,000 in one year and' $10,000 another year.
Quarantine-steamers to replace ' Argus J and ' Challenger '-revote, $39,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: I suppose this is in regard to. the boat being built for Halifax! harbour? Would the minister say what' position that boat is in?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: She will be completed and delivered in the course of the coming summer.	-


Adam Brown Crosby: It seems to me strange that this boat should have to be built in Dartmouth, England, in view of the fact that we are about to build .a navy in Canada. It does seem strange that we cannot construct a boat 80 feet long by 19 feet wide and 8 feet hold. Has no effort been made by the government to construct this boat in Canada? We hear a great deal' about the construction of Dreadnoughts and torpedo boats and all other kinds of boats, but we have not been able to construct a small steamer for the quarantine service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The explanation is simple. We asked for public tenders and we, received tenders from a large number ofi firms in Great Britain and Canada. The; tender for the boat which we accepted was; $22,000 odd, and the next lowest in Canada was $32,000, or over $10,000 difference, and we did not see our way to paying that extra amount of money.


William Henry Sharpe: This is $39,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are two boats.


Adam Brown Crosby: Where is the other vessel being built?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are just advertising for tenders.


Mr. FIELDING.: There are a number of small votes in civil government in the Supplementary Estimates for the year 1911 which are of a purely routine character, and I would suggest that we call them and if there is any objection they may be allowed to stand.
Civil government - Department of Militia and Defence-to provide for one clerkship in second division, subdivision B, $1,200.


David Henderson: This is all Greek to me.


William Stevens Fielding: These all come under the operation of the Civil' Service Act, except the case of one lady whose name is mentioned.


Adam Brown Crosby: Are they additions?


William Stevens Fielding: In some cases they are.
Department of Secretary of State-to provide for one statutory increase omitted from tile main estimates, $50.


David Henderson: How did the omission take place?


William Stevens Fielding: The various departments, in making up their statements, sometimes omit something. They are very correct in the main, but being only human, they are not absolutely perfect.


David Henderson: This seems to be in-i creasing the number of clerks.


William Stevens Fielding: In several instances.1 there are increases.


David Henderson: No decreases?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think there, are any; it is a growing time.
Department of the Interior-salaries and contingencies, $12,000.


Mr. ROCHE.: I would like to ask the Finance Minister if it is not the custom of the government to provide for gratuities for the benefit of the families of Civil Servants who die in the service.
Mr CROSBY


William Stevens Fielding: There is an established practice, that at one time was confined within a small circle, but it is now broader, providing that an allowance equivalent to two months' salary of the deceased official is paid to the widow or family.


William Roche: The reason I ask it is that the death occurred recently of Mr. John Flesher, who was formerly land agent in my town, but, who, during the last five or six years, had been residing in Winnipeg. He died a month ago and I do not see any provision in the estimates for a gratuity, to his family.


William Stevens Fielding: It would not be necessary. There are some gratuities in connection with the Northwest Mounted Police, and the Department of Militia and Defence which are voted in accordance with the', Act, but the provision for a gratuity of a two months' salary is a general provision and is to be found in the Civil Service Act. If my hon. friend will drop nre a note giving the name of the official and his position, I will see that whatever is customary is extended to his family.
Office of the Auditor General-to provide for four clerkships in the third division, subdivision B, $2,000.


David Henderson: Only $2,000 for four new clerkships?


William Stevens Fielding: The nevv appointees; will come in at small salaries. The object of this is that I have been asking the; Auditor General to undertake a service which he has not hitherto performed.


David Henderson: That is all right; I was surprised at the low amount.


William Stevens Fielding: They begin at small salaries. The object is to take some of the higher men and assign them to the duty of inspecting the Minister of Finance, -to see that the gold is all to be found in the place where it is supposed to be.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not believe very strongly in commencing men in any kind of responsible clerkships at a very low salary. If we require a clerk at all we should give him a salary that would be in keeping with the position he undertakes.


William Stevens Fielding: These are young men who begin at the foot of the ladder. Their duties are not very responsible.


David Henderson: What is the statin tory increase?


William Stevens Fielding: $50 in each case.


Adam Brown Crosby: What will their salaries be?


William Stevens Fielding: $500 and $50 per year increase.


Adam Brown Crosby: What will their responsibility be?


William Stevens Fielding: They will be junior clerks.


George Taylor: The Civil Service Act provides for this?


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Adam Brown Crosby: They will not have the responsibility of handling money?


William Stevens Fielding: No; the Auditor General handles no money whatever. He simply keeps watch upon the other fellows.


George Taylor: I understood the minister t-o say that all these clerks come under the Civil Service Act.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, unless a name is specially mentioned here.


George Taylor: And they are appointed by the commission?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: A commissioner has nothing to do with whether a clerk is required or not.


William Stevens Fielding: The department would call upon the commission to furnish the number required, and then an examination is held, and the high men get the place.
Assay Office, Vancouver, $18,000.


Mr. ARTHURS.: Has the government any assay office?


William Stevens Fielding: There is one at Vancouver.


James Arthurs: Oh, yes, I know, but you should establish one in eastern Canada.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: We have^ as a matter of fact, two assay officers in the city of Ottawa.


James Arthurs: Yes, but they are not established to do business for the public, and they charge high fees.


William Templeman: One part of this vote is to employ an extra assayer.


James Arthurs: I am not objecting to the vote, but I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the government has no assay office in eastern Canada, and it seems to me that in the interest c>f mining development, and discovery, they should establish one here. The thousands of prospectors who are out every year require to have their samples assayed so that they may get a return in a few days because the only way of telling what is in the sample is to have it assayed. But the ordinary prospector cannot pay $2 for each assay, as is charged in the government office at Ottawa. One party sent me three or four samples and asked me to have them
assayed here, but I was told I could not get returns for two weeks perhaps, and that the charge was $2 for each test for a mineral in the one sample. I wrote back to the gentleman who sent me the samples telling him the facts that there was no use going to such expense as that. We hear a great deal about minerals in northern Ontario and Quebec, and I do not believe there is any part of Canada in which there are so many minerals. It would be but a trifling expense to the country to establish an assay office in eastern Canada, where the assay could be done at actual cost, and be reliable. In the case of some of these private assayers the test is not reliable, and I would urge strongly upon the government to take action in the direction in which I have indicated.


William Templeman: The assay office in connection with the Mines Branch here does assaying for the general public, and a month or two ago I authorized the director to employ another assayer. I do not think the fees charged are very high. It must be remembered that there are a great many private assayers established throughout the country, and if the government is going to do free assaying it would simply drive these men out of business. I doubt very much if that would be fair play. We are carrying on the work of assaying primarily in the interest of the department, and every specimen collected in that connection has to undergo a very exact test. That is the work of the Department, to carry on that technical work so that our mining engineers anil geologists can get up the reports properly. But aside from that we do assaying for the general public, and for that we charge fees. I do not think it would be right for us to charge less than a private assayer. If we did, we would put many of them out of business at once.


John Albert Sexsmith: That seems to be a strange position for the minister to take, that he should charge the same fees as private assayers, no matter whether they are extravagant or not. That means that he is in a combine. The provincial assay office at Belleville takes no account of the charges of private assayers, but has a regular scale of charges, which are supposed merely to cover the cost. I think the charge for a gold assay is 50 cents. The government assay office here gives no encouragement to the prospector who goes out to discover minerals. If he sends a lot of samples to Ottawa to be assayed, he is told that he will have to wait until the office gets through with the samples of the Geological Survey; then they will attend to his; and perhaps it is a month before he can get any Teport as to whether his samples are good or not. If the govern-' 1 ment have an'assay office, they should not

pay any attention to what assayers charge elsewhere. They should charge the pubiic or the prospector simply the actual cost.
Senate-to provide for making good tlie full sessional indemnity of members of the Senate-days lost through absence caused by i'lness during the present session-and $2,500 tc pay the sessional indemnity of the Honourable James Domville for the session of 1906, absent ithrough illness-notwithstanding anything in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, $11,180.


David Henderson: Is this the first time this question has been raised?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is the first time. The hon. gentleman referred to was on his way to Ottawa when he met with an accident. He was not able to reach Ottawa, and technically was not entitled to the indemnity.
House of Commons-to provide for making good the full sessional indemnity of members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness or public business during the present session-notwithstanding anything in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the Senate end House of Commons, $11,820.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I would like to know what that means? There are a great many of us who stay here and diligently do our work; but I understand that that means that if we do not stay here we are to be' paid as if we do. I must protest against! that. Many of us make great sacrifices of money to stay here and attend to our public duties. As 1 understand this item, it is to provide that gentlemen who are not here, but who leave the burden of the affairs of the country to those of us who do stay, are to be paid the same as if they were here. If it means that, I protest against it, though I am not going to divide the House upon it. I am not speaking of one side of the House more than the other;
I am speaking generally of the principle involved. Those gentlemen who do not stay here, go away beeanse it pays them to go, because they make money by going away. They ought not to be paid by the people when they are being remunerated in some other respect by staying away. That is the protest I make. It is not that I want to deprive any hon. member of his full indemnity if he earns it, but I do say that if it pays him better to leave his place in this House of Commons and go away to attend to other affairs, and I think we must take it for granted that it does pa,y him better or he would not go, he ought not to ask this country to pay him for being in this House when he is not here. I think that the Act passed in 1903 or 1905 ought to apply.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: I do not di sagree to any extent with my hon. friend (Mr. Lan- Mr SEXSMITH.
caster), but I think he has misconceived the intention of this vote. He is certainly not correct when he says that the man who goes away and devotes himself to his private affairs is to receive more consideration than the man who attends to his duties in this House. This clause would only affect members who conscientiously sign a declaration that they have been absent through illness. The law provides that if a man is ill in Ottawa, it shall not count against him, but if he happens to be sick a few miles away, it would count against him. One must draw the line somewhere. The Act says that those who are ill in Ottawa are entitled to receive the full indemnity. The change which this vote makes for the present session is that a member who is ill at some other place in Canada shall be entitled to receive the indemnity. :


Edward Arthur Lancaster: A man might be ill and yet be able to earn money. I think the test should be whether he is attending t-o the affairs of the country or whether he is attending to his own private affairs. A man might be ill, and yet be able to attend to his business. If he swears that he was too ill to work at all it would be alright and he would have our full sympathy, but if he is not too ill to attend to his' own private affairs, I think the Act should apply. The work we do in the House of Commons is not by any means the most healthy work. I myself am pretty hard, and pretty tough, but I have made myself ill by_ working here late at nights, and am suffering from the strain, and from not having enough sleep. If tire declaration is to be that he is so ill that he cannot attend to any business, I would be inclined to agree, but the argument of the Minister of Finance that a man has only to be away from home because he does not feel first-rate holds good, he might be attending to his medical practice or to his store or to his farm, he might not be so ill that he could not attend to his own private affairs.
I do not think that by merely saying that he is in bad health he should draw his indemnity.


William Stevens Fielding: I should think that an hon. member who is able to attend to his private affairs would not make a declaration that he is absent through illness. When it comes to a matter affecting the personal honour and affairs of a member,
I think each one of us must be content to leave the other to make the declaration and to make it in all good faith. Let me give an illustration. An hon. gentleman who usually sits on the opposition side has been ill, and has been obliged to leave his parliamentary duties, and go south. I refer to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He is ill and

away from Ottawa, but it cannot be said that he is attending to his business. He has left his business in Montreal, and has been obliged to go south. I do not mention him particularly, because there are others. This would entitle that hon. gentleman to the full indemnity, as full as he would have received if he had been ill in the city of Ottawa. If one is ill in the city of Ottawa, and is able to remain here, he suffers no reduction, but if his physician says he had better go south, it does seem a hardship that he should lose his indemnity while another member in Ottawa gets it. It is difficult to draw any absolute line in these things. In preparing the estimates we try to take a generous view of all cases.


Mr. HUGHES.: A member might be ill and might not be able to get properly treated in Ottawa, and he might have to go to some other locality where he could get the proper treatment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I ao not like this manner of doing it. We are repealing by an estimate, or practically repealing, an Act of parliament. I think it would have been better to have brought in an Act amending the Act of parliament. An Act of parliament is a different thing from an estimate. Supposing the public did not agree -with this change, supposing the people of the country did not think it was the right way to do it, then I suppose there would be no suggestion of bringing it up next year. Then some member might be ill next year, and suffer very unjustly. I think the proper way to do would be to take the responsibility of bringing in an Act to amend the Act. I do not think this is the proper way to do it at all.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I see this item is for an odd amount. I would like to know how the minister arrived at the amount stated here, because it was not generally known on this side of the House that anything of this kind was in contemplation.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it was known on that side of the House. When this matter was proposed, I do not- mind telling my hon. friend, that I had conferences with members on that side of the House, not unusual conferences, and I gave instructions to the accountant to ascertain what amount would be drawn by the various members in question, if they did not suffer this disability.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose some members fall ill between now and px'orogation.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afra'd they will have to.wait until next year then. That was the way it was done. The accountant ascertained what amount lion, gentlemen in each case had drawn, and what was the
balance they would be entitled to, and the sum placed here is sufficient to cover all cases of that kind.


George Taylor: I may say that I had a conference with the Minister of Finance with respect to certain members who have been sick during the sess;on. And the minister has made up the estimates on this basis.


James Davis Taylor: We members on this side of the House have no knowledge whatever of anything of this kind. And I, as a member of this House, object to any private or semi-private arrangement of this kind being made for individual members of the House from which the members generally are excluded.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Included?


James Davis Taylor: Excluded.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nobody is excluded.


James Davis Taylor: There are many members of this House who suffer disabilities from their attendance here much more serious than the penalties of some of those who have been away 'during this session. I can see no reason why there should be a special vote of this kind passed at the end of each session for persons who have the ear of the government or who have been alert enough to lay a special case before the government whereby they shall obtain from the treasury of the country payment for no service rendered. If it is desirable to follow this plan, then the Act should be changed so as to make it applicable to all members equally. I for one, if I had been prevented by illness from putting in attendance here, would feel it derogatory to my independence as a member of this House to make a claim on the government for the time I had lost. I do not think that I should be penalized for time I might lose by illness while at home, yet another hon. member who has not attended at all during the session should be paid his full indemnity. Such a member has not incurred any expense or sacrificed any time in coming here. I was greatly surprised at the end of last session at the indemnities voted by this House. While I am on my feet, I would call the attention of the government to a feature of the indemnity which bears with especial hardship on those who come, as I do, from the remote parts of the west. The point I refer to is the calling of this House together in November. This means an adjournment in December, for about four weeks, which compels us to travel
3,000	miles each way across the continent to go home and back travelling entirely at our own expense and with the loss of a week on the road each way. There is also the adjournment at Easter for a -week

when we must either go back and return to Ottawa again at our own expense or stay here in idleness and lose the time. For all this we get no compensation. Yet we are asked, after being at all that expense and all that sacrifice of time, to vote indemnity for members who have not served the public at all. I do not think that is right. I quite understand why it passes year after year without protest, for it is a very delicate thing, when the names of persons who are to have the benefit of this suggested vote are mentioned in the House, for any of their colleagues to rise in their places and object. But I think it is time that some person did object, and I object strongly to the singling out of certain persons for special favours making them the beneficiaries of an Act which does not apply automatically to all members of this House.


William Stevens Fielding: This appropriation does apply automatically to every member of the House under the conditions.
Mr. ,T. D. TAYLOR. Then, why did we not know about it?


William Stevens Fielding: It can only be because the hon. member (Mr. .T. Li. Taylor) has not read it; it tells its own story. When he speaks of this item extending to one member and not to another he is mistaken. The words of this Act would apply to any hon. member who has been ill away from the city of Ottawa during the session. If any hon. member has been absent from Ottawa and that absence has been due to illness, he lias a right to claim the benefit of this item. If there is not enough money in it, more must be provided by a later vote. There is no distinction between one member and another. It is hardly correct to speak of any member in this case 'filing a claim.' No one has filed a claim. The whip of the other side had a consultation with me and named the persons whom he thought should be dealt with in this way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And that is not filing a claim.
Air FIELDING I should hardly call
it so. Some of the names mentioned were mentioned without the knowledge of the parties concerned. But we tried to remember the names on both sides of gentlemen who might be affected. I would like to have it clearly understood that there is no possible discrimination in the matter. Whether we are wise in making this appropriation as. for the time being, an amendment of the Act is a fair question of debate. I think there is much to be said in favour of adhering rigidly to the Act. But that is a beautiful theory, and so often we are not able to live up to these theories. Every session some peculiar case arises, circum-Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
stances in reference to a member or a member's family need to be taken into account. We cannot deal with these things on lines of cold-blooded logic, but must take into the account some of the claims of human sympathy. We -are weak in these respects and we fall. It has been so in the past, and I expect that it will be so again.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. minister is going to fall again-I do not disparage his statement, I think I have as much charity as he has-I want him to fall generally.


William Stevens Fielding: He does.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And I want him to pass an Act of parliament to justify his fall.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: This is an Act of parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, but it is an Act of parliament brought in at the end of the session. And it is needless to disguise the fact that, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Air. J. D. Taylor) says, there is a discrimination. We do not know, at the beginning of a session, that this Act is going to be put through. The matter is at the "mercy of the government, An order in council has to be passed to put in that estimate; it must go through the cabinet like a public work or a post office. The thing is in the gift of the government, and is not the right of a member of parliament when parliament opens. The member concerned is at the mercy of the government as to whether they will do him this favour or not. That is what I protest against. If the hon. minister believes what he says- and no doubt he does-and if he believes in the wisdom of what he says, then why can he not amend the law and leave the matter to the operation of the law? That would be the manly, the proper, the businesslike way to do. Alake it so that everybody will know at the beginning of the session what is to be done, and so that the matter will not depend upon communication between the whips on either side and the government as to the members who should be served in these matters. It ought to be the right of a member of this House and the right of all equally.


William Stevens Fielding: That is exactly the case. It is his right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, because the matter does not come before parliament at all until the government first takes action. I do not believe in this being done by order in council. I think I make that plain, I agree with my hon. friend from New Westminster that this more or less strikes at the independence of parliament. Some of us do not like to go and ask the government to make a special estimate and over-ride the Act of parliament for our benefit. We

must not be so toucliy about criticising these things. The general law should be amended so that it will apply automatically to all within the description of the law. The thing should be made a matter of right for the member or for his heirs if he should happen to die. I protest against this thing being done by order in council, as it is when it comes in the supplementary estimates. I think the Minister of Finance should carry out what he defends, and do it as a business man by amending an Act of parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: The only reason why this has come from the government is that it is a money matter. I do not think that any hon. member on either side of the House availing himself of this amendment to the law, comes under an obligation to the government. If he draws a sessional indemnity under the general Act he has to get that by the government of Canada coming here and proposing that that Act be adopted. This is an amendment to the statute. When this estimate is passed into law it becomes for the time being, as respects these people, an amendment to the statute; and if any hon. member who avails himself of the benefit of that comes under an obligation to the government, then he is equally under an obligation to the government when he draws his salary, or allowance under a general Act. In both cases he gets it upon the initiation of the government, but that does not involve any obligation to the government.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Surely the hon. gentleman sees the difference. In the one case, every session, at the dying hours of the session, we should have to have an estimate brought in by the government saying that for this session we shall be paid so much indemnity. On the other hand the statute is there and fixes the indemnity. The hon. gentleman surely does not mean that that statute can be repealed and that we should come in at the end of every session and have supplementary estimates brought down saying that we shall have so much indemnity.


David Henderson: I do not think after all there is much difference between this proposition, and what we have been in the habit of doing for many years. I have often thought that the statute itself was wrong in insisting that a man, in order to be relieved, had to live in Ottawa, or within ten miles of Ottawa. If he lived beyond that then he had to lose a part of his indemnity. During the present session I have been ill in Ottawa, and been prevented from attending the House. I do not lose the eight or ten days I have been ill, but had I been ill at home I certainly would have. I do not understand why there should be a distinction between a
man living in Ottawa, and a man living a hundred miles from Ottawa as regards illness. I think this proposition is more in accordance with justice thaij the Act we have upon the statute-book. I know one hon. member, whose name I will not mention, who was absent nearly two months on public business, and I do not think it is fair that he should be called upon to lose his indemnity when he is obliged to be absent. I have no hesitation in supporting the proposition. It has been an old custom ever since I have been in parliament, over twenty years, that if a member dies during the session the full amount of the indemnity which has not been paid to him shall be paid to his legal representatives. If the head of the family is taken away by death, I think it is a proper thing to see that the widow gets the indemnity. We have done that all the time, both in regard to senators, and to members of the House of Commons.


Samuel Hughes: I agree with the remarks of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). I wish to bring up one case that occurred a number of years ago where I always felt that the member was treated unfairly, I refer to Mr. Livingstone, who was then member for North Waterloo. He broke his leg when not in Ottawa, and the House refused to give him his indemnity. I brought the matter up at the time, although he was a member on the opposition side of the House.


Adam Brown Crosby: I have no objection to the passing of this item. But I agree with my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that as this is a question that comes up every year, why not have a statute that will cover it, and have the thing settled? Suppose a man who lives in the far east, or in the far west, on account of illness in his family, has to remain at home two or three weeks, is that not just as serious as if he was sick at home? I believe that the fifteen days grace that is allowed by statute to members who have to come here for four or five months in the year, is not enough, I believe we should have a longer grace. I think it would be fair to say that we should have at least four or five days in the month, because it is impossible for one living as far east as I do to leave here on Friday night and get back before the following Tuesday night. I believe that a committee of this House should take the matter up and see if it cannot be regulated and a statute formulated that would cover it so that eyery man would know what he has to expect.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to know whether this item provides for the full sessional indemnity to new members who have not been here and who have been elected since the session opened?


William Stevens Fielding: A member elected dur* ing the session and obliged to be away byi illness would be entitled to draw as much indemnity as he could have drawn if he had remained in Ottawa.


James Davis Taylor: Before he was sworn in a member of the House?


Mr FIELDING.: Yes, from the date of his return, I think, would be the proper way to treat it, and if he were prevente.d, by illness from being sworn in he would be still entitled to his indemnity. That is the way I would interpret this item, but, he would not be entitled to a full indemnity, because he was not a member for the full session.


James Davis Taylor: I say this is a most improper proceeding and a most invidious ease. I do not think that there is any gentleman who was so ill that he could not come up and take the oath or take his seat in the House. It only adds force to what' I said before as to the impropriety of these proceedings. If an hon. member gets elected as a member of this Flouse, pays no attention to his election, goes away for months, comes back here and draws his full indemnity it is a most improper proceeding and one we should not countem ance. Votes of this kind should be closely scrutinized every time and not allowed to go through without discussion. What proportion of this vote is to go for days lost by absence on public business during the present session? There is no public business appertaining to the duties of a member as such which calls for his absence from the House, and I do not think that any member should be paid his indemnity as a member of this House for public business otherwise performed. We have suffered in the House of Commons this year, we have been delayed far beyond the time when we might have been expected to return to our homes because of the absence of members of the government. It seems to be rubbing it into us to ask us, after keeping us here, to vote the full sessional indemnity to ministers who have been away on business which did not necessarily call for their absence from the House, and on business which might have been performed by other per-* sons quite as well as by these ministers.
1 do not think it is a proper principle. This indemnity is paid to members of parliament for their services in parliament. If they do not perform these services, but accept other employment, whether under the Crown or otherwise, I think it is an improper principle to pay them their full indemnity. How much of this sum is to pay for days of absence caused by public business?


Henry Horton Miller: If any member of the government has been away attending tg Mr. J. D. TAYLOE.
other public business, it is the hon. member's contention that he might have remained in the House attending to his duties here and that some person else might have performed the duties that the member of the government performed during his absence. In that ease, is it not true that whoever else might have been employed in place of the member of the government would have been paid for his services. In that case what difference would it make?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It. might have been performed-by a civil servant drawing his salary.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman did not say that a civil servant could have performed the duties and probably he could not have. The hon. gentleman spoke of the case of a man who had not taken the oath or taken his seat. I cannot see that thah makes any difference to a man's equitable right at all. There is only one case this session that I remember of to which the remarks of the hon. gentleman would apply. I understand that when, that hon. gentle-i man went away from the city he had to bet carried to the train upon a stretcher. Surely the hon. gentleman would not desire that a man should be carried on a stretcher to the House of Commons to take the oath in order to be entitled to his indemnity?


David Henderson: Did he take the oath?


Henry Horton Miller: I understand he did not.


David Henderson: My opinion is that a man is not a member of this House until he signs the roll and takes the oath.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) has argued that, a man outside of this House should be paid as if he were in the House. I quite agree with my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). A man is employed here just as he is employed by anybody else. The people employ that man to come here, and do the public business. If he is not here doing that business he should not be paid as if he were. The hon. member for South Grey would not employ .some one in his absence if he were ill, and pay both of them. He would not employ two men to do the work of one, and pay both. There may be reasons, as was stated by the hon. Minister of Finance, which would cause us to take a charitable view of some of these cases, but I would say to the hon. member for South Grey that surely he is not going to argue that there should be a statute saying one thing, and the sweet will of a cabinet saying another at the end of every session in regard to whether a man is to be paid who is not here. As a matter of principle the statute should speak

for itself. If it is not fair, amend it, but let the people of the country know what the rights of a member are, and do not let us have this at the end of every session.


George Taylor: It is now a quarter past twelve, and perhaps it would be better to let this item stand.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to say to the hon. member that I cannot tell him how much money would be paid under these words. The words were taken from a previous vote. I am inclined to think that perhaps no money would be paid under the terms of these words, but I will not say that definitely. I only know of one case to which they might refer. L may say to my hon. friend that the hon. gentleman referred to has made no application whatever I am surprised at the opposition that is manifested to this vote, and I desire that it shall stand.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business is to be taken to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The House will be moved into Committee of Supply, and I believe there will be discussion on that motion. In Supply the estimates of the Minister of Interior will be taken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.18 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Feiday, April 22, 1910.