1911-07-20

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. LORTIE:: 1.	Has the government made, during the past year, any concessions whatever relating to the water-powers on the St. Lawrence rapida in the county of Soulanges, rights to use the shores and of passing along them?
2.	Has the government made any concessions of water-powers in the St. Lawrence? If so, to whom and on what conditions?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1 and 2. No.


CORONATION AND CONFERENCE
Mr. MONK:: 1.	What amount has been expended by the government in connection with the reception of the First Minister on his return from England after the Coronation and conference?
2.	What government vessels took part in the said reception?
3.	To what account have the expenses incurred by the said reception been charged?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Nil.
2.	The C. G. S. ' Druid ' conveyed the Prime Minister and several of his colleagues from Quebec to Montreal.
3.	Answered by No. 1


ROSS RIFLES.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	How many Ross rifles were issued to the Queen's Own, Toronto Regiment, which have been declared unfit for service?
2.	(a) Has a new issue been made to this regiment? (b) If so, in what quantities?
3.	(a) What has become of the defective issue, and (b) what claim has the government in respect thereto against the Ross Rifle Company ?
4.	What was the cost of the blue jeans issued to the Canadian militia for use at their annual drills?
5.	Were they ever used by the militia? If not, why not?
6.	(a) Has the Karki overall been issued in place of the blue jeans? If so, (b) why, (c) what was the cost of the new issue, (d) the name of the contractor who supplied the latter and (e) the quantity issued and contracted for?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	703 issued. Defects reported in two [DOT]which are now under consideration.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Full strength of unit.
3.	(a) The two rifles are now undergoing expert examination, (b) Not yet settled.
4.	The last price paid for blue drill shirts was 71 cents each, and for the blue drill overalls 73} cents per pair.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) Service clothing consisting of shirt and trousers is now being issued for camps to replace blue overalls as fast as the latter become worn out. (b) Is more serviceable than the blue, (c) The contract price for the shirts was at first 70 cents each, which was later on increased to 78 cents, and again to 82 cents each, owing to increases in the cost of the material and slight changes in pattern. The price of the trousers was at first 80 cents per pair, which for the same reasons was increased afterwards to 87 cents, and again to 98J cents per pair. The price of the pantaloons, or breeches, was at first $1.97 per pair, afterwards increased to $2.02 owing to an increase in the cost of the material.
(d)	Shirts and trousers have been manufactured and supplied by Messrs. Woods, Ltd., Sparks Bros., and Mackenzie & Co., Ottawa; trousers also have been supplied by the C. Ross Co., Ottawa. The pantaloons have been supplied by the Mark Workman Co., Montreal, and the W. E. Sanford Mfg. Co., Hamilton. In all cases the material has been issued by the department to the contractors at cost price.
(e)	Quantity issued-all available. Since
July, 1909, the following quantities have been contracted for, and for the most part
delivered:
Shirts	47,398
Overalls, prs	 35,479
Pantaloons, prs	 15,000


UXBRIDGE POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SHARPE t (Ontario):
1.	Have tenders been received for the construction of the Uxbridge post office?
2.	How many tenders were there, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender ?
3.	When is it proposed to start work, and when is it expected the work will be completed ?
William Pugsley: 1 and 2. Yes, two tenders have been received, but as they have not been acted on, it is not customary to give out the detailed information asked for.
3.	The lower tender being considered excessive, new bids will be called for.


POINT PRIM FOG ALARM.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers for the construction of Point Prim fog alarm, and the amount of their respective bids?
2.	When were the tenders opened?
3.	Has the contract been let? If so, to whom and at what figure? If not, when will it be let?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the completed work?	,,	,	....
5.	Does the contract call for the building and equipment of the fog alarm station.
6.	What is the character of the alarm proposed to be supplied to the station, what is the size and cost thereof and the estimated carrying capacity in miles, under ordinary weather conditions?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Gilbert Ellis, Digby, $4,600.
2. June 1, 1911.	'	,
3.	No. The department proposes to do the work by day labour.
4.	$2,800.
5.	Building only.	.6 3-inch diaphone.	Diaphone	ana
machinery cost $6,000. From 5 to 10 miles.


LEAMINGTON POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. WILCOX:
What was the cost, in detail, of the post office building at Leamington, Ontario?
Mr. LEMIEUX:: &c..$ 2,270 50 . . .	557 74
Site, survey, legal expenses.
Adervertising and printing
Construction of building	1 noo no
Heating apparatus	 00
Electric wiring	 "20 bo
Fittings and furniture . [DOT]:	 3,170 32
Cement walk	 695 65

Clerk of works, supervision and
inspection	$ 2,683	88Minor items	
42	60Total to date	..'	$30,028	69
Note.-Of the above sum, there has been paid $26,382.69, while a balance of $3,646 is held pending certain settlements by the late contractors.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
Mr. MONK.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask a further question of my right hon. friend in respect of the Colonial Imperial Conference. 1 have had occasion since yesterday to look over the precis of the proceedings alluded to by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and would like to ask if this document, which the government intends communicating to the House, is the report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference, or whether there is something more to lay before the House in connection with the conference, and if so when it will be laid before the House?
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). The document which is in the hands of my hon. friend is the precis, so far as I have been able to judge, of the proceedings of the conference, which was issued from day to day to the press, and which has been put in pamphlet form.
At the opening of the conference, a motion was made that the press should be admitted to the proceedings. This motion * was not carried. It was determined at this conference, as at the last, that a precis of the proceedings should be issued from day to day to the press, and this was done accordingly. So far as I have been able to judge, this precis, which has been issued from day to day, has been issued in published form and put upon the table of parliament, but that is not the official document which contains a verbatim report of the whole proceedings of the conference, and which is the document intended to be communicated to the public.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I think this must be an official document inasmuch as it has been presented to parliament.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is, but my hon. friend will understand that the dis-cussions_ were not given verbatim in the precis. This precis was prepared by an officer of the Colonial Department, I think, Mr. Hughes. That was given to the press, but it would not be satisfactory to my hon. friend. What the public wants to know is everything that took place, as was suggested by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) yesterday. That is the document which it is intended to lay before parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Might I ask how soon my right hon. friend expects the House will be in possession of the document?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no more information than my hon.-friend upon this subject, but I should expect it from day to day.


MR. COURTRICE.
Mr. REID (Grenville).: I noticed in the ' Evening Journal,' of Wednesday, July 19, that a civil servant, named Howard Courtrice, who has been employed in the Department of the Interior for some time has been put in charge of the Liberal party's bureau for the superintending of the distribution of campaign literature. I would like to ask the government if this man is still employed by the Department of the Interior, or if he has severed his connection with the department.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is not in his seat at the present time, but I will ask him as soon as he comes in.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds) Before the orders of the day are called, I would rise to a question of privilege. I see by the unrevised copy of ' Hansard ' that in speaking yesterday, I made use of the following language:
I proposed to th© Minister of Labour that he should appoint a commission similar to the Railway Commission, before whom parties could be heard, and that when that commission gives its award it would be binding upon the parties, and it would be illegal to have any strike or lock-out.
I find that in reference to this, tne hon. minister (Mr. King) said:
My recollection is that the hon. gentleman from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), suggested that the government should drive the men back at the point of the bayonet.
I wish to say that that statement is a wilful and malicious
Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: -mistatement of the facts. If the Speaker wishes to call me to order for making use of language which is not in accordance with the rules of order, I shall withdraw it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the use of the word ' wilful ' is not parliamentary.


George Taylor: The hon. minister made that statement yesterday, and I would now repeat that I never made a suggestion to him with reference to that matter verbally in my life. I wrote to him, and he has my letter and I challenge him to pro-

duce it, and if it be in accord with the statement he made here to the House, then I am willing to acknowledge the corn. But until he produces that letter and proves his statement, he must lie under the charge of having made a statement in this House which is not in accord with the facts, and be branded, as he should be, with trying by misrepresentation to injure a political opponent. I wrote to the hon. minister that I had gone out and visited the coal mines where the strike was, and after conversation with the mine owners and with the men, I wrote the hon. minister and suggested a plan, and he wrote back thanking me for the suggestion, and saying that he would consider it. My suggestion was that the government should appoint a permanent commission, similar to the railway commission, to which employers and employees could appeal if they had grievances.
If the men had a grievance in reference to not getting sufficient pay or anything of that kind, they could make a complaint to the commission and the commission would hear them. The employers would have a similar right, and it should be unlawful for the men to strike.. If a man wanted to leave his employment he had a perfect right to do so, but no right to prevent another man from taking his place. This was- my suggestion. Why, therefore, should the minister get up here and say to the House that I wanted the government to drive the men back to work at the point of the bayonet? I say that a minister who would make a statement of that kind, which is not correct, is not qualified for the position he holds. And if the Prime Minister finds that a minister would make statements which are not true, he should expel him from the government immediately. '
Sir WILFRID LAURIElt. Order.


George Taylor: The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) may call ' order,' but until he reprimands his Minister of Labour for making a statement such as I have quoted I do not think he can call me to order. I intend to vindicate my character in this House as well as outside of it, and the Minister of Labour has no right to make such a statement as he made, having no grounds for it. He made the statement that I said it would be better to drive the men back at the point of the bayonet rather than allow innocent people to be frozen to death, and so on. If we had a Labour Commission to whom parties who had grievances, either employees or employer, could resort


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds)-and whose decision would be binding upon both parties

that is the solution of this question, instead of thf humbugging law we have. The
whole country is on strike, and the Minister of Labour rises, and attributes to me a suggestion that I never made. Let him produce the correspondence. And until ho does, he must lie under the charge of haying made a statement in this House that is not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. KING.: I had no desire to misrepresent my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor, Leeds).


George Taylor: But you did it
though. And I challenge you to prove it.


George Gerald King: The hon. gentleman refers to certain correspondence which he sent to me with regard to the industrial disputes. My recollection was that he thought it would be well to have the troops called out, and the men forced to return to the mines if necessary. But I have his letter, and will produce it, and let the House judge for itself.



WAYS AND MEANS-CHINESE INVESTIGATION COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
["I noticed a smile when I said 'waste not the time of this House and this country.' Will the gentleman who owns the teeth that that smile discovered to this House tell me one bit of business, of real business that concerns the welfare of the people of Canada, that has been done in this House since this session opened on the 17th of November last? We are not in control of this House, allow me to correct, not in numerical control of this House. The party in control of this House, I say again, has not put upon the statute-books of Canada one piece of valuable legislation since the 17th of November. The party in control of this House, in numerical control of this House, has not done one single bit of administrative work to the advantage of Canada since the 17th of November last. In order to help to meet the political exigencies of this party, and of the branch of this part? across the line, two of the members of the government journeyed unto Washington, and they came back with new gods for the faithful. The worship of these new gods has been not entirely unmixed with nausea. Indeed, the development of faith and belief in these new gods has been but slow. The development of faith in these new gods in the country is yet to begin. I do not want to discourage too much the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, and it may be that there is still a chance for them. But it may be that the thought of the slimness of that chance is bringing grief-even tears it may be -to some of the members of this government. But whether that is true or not, I again appeal to men of undoubted virility men of moral courage, men like \n\nif I may be permitted to do such a thing as single out an -example-men like the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). I appeal to that young mind to instil into the older minds of the government a new born faith in the party, a new hope a new expectation. It may be that the vigour of that young man can attain a success as yet unattained. And whether it can attain that success or not I feel it is his duty as a rising star in the Liberal firmament to shed some light on the fading stars of that party, even though it may be ' a little of the light that leads astray.' Then there is my friend from British Columbia. Can I not persuade him to rise to his accustomed vigour and energy and by the mere force and weight of himself and\nhis character compel that party to go to-the country and to do its duty.\nI cannot help thinking that there remains to me an appeal that will be effective, an appeal to a man who, though of riper years, has yet preserved his health and strength into a vigorous middle life, and I hope will preserve it to a healthy old age, that man of single (blessedness, my appeal is to him. It may be that by a shorter, a briefer use of his power of speech with a more vigorous and energetic exercise of his well-known virile nature, he can effect the desired result and induce the government to rise to the occasion and get to the country, to the tali timbers.\nBut, Sir, I know there is one member of that government whose keen sense of duty, whose high appreciation of the rights of the people, upon whom the moral restraints necessary for a proper exercise of the franchise and for a proper performance of the duties of a representative are strong, a man of influence, of credit and renown in his native province, a man whose fame has gone throughout the length and breadth of Canada, the Solicitor General. I cannot help thinking that without an appeal from this or any side of the House, tnat gentleman will rise to the occasion and do his duty. Can it be that we are to write upon the portals of this chamber: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. I refuse to think so meanly of the government party.\nI know that there are motives to which I can appeal not far from this chamber, the judiciary, in the Supreme Court. Can we not at once add to the efficiency of that court and expedite an appeal to the country? I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to join me in this.\nI look into the future far as human eye can see.\nI can see that my appeal to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not been made in vain. Again there is our eloquent friend who is always eloquent, always interesting, always theatrical, I appeal to him. There may be, away in the dim and distant future, the glories of leadership waiting for him. It may be that the future will be brought nearer to the present if the delay between now and election day is shortened. I know that the Postmaster General can see that political sagacity alone dictates that his party should no longer linger in this chamber devoting its time to Micawber-like hopes and aspirations that something may yet\nturn up.\t,\nThe hour is late and I may have mucn more to say to-morrow.\t_ _\nI would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fitting hour, and a proper, and that it would be a useful act, and a gentlemanly act if this House should adjourn now. There"]
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker,
I desire to call attention to a matter which was mentioned two days ago in this House, namely, the Chinese Investigation^ Commission. This commission was appointed last December to take evidence, took evidence from December until March, and presented its report to this government nearly, or over, two months ago with th&. evidence upon which the report is presented. These matters are common property of the public in British Columbia, particularly in Vancouver where the people are greatly con.-cerned as to the outcome of that investigation. It is necessary, if parliament is_ to have any voice, any chance to know during this session what has been the result of that inquiry, that the report should be voluntarily laid on the table by the government without awaiting the ordinary procedure of an order of the House for its production. I had thought that the report would have come in ordinary course on the reassembling of parliament, judging particularly from the fact, that, two or three weeks before the holidays I inquired about it in the House in conjunction with the Bill to amend the Chinese Immigration Act, suggesting that the report should be brought down before we proceeded with the Bill, and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) m charge of the Bill stated that the request was a very reasonable one, thus signifying the consent of the government to^ produce the report at an early day. Having these facts in mind I asked the other day.
Has the report of Mr. Justice Murphy of the Chinese Investigation Committee at Van-

couver been received, and if so will it be laid on the table without an order of the House?
The answer to this was as follows:


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTII.: The report has been received by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but in the absence of the minister I am not able to say anything in reference to it except that it is under consideration.
Two days have elapsed since then. It is plain to me that if the government intends to give us the benefit of the information contained in that report -the minister responsible would have taken action before now, but we have no report, and no information as to the report.
To show the gravity of the occasion, I may mention that at the lowest estimate the frauds dealt with by this commission have caused a loss to the revenue of Canada of fully $1,000,000, that they involve a widespread conspiracy extending from Canada across the Pacific to China, and involving not only government officials, but consular officials in China; they involve the Customs Department in opium smuggling, and other smuggling frauds as well as those in relation to Chinese immigration. The circumstances were explained during the course of the trial to several members of this government by persons in a position to know whereof they speak. The ministers to whom they have been explained as shown by the evidence, being the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), and the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman). These gentlemen at various times, have been put in possession of the details of these startling frauds as to which it was thought they might show some personal interest. Yet, having appointed a commission, and having received the report of the commission, we find that none of these gentlemen seemingly have had the curiosity to examine the report or determine upon any course of action to be taken with respect to it. That is a position of affairs, which, I submit should not be allowed to continue without protest. And, if I make the protest to-day it is because, in the present perilous condition of this parliament there is no knowing from day to day that further opportunity will be available to place the facts before the public, we must take any opportunity that offers. Now we are entitled, I think, to have that report and the evidence laid upon the table of this House, and placed in the possession of the members. In the absence of the report I have some well authenticated facts which we can present, thanks to the enterprise of the newspapers of Vancouver. We have


Mr TAYLOR (New Westminster).: some indication of the scope of the inquiry in a letter sent to this government by a person in a very responsible position in Vancouver, selected by them to be a judge of the county court, a man of well known integrity and probity, who wrote during last fall to this effect, and I quote from the evidence as taken in Vancouver:
Judge Grant, who had written to the Minister of Customs suggesting that ' the microbe of graft was evident in the ranks of the Liberal party in this province/ and expressing satisfaction that the inquiry was to take place and also asking that the matter be thoroughly investigated in spite of the social prominence of some of the parties implicated, was on the stand.	! j
The following paragraphs are culled from that letter:
We observe with great satisfaction' the feeling of the Dominion government in deciding to appoint a commission to investigate alleged frauds in connection with the importation of Chinese through this port and Victoria. There is no doubt that there exists a large scheme to defraud the government, and that certain parasites of the Liberal government have profited thereby.
I understand that these same parasites are doing all in their power to prevent the appointment of a commission, but I trust that the government which has done so much in the past to ferret out graft, will see that this also is looked into and that the facts are made public, notwithstanding the high social and party standing of its perpetrators.
The microbe of graft is evident in the Liberal party in this province, and no serum is more effective than the light by way of a searching investigation.
The report proceeds to say:
Judge Grant, in his evidence yesterday said that the allegations he had made in his letter were based on what he had been told hy old members of the Liberal party. He declared that the questions referred to were not only Chinese immigration, but the fishermen's licenses and the Japanese element.
He had been told that a number of men in Nanaimo, who were not bona fide fishermen, apply for licenses and sell them to Vancouver men, who again dispose of them at a considerable profit to the Japanese.
The reference to the attempts to stop the investigation were also based on hearsay, said the witness. He did not propose to disclose the name of his informant.
Mr. Justice Murphy-I must insist that you disclose the name.
But My Lord, I'd rather

Mr. Justice Murphy-As long as I am sitting on this commission I must insist on going into matters fully as they come up. I must insist on hearing his name.
The witness explained that he would prefer to give it privately to the commissioner or the counsel. He had just met the man on the street a few days after the death of Collector Bowell's daughter.
Mr. Judge Murphy-I am very sorry, but I cannot allow the name to be given in private. This is not a star chamber proposition.

There is quite a lot of testimony from the same witness, but the names referred to are not disclosed, so I shall not read further. The report proceeds:


Mr.  J. C.@: Senkler, K.C., President of the Liberal Association, was the next witness. He said that as chairman of the patronage committee, he had not come in contact with any fraud in connection with Chinese immigration. He admitted that when a vacancy occurred in the Customs Department it had been the custom for the patronage committee to recommend a man. The name was submitted to Ottawa and acted upon. He claimed that Controller -of Customs Bowell had made appointments on his own responsibility of a temporary character.
He said that the patronage system was common throughout the Dominion. He believed that money had been made out of Chinese immigration but claimed not by any members of the Liberal Association.
Here we have a belief stated by a gentleman high in the confidence of this government, a gentleman who has been a candidate of the party in Vancouver, and who now holds the responsible position of president of (the Liberal Association in the great city of Vancouver, who says:
Ho believed that money had been made out of Chinese immigration, but claimed not by any members of the Liberal Association.
During his absence from Vancouver he discovered a telegram had been dispatched to Sir Wilfrid Laurier protesting against the inquiry. Mr. Senkler said on his return he at once informed Sir Wilfrod that the patronage committee had met and wished the inquiry to proceed. He did not know who had sent the telegram or who had signed it.
So we see that this inquiry has been conducted under the most august auspices, that is under the auspices of the patronage committee of the city of Vancouver, whose consent, apparently, had to be obtained before a million dollar fraud could be investigated.
As to this mysterious telegram, I am informed, although I have not under my hand that portion : of the evidence, that it turned out afterwards to have been sent by the secretary of the Liberal Association after a meeting held in the office of the gentleman who repudiated it, and that the secretary of the Liberal Association was in the 'habit of sending official telegrams of this kind attaching thereto the name of the president of the association, so that we may take the gentleman s disclaimer of any knowledge of it as personal only and as not absolving the Liberal association there from the desire first of all to stop a revelation which they feared to have made and their later consent to it as merely forced by the knowledge that , the facts would come out anyhow.
At the risk of taking up valuable time of this House I wish to read from the evidence as reported verbatim in the Vancouver press, some of the most striking passages. I regret that I have not the document itself which is now in the possession of the government, and which I should have, especially because the finding of Mr. Justice Murphy might throw some different light upon what seem to be cloudy passages in the evidence. But since the government refuse to give us this information we must do the best we can with what we have at our disposal.
I have here now the evidence which I said I had not under my hand, as to this mysterious telegram, and I shall read a portion of it. In the 'News-Advertiser' of Vancouver of December 30, I find this:
The patronage committee of the Liberal Association was again ' on the grill ' at the morning session of the commission, when Mr A. M. Pound was exhaustively examined concerning the telegram sent in the name of Mr. Senkler, K.C., chairman of the commission.
Mr. Pound admitted that the draft of the telegram produced was in his own hand-writing, but he did not admit that he saw the actual telegram that was sent to the officials^ of the department at Ottawa. At the request of Mr. G. E. McCrossan, Mr. Justice Murphy agreed to issue an order for the _ telegraph company to produce their file for inspection.
The sending of a telegram on the matter had been discussed at a meeting, said the witness, and the reason they had decided to ask for the reinstatement of Yip On was that the customs officials stated that nothing had been proved against him, and that they had every confidence in him. Asked whether he thought that was a sufficient reason to go to Sir Wilfrid Laurier above Mr. Foster's head, witness replied in the affirmative.
He had no reason for supposing that Mr. Foster, or the department which sent him did not know what they were doing, but the information given was conflicting, caused, he thought, by one tong being against another.
This is the telegram, dated September 23:
Recommend reinstatement Yip On approved
by our friends and customs officials; charges not proved; our friends object to drastic action of O'Hara in suspending collector Bowell.
I was wrong in saying that the meeting was held in the office of the chairman of the Liberal executive. I read here:
Wlio remained in the room of Messrs. Kelly Douglas' office when you left?
Witness was not very clear in this point, but he felt sure that Mr. Kelly was there.
You agreed with the sentiments of the draft?
Yes, at the time.
V7itness was pointedly asked whether there was anything in the telegram suggesting that a probe was wanted.	.
In reply he stated again that all the Liberals were in favour of it, and he had never heard of any objection to the investigation.
'And the sole desire for this,' exclaimed counsel ' was shown in two telegrams-the reinstatement of Yip On and the leaving of the appointment to the patronage committee. Anything else? he satirically concluded.

' Yes responded witness, * I spoke to Mr. Templeman on liis way from Ottawa. I met him at the station and told him personally that we would like to see the matter probed to the bottom. I said also that I was satisfied that Mr. Bowell had not done anything irregular.'
' When was that? '
It was shortly after the Drummond and Arthabaska election.
It was shortly after the Drummond and Arthabaska election when the fear of God was in the hearts of these Liberals in Vancouver, that they reluctantly consented to an investigation which just before that momentous event they had resolutely set themselves to prevent if they possibly could.
Now, as to the origin of these frauds. As I said, it is no new matter, but this has been going on ever since 1907, shortly after the Chinese Immigration Act was amended by this parliament for no honest purpose that any one has ever been able to discover, but under circumstances which gave ground for protests at that time, and for the assertion that the amendments were made with the sole idea of facilitating the frauds which have occurred. These protests were made locally to my knowledge when the amendments were before the House, and they have been fully borne out by subsequent developments which have shown nothing but fraud to have resulted from the larger scope given for the importation of so-called Chinese merchants and students. I read from the evidence in the 'News Advertiser' of January 5. page 5, second column-:
When, asked Mr. McCrossan, did the new merchants from China begin to come in under passports? Witness could not tell exactly.
About 1907? I think about 1907 or a little of 1906.
' You had been interpreter the year before that? ' ' It was about three years after my appointment as interpreter.'
' Did it strike you as peculiar that these passports should be presented by Chinese merchants? They never did that before. What did you think about it?' 'Mr. Bowell asked me the meaning of the passports, and I just read them from the translation. Mr. Bowell said: ' I think these passports will he all right. They have got the signatures of the consul.'
t ' Did Mr. Bowell think they were all right?'
' Well, one first time there were no seals on the photographs and Mr. Bowell said: 'Perhaps some other man get in.' Mr. Bowell wrote to Ottawa about it.' In addition explained Yi_p On, there must be an examination and information about the immigrants last business and why he came here.'
If I delay the House finding my references I wish to explain again that it is solely the fault of the government, because they have all this evidence in proper order in Judge Murphy's report.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hurry up.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster.)


James Davis Taylor: I observe one of the beneficiaries of these proceedings exclaiming ' hear, hear.'
An lion.- MEMBER. Hear, hear.


James Davis Taylor: 'Hear, hear,' or ' hurry up,' or some other interruption. It will be my painful duty to remind these hon. gentlemen every time they interrupt me that they are the beneficiaries of this million dollar fraud which is now engaging the attention of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order, order.


James Davis Taylor: I am speaking by the book, Mr. Speaker. This passage, is from the Vancouver ' Daily Province,' of January 6, page 20. Yip On, the dismissed interpreter is under examination, and he says:
The witness admitted a large number of new merchants had come in in the last two years. He did not know where they had gone to; he did not know of any who had started up in Vancouver.
I would like to explain the significance of that, Mr. Speaker. Immediately after the amendment of the Act providing an easy means of access for supposed merchants, there began to come in by scores on every vessel-merchants with no money, no credentials, unknown, who did not start up in business any where, and yet no person in the employ of the government thought it his duty for the moment to question why they came in, and this notwithstanding that the collector of customs at Victoria had written them an official letter calling attention to the extraordinary discrepancy between the number of merchants coming in at Victoria where the department is honestly and rigidly administered, and the number coming in at Vancouver under the auspices of the Patronage Committee.
' They come looking for business; any one would know that,' be declared.
'But they did not find any, eh?'
' I don't know.'
Yip On said his duty was just to ask questions put through him to the passengers by collector Bowell. He said that he did not think about the matter at all.
Mr. Justice Murphy.-He thought it was a dangerous subject and he had better keep away from it.
In the Vancouver 'News Advertiser' January 7th, on the 1st page, we read the proceedings of the previous day:
The balance of the day was taken up investigating Lew's connection with the department at Ottawa, how it commenced, and the work that had been done in Vancouver last September.
Unlike Yip, David Lew furnished information in the very best English, was definite and decided in his statements, and not at all afraid to express his own views. In fact,

lie was decidedly aggressive, and during the whole of the time gave profuse answers to all the questions.
It was, he said, a topic of conversation on the coast that a certain amount of smuggling was going on, and following an interview here with lion. Mackenzie King, he had a talk at Ottawa with Mr. O'Hara and furnished information regarding the system, and exempts.
In the same paper on page 4:
Yip Suli Foy was called, and not being in the hall Yip On went out to telephone to him. In his place David C. Lew was sworn and took the witness chair. His occupation, ho said, was that of a Chinese agent.
Could he tell how the Dominion government suspected that there were frauds going on at this port?
' I cannot say who was the first/ said David Lew. ' It is probably a few months ago, and I was requested to furnish information. It was a topic around the coast that a certain amount of smuggling was going on, and I furnished the information to the department in the east.' He had given information to the United States Immigration Service.
' I mean, said Mr. McCrossan, ' information to the Dominion government.'
' Well, Mr. Mackenzie King was around and I mentioned the matter to horn. Nothing was done at the time.
' I did not bring the matter up. There was an indirect request from the general immigration department (the Minister of the Interior's department) at Ottawa, through Mr. McGuinness.' Mr. McGuinness was not an official, but witness knew he was down here on official business. He got the information from Mr. McGuinness that he was representing the department at Ottawa.
' Mr. McGuinness, then, was the starting point, as far as you know, of the inquiry?'
' He gave me to understand that he had a certain amount of information, and he got information out of me.' Witness met Mr. McGuinness about a year ago.
' What information did you give him ?'
' As far as my knowledge of the local department here, things were very slack. No system at all.'
'What other information? Anything definite at that time?'
' No.'
' When was the next time that you were officially requested to give information?'
' I think the next time was on my holiday trip to the east, when I called on Mr. O'Hara in June or July last. I had previously called to pay my respects to the Chinese consul, and I dropped into Mr. O'Hara's office.'
' What was the matter that you discussed with him?'
' He said he would like to get some information out of me, and a conversation went on.'	.
' What information did you give him?'
' About the system and exempts. I said that the exempts should receive better treatment. The United States immigration law was much stricter and yet the system was better than ours. I also said that I hoped 309
it was not the Canadian law to shut out trade and commerce. Those who were not bona-fide men made the bona-fide ones suffer.'
' What did you say about the ones that were not bona-fide?'
' I can't recollect exactly. I think it was as to the influence of passports. I think the chief controller brought that up himself.'
' Did you give any information as to Yip On?
Not very directly, said witness, nor did he then discuss his suspicions of Yip On.
' Did anything you said at that time cause Mr. Foster to come here?'
Witness thought that Mr. Foster got here about August.
' And the conversation was in June or July?' 'Yes.'
' Did anything then transpire between you and Mr. O'Hara.'
' Not at that time. The chief controller, on the 2nd or 3rd, had sent for me at my hotel. He asked me to be very frank with him, and he would consider it a favor if I would give him light on the subject. I told him I did not think I could, but I said that there were some complaints amongst the merchants.'
' He asked if he sent an officer out will I assist him and I said I would do my best.'
He then said that he contemplated sending out an officer to inquire into the matter. I told him I was leaving on that day, and then he said he would like to introduce me to Colonel Sherwood. It was at the time of the printing-house scandal, and Colonel Sherwood was pretty busy.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, that there was some reason at the time for not getting diligently after this, because scandals crowded so fast one upon the other that it was impossible for the ministers to attend to them all at the one time. But since then ten months have passed so that the reason existing in September 1910 for lack of diligence is no longer a reason in July 1911.
Witness said ho had had some trouble in connection with his C.P.E. ticket, and that caused him to stay a further two or three days. He did not meet Colonel Sherwood, and when he returned to Vancouver the matter slipped out of his mind.
It was again brought up to him by a letter from the chief controller, which he regretted he had not kept. The reason why he had destroyed it was because both the Chinese and the white people all threw the matter up at him, and he wanted to destroy everything in connection with it.
Before it happened, said David Lew, they were all his friends but afterwards he was called ' a dirty spotter ' and a ' traitor.'
Judge Murphy-By whom? Give us the names of the Chinese and we will have them up here.
Lew said that he was sorry that he could not furnish their names. But he had heard the words spoken in public places.
The letter stated that Mr. Foster was coming and asked him to assist him. Mr. Foster, he thought, was quite a long time



here before he called on witness. He did not know wild her Mr. Foster or Mr. McGin-ness first called on him.
He was recommended to Mr. Foster by Inspector Campbell of the Provincial Police, and by the United States Immigration Service, for which latter he had done a lot of work. Mr. Foster also mentioned that Magistrate H. 0. Alexander had spoken well of him.
' We started on the waterfront,' said Lew, 'with the stowaways, and then with the smuggling. We got something of that sort, but nothing we could pin down. Then we started on the passports.'
' And what did you find? Did Yip On and his friends know then that you were working for Mr. Foster?'
Well, I think he would. I.A report was made by me to Mr. Foster that the Chinese were meeting the boat, and I said that that was dangerous work. The practice of sending an interpreter down to Victoria was, he thought, unwise. The department at Ottawa then asked Mr. Bowell why he did it. That was one of the first communications Mr. Bowell had. Lew said that he could not give the exaot day he started on the secret service work.
Mr. McCrossan quoted from letters from the department at Ottawa with regard to Yip On's absence from work, and the falct that some of his work had been done by his brother Yip Fong. From copies of letters to the department from Lew it appeared that, according to the poll-tax, Victoria received more Chinese than Vancouver, but acording to exempts Vancouver had more than Victoria.
That is to say, the Chinese who had to pay came in much greater numbers to Victoria, but the Chinese merchants who were to come in without paying for some mysterious reason made their way in overwhelming numbers to a place where there was the least prospect of entering into mercantile business.
In another letter there occurred a sentence which Judge Murphy took occasion to comment upon.
This sentence was: ' Mr. McGuinness has already told the government about the graft.' 'If there is any graft we are here to find it out,' he said.
'What did he tell you about this?' asked . Mr. McCrossan.
' He told the government there must be graft in some place. He did not say that suspicion pointed to any one. He made a general statement,' replied the witness.
Then again, on page 11 of the 'News Advertiser' of the same date:
Yip On continued to state that all the letters were not addressed to him, but to Yip Hing Jang. Then he was asked to read another letter. This letter created an impression. It was as follows:
' We have received letter. Everything carefully noted. Lee Foon Soon spends money just like getting rid of dirt.'
This was one of the Chinese conspirators who was doing so well that he is reported Mr. TAA'LOR (New Westminster).
as spending money just like he was getting rid of dirt.
This matter is true. He has taken $50 of the money left in Hong Kong and went home for a few days. He came back to Hong Kong and he drew another $100. He has nearly got all his money back. According to my experience this fellow is no good. I have guaranteed Mah Yoh, Yung Sing, Lee Gee, Gong Sun, Dun Kong and Tam Fung coming on this steamer and when they arrive look after them.'
I have drawn $131 from Mam Mby Co. for Tun Fung's passage. Please make note of this in your book. I have sent $100 to Quo Ho Long and told them to give Yong Sing $8 every month for his home expenses, and also give Yip Fee $20 for board, according to your request. Please note these two items as I have paid them and charged to you.
I read this letter in order to show that these things were accepted by the Chinese as ordinary routine in the Canadian customs service, as indicating that this thing had been going on for a long time, was well recognized as a regular occupation, and was likely to continue for a long time in the future. This was no accidental smuggling such as is bound to occur anywhere when a particular ship comes in and a contraband passenger is landed. But these letters, which are only a sample of many received, show that the thing was recognized by many Chinese, as well as by the conspirators in Vancouver, as something regular which there was no probability of stopping for a long time to come. These letters continue:
If Lee Fook Soon has sufficient passage money later on I shall guarantee him to come. Your cablegrams of Chinese eight month, third day, stating 'Strictly stop and wait for letter,' received and fully understood.
I should have obeyed your order but as I had purchased previously second class passengers tickets for them, $100 will be lost. I was obliged to send two pieces of provincial goods named Yung Yong and Chang Foon, who is a relative of Chang Hok Chow 's cousin on 'Empress of India.'
I may say that this thing was so well organized that they had a regular cable code covering each phase of- these smuggling operations, and 'two pieces of provincial goods' were shown by the cable code to be two exempt Chinamen.
That cablegram was the one following the explosion in Vancouver, the publication of the announcement that these things were going on, and the suspension of the interpreter so that a new interpreter might be put on by the Dominion police to intercept the contraband goods.
I delivered the merchants' passports and $300 in gold. Please receive them accordingly and enter in book, each man being given seven $20 gold pieces and one $10 gold piece to take with him. You look after them to

be landed safely. When everything is settled all right write to me and let me know at once, and relieve my worry.
This letter was from Gat Won, dated August 24, and was sealed with the stamp of Lem How. It was addressed to Yip Hang Sang, which is one of Yip On's names. That letter was for you, said Mr. McCrossan.
Yip On slowly shook his head. 'No, I don't think so,' he said. This letter was not sent from Lem How. Only his seal.
Is the address on the letter correct? Yes. The letter was put in as an exhibit.
Now, Yip On, is not this letter for you? No, no.
You told us yesterday you often had letters on boats coming in from Lem How, addressed Yip Sing Sang. Sometimes, yes.
Now, when you think over this letter and when you remember the cable therein referred to, 'Strictly stop and wait for cable,' tell me, is not the writing of that cable yours? Did you send those cablegrams? No.
Mr. McCrossan-In view of the serious nature of the charge of dumping of emigrants -and this is a keystone if such a conspiracy exists-and also the statement made that there was a conspiracy to forge all thesp cablegrams and letters, I would suggest that the witness should be sworn on the chicken oath, an oath which has been administered by Mr. Justice Hunter in China.
I will read next from the 'News-Advertiser' of the 10th of January, 1911. This has a sensational heading showing the impression held by the citizens of Vancouver as to the part the government had in this, an impression which, if not correct, no doubt has been dealt with by Mr. Justice Murphy, [DOT]so that the government, it would seem, owe it to themselves and to the honour of one of their members, to put that report on the table at the earliest possible day, and let us know whether this impression was justified or not. The headline says:
Ottawa and the Chinese inquiry-Hon. Mr. Templeman, according to evidence of Chinese agent, was anxious to stop progress of investigation.
The report proceeds:
Startling statements were made yesterday afternoon by David C. Lew in connection with a conversation which he said took place in September as to the position adopted by Hon. Mr. Templeman with regard to the inquiry then being instituted into Chinese immigration.
Lew had sent, on 21st September, two telegrams to Mr. E. T. It. Mclnnes, at Ottawa, one stating that Mr. Burrell had walked into the detention shed and dismissed him. He had replied that he took his orders from M'r. Foster, after which Hon. Mr. Templeman had telephoned to Yip On to come down at once as he was reinstated, whereupon Lew left.
The other telegram stated that Lew was done. That Hon. Mr. Templeman had wired to Paterson and Cartwright to reinstate Yip On, and that Hon. Mr. Templeman tried to deceive, perhaps intended to dismiss, Mr. Foster last night.
Further, Lew stated that Mr. Foster had told him there were several complaints against 3094
them. This admission was made most reluctantly, as witness stated he had given his word of honor not to speak of the matter, and he only supplied the information on being informed by Judge Murphy that he would be exonerated from his blame.
Following this exemption from his promise, Lew stated that he had been told that Hon. Mr. Templeman told Mr. Foster lie wanted him to call off the investigation, afid (further had stated that he had wired to Ottawa, and that he would modify things when he got back there. In the meantime the matter of the inquiry was to stand over.
These things concerning the position of the Minister of Mines were told him, he said, by a young lawyer, with whom witness and Mr. Grant had been in communication. Judge Murphy requested Lew to make every effort to discover the name of that lawyer, as the commission desired to question him.
This witness proceeds-this is from page 8 of the same paper:
Witness also stated that the matter was too serious to be in the control of party politics and it hardly seemed proper to him that a minister from another department should step in and interfere.
There was, he said further, a general feeling of approval amongst the Chinese when Yip On was suspended, which immediately vanished upon his reinstatement. This was not only his personal complaint, it was also that of his people, and he trusted Mr. O'Hara would be able to read between the lines, and whether things had been honest and above board or otherwise. In concluding he pointed out that during the past fifteen months only six viceroyal certificates had been admitted at Victoria, of which three were rejected, while at Vancouver there had been about an average of fifteen each trip.
In reply to a question as to why he sent the telegram to Mr. Mclnnes witness explained that he did so to let him know what he was doing.
Judge Murphy-Is that the first communication you had with Mr. Mclnnes since he left here ?
Witness said he thought it was. He wanted Mr. Mclnnes to know that his work was carried out and what the trouble was.
' Did you have any conversation that led you to send the telegram?'
' Witness asked Judge Murphy if he must reply to the question, and was answered in the affirmative.
Witness-But I gave my word of honour I would not repeat it.
Judge Murphy-That cannot he helped. We will exonerate you from it.
Lew then stated that Mr. Foster told him, on the same day, that there were several complaints against him. He did not know who was present besides Mr. Foster, but the conversation took place at the post office corner. He did not know whether he came across Mr. Grant, he said, or some young lawyer in town. Coming hack he was told that Hon, Mr. Templeman told Mr. Foster he wanted him to call it off.
Judge Murphy-Call you off, or call off the investigation?
' The investigation.'

Judge Murphy-Make an effort to find out the name of the young lawyer. We would like to have him here.
Witness declared he said he was not going to stop it, as it would look as if he did not go in to see the finish. ' They can "knock" all they like,' he.said, 'the evidence and the facts -would speak for themselves.'	[DOT]
Mr. Senkler, he said, had a personal grudge against him, and he had said he would tell about it some time before the public.
Hon. Wm. Templeman had said he had wired, and the telegram had gone, and he would modify things when he got back to Ottawa. In the meantime Lew might let the matter stand.	.
Judge Murphy-Do you know if Mr. Foster did any work after that?
' I cannot remember.'
Then the witness gave evidence of the modus operandi of the fraudulent Chinamen. He said:
These sworn declarations told how Lin Dong was given certain instructions before leaving China by the War Yick firm. Before he left he paid $950 in Mexican money to ' cover second-class passage and of landing by the customs interpreter.' Afterwards he entered Canada as a merchant, with gold and a draft lent by the Chinese interpreter, who afterwards took the money back again.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these Chinese merchants were absolute paupers, coming in, not only against the Chinese Immigration Act but against every other immigration Act, with money lent them by the interpreter, who took it from them as soon as he received the paupers on the Vancouver shore.
During the examination witness stated that lie was told by a Chinese miner at Comox that there was ' no trouble at all in getting Chinese off there.' He also said that the result of his inquiries satisfied Mr. Foster that Chinese ' got off all right here ' from the
Kumerie,' one ' old-timer,' as Lew called him, being stated to have been caught no less than three times trying to get in on the ' Oceano.'
Another curious letter was the unsigned one to Mr. Fat Som, asking the receiver to look after five Chinese who were coming. He had sent Look Tuen to discuss the matter with Fat Som, he said, and finished up by saying I hat if the matter was not a success a large amount of money would be lost. . . .
A letter was then read from Lew to Mr.1 O'Hara, in which the witness stated that he had decided to do all he could for Mr. Foster. After this he went into the whole business with the latter gentleman. Asked whether he could give any information as to the identity of ' Julian Roy,' who seemed to be working with Mr. Mclnnes and with Lew, witness could not say, and returned the same reply when asked whether it could be Mr. Gordon Grant, the latter smiling at the suggestion.
The position and the antecedents of this witness having been questioned before the commission, evidence was taken on the point as follows:
Mr TAYLOR (New Westminster.)
Lew had lived thirteen years in British Columbia, was born in Canton, and was twenty-four years old. He was a Christian, a member of the Baptist church, and the Christian oath was binding on his conscience.
' Was he an official of the Dominion government prior to the trip to Ottawa?'
' No.'
' Was Mr. T. R. E. Mclnnes, then or now, an official?'
Witness could not say. Mr. Mclnnes might be an official without witness knowing it. He had a strong opinion that Mr. Mclnnes was a confidential agent of some department, what department he could not say. It might be the Immigration Department.
*#*##**
Lew was, notwithstanding, going on to tell how he was introduced to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and so on, when Mr. Taylor again stopped him and pressed for a definite reply.
The object of his trip was by no means principally concerning Chinese immigration, he said. Mr. Taylor endeavoured to find out why, therefore. Lew made Ottawa the principal object of his trip, and the place where he had stayed the longest, and inquired minutely as to whom he knew there kept him interested.
He knew Alec Johnson, he said, a Chinese boy who had been at McGill, and beyond this he met Mr. Mclnnes and Mr. Mackenzie King. He visited all the departments. He was introduced to Mr. O'Hara's office by Mr. Mclnnes.
Then the evidence goes on to show how Inspector Foster, of the Dominion Police ran down evidence of the conspiracy byvisiting Victoria and boarding vessels there instead of at Vancouver.
Instructions had been given to introduce Lew on board as a man who had come in the place of Yip On. They went first, he and Mr. Foster, to the intermediate cabin, where Lew was introduced as the man who had come in place of Yip On. Everybody lined up for the manifest to be gone through. The first were returned merchants, and Lew knew them by sight and told them to stand on one side. After receiving the identification cards, they asked the men for letters, which were thrown on the table and marked by witness and by Mun Kow for identification.
Judge Murphy-Did each man have a letter?
Mostly, but I think in one case one man covered three letters. The first letter, said witness, addressed to Yip Ting Sam (' Ting ' being evidently a mistake for ' Hing '), was marked, ' Important, and deliver personally,' and had the seal of Lam How of Hong Kong, and the seal of the writer, Gat Wow. The first letter w-as read. It was as follows:
Dear cousin,-Your letter that Chinese * domestic goods ' received understood, contents carefully noted. You say that Lem Quick Sun has been spending money not as gold but as dirt. That is true. The money he left with me he has non- drawn. This fellow is no use at all.
I have guaranteed Man Yick, Yoo Sich and Tan Foop coming on the steamer. I have drawn $131.50 for the passage. Please see that these ' provincial goods ' are landed. I received your cablegram of eighth month say-

ing ' strictly stop and wait for letter ' and same was fully understood, but as I bad already bought a ticket, they had to go forward or else I would have lost a good sum. Please see, therefore, that they are received and landed all right. If not, from now on I will only send you ' one piece of goods' by each steamer.
Quite modest. One piece of goods by one steamer, which, compared with the scale on which these undertakings had been going on, is very little indeed.
I have given those now going forward seven big pieces and one small piece of gold. Please keep memo, of this.
The next letter referred to Lee Poop Soon, and also to the Chinese who had been guaranteed by the writer, to the money matters between writer and receiver, and to the request to ' look after ' the arrivals and relieve the writer's worries. This letter also has already been published. Witness went through and agreed with the interpretation of these letters. Witness explained, in addition, that after he got up to the top deck of the ship he handed all the letters, which he carried in one bundle, to Mr. Foster, and Mr. Foster initialled them. These were exhibits 93 and 94 and these bore Mr. Foster's initials.
Dealing with passports, Mun Kow was, said witness, doing the interpreting in connection with the landing at Victoria. A sworn declaration made there, before F. W. Davy, in connection with an admitted bogus and rejected case, stated that the passenger was stated to have paid $1,100 Mexican money to Yip Gat Won in China, and that $150 was to be paid here to Yip Hing Sam. The passenger was fully instructed how to act and tell the ' merchant ' story.
So that, bit by bit, it was developed that this conspiracy had been carefully organized. These men, of course, were detained.
They were provided with a meal, and Mr. Foster and Mr. Davy and the witness came hack after supper. The men were then examined and, in the main stuck well to their story until it came to Chang Foon and Lung Moon, who broke down and confessed. These men took their confessions in the shape of sworn declarations made before Mr. Davy.
How did you get their passports?
They went, said witness, to one of the gentry in the village, and then prepared applications with photographs. Some said they went to Hong Kong and saw the British consul, hut on cross-examination it would come out that they had certainly been no nearer the consul's office than the outside door.
A telegram of September 21st sent to Mr. T. E. E. Mclnnes at Ottawa in witnesses' name was read as follows:
Citizen Building, Ottawa.
Mailed a copy of transcript to-day and confidential report to O'Hara. Copy to you. Bny lost confidential message from Sherwood to Foster, did not receive until six o'clock. Cannot understand your word ' Brock.' D. Lew.
Another telegram of October 2nd, was also read. It was as follows:
i. R. E. Mclnnes, Ottawa.
Inquiry proceeded yesterday. Wong Ching (see last transcript) examined now stated.that he wrote letter to Fin Ting Sam at Ilavid Lew's direction. Under examination witness admitted gave David Lew facts in letter as message of Yip On, hut David Lew told him to write instead. Decoy letter addressed like intercepted letter reached Hong Kong, although same denied. Satisfied, proved Bowell at _ least negligent and incapable. Gordon writing and confirming. Result encouraging, but we have free hand to move quickly to prevent. Worshop acting better since telegram yesterday. Foster and I intend meeting next boat, but orders must he obeyed regarding Yip On's relations visiting boats. D. Lew.
In the ' News-Advertiser ' of January 12, on the first page, we read something further as to the character of this correspondent.
Among the correspondence read in the afternoon wras a letter from T. C. Tom, a Chinese missionary from Nanaimo, who wrote to the department at Ottawa stating that the department would find out that they had a thief

The thief, I presume was not Lew.
-and further recommended Lew as one who had done good service to the government which no other Chinaman would do.
And then, at page 11, the interpreter said:
It was true that the Canadian Pacific railway had excluded him from the wharf. He was told hv one of the Canadian Pacific railway employees, a tall stout man, in the detention shed, that the company had given strict orders to keep Lew out of the shed, as he was getting too much information. The next day he was told by a constable not to go near the ' Empress ' as they had strict orders to keep him away. He could not say whether the Canadian Pacific railway were ' in on the game.' It was because he was stirring up the deportation that he was being excluded. Judge Murphy said these men must be brought before him as witnesses.
Then later on:
Lew said that he was told by T. C. Tom that Yip On was introduced by Mr. Kelly to Mr. Ralph Smith at Mr. Kelly's office, who said that Yip On was not such a had fellow. On examining passports Mr. Taylor said: Was it suggested that the transport was a failure?
Lew said he did not say so.
Mr. Taylor said that the suggestion would mean that the consular seal had been forged.
Lew explained that there was no way for the consul general at Hong Kong to make sure, hut Mr. Taylor was of opinion that it would he an extremely difficult thing to forge a passport. He could not, however, induce witness to say that the passport shown was an apparently genuine document.
Lew's strong point was that every one of the men, about twenty-two in number, admitted that they had never been in the vice-consular office at Hong Kong, and another man at Victoria had also admitted it.
This number, twenty-two, I may say, was a single consignment, foT these fellows came in by scores.

How did they say the seal was obtained? We did not get that far.
Then you suggest that some person in the consul general's office in Hong Kong was in the ring? Lew said that what he thought would net benefit the commission.
Judge Murphy pointed out that the passports appeared to have been prepared in blank as the handwriting was different. It did not necessarily follow, however, that there was any fraud in this. It was clear that the consul general had no knowledge that the passports were to be used for customs purposes. Apparently they might have been given just for travel purposes.
And further on:
Who took the responsibility of the statement beginning, ' I may be wrong and indiscreet ' ?	.
I am responsible for that, said Lew.
Mr. Foster and Mr. Gordon Grant had given him the information, but he could not remember who were the other t wo men who gave him the information against the minister of the Crown. He remembered that Mr. Foster told him that Hon. Win. Templeman took a trip to his bedroom after midnight and had then told him to stay his hand. He thought that this was told him at a lunch table at the Carlton, and the statement was afterwards repeated in the presence of Mr. .T. B. Ferris and Mr. Grant. Mr. Foster gave him the information which led him to make the statement.
I may say, in justice to the minister named, that later on he appeared and declared that he had made no such statement. Now, we have some further evidence about the patronage committee.
In connection with some further questions, Judge Murphy said in justice to Mr. Lew, that he must say that it had been proven independently that more trouble was experienced in getting a bona fide man in than those others who wrere possessed of passports.
As regarded Hon. Mr. Templeman he could not say whether he was subject to subpoena, but he was very sure that if Hon. Mr. Templeman was wanted he would attend. He was not, however, going to bring a minister of the Crown here on an assertion.
The 'News-Advertiser' of January 13 comments in its head lines on the proceedings reported that day as follows:
Strange doings on water front.
Base with which smuggled Chinamen could enter Vancouver is described before Eoyal Commission.
New light thrown on Mr. Templeman's action.
Cabinet Minister is declared to have been anxious for investigation-Lew's life said to be in danger.
The report gives the evidence of Dr. A. G. Munro, medical examiner at the port of Vancouver:
Did he, he was asked, have any conversation with Hon. Mr. Templeman regarding Mr. Foster ?
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster.)
Witness said he did. One evening he called in at the Vancouver Club and there he met Mr. Kelly and Hon. Mr. Templeman.
Mr. Kelly asked him did he know anything of tills matter of Mr. Bowell's suspension, and he replied that he did not.
Mr. Kelly then asked where Mr. Foster was staying, and witness said he was going home, and as Mr. Foster was staying near to him lie would call and tell him.
' { then went out,' continued witness, and walked to Air. Foster's place and the others went in an automobile. I walked upstairs and told Mr. Foster that Hon. Mr. Templeman wanted to see him. Mr. Foster said he was just going to bed, and he thought it might be better to come in the morning. About that time Hon. Air. Templeman and Mr. Kelly and a third party arrived in an automobile, and Hon. Mr. Templeman was coining up stairs. I called out to him and said that Mr. Foster was going tombed, and would he see him in the morning?'
Hon. Mr. Templeman said: ' Tell him to meet me at the Hotel Vancouver at ten o'clock,' and then he and Mr. Kelly entered the automobile.
Later Mr. Foster told witness he had an interview with Hon. Mr. Templeman at the hotel. He said that Mr. Templeman had told him that he wanted the whole matter gone into thoroughly, and that he would do anything to assist. Mr. Foster expressed himself as pleased with what Mr. Templeman told him. This conversation took place a few days later. Mr. Foster did not tell him specifically, it was only in general terms.
Was Mr. George Macdonald the third party in the automobile?
Witness could not say.
By Mr. Gordon Grant-Whose automobile was it ?
Witness said he did not know.
The House will observe that all through this story everything leads up to Mr. Kelly. As one report said, there was a music machine outside the court room and it played ' Has anybody here seen Kelly?' Every witness called at some stage of the proceedings led the conversation around to Kelly, who, it is well known, is the head and front of the Tammany at Vancouver.
Mr. George Macdonald, who is mentioned in this evidence, is another leader of the Liberal party whose name has appeared in public records as a beneficiary to a large extent from peculiar transactions of this government.
Mr. Edward Foster, inspector of Dominion Police at Ottawa, being called, was asked about the character of these witnesses.
In his report of September 8, witness stated that customs officials knew of illegal landing of opium, and that Lew, he was told, had teen used for years to get information, although the ways he had got it might not
always he approved	He understood
from Lew that there were one hundred (con-trabrand Chinamen) on board the 'Kumeric' when she left Hong Kong, and only 53 were

accounted for. How many got off was a ques- * tion.
The opium traffic was also referred to in this day's evidence. The report savs:
Opium, he heard from Lew, was sold iu Vancouver at a lower price than anywhere else. It was $18 here against $25 in Seattle.
Then in the ' News-Advertiser ' of Janu-aiy 14, on the first page, there is further evidence from Inspector Foster. I quote from the report:
Mr. Foster stated that at the interview at ten o'clock in the morning at the Hotel Vancouver, Mr. Templeman wanted to encourage him in his inquiries, and stated that he was sorry that he had not met Mr. Foster before, as he would not then have sent his telegram io Ottawa.
This is significant in view of the reply that we will have that the overwhelming testimony of Inspector Foster and others is that the minister from British Columbia sought to have the inquiry, because, if Inspector Foster is to be believed on one point, he must be believed on the other, and he says that Mr. Templeman told him that he had sent a deterrent telegram to Ottawa. That is the telegram referred to in the early part of the investigation which I have read. This shows how carelessly the ministers of the Crown under this government, administer their departments when a minister will deliberately advise his colleagues to stop investigation into a fraud of this kind on evidence so flimsy that a single conversation with an honest official causes him to regret that he had butted into the affair, and had sent a deterrent telegram.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The hon. gentleman will permit me to say that he has no right to make the statement that I had advised my colleague in Ottawa to suspend the investigation. That is not according to the facts or according to the evidence.


James Davis Taylor: I regret that the minister from British Columbia did not see fit to put this evidence on the table, so that I might see the fudge's report on this incident. I have no right whatever


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
[DOT]sought the inquiry. I may point out that we have evidence early in these proceedings from other witnesses that Mr. Templeman, being appealed to by the Patronage Committee at Vancouver, did send, according to them, a telegram to Ottawa asking that the inquiry be stopped.


William Templeman: There is no such telegram and there is no such evidence.


James Davis Taylor: Then Inspector Foster has given false evidence.


William Templeman: Mr. Foster never gave such evidence.


James Davis Taylor: 
William Templeman: My evidence is published there.


James Davis Taylor: If the minister will permit me, that is what I am going to read. I have already read the heading, which says that the minister


William Templeman: This is Mr. Foster, a material witness.


James Davis Taylor: Yes, that is what I said.
. Mr. TEMPLEMAN. He swears that it is not true.


George Taylor: This is the same Mr. Foster, a material witness. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the

'News Advertiser's' report, but it is a reputable newspaper and this purports to be a verbatim report of the proceedings and this verbatim report of the proceedings makes this witness, Mr. Foster say:
Judge Murphy.-Lew went further. He said it occurred at 12.30 o'clock at night, and that Mr. Templeman went to you at that time and asked you to stop the investigation.
I can only corroborate Dr. Munro. I never saw Mr. Templeman then. The only interview was at 10 o'clock in the morning, and when I was leaving Mr. Templeman told me he was sorry that he had not met me earlier; that he fully understood now, and that he was sorry that he had sent the telegram to Ottawa the night before.
I would ask the minister whether that is a correct report of the evidence.


William Templeman: Yes, that is very nearly correct.


James Davis Taylor: It is very nearly correct that the minister was sorry that he had sent this telegram of the night before?


William Templeman: 


James Davis Taylor: And why was he sorry?


William Templeman: No.


James Davis Taylor: Was he sorry because it was not strong enough?


William Templeman: No.


James Davis Taylor: If it were not strong enough it would be the most natural thing in the world to follow it up next day with another expression based on further information. The only reason that can be suggested why a man would be sorry for sending that telegram to his colleagues is that he had asked them to do something that he should not have asked them to do.


William Templeman: What was the telegram?


James Davis Taylor: The telegram ought to be produced on the table of this House.


William Templeman: It was printed in the evidence.


James Davis Taylor: Why then do we not have the evidence? I have not got it here. I am reading everything connected with the case except matters personal to the minister whi,ch I have left out. Here evidence of one of these so-called merchants is offered by Inspector Foster:
One of the men admitted lie was not a mer-' chant, had never been a merchant, that he had $150 in gold which he was to hand over to the interpreter here, that his passport had been secured for him, and that he was a cook by trade. Another man also made full con-Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
fession, practically corroborating the statements. These were Chang Foon and Yung Woon in the letters. These disclosures came to light at Victoria, and they then considered they had good evidence to prosecute the interpreter in Vancouver.
Judge Murphy.-On what advice? Legal advice?
Witness.-Mr. Farris and Mr. Grant, both.
By Mr. Grant.-Did that advice follow the luncheon at the Carleton? Yes.
And was it the only legal advice given to you?
Yes.
Judge Murphy.-Y'ou say that you came from Victoria with the idea of prosecuting Yip On. Did you see your solicitors then?
"Witness thought that he did so.
Why were these men allowed to go out of the country?
The men were retained, said witness, only until he had seen his solicitors.
Judge Murphy stated that whoever was responsible for it, it was a most unfortunate thing that the men were allowed to go back to China.
After further intiuiry witness admitted he had taken counsel's opinion on October 12, the day after he got back from Victoria. Further telegrams of the 12th and 16th of October, he stated that counsel advised against the prosecution.
In connection with the next letter, dated October 12, which stated that ' if there was a Royal Commission with judge Mclnnis presiding he was sure that a prosecution would follow.' Mr. Foster explained that he made the suggestion on his own initiative and it was not made to him by anyone else.
Now we have some light on the nature of the appointments recommended by the patronage committee at Vancouver, the same patronage committee administering this gov-vernment's patronage at Vancouver to this day, the same gentlemen who are the consorts of the ministers of this government on every visit there and through whom alone these ministers can be successfully approached. Now I quote from the 'News Advertiser' of January 14, page 8:
John McPherson, the Canadian Pacific railway watchman on the wharf, was the first witness called at the morning session.
A watchman on the Canadian Pacific Railway wharf is no ordinary watchman. It is left to him to regulate whether or not any smuggling takes place from a steamer, in this case smuggling at the rate of $500 a head for every Chinaman who could walk unobserved from the ship ashore; and of every package of opium or silk or other commodity that could be smuggled under the cloak of any person leaving the ship. These watchmen have the most responsible positions in the customs service of Canada. Recollecting that the humble title of -watchman is not the only thing to be considered, but that we must consider the duties to be performed by these men, I would like I the attention of hon. members to the evi-

dence of the nature of the appointments made to these positions:
John McPherson, the Canadian Pacific railway watchman on the wharf, woe the first witness called at the morning session. He had been previously examined two weeks ago.
All the way through his examination Mr. McPherson presented an appearance of injured innocence, and protested it strongly during the whole of the time.
He depended greatly, he said, on his eyesight for his suspicions, and depended on his suspicions for the investigations he made.
The witness was warned by Judge Murphy as to his evidence, and the judge offered him protection regarding any statements he might make before the commission. Witness stated that he was recommended for the position he had occupied by the Liberal executive.
Mr. McCrossan said that McPherson had been again subpoenaed, and was present. He was at once called. He is a one-armed man.
This witness was previously examined two weeks ago. He lives at 632 Hamilton Street, and was yesterday represented by Mr. W. H. D. Ladner.
In reply to Mr. McCrossan, witness 6aid he might have occasionally taken a glass of whisky, but he was not drunk.
'But Pagan says he twice ordered you home?'
'I have never been sent home because I was drunk that I know of.'
He was not drunk, nor had Mr. Quinn ever seen him drunk on duty, or seen him stay, for an hour, or for half an hour, on the 'Empress.'
The house will notice Mr. Speaker the strength of this contradiction. This witness says that he never was sent home drunk 'that he knows of.'
If any one said he was breaking up his furniture at home through drink it was not true. He was not a drinking man.
Told that 'Con' gave him a flask of whisky- which he could not remember- the judge pressed witness to tell 'Con's' name, informing witness that he meant to know who he was, and that he must give his name.
Had never seen 'Con.'
McPherson said he had never seen 'Con' until the time at the wharf. 'Con' was a member of the crew of the 'Empress,' the Empress of China, he thought. He denied he let 'Con' go on board. He was willing and anxious to tell the truth.
Witness said he had been here twenty-three years, and had never heard the slightest slur on his name. He did not know who 'Con' was.
He had seen the latter on the wharf two or three times, but not half a dozen times, and-to his knowledge-never twice on the same night. He considered he did his faithful duty as a watchman.
He could not remember that he ever told Mr. Quinn to 'turn his back and take wliat he could.'
Told that Mr. Quinn had shown the day and the hour when witness told him so, he said perhaps Mr. Quinn had some reason to
say so.
He had never improperly received five cents for anything. He did not warn No. 1 pantryman to stay back and not go on board. He
had no orders to stop any one going on board.
'Then you had no orders to stop any one coming off?'
'Only the Chinese.' He did not let any strange Chinese go on board.
As to 'Con,' again, that individual was either quartermaster or quarterdeck man. He knew nothing about him in any shape or form. He never saw a parcel thrown from the ship, as stated by Mr. Quinn. He did not see that parcel.
He explained that he put in most of his time on the dock, and if he was sometimes on the gangway he considered that was quite as prominent a place. He had never been on the 'Empress' more than fifteen or twenty minutes.
Counsel reminded him he had just said he had never been there except for a few minutes.
Witness often took a walk round the ship, he said, not to get a drink, or to fraternize with the petty officers. The latter would all be in bed.
There is other evidence which states that these men were not only taken on board the Empresses but retained there for long periods while goodness knows what went on the wharfs.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


James Davis Taylor: has been so carefully suppressed from the date when this evidence was taken up to this day, when we are still awaiting its presentation to this House. Here is a new element in the inquiry. The labour organizations in Vancouver began to be very much interested in the revelations:


Mr. J. H.: McVety, secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, asked witness how the conversation arose with regard to Mr. Senkler.
It was on the street. Witness asked Mr. Senkler who sent the telegram in his name. He said he did not know, and started to show some correspondence, some of which he dropped on the sidewalk. Witness saw minutes of a meeting of the patronage committee in regard to the appointment of an interpreter. He told Mr. Senkler that in anything in regard to the Chinese investigation Mr. Robert Kelly was somewhere in it. Mr. Senkler asked him what he had to say about it.
In reply he said that it seemed to him that Mr. Kelly was very attentive in regard to the Chinese interpreter losing his job, and he thought it peculiar that Mr. Templeman had gone into it at all and tried to stop the investigation.
Now, I do not forget that the minister says that he did not try to stop the investigation, but at every turn we are confronted with witnesses in Vancouver on whose minds the impression is that he did try to stop the investigation.
I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that all tne way through this matter, we have nothing but Liberals. It is a family quarrel, pure and simple, not a row or a feud '-between the Conservatives and Liberals of Vancouver, but purely a family quarrel among the Liberals themselves over the division of the spoils. This man evidently is not a professional politician. Being secretary of the trades and labour councils, he is, I presume, a workingman, and has therefore rather simple ideas as to governing principles. This is what he said:
He was accused of being a traitor to his party and it was stated that the asi-atic exclusion league would hurt the party but for patriotism you require a sacrifice even of political party. He was a British Columbian first and a politician afterward.
To show how the sentence was received in the courtroom-where there was standing room only-the witness was cheered for these expressions, and Judge Murphy warned the public that such a breach o'f decorum would not be permitted.
I would ask the House to pay particular attention to this because here is the crux of the whole matter-the reason for this disclosure. There was a family quarrel in Vancouver which brought these branches of fraud to fight. The whole thing is explained in the sentence which follows. 1 would like you to remember that this is not the evidence of any irresponsible char-Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
acter, but is the sworn testimony of a young gentleman of high character. I would like to call the attention of the Solicitor General to this, partiularly, because it is his department, 1 presume, which has in hand the preparation of prosecutions in connection with these matters. This sentence contains the crux of the whole matter and gives the reason why these Liberals in Vancouver had this family quarrel:
He did not care personally how many Chinese came in illegally, but he did object to these fellows hogging it all.
An hon. MLMBKK. Who is Senkler?


George Taylor: The president of the Liberal Association at Vancouver, and this is what Mr. Gordon Grant, a barrister of Vancouver and a Liberal, testifies as having been said by Senkler:
If it

Meaning the rake-off of $120 per Chinaman.
If it had gone to -the Liberal executive, I would not have cared.
As I said a while ago, wnen some hon. gentleman challenged me, 1 refer to the Liberal party, as a party, as beneficiaries of these frauds, and am not making any personal reference to anyone within the sound of my voice. Here we have the evidence that this was simply a quarrel among the Liberals themselves in Vancouver, as to whether Hob Kelly should get the money or the Liberal executive. But the Liberal executive were out for the dough. Judge Murphy asked:
If it had gone -to the Liberal executive, I would not have cared.
And the witness said that Mr. Senkler objected to Kelly or some undiscovered people hogging it all. Judge Murphy asked whether he was speaking very seriously, and the witness replied that he was. I now quote from the newspaper report:
The witness was speaking very seriously: he was very agitated and he was very serious. The conversation still further impressed him with the reasonableness of his advice -to Mc-Innes who he knew would go direct to the government to advise with him not because lie thought that Sinclair was dishonest. He thought the -matter was important and that nothing -should be bushed up or slur-red over. This witness -admitted that he himself was a Liberal in politics.
The witness warmly added that neither Foster, Mclnnes, Lew nor himself had been animated by any conspiracy ag-ainst Yip On oi with a view to get control of any grafting at Vancouver. Their idea was to have the graft stamped out.
Let me point out that this has been within the knowledge of the minister for a very Jong period. Here is some evidence to

prove that statement. Mr. Gordon Grant said:
It was between September 1907 and early in 1908 that he met T. R. E. Mol lines as the personal representative of the Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Hon. Frank Oliver in connection with the matter. He was told that Mclnnes had been specially deputed by them to get information for the information of the government and for the consideration and information of Earl Grey.
I should, I see, have read some preceding paragraphs to show what the reference covers *.
Mr. Gordon Grant said the matter dated back to the year 1907, when he was secretary of the Asiatic Exclusion League, and when much rumour was in the air as to the bogus entry of merchants, merchants' sons, &c. He was deputed to investigate the matter and saw the interpreter to the United States Immigration Department to try to find out the methods adopted by the United States. In reply to Mr. McCrossan, witness said he never went with Payne of Seattle to Col. Dudley. Witness told of the information he had received from the United States interpreter by his subsequent visit to the wharf where he witnessed the examining methods carried out there by Yip On. He reported to the League that there was absolutely nothing that guarante d Yip On's methods.
He went down again and heard another examination through an interpreter by Mr. Bowell. After it was over, Mr. Bowell asked what the witness wanted and he said he was there on behalf of the League. He considered that Mr. Bowell was not intentionally rude, but bis manner was decidedly rough.
He stated his reports were sent to His Excellency Earl Grey.
Knowing the position that Mr. Mclnnes occupied and that he had followed around pretty generally the people who had attended an Asiatic Exclusion League meeting in Seattle, he implicitly trusted him. Mr. Mclnnes had said that he hoped to see more riots as it was relieving the matter of the strain between the United States and Japan.


Mr. T. K.: K Mclnnes, the witness said, came out to look into the question of Chinese immigration, and at the request of the lion. Frank Oliver and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that his final interview had been with Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Then on page 11 of the same date:
Witness had learned from the newspapers that a telegram had gone from Mr. Senkler, asking that Yip On should be reinstated but he bad by that time learned the nature of the evidence against Yip On. The telegram he sent was sent because he had heard particularly that the Liberals wanted the matter hushed up.
'The names?' suggested Judge Murphy.
' Mr. Senkler's particularly, and Mr. Kel-
^Who gave you the information?'
' Air Foster. He had discussed the matter with Mr. 'Andy' Tyson, Mr. A. M. Pound,


Mr.   D.@: Menzies and Mr. J. .T. Graham and Mr. E. E. Teetzel, but he could not say that anyone but Mr. Foster told him particularly of a desire to have the matter hushed up.' When he saw Lew the latter said there were stronger people than Mr. Senkler and Mr. Kelly.
Mr. McCrossan.-Did that mean Mr. Tein-pleman ?
Witness did not know. After a question from Judge Murphy, witness said Mr. Tem-pleman was directly under the influence of Mr. Kelly, which Judge Murphy explained was a statement which neither agreed with his own or Mr. Foster's evidence.
I call the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) to the injustice he is doing himself in leaving the matter there, because Mr. Murphy is an appointee of his own and seems to have stood up for him pretty sturdily during the investigation. It is due to the minister, if he can get flattering comments Like this from the judge, and I think ' flattering ' is not too strong, to state his position. I would like it to be noted that I give publication to the first certificate of character to the minister even in advance of his own action.
The witness-
Notwithstanding what the judge had said, this Liberal witness stuck to his guns, -thought that Mr. Templeman would be unduly influenced by Mr. Kelly.	.
Witness further mentioned in regard to this stated conflict of circumstances that after what he had heard he considered Hon. Mr. Templeman, despite his good resolutions, might make another fall from grace, that he repeated what he had already testified to concerning Mr. Foster's statement as to what Mr. Foster had said concerning Mr. lemple-man's first remark as to burking the inquiry and his subsequent remark as to moving to help it along. Then witness referred at length to the first investigation when Dr. Chang told him that he felt that the men were not genuine although they were .as Hie doctor humourously put it coming by different steamers, they were all in the same boat.
Public opinion on the progress of this investigation is indicated by these headlines in the ' News-Advertiser of Januaiy 18, page 1:



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Justice Murphy makes pointed comments on the state of affairs in watchmen s department on water front.

[Stage Direction]
And the paper starts the summary of the day's proceedings thus:
' A sort of charity organization and inebriates' home.' This was the very pointed remark made by Judge Murphy at yesterday afternoon's session of the Royal Commission
[Stage Direction]
on Chinese Immigration, following a recital of the list of the halt and the lame, and as is alleged, generally intoxicated, who seemed to have formed the government line of defence on Vancouver's w'harf against the wily ways of the Chinese who sought illegal entry into the city and the country.
It was Mr. E. S. Bnsby, the inspector of customs, who told the details of the infirmities of th© old staff of watchmen employed to guard the boats. He also told how these old-timers had been replaced by new men- one of whom, by the way, fell into the water and was nearly drowned because he was unused to a boat.
Inspector Busby came armed with the official files from his department, and as they were confidential documents the witness read end dissected them as he went along, passing those which were material over to counsel for examination and discussion. From the information which, in consequence oame out, it appeared that witness, as far hack as 1907,recommended the dismissal, in the interests of the department, of some of the officials. The reports show that the inspector was aware of many peculiar things that were happening, and that he had at once reported them to his chief at Toronto and at Ottawa. One of the matters was in fact that the chief land waiter. Bowser, was in the habit of paying in official money to his private account and that the inspector warned him that if he continued to do so he would at once he suenended. -
Mr.  W. F.@: 
Mr. BUREAU.: Go on.


James Davis Taylor: I
really would like the attention of the Solicitor General


Jacques Bureau: I have read the paper before.


Mr TAYLOR (New Westminster).: If
the Solicitor General has any duties they are particularly in connection with the prosecution of persons guilty of offences against the government. That, I think is the business of the Justice Department of this country. Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Solicitor General refuses to he interested in this matter?


Jacques Bureau: He is not alone in that if he does.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster.)


George Taylor: I would Dike that to be taken down. He is not alone among the ministers of the Crown if he is not interested in frauds against the government aggregating at least one million dollaos. That is the position taken by a member of the government speaking for himself andi five of Ms colleagues who are present. And1 I would like their names to go on record. The First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), and the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. TempJeman). He is not interested in frauds to the extent of a million dollars to which I am calling his attention; he is not interested in the statements which 1 am reading, that because of the absence of a watchman from his post of duty , as many goods leave the Canadian Pacific railway ships at Vancouver without paying duty a= leave it,he ship upon payment of duty. That is the statement I have juist read and that is what the Solicitor General says he is not interested in. Mr. Speaker, I believe the statement of the Solicitor General, I fully believe it. I do not think there is any thing in his record in this House to oast any doubt upon his perfect good faith in making the statement or to cause me to believe that he is interested in this detail of Ms duty as an official of the government.


Mr.  W. F.@: McLeod was the first witness at the afternoon session. He was now a detective, but was formerly connected with the C. P. R. as chief inspector of the Western Division Police.
Asked as to matters on the water front, he said he had often found the customs officer was on hoard the ships at night, and it had been continually reported to him that that officer was in the habit of going aboard after eleven and coming off between eleven and five in the morning. He might just as well have been up town, he thought, and he believed there was just as much stuff going off irregularly as in the proper channel.
That is the statement as to which the Solicitor General says he has no interest and he believes he has as much interest as have his colleagues.
Inspector Busby was recalled, and continued the production of his reports from the morning session.
The first one was a letter received from Mr B. R. McDonald, Collector of Customs at Prince Rupert, dated Sept. 3 last, in reply to one from witness, it being stated that the party who volunteered the information desired that his identity be not divulged. Mr. McDonald also drew attention to the alleged abuse of the regulation regarding minor children of merchants.
He found that when the 'Japan' was in

but that no action beyond a reprimand was administered to McPherson. Owing to the time allotted for meals during the night, there were three periods when the vessels were unwatched, and altogether they were neglected for six half hour periods during the whole day. Witness recommended certain changes to secure more effective service.
He referred to the watchmen. Kent, one of them, was unsatisfactory. Another was physically unfit, and Warburton another was a cripple, and was unfit through drinking habits.
Judge Murphy-A sort of Charity Organization and Inebriates' Home.
On page 4 of the ' News Advertiser,' of January 18, I find:
It was reported tbat the Chief Inspector at Toronto in acknowledging the report stated that it had been resolved to discharge the watchmen and to engage new men, and that they should not be allowed to take any meals on the ship. He was authorized to make the arrangements after conferring with the local committee.
Mr. Gordon Grant-What does that mean?
The Liberal executive. He was to see Mr. Pound. But. any recommendations Mr. Pound sent him were subject to witness' approval.
Mr. Gordon Grant referred to some names being mentioned 'on a list.' Did witness know of any list at all? Inspector Busby said he did not . The appointments were left to the Provincial Board of Customs. There had been, however, an urgent case when lie had himself appointed a man temporarily. In the ordinary way the Minister of Customs would deal with the matter.
Mr. McCrossan-Who would he apply to?
The Collector of Customs, replied witness, who went on to speak cf the greatly increased work at the port, and the fact that he was often compelled to be away for months at a time. He had personally examined the present eight watchmen, and he knew that they were all good men. The first man that he fcunj drinking would be suspended. He liad given the fullest instructions as to this.
Judge Murphy-Did you ever have any names sent to you from Ottawa?
Witness said he was instructed to apply to the Liberal committee here.
The department looked to yon to see that the patronage committee did not foist any improper man into the service?
The department looked to him, said witness, to see that the man had proper qualifications.
Mr. Gordon Grant asked what percentage of appointments were made during the absence of witness against those made whilst he was here, and witness replied that he could not say.
The suggestion of Mr. Gordon Grant being that Inspector Busby being a strong man and an honest official, advantage is taken of his absence from port to introduce into tha service men whom he would not pass.
Asked also did he confer with any member of the patronage committee, witness said that
he called once on Mr. Senkler and once on Mr. Kelly. .	.	. The next report
referred, on July 11, 1907, to an interview by Mr. W. A. Blair, cf the customs, with a man named Chin Chan, who suggested that 'easy money' was to be got. The man explained to Mr. Blair the whole modus oper-andi suggested to he worked with himself, Yip On, and witness as partner. The scheme included a trip to China, the arrangements for sending over Chinese in hulk, each of whom was to pay them from $600 to $700, Chinese money. On Mr. Blair inquiring, with apparent interest, how they would get their 'rake off,' Chin Chan said it was 'heap easy,' by putting the money in the bank at Hong Kong and sending a draft to a Chinese firm in Vancouver.
It was further stated that dozens of Chinese had done this, and had paid $700 to Yip Y'en at Hong Kong, 'and not a cent to the Government of Canada.'
Here is an official report in the possession of the government for a long time yet nothing is done to institute prosecutions against the men carrying on these frauds.
$100,000 was said to have been cleaned up in one year in this way by a Chinese firm in shipping Chinese to Canada.
Showing that this one firm alone represented one-half of the million I have represented as the amount of the frauds proved to have been perpetrated upon the government.
Witness showed this letter to Mr. Bowell. On reporting the matter to Toronto, he was advised to give the substance of the letter to the chief landing waiter, so that he might be on his guard.


Mr.  B. R.@: McDonald, collector of customs at Prince Rupert, is to be subpoenaed. A letter from this official gave information as to proposed methods to be carried out for illegal free entry by Chinese in the way of substitution, the idea being tbat for every illegal entry $20 should be paid to the interpreter and $100 to the customs officials. He had been approached by a man who thought this plan might be carried out in Prince Rupert.
This report does not say so but I saw another report, and no doubt this is in the official document held back by the government, a statement that he added that this was the system being carried out in Vancouver, and that he simply offered for Prince Rupert what had long been in operation in Vancouver.
Next was a letter, November, 1908, from Chief Landing Waiter Aiken to the inspector, telling of the search, following suspicion, of the S.S.' Tartar.' In this letter Mr. Aiken stated he had told the collector that he and Yip On were going to search the 'Tartar,' and that the collector then stated he would advise the captain of the vessel, which Mr. Aiken considered a peculiar thing to do. He was afterwards told in a letter from the surveyor that he was to wait until the collector came back.

When the collector came down, in response to a telephone call, and Aiken told him of the surveyor's letter, showing it to him, the collector said 'it was a damned lie/ as he never said such a thing, and tore up the letter. The collector then stated they 'would search her now/ and they did so, but he got no assistance from the collector, or from Mr. Fagan, or from the ship's officers. They found thirteen Chinese in the well, ten more in the coal bunkers, and another was found the next day.
That is 24 contraband Chinamen found, involving a loss of $12,000 to the government of Canada, in this one little incident alone.
To digress for a moment from the sworn testimony of the investigation, I would like to read the comment of a very prominent citizen in Vancouver, a very prominent Liberal, a man who did more than any other individual to put into power this present government. I refer, of course, to Mr. Joseph Martin. This is reported in the * News-Advertiser ' of January 20, noticing his return on a visit to Vancouver from London, and his statement is timely in connection with the discussion of the case because Mr. Martin's mission in Vancouver was to be a witness at this Chinese investigation. Mr. Martin says:
So long as the Liberal government continue to put up all their appointments, and fill their contracts, for sale at a certain price, so long will the present condition of political affairs in British Columbia, and in Vancouver especially, be indescribably rotten. The political position in Vancouver and in British Columbia is the rottenest in the world. I do not blame tlie people. So long as the Liberal government continue on the course they are travelling the people will buy. I blame the Liberal government. They are grafters, and it will never be stopped until the Liberals go out of power.
The next day, in the ' News-Advertiser ' of January 21, on the front page, we find this heading:	.


POLITICIANS AS STUMBLING BLOCK.
[Stage Direction]
Summarizing the local impression of the events happening there.
Difficulty of Reforming Conditions Governing Admission of Chinese at Vancouver is laid at Liberal's door.
This is the introductory passage:
It was said yesterday, before the Royal Commission, that 1 the difficulty of reforming things here was due to the influence of the local politicians. By this remark was meant the Liberal executive.
Evidence further indicating deplorable conditions which-unaltered by the Dominion government notwithstanding their knowledge of them-existed in the Customs Department of this city for so long a time was again fur-
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster.)
nished from the examination of Mr. Greer, deputy surveyor of customs at the port.
To show that it was not a matter of great difficulty to stop these frauds or prevent them, if the government had desired to stop or prevent them, I will read this little passage referring to Victoria, where, as I said before, there is an honest administration of the customs. It will be found on page 13 of the ' News-Advertiser ' of January 21:
Everybody knew, suggested counsel, that at Victoria, Collector Newberry was refusing to pass these passports. Had he heard of that?
Witness had not, nor had he ever heard that Chinese could not be passed at Victoria, but could be passed at Vancouver.
Other evidence illustrated that the collector at Victoria had made an official report to the government calling their attention to the fact of the extraordinary number of these passports getting in at Vancouver, while hardly any were offered (to him at Victoria, and suggesting that the number was caused by fraud. Now, we have another Liberal called in evidence -Mr. Norman McLean. This is a gentleman whom the Minister of Inland Revenue knows very well indeed.
Mr. Norman McLean was called by Mr. Mc-Crossan. He had no recollection of a reported conversation with Judge Grant, concerning immigration frauds. He was clear, however, he never said anything as to Chinese immigration frauds. He may have said it was rumoured of course, lie could not say as to that, hut he really had no recollection of any conversation. He was not interested one way or the other and knew' nothing about it.
By Mr. Gordon Grant-He was told that Ottawa officials had reports on matters here, but he could not go as far as to say that it reflected on Mr. Bowell's honesty. It referred to the honesty of the officers of the department, he understood.
It was told him that the difficulty in reforming things here was due to the activity of the local politicians?
' Yes/
'Mr. Robert Kelly was mentioned?'
Yes.
Here we have Mr. Kelly, to whom I called attention before. Wherever we turn Mr. Robert Kelly is the pivot and Mr. Robert Kelly continues until to-day to be the pivot of every action of this government at Vancouver.
* Mr. Robert Kelly got Hon. Mr. Templeman to do what he wanted?'
' Yes/
Judge Murphy-'In Vancouver or at Ottawa ?'
' Everywhere/
' And to reform things you would have to reform Mr. Kelly?'
' No, Mr. Templeman.' (Laughter.)
There was laughter in Vancouver when they were told that to reform things you

would have to reform Mr. Templeman rather than Mr. Kelly.
Judge Murphy-' And that would lead to the reform of Mr. Kelly?'
Did witness remember, asked Mr. Gordon Grant, that some years ago when Mr. Aiken was given the position of Mr. Schlater and Mr. George Macdonald made a very strenuous ' pull ' to get the position for Mr. Fagan? Witness said he was not familiar with that matter, and on leaving the witness stand the judge told him that he would like to have the name of the man who. said they could not reform Mr. Templeman except by first reforming Mr. Kelly.
An hon. MEMBER.: Time; carried.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster!. I would say to the hon. gentleman that if he would stand up and identify himself his name might appear on the official record for his sole contribution to the business of the House this session. Mr. T. R. E. Mc-Irnis of Ottawa was called, and his evidence was reported in the ' News-Advertiser ' of January 22, page 4.
Mr. Crossan resumed.
' Then you brought to the attention of the Premier certain things?' 'Yes, I did.' 'When would that be? What year?'
' Well, last July at Calgary. I think it was about the end of July, or it might have been in August.'
' That would be when he was in his tour west?'. 'Yes.'	,
' Following these facts were you unofficially retained by the Premier to investigate?' 'I could not say exactly as to that.' 'Voluntarily?' ' Well, no.'
'Without a retainer?' 'So far as Chinese matters were concerned, yes.'
' What were the facts you brought to the attention of the Premier at Calgary?' 'I brought to his attention that I had reported certain facts to Hon. Frank Oliver on November 10, 1909.'
' Why did you make a report to Mr. Oliver ?
I understand he lias nothing to do with the Department of Chinese immigration '
' That's right. I was acting in an advisory capacity to the immigration department generally. I was officially retained to look into the whole matter of immigration, to draft a new Act, and to advise thereon. One of the things I advised should be done was to have Chinese immigration administered by the Immigration Department. I felt that, otherwise, a lot of bungling would happen, if not worse.'
' Then Mr. Oliver did not go out of his department to have you go into the working of another department.'
' No, not officially. Mr. Oliver felt it was an anomaly that the Chinese immigration Act should be administered by another department but at the same time he did not, I suppose, want to tread on Sir Richard's toes. If you were to take it from the Trade and Commerce Department they would have very little to do.'
Here we have an insight into some of the family quarrels of these gentlemen; Trade and Commerce and Interior scrap-310
ping as to which should have control of immigration. I would not suggest that the value of the consideration has anything to do with the desire to possess on one side, or the reluctance to give up on the other, but I would suggest that as under the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce we are suffering such an appalling loss to our revenue, the Minister of Trade and Commerce should give up 'this Chinese immigration service which is about the only thing that remains in his department. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we get down to the estimates we will be doing a splendid, public service if we strike out in toto the vote for the Trade and Commerce Department because here we have the evidence-second hand evidence it is true-of another minister of the Crown that if you cut out the Chinese business from the Trade and Commerce Department there is nothing left for the department to do. We have also the evidence that the Department of Trade and Commerce is doing nothing with Chinese immigration except to permit these wholesale frauds to go unchallenged.	'
'When you were in Vancouver in November, 1909, and submitted a lengthy report to Mr. Oliver you were reporting only off your own bat ?
' Not quite. No. I understood that the government wished advice on the whole subject of immigration.'
'That is Mr. Oliver?' 'Yes, and involved in that I brought in the opium matter.' Witness then referred to his rejiort on the whole of the work, and a letter was read from Mr. W. D. Scott, superintendent of the Immigration Department, in which it was mentioned that witness was to receive $10 a day, expenses and a pass.
' That would be an official retainer by the Department of the Interior to inquire into the working of the Department of Immigration? '
' It might be open to tliat meaning. I understood I had a free hand to look into anything I wanted to.'


An hon. MEMBER.: Louder.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman who calls louder had it poured into his ears in trumpet tones that $1,000,000 was being stolen from the treasury of this country without the thieves being punished, it would make no difference to him in his support of the government. I doubt whether the information that the treasury was being robbed would make any difference to the interrupter whether he heard it in trumpet tones, or in the mildest whisper, If I thought I would impress the hon. member I would speak louder, but I feel that the effort would be wasted.
' Do you know whether that is the custom at Ottawa?' 'No. Quite the contrary.'
'This was a special occasion?' 'Yes. Mr. Oliver wished in no way to encroach on Sir



Richard's department. He did not intend to interfere in any way with Sir Richard's department/
' Do you call that interference ?'	' No. I
think he was, perhaps,- preparing for a possible change in the administration of the Chinese Act. That it would be better for the Chinese Act to be administered in the Immigration Department/
Judge Murphy asked who was authority for the letter, and witness replied that it was Mr. Scott, who had full authority. He had in view the working of the Act in the new provinces and British Columbia. In consequence witness drafted the Bill now going through the House. Mr. Scott simply intended that witness should see how the new Act would work out. It was not in his department.
' And the Premier never commissioned you to look into the matter. That is clear enough from your statement? '
' Not at all/	_	_
Asked for further information witness said it would be rather a long story.
' We will take a year to hear it, if we have to do so,' said the judge.
Mr. Mclnnes then went on to say that he felt it was a mistake to have a head-tax on the Chinese, and that a number should be let in free. They had to wait, however, to see how it worked out with Japan. He suggested to the Premier that the tax should be lifted. It might be in the Premier's mind to inaugurate such a policy if it should be considered in the interests of the Dominion as a whole. Witness did not think that he had ever received any verbal, written, or direct instructions from Sir Wilfrid, but

' As a friend of the government you have given this advice ? '
' Yes/
After hearing this explanation Mr. S. S. Taylor remarked that it was not such a very long story.
Mr. McCrossan, reading from the letter of 10th November, 1909, to Mr. Oliver regarding illegal entry of Chinese into the province and to the smuggling of opium, came to a passage in which it was stated that the government according to witness' knowledge, was losing at least $30,000 annually, and asked witness what was his reason for that statement.
It was, he replied, as the result of observation, and from what he had been told by reliable Chinese.
'What are their names?'
'I do not know that I will give those names.'
Judge Murphy.-You will have to do so, Mr. Mclnnes.
Witness then mentioned the name of Ow Yang King, Chinese Consul, at present in Mexico, Lew Gee Wing, Lee Kee, David Lew and Shum Moon. There were others whom he could not recollect. He would say that those he had mentioned were the most important.


Mr.  S. S.@: Taylor thought that witness should give the other names, but the latter replied that this was impossible, as he did not remember them.
'Did they soy that the government was losing $30,000? '
No, but he gathered from them that it was quite a lot of money.	.
The next part of the letter was in reference to smuggling to the United States through Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster.)
the Point Roberts route. Did he know anything definite about that. No; merely what he had been told by officers at Seattle.
Here is another bouquet for my hon. friend the minister from British Columbia, handed out by an official of his own government :
On October 28 witness communicated with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, telling him that the appointment of Poon Shun Lun was made on the recommendation of Hon. Mr. Templeman, who, although he was well acquainted with matters of western Canada, was not at all in the position of being a special authority on Chinese immigration methods. He also mentioned that Mr. Templeman had, according to that officer's statement tried to dissuade Mr. Foster from his investigations, and had also tried to dissuade the Department of Trade_ and Commerce from the inquiry, and had insisted that Yip On should he reinstated.
Judge Murphy here took occasion to remark that he invited any member of the public who could speak of rumors to come to the court, when they could be investigated. It had been for this reason that he wanted the attendance of Mr. Mclnnes.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at 8 o'clock.


James Davis Taylor: I have but little to add to the sordid story, the recital of which occupied the attention of the House this afternoon, but there are still a few passages which I would like to put on record to complete one or two points as to which some difference of opinion was expressed.
When the House rose at six o'clock, I had been reading from the evidence of Mr. Mclnnes at Vancouver, and the proposal to change the system of Chinese immigration to make it -correspond with that respecting the Japanese. Continuing the reading from the '.News-Advertiser,' I find in the issue of January 24th, in the review of Mr. Mclnnes's evidence, the following:
Amongst the things he said yesterday was the statement that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had spoken to him of the abolition of the Chinese head tax, and he mentioned generally, that the Premier had said what a great thing it would be in the interests of trade. Another statement made by Mr. Mclnnes was that he thought that Canada had blundered in every way in its entire Chinese policy. Code names for about a score of prominent government and local personages were disclosed, and provoked a good deal of merriment amongst thp crowd assembled. It was not explained why Mr. Robert Kelly's code name was ' Jew/
Then in the 'News-Advertiser' of January 24th at page 5, Mr. Mclnnes, in reply to another query stated that Mr. O'Hara started this investigation off his own bat. Mr. JULY 20, 1911
Mclnnes asked Mr. O'Hara whether he wished him to continue as he had other matters in hand. A letter of October 21st from witness to Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that witness called on Mr. Paterson, who thought that, so far as opium smuggling was concerned, any sudden or drastic action such as was taken in the case of Yip On would be unwise, but a public investigation might be desirable. He had also an interview with Mr. McKenzie King, who advocated an amendment to the Opium Act, without a public inquiry.
At the bottom of the same column I find:
It was also mentioned that recent proceedings at Vancouver had prevented the revenue being defrauded out of $17,500 head tax on 35 Chinese, picked out on two ships; also that the recent proceedings had justified the temporary appointment of Lew.
The next was a letter dated October 29, to witness from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said he had some execution to take to what witness said of the Hon. Mr. Templeman. The Premier said: 'Of course, he is my colleague, and so long as he occupies that position I cannot put his advice aside. He may he wrong in his judgment, but his intentions, I am sure, are above suspicion.'
Another letter brought out a remark from witness that he did not wish to come to this investigation. If he had not been here, he said, he would have been in Washington on a very important matter, which would have meant a deal to him.
A letter from Sir Wilfrid Laurier's private secretary acknowledged with thanks the letters and enclosures from witness in which ' there was excellent advice, but the writer might mention that Judge Murphy had been appointed commissioner.'
In reference to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Inland Kevenue (Mr. Templeman) this afternoon charging me with suppressing his telegram, which he said was in the evidence, I told him then that, from my search in the evidence, I did not find it. I am surprised that the hon. minister should so recklessly make a statement of that nature reflecting upon a colleague in the House, when the record- which he should have known-shows that what he said to the House was not correct:
I read in the '.News-Advertiser' of January 25th, page 1:
Counsel then stated it appeared that the telegram from Hon. Mr. Templeman to Sir Richard Cartwright was reported by the telegraph company to be missing. Mr. McCros-san said he did not know whether the copy was amongst the files, as he had not been through them yet.
.Now that is the telegram the hon. minister so flippantly told the House this afternoon was in this record, and should be read by me.


William Templeman: The telegram I sent to 310i
Sir Richard Cartwright, and the only telegram I sent was produced in evidence. It was procured at a telegraph office at Vancouver, and published in the papers. When I gave evidence I produced a copy of the telegram which I procured from the Trade and Commerce Department myself. If the hon. gentleman will read my evidence he will find the telegram.


James Davis Taylor: If the Speaker will permit me I will read this again. It is from the report contained in the 'News-Advertiser,' and I have no doubt it is correct. The hon minister told the House that I suppressed it from the evidence I quoted. I have covered the evidence day by day from the beginning, without finding such a telegram.


William Templeman: I am not charging the hon. gentleman with suppressing anything, but what 1 do say is that the hon. gentleman charged that I had sent a telegram recommending that the investigation should not proceed. I dispute that absolutely. I only sent one telegram and it was not to that effect.


James Davis Taylor: I have read from the sworn evidence. I have not gone beyond January 25th yet. I will read the statement from the 'News-Advertiser' again.
Counsel then stated it appeared that the telegram from the Hon. Mr. Templeman to Sir Richard Cartwright, was reported by the telegraph company to be missing. Mr. Me-Crossan said he did not know whether the copy was amongst the files, as he had not been through them yet.
Still quoting from the issue of the 'News-Advertiser' of January 25th, page 5, I find the following:
In connection with the telegram sent in the name of Mr. J. H. Senkler, K.C., suggesting ' the reinstatement of Yip On, and expressing the objection entertained to the drastic action of Mr. O'Hara in suspending collector Bowell,' the letter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier of October 3rd last stated that the Premier had found there was a very strong prima facie case against the Chinese interpreter, and that he had been properly suspended.
Sir Wilfrid added that ' the public are so keen about this oriental business that we should put ourselves into very serious trouble if we were to create the impression that we were not doing our full duty to have the law carried out. If you have any reason to think [DOT]otherwise, please write to me and give me your full views.'
In his letter to the Premier of October 8th, Mr. Senkler stated he thought the executive of the Liberal association were wrong in sending the telegram in his name in his absence. They should, if -they had felt so strongly on the matter as they apparently did, have sent it in the name of the secretary


-COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
or vice-president, or acting chairman. However, he personally thought most Chinese were proverbially dishonest, and if it were possible to get an interpreter who was not a Chinese, it would be infinitely preferable.
In the 'Advertiser' of January 26th there is a review of the evidence given by Mr. J.os. Martin, K.C., which is as follows:
Mr. Joseph Martin, K.C., M.P., was the star
witness yesterday. His evidence was not -exactly evidence in regard to the definite prints of the inquiry, but it was a scathing indictment, of ' the graft he believed had permeated every department/
His was a meteoric appearance, and he burst in alike on the commission the Dominion government, the local Libei al executive and Mr. Robert Kelly, its chief, in particular. His charges included the statement that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was primarily to blame, and that the Premier ' could stop it all in five minutes if he wanted to do so / that every department in which the Liberal government spent money or had any control' in British *Columbia went through the local Liberal or .ganization here, over which Mr. Robert Kelly was the head; that Mr. Robert Kelly had the *control of every thing in regard to the government's business and in return supplied Lunds for the government campaigns. These -were two of the statements made by ' fighting Joe' and listened to with absorbing attention by the crowded assembly who were present.
Judge Murphy pointed out that Foster had said twice that Mr. Templeman said to him " Foster, I want you to stop this.' Witness said Foster did-not say that to him, but that be said that Mr. Kelly and Dr. Munroe attempted to stop the matter.
Now, there are reams or evidence in addition to what I have read. The inquiry proceeded in Vancouver and Victoria for some time after January 31, to which the files from which I am reading extend, and -which contains all that I propose to read to the House. I think I have read enough to show that a most appalling condition of affairs has existed in Vancouver during the last four years; that persons in a position to know how the revenue has been defrauded have been making continual and repeated complaints since that time; that they ' have^ gone the round of almost the [DOT]whole cabinet with these complaints; that tio relief appears from any quarter until Mr. O'Hara a deputy minister saw fit, off his own bat, to institute an investigation which inspector Foster is declared by Judge Murphy to have said the Minister of Inland Revenue himself wished to have stopped. But the matter Had gone too far to be stopped. It went on, we are told, largely as the result of the fear inspired by the Drummond and Arthabaska 'election* which showed that it was possible to conceive that a day of reckoning could come. The evidence has been in the possession of the government, some of it since December, and the last of it since April last.
James Davis Taylor: And we wind up with a statement in this House a few days ago that, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the matter is under consideration, and the ministers do not know when, if ever, that report will be laid before the House, or whether any action will be taken in connection with it. Now, the whole iri'dict-ment, so far as the smuggling of Chinese [DOT] into Canada is concerned, is against the Department of Trade and Commerce primarily to show its utter inefficiency, and its entire neglect of the business entrusted to it. We are told that a colleague of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is doing his level best within the cabinet to relieve the paralysis by having control of the Chinese transferred from a dead department to a live one. We are told by another employee of the government that the only reason that this is not done is that if you take this from the Trade and Commerce Department there will be nothing left for it. In the face of all that, this House is supposed to be content with the statement that the government will not act except on the initiative of the Trade and Commerce Department. I, for one, am not satisfied with that. I am quite satisfied that those of my constituents who form part of the population of the city of Vancouver are not satisfied, that they are earnestly desirous that the government should take some steps to put an end to the gross scandal prevailing there, and they would call me seriously to account if, in common with other members, I was so derelict in my duty to them as to allow the session to pass without some exposition of the state of affairs there, and a demand that some action shall be taken by the government. I leave it to the judgment of the House whether or not the facts indicate that we should put upon the record the opinion of this House as to the failure of the government to deal with these scandals, and to punish the perpetrators who, for a period of many years, have gone unwhipped of justice.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I thought that some minister of the Crown would give an answer to the very serious ind'ictmetnt brought against the - government or give some explanation of the masterly inactivity which appears to have characterized the government in connection with this affair from first to last. I thought the minister for British Columbia (Mr. Templeman) especially would say something. But he chooses to remain silent. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary situation, and yet it is not so different from those we have had to deal with during the last few years. The government found themselves in this situation because of trouble over which, perhaps, in the first

place, they had no control. But the action which they took in the premises was not calculated to impress the public with the bel'ietf that they were very ^.anxious to punish the wrongdoers or stop the wrongdoing, otherwise we should have had different evidence of it from that which we have to-day. Rumours of wrongdoing, dishonesty, and fraud in connection with Chinese immigration, and government officials was brought to the notice of the government several years ago. It was brought to their notice in the most pointed and, direct way, by letters from their officials, by letters from their friends, by conversations they themselves had with those in whom they ought to have full confidence. But, notwithstanding, they appear to have paid no attention to it, and allowed these frauds to contipue. There was finally sufficient information brought to their notice to induce the government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter.
They did appoint that commission, and the inquiry went on. It commenced about' the time of the opening of this session last November. That inquiry was confined to two ports, Vancouver and Victoria, and so was not widespread, and did not require a long time to take the evidence. Now, seven months after its appointment, parliament is anxious to see that report, but we are denied that right although the report has been in the hands of the government for two months. Why are we denied that report? Because the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here. Because the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who happens to occupy a seat in the Upper Chamber, which has adjourned until August 10, is off enjoying himself at his summer residence and may not put in an appearance until that date or afterwards.


Wilfrid Laurier: He will be here to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that not strange conduct on the part of ministers and on the part of the Prime Minister himself? In the absence of the minister of any department one of his colleagues invariably administers his department, and surely it was the duty of the minister so acting to at least make an effort to procure this report for parliament. It is a strange parody on ministerial responsibility and executive duty. It is not what the country and this House demands. This House may at any time collapse from its own unfortunate conduct, and parliament be dissolved, and, in the absence of that report we will have no information to give to the country to enable 4he electorate of Canada to judge of the action of the government In connection
with that transaction. Perhaps a year-after the election that report may be presented to the House.
If the evidence given in the press is at. all reliable an awful state of affairs has been disclosed. We see a minister of the Crown controlled by one of his supporters out there in the Tammany of Vancouver, Mr. Kelly, and an executive or patronage committee, a confidential committee who seem to control the whole-affairs of this government in that great city. It was the duty of the Minister of the Interior to look after immigration, but he has done nothing in this matter. The attention of the Minister of Customs was drawn to these frauds in the smuggling of opium and Chinese into the country, but nothing has been done.. Then we have the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) who belongs to the . city, who knows all these men, and who-has been acting through that committee,, that Tammany ring for years, and has had brought to his attention over and over again the discreditable conduct of this committee. Yet there is no effort to do away with it or to purge the unclpanness of that stable out there. So it goes on, masterly inactivity, unconcern, indifference, dishonesty, culpability, crime, fraud, and everything, all brought home to the government in the plainest possible way if this evidence is reliable, and yet the evidence is kept from the House at the time we ought to have it. The report pf the commissioner was finished early in May, but it has- not been presented. This is not the only case of the kind; we had a similar condition with reference to the Marine Department, and were told that everything was all right there. The government from session to session were urged to make an inquiry, but they were able to sidetrack it in some way. Finally a commission was appointed. They attempted to prevent the carrying out of that investigation, to burke the inquiry after it was begun. The commissioners had not time to cover more than a portion of the ground, but they made a partial report of what they inquired into. That report disclosed the most disgraceful state of affairs that was ever known in the running of a department of the government here in Ottawa.
Then what happened? The ministers of the Crown commenced to abuse the commissioners and the commissioners were indicted before this House because of the report they had presented. They were the-criminals, they were held up before the people because they had honestly endeavoured to do their duty. The government could not absolutely burke that inquiry although they stopped it after the inquiry was partially -made. We had following that another one-the Printing Bureau.

The opposition endeavoured to have an inquiry, but they were not allowed to do so. It was voted down because it was said there was nothing wrong. Everything that had transpired that was wrong had been righted and yet there is only a fraction of what should come out that has been laid before this House to enable the House to judge of the state of affairs in the Printing Bureau. In 'every one of these instances the same tactics were followed by the government. The members of the House were kept in the dark as far as possible. The commissioners were prevented from going on with that inquiry as they should have gone on with it. In the case of the Department of Marine and Fisheries there was a second investigation that disclosed a great deal more wrong-doing than the first one and even that only covered part of the ground. From information in our possession we have reason to believe that there are other departments that are as bad as this, if they were inquired into. The opposition have tried over and over again to get a commission of inquiry with full powers to make an investigation into these departments, but every time it has been voted down upon the declaration of ministers that everything was all right and that there was no need for investigation. This, if it had been brought up in this House, would have been treated in tile same way. But while there was a commission appointed and while it did bring out a lot of valuable information, the House is denied the right to see that information, to read, analyse and sift the evidence and present it to the people of the country, who in all human probability will be shortly called upon to express their verdict at the polls in regard to the conduct of this government during their term of office. We cannot have it. Is that treating the electors of the country right? It is an injustice to this House that should not be tolerated, it is an injustice to the electors that should not be tolerated, and I can only hope that when the dav comes that the people must sit in judgment upon them they will have this case before their minds and that they will mete out even-handed justice to their representatives in this House who have made this effort to prevent this information being given to the House or the country as it should be, so that it can be dealt with in a proper way The hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) said that this thing was under consideration. How long will it remain under consideration before it shall fructify in results? With regard to the efforts made to recognize the veterans of the Fenian raid-fiasco, why, it has been under consideration, for 14 years and there is no indication that they have reached a conclusion yet From time to time we have had that declaration from the Prime Minister, from Mr. SPROULE.	[DOT]
the Minister of Militia and from other members of the government. It is still under consideration. As in this case the Minister of Justice declared that it was under their cons;deration. What does that mean to the House or the people of the country? If we are to judge what it means by what we know of other cases where the same expressions have been used and where we have had time to ascertain what tne results have been we are justified in coming to the conclusion that it was under consideration for the purpose of keeping it from the people, keeping it from this House, keeping it in the dark, rather than for the purpose of bringing it to light. I think it is disgraceful, I think it is discreditable, I think it does not reflect credit upon any member of the present government. It happens that by an accident of life some of the members of this government must be in the Senate, but when the House of Commons desires information and if the Senate is not in session there is the easiest way in the world to have it presented to this House, instead of using the fact that the Senate has adjourned and that the minister is off on his summer holidays as an excuse for refusing to give the House the evidence of that important commission which it ought to have to-night and which it ought to be able to read over carefully and take action upon before the House has probably collapsed and a .new election is held.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Mr. Speaker, I did not rise after my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) had taken his seat for the reason, which I will give him very frankly, that, in my estimation, the speech which he made was not so much for the purpose of obtaining information as for the purpose of killing time and obstructing the business of the House. My hon. friend spoke for a matter of three or four hours, certainly for three hours, and there is no reason at all, if he had been anxious to have the information, why he should not have had the answer which he wanted to have in ten minutes. My hon, friend (Mr. Sproule) has. just taken his seat after having devoted fifteen minutes to the same subject and under such circumstances I owe it to him to give him the answer which he requires. An investigation has been made into the condition of things which prevailed in British Columbia with regard to the administration of the Chinese Act. This investigation was held by a Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Murphy. His report was sent to my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) who handed it over to the Department of Justice for the purpose of taking action upon it. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth)
98.17

asked me to look over the report to-day and I had a conference with him. I will give frankly to the House the reason why the report has not been placed upon the table of the House. Mr. Justice Murphy's report is a very voluminous one, containing at least 100 pages of foolscap typewritten matter, if not more. I had no time to read it in its entirety, but I looked into it at the conclusion. The conclusion of the report is that certain parties should be prosecuted. These parties have not been prosecuted because they are not at this moment in the country. Mr. Justice Murphy's second recommendation is that this report should not be made public until the prosecutions have been instituted. I have not had the report in my hands to read it over, but 1 presume that if the report and the evidence were disclosed it would, to some extent, interfere with the administration of justice and with reaching the culprits. Under such circumstances we have to make up our minds either to make the report public and therefore give this advantage to the culprits which Mr. Justice Murphy says should not be given or we will have to keep the report to ourselves and be subjected to the very charitable inference that we have something to conceal. I said a moment ago, that I have not yet had an opportunity of looking at the report. It is my intention to look over it with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in order to -discuss with him what action should be taken upon the report. Then, we shall make further communication to the House and state whether we shall make the report public or not make it public as we deem best in the public interest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman why the Minister of Justice answered in these words :
The report has been received by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but in the absence of the minister, I am not able to say anything in reference to it except that it is under consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: The absence of the Minister of Trade anjl Commerce is not to be interpreted as it has been interpreted by my hon. friend that he is to be absent so long as the Senate is adjourned. The minister is to be in Ottawa to-morrow and it is my purpose to discuss this matter with him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Justice gave the idea that the report was in the Trade and Commerce Department, and that he knew nothing about it, whereas it was in the Justice Department, and he might as well have told the House so.


James Davis Taylor: The First Minister has been so unfair as to say that I have brought this matter up simply
for the purpose of wasting time. I give that statement a most positive contradiction.


Mr. TALBOT.: You can contradict it if you like.


James Davis Taylor: I do not expect to convince the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot). I brought the matter up in pursuance of my duty to a large number of citizens of Vancouver who are my constituents, and in pursuance of my duty to my constituents generally. I asked for this report on two previous occasions without making any remarks at all. The first time I was promised it and the next time the promise had vanished and I was given no information at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I must give my hon. friend the credit of this disclaimer but I am sorry to say his prolixity gave a different' impression.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister ought to make an apology rather than an insinuation. This matter has been in the public press for months past; the evidence has been taken, and largely printed in the newspapers of the country; a report has been made; parliament re-assembles, and there is not one word from any member of the government with regard to that investigation or report. No explanation is given by the ministry as to why the report of that commission has not been submitted to parliament and the inquiry of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is met in an evasive way. As a natural result of that, the evidence published in the, press of the country has been placed in part upon ' Hansard ' as it was the duty of my hon. friend from New Westminster to do in view of the apparent unwillingness of the government to give any information to the House or to the country. When the Prime Minister says that this report is not submitted to ' parliament because its submission might interfere with the course of justice I do not understand what he means. I am bound to say that the Prime Minister has not expressed himself in a manner that would carry conviction on that point in my mind. The inquiry was open to the public, and the evidence was published in the newspapers and it does not seem that there can be anything in the suggestion that the placing of the evidence on the table of the House would give these men information which they have not at present. I do not understand the suggestion of the Prime Minister in that respect.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) was not in the House when I stated, that, this morning I had a conference with the Minister of Justice upon the subject. I had not time to read
9S39

the voluminous report, but I read the conclusion wherein Mr. Justice Murphy suggests that certain parties should be prosecuted. I am informed by the Department of Justice that these parties are not in the country. Mr. Justice Murphy also recommends that the report should not be made public previous to these prosecutions. That is why the report has not been tabled. I will see the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce about it again to-morrow, and we will have to decide then whether we shall bring down the report and give to those who are to be prosecuted an advantage which Mr. Justice Murphy says they should not have, or whether, in order to clear ourselves, we shall act against the recommendation of the commissioner and bring the report down.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not for a moment criticise a report made by Mr. Justice Murphy, or any other commissioner, but I am not at present able to appreciate the point he makes. I presume there can be nothing in the report which is not founded upon the evidence which was taken in public, and which every one of the men implicated knows. If the Prime Minister on the day parliament met had stated what he has stated to-night, and left it to the members of the House to press or not press for the report, it would have been better. Instead of that, we have an answer of an evasive character in regard to the report, and my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) in the face of that was in duty bound to extort from the government some explanation of their very extraordinary conduct in connection with this matter. I had not followed this subject very closely in the public press, and to-day I have been absolutely astounded at the evidence which seems to have been given before Mr. Justice Murphy in connection with Chinese immigration. Some of that evidence is of the most shocking character, and I should have thought that any government involved as this government has been, would have felt it its duty at the earliest moment to make an explanation to parliament, if any could be made, as to the extraordinary revelations made. I find it stated-not by Conservatives, but by prominent members of the Liberal party in the province of British Columbia-that there was actually a quarrel among them as to how the plunder from the public treasury should be divided. One would suppose that such evidence would bring from the government a prompt statement that effective measures would be taken immediately not only to end such an intolerable condition of affairs, but to bring to justice those who Sir WILFRID LAURIER
have been plundering the people of Canada for many years past.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. the Prime Minister has stated that the hon. member for New Westminster was taking up the time of the House, and carrying on this discussion purely for the purpose of wasting the time of this House. To me it seems that the party who is guilty of all this loss of time, if there is any, is the right hon. the Prime Minister himself, because had he earlier in the day made a statement such as he has made now, the discussion might have been curtailed, that is, provided the right hon. gentleman had gone a little farther, and stated to the House that in view of the fact that departments of his government have been so derelict in their duty as to hold this report over for three months in order to enable all those likely to be prosecuted to get out of the country, he would bring down the report at once. In fact, he did not apparently know that some one was to be prosecuted until to-day, nor did the Department of Justice know that the judge who made this report had suggested that some one should be prosecuted. For months that report has been pigeonholed in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the men guilty of defrauding this country of about $1,000,000 have no doubt been aided by information given to them directly or indirectly to leave this country, and thus avoid any prosecution. This is not the first time that the government has been asked for this report. The hon. member for New Westminster has again and again asked that it be presented to the House. One would have thought that in a matter not only involving a great money loss to this country, but showing thaf~a most flagrant conspiracy existed in Vancouver to defraud this country, and that officers employed by a department of the government were in that conspiracy, the government would have as quickly as possible taken action, and laid the report on the table of the House. Instead of that, they have done nothing, and the guilty men are now out of the country. Certainly there was loss of time there on the part of this government. Under the circumstances there was only one course lor the party on this side of the House to pursue, and that was to place on the records of this House the evidence taken by the commission as disclosed in the newspaper reports, and show as clearly as possible the facts connected with this great Tong war carried on between two factions of the Liberal party in British Columbia in the last few months. The birds have flown, and the fact that the Prime Minister has announced in this House that certain people are to be prosecuted is warning to those peo-

pie who are out of the country that if they return they are liable to be placed under arrest. The cat is out of the bag. So far as future prosecutions are concerned, the report might as well be placed on the table of this House by the Prime Minister to-day or to-morrow as a month or six months from now, and I think he should state that he will place tne report on the table to-morrow. The facts disclosed in that report are to all intents and purposes public property at this moment. In justice to this House and the country, I think the evidence should be placed on the records of this House. The hon. member for New Westminster has placed on the records the evidence up to the beginning of February. As his physical powers are not equal to his quoting the evidence for two or three hours more, I think I am justified in assisting him by proceeding to read the evidence taken at the remaining sittings of that commission in British Columbia. That is the only way in which this House can have the facts before it, and then we shall be able to deal with this question in an intelligent manner. It would be very absurd for us to bring in a motion casting any reflection on the government in this matter before we had all the evidence before us, and I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite, who are so closely and intently listening to the evidence, will be pleased to read it in ' Hansard ' to-morrow. The Minister of Customs is at the head of the department which has to do with the collection of this tax, and he is the first man who should have taken action against these frauds and rascalities; yet he as the principal watch-dog has been absent during the whole afternoon, when this sordid tale has been told in the House. Let us see how this thing occurred. We know that the law with reference to Chinese immigration was changed in 1907, permitting merchants, students and merchants' sons to come to this country. A vast conspiracy was formed, with its ramifications in China and Canada, by which men in China, on payment of $100, were made partners in firms of merchants there. Some who were cooks or laundrymen were in this way raised to the dignity of merchants, and they received consular certificates from China on which were placed their photographs, and in many cases were given new names.
As	near	as	I can understand	it theywere	met	by a man supposed	to bean agent	of	this government, and hehanded them gold coin to the tune of $150 or $200. Drafts were given on imaginary banking houses, and after they came to Vancouver they were met by the commissioner of customs, who was deluded by the interpreter, the latter pretending to ask a great many questions from these men,	but	it was definitely and	clearly
proved that he did not ask them any questions at all, on the other hand he laughed up his sleeve at what he was supposed to say. He made a long face to the customs house officer there who had charge of this end of the business and looked very wise and these men were passed as merchants. Hundreds of them got through in that way, and before I close to-night I propose to show how many were passed! The strange thing about this is that these men were not passed at Victoria-where they might have been passed-or Prince Rupert or Comox, but at Vancouver. The most peculiar thing in connection with it all is the appearance there of a patronage committee which seems to rule over the destinies of the Liberal party on the coast. That patronage committee has since become divided against itself, a great tong war now rages, their dirty linen is being washed before the public, and the names of ministers have been dragged into the light of notoriety, as we read in the evidence given from time to time in these papers.
But members of the opposition have refrained from making any reference to these questions previously during this session. That was not due to the fact that we were not well aware of what was going on or that we did not watch closely the evidence taken before the commissioners in Victoria Vancouver and elsewhere, but because we felt that the Prime Minister of this country and those who have charge of the treasury matters should realize ' the importance of this question and take prompt action. I am satisfied that it was the duty of the'. Prime Minister the moment the commission was appointed to ask the commissioner to make a report direct to him and give him the result of the investigation, by wire if necessary. In this matter this country has suffered a loss to the extent of at least one million dollars through the dishonesty of public servants -lost apparently through the machinations of the patronage committee who stood in with these Chinamen. In the newspapers on the coast at the time, it was stated that the interpreter who worked the racket got $20 a head on those he put in, and that $100 a head went to somebody higher up in the confidence of this party-some man who had power and patronage to distribute?
That is a very sordid and sad tale. I could quite understand it in connection with any other department but a department collecting revenue. In no other British country can we find anything of the kind in connection with the Customs Department. There have been frauds in connection with contracts, and petty grafting in connection with other departments, but such a thing as this in connection with

a department collecting revenue is unknown.
The strangest feature of the whole matter is the apparent and intense Interest shown by the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) to help somebody out throughout this whole transaction. The holding of nice dinners at which this was discussed, nice little dinners where, according to the witnesses, nobody got drunk, and at which all these matters were threshed out by the patronage committee -these are the facts that came out in the evidence; and I am sure this House will not be satisfied until the whole of the evidence is laid before it in 'Hansard' to-morrow. The only possible way in which we can get this story before the public and the only way that we can get the facts before the people so that they can pass judgment upon it is to have some of the evidence placed upon 'Hansard'. Therefore I would ask the House to be patient with me while I read portions of the evidence from the 1st of February until the inquiry was closed.
On the 1st of February the investigation was resumed, and two Chinese witnesses were examined. These two men were printers. Apparently they have a paper in Vancouver called the ' Sun Bow,' published by the Chinese Association or a Chinese company. They were in need of printers, and they did not seem to have trouble^ in getting Chinese printers.
Reading from the Vancouver 'News Advertiser' of February 1st, page 5 I find the following evidence given by these printers:
Then two Chinese witnesses who had the appearance of students, who were dressed in Kuropean style, were brought in.
This was before the judge who was taking the evidence:
Then two Chinese witnesses, who had the appearance of students and were dressed in European style, were brought in, and Mr. Mc-Crossan suggested that David Lew or the reporter of a Chinese-not English-paper should translate, but Mr. Taylor objected to Lew. The judge suggested Lew should translate subject to check on the part of someone else, but as Mr. Taylor had no one present the judge decided he would not let the men go before they were examined, as the chances were, if he did so, they .might not see the men again.
Eventually Mr. Cum Tow was telephoned for, and while they were waiting for him the paper oath was administered, Lew, first being sworn in as interpreter for the purpose of administering the oath.
Hon gentlemen will understand what a paper oath is. The name of the Chinaman is written on a piece of paper and the paper is then burnt before him. There is another form of Chinese oath known as the 'chicken oath'. They threatened several Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
times to use it in this case, but I do not see any evidence that it was used.
Then each witness, whose names were Yip Dit Chor and Yung Jung Sung wrote his name on a slip of paper which was lit and each witness held it until it burnt itself out, 'telling them beforehand, in Chinese, what the oaths meant and the full signification if perjury was committed.
AsMr. Cum Yow had not arrived at 5.20, the judge directed a message to be sent saying the court was waiting, and Mr. McCrossan unavail-ting.ly tried witnesses in English.
Then David Lew started to interpret the questions, and soon after Mr. Cum Yow came in.
"Yip Dit Chor was a typesetter on a Chinese newspaper.''	[DOT]
You will observe his name 'Yip' shows his clan. He was one of the Yip clan, and the interpreter against whom these charges were made was Yip On. I do not know whether this man Yip was a Liberal or an insurgent Liberal. However his name was Yip Dit Chor. He was a typesetter on a Chinese newspaper, and a fearful undertaking it is to set type on a Chinese journal. If the Min-nistor of Railways (Mr. Graham) were here, he would, as he has been a type setter himself, understand what a lot of trouble it is for a man to set type when he has a font 30 feet long and has to run backwards to pick out each letter- a letter being supposed to represent a word, is it any wonder then, that under the circumstances that there was a scarcity of typesetters in Vancouver. However this man was a typesetter and the report goes to say:
Yip Dit Chor was typesetter on a Chinese newspaper here, and followed the same trade in China. He came to Canada on the Mont-eagle about June, 1907, and did not have the handling of a passport^ He did not know whether he paid head .tax or not. He came with Yung Sing Set. Mr. Cum Yow now entered and checked Lew's singing questions and interpretation.
Witness knew that he himself never paid the poll-tax. He met Yip On at the shed, and' was examined by Mr. Howell, who interrogated him as to age, etc., Yip On interpreting.
Was he asked if he was a merchant?
-He was not asked that in Chinese.
You will observe that the interpreter was supposed to ask him that question.
'Did he describe himself as Mak Sis Wah ?' asked Mr. McCrossan, consulting a passport?
He signed his name as Mak Sis Wah, which was not his right name. It was his photograph which appeared on the passport. He never saw the passport before. He paid nothing for it.
Judge Murphy-And it cost you nothing to come into Canada ?
Witness said it was all paid by the Sun Bow Newspaper Company.
At this point arises a very important thing in connection with the importation of

Chinese, and that is this:. .Peonage is recognized in China, and men come to this country whose way is paid and who for years afterwards remain virtually the slaves of the companies or individuals who import them. Anything that will encourage that system of importing Chinese labour into this country helps in maintaining a great evil and a great wrong to these men. This evil grew to great proportions in the United States, where there were societies that enslaved large classes of Chinese who worked night and day but all of whose wages went to these companies. Here you see, was a man taken charge of by a company in China, shipped to Canada, and a passport given him. Why, he was even given a new name. And he comes into the country and pays no poll tax, I think the case is a clear one.
Did Yip On to knowledge of witness know what work witness was coming here to do?- He did not know Yip On at all at that time.
He came over on the 'Mon t.eagle' in company with Yung Ling Sit, another Chinese newspaper typesetter, who had since died. Yung Jung Sung, who had come to the court with him, was also a typesetter here and in China. They did not come on the same vessel.
Did witness ever go before the Viceroy?- Witness did not know how the certificate was obtained. He did not go for it.
A Chinaman in China is supposed to go before the viceroy and get his certificate signed. This man never appeared before the viceroy. Bo you see the law there was violated.
Who got it for him?-He did not remember the man's name. He was a clerk there. Witness was engaged to come here by Long Shu Hun, representing the ' Sun Bow ' newspaper Company.
Did this Long Shu Hun take him to the Yah Wick Company?
He belonged to what company?
What was their business?-Exporters of general dry goods.
Did he know Yip Yen?-Yes.
Where did he meet him?-He saw him at the Yah Wick Company last on the day he left for the steamer.
Witness said he was examined at the detention shed here by a white officer and that Yip On was there. He did not know the name of the white officer, but hi: was a pretty elderly man.
What did Yip On ask you?-
He did not ask witness much questions, hut asked if he was a merchant, the latter replying that he had come here to go into business. Some one in Hong Kong told him to say that.
What did he pay for the passport?-He did not know.
Had he paid any thing at all?-No.
Was it understood the Sun Bow Company were to pay his poll-tax?

All that was said was ' He give you this paper. You go over there. It will be all right.'
He never saw the Viceroy, or went to the British consul. He got the photograph from the Yah Wick Company and travelled as ' Lee Su Hung/ which was not his right name, hut was the name he was told by Yip Yen at Hong Kong to use for the purpose.
He gave the picture a few days before he got the passport. When he arrived here he had some money, hut he did not remember how much.
With the view to finding out if witness re-fhembered seeing any of the men who came on the same boat, their photographs on the passports were shown to him. He was sick much of the time, he said, hut recollected seeing one out of the four men shown on the photographs.	.
Mr. Taylor left over his cross-examination until the morning, the judge, who said there had been difficulty in getting the man here, having it made clear that he must attend.
Yung Jung Sing, a very intelligent looking man. was put on the witness stand at five minutes to six o'clock.
He was a typesetter on the Sun Bow newspaper, Carrall Street, and had formerly worked for over three years for the ' Reform Ga-
He came from Hong Kong on the ' Mont-eagle,' hut not on the same trip as last witness. He was also a typesetter there and was not then, nor ever since, a merchant.
;So you see, this man admits he was not a merchant, but a typesetter. And these two typesetters say that they were allowed to enter the country without paying the poll
tax.
He got his passport-which had his photograph on it-from the Yah Wick Company of Devoe Road, Hong Kong.
That is one of the big companies handling these Chinese, trying to run them into the United States and Uanada.
This man Yip On was the official interpreter. He was sent to these men to train them and line them up to be passed. He passed them most successfully and in such a way that this government was defrauded out of one million dollars or more.
He gave him the gold on the steamer to put in his pocket in case he might be searched, so that he could hack up his story that he was a merchant, was about to go into business.
Yip On gave him some gold, which he put in his pocket, and then gave it hack to Yip On after he was examined.
Did he know if others on the boat did the same thing?-He looked only after his own business.
He was a wise Chinaman.
He was given just one letter by the Yah Wick Company at Hong Kong, to be handed to Yip On. Another man collected it from him on the voyage.
He knew nothing now as to whether the Yah Wick Company were still doing business.
I do not know either. I suppose that by this time there is no such company, for they would have had notice of that report.


Mr.  B. R.@: Macdonald, collector of customs at Princo Rupert, was the first witness at the morning session.


COMMOJSI8
[Stage Direction]
He liad learned in Prince Rupert that Chinese were coming into Vancouver without paying the tax.
You will note that it was a well-known story all over the Coast for a long time before action was taken, that the Chinese were coming into Canada without paying poll tax and that this was virtually an open port so far as the Chinese were concerned.
Through the aid of the interpreter, afterwards getting permits and transmitting them to China for use by improper merchants, who would bring in with them boys described as sons, but who were not their sons. This state of matters had been going on for three years he was told by his informant, and the latter had come with him from Prince Rupert to give evidence.
There was a case in Toronto not many weeks ago. A bright, intelligent lad of 12 or 14 who was staying with a supposed uncle and who was brought to Toronto, no doubt as a merchant's son. The iad was found hanging dead in a room and was supposed to have committed suicide. But there is a great mystery about it. I contend that no Chinese boy should be admitted to this country except in company with his own parents. But this man knew and it was current report, that boys were admitted to Canada who pretended to be sons of men with whom they entered.
He had asked this man whether he had any proof to sustain the charges, but had been told that he knew it only by hearsay. In this it was mentioned that the price paid was $100 to the interpreter and $20 for others.
Cross-examined by Mr. S. S. Taylor witness said the name of his informant was Mar Ben Quin. Witness admitted he himself had no proof. He only mentioned what he had been told.
Mar Ben Quin, not having arrived, Yip On then got back to the witness stand, and was asked whether he had had anything to do in the way of inducing passengers to come over by the use of passports, or had he brought in mere working men as merchants?-No.
Did the Reform Association in 1907 by resolution ask him or Yip Suh Poy to bring over Chinese printers, and did not one of them cqme in under a passport?-No.
Asked again what he thought was the reason for his suspicion witness considered it was merely for the purpose of a government inspection. It was nothing to do with a tong war. He had heard on the street that Lew had made some trouble for him.
Mr. McCrossan switched back to the matter of passports and Dr. Chang, and the reason Dr. Chang had sent the list of names to witness instead of to Mr. Bowell, because a bone of contention between Mr. McCrossan and Mr. Taylor, the latter holding that Dr. Chang's letter, as coming from the Chinese diplomatic consul here, was absolutely free from any possibility of being impugned, and that he had kept that letter all through, as strong evidence in favour of his client.
Judge Murphy said that whether he had power to call Dr. Chang or not, he did not intend to do so.
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: After this little breeze was over Yip On was taken through another cable translating effort. This was a cable to ' Conclusion,' said to be Yip On's brother's code name, Hong Kong, and unsigned. It worked out roughly as follows:	' Suh Wy's position, suspended,
last boat, tell the people that know.' Mr. McCrossan assumed this to mean, on witnesses' explanation, that * Suh Wy's position,' meant ' little brother's position,' and contended that this cable was sent by Yip Quong, Yip On's brother. David Lew made the interpretation ' Suh Wy and his brother, position, suspended, last boat, tell everybody that knows.'
Reverting to the viceroy's certificate sent to Dr. Chang there was further argument between counsel and Judge Murphy stated that he believed it was a fact that every such certificate was duplicated at Ottawa. Mr. Taylor claimed that if this were the fact the passport conspiracy fell to the ground and protested further at the time taken up in bringing out matters in reference to Yip On, while other matters, such as the opium smuggling, were left over. The commission might go on for ever.
I would ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that when Chinese entering Vancouver or Victoria in this way receive passports in China, duplicates of the passports are sent from the British consul in China direct to Ottawa as stated in this evidence?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not tell my hon. friend at the moment?


Morley Currie: Is there any minister hetre who could tell?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think there is?


Morley Currie: Could the Minister of Inland Revenue?


William Templeman: I do not know.


Morley Currie: Perhaps the Minister of Customs could tell? -


Mr. PATERSON.: I could not state, but I suppose that if one was sent it would he sent to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Morley Currie: Perhaps the Minister of Militia, the latest recruit to the ranks of our diplomats, who has been practising the art lately with the intention of becoming High Commissioner,- could? Would he send a duplicate passport in this way? The Minister of Militia should be an expert on passports, as no one can enter his department without a passport. It would be a proper thing to have the photograph put on the passport. No one on the government benches knows anything about the Chinese question. But to resume the evidence.
Judge Murphy interposed. There are some people, he said, amidst general laughter, who say .that would be a good thing for us all. The opium matter was yet to come.	'


J U.LY 20, 1911
[Stage Direction]
A good thing if the whole question was dropped. I wonder who the people were who the judge thought would like to see Ihe whole thing dropped.
Mar Ben Quin not having arrived, Yip On then got back into the witness stand and was asked whether he had had anything to do in the way of inducing passengers to come over by the use of passports, or had he brought in mere workingmen as merchants? No.
Did the Reform Association in 1907 by resolution ask him or Yip Su Foy to bring over Chinese printers and did not one of them come in under a passport. No.
Asked again what he thought was the reason for his suspension, witness considered it was merely for the purpose of a government inspection. It had nothing to do with -a Tong war
Yip On was then cross-examined by Mr. Gordon Grant concerning the method of examinations at the shed, and wanted to know if Mr. Bowell had refused permission to a man claiming to be a partner of Yip Sang, Yip On's partner. Witness did not notice if any of his uncle's partners had tried to come in.
Mr. Grant stated that Mr. Bowell had said that a man, so claiming, had tried to come
in and had been refused. Would witness say Mr. Bowell was wrong? Witness only said:	No.
He did not know how many partners his uncle had.
Why did he not know how many partners his uncle had? Because, perhaps, 200 Chinamen had each given $10 to become partners.
As regarded his brother, Yip Quong, he kept a jewellery store, starting three or four years ago, before which he was working in Wing San's. He had partners, of which witness was one, and Yip Quong and Yip Sam others, but he could not remember the names of others.
Three or four years ago he was Vice-President of the Reform Association.
I am surprised, to see in the evidence that a Chinaman was vice-president of the Reform Association of Vancouver. But it is so stated here; he gives it under oath. He says three or four years ago he was vicepresident of the Reform Association. Is that possible?? A Chinaman vice-president of the Reform Association, because the Reform Association consists largely of Chinamen.
Bee Quong was Secretary Treasurer. They passed no resolution that year for witness to get some men to work for them, nor did he know men employed on the paper or look into accounts. He spent no money for them to get it returned to him. He was not asked to get two printers from China for the association.
I wonder if that paper is on the patronage list. The Minister of the Interior is not here.
Did not those two men tell him, at the detention shed, where to go to get the $560 to pay their head tax ? He could not remember.
Well, do you remember going and getting the $500? When?	.	.
'Did not the Chinese Reform Association pay you $1,000 to pay the head tax for two^ printers, or tell you where to get it?'_ ' No.
'Did you ever get $1,000 from the association for any purpose?' ' No.'
' Did you not get this $1,000 and then go to Collector Bowell and pass these two men as merchants?' ' No.'
Asked why he had wished to be present at the first enquiry, witness said he wanted to be (here to check up anything against him which was not true. It did not necessarily mean that lie expected anything to be said against him. He knew nothing of guaranteeing to Land Luey My Ghee here, but be knew Won Chuck Mou and met him on the wharf in July. The latter, who had kept a store .in the country, said nothing to him about an arrangement for witness to land Won Chuck Mon's cousin, and he had seen no letter sent to him stating that Pooh Kirn and Wong Ching were coming in as passport men; that witness was to ask Chuck Mon for the passage money; and go and see him and have it settled.
Witness could not say why this letter should have been written, .and he had never heard it said in Chinatown that he would take money to defraud tlie customs.
He had known Bew Duck who kept a shoe store here, five, or six years. Shown the statutory declarations made by Bew Duck and Bew Dong, witness said the latter did not give him $250 and a draft at the detention shed, and nobody else had done so. On Mr. Taylor's objection to Mr. Grant's questions as being irrelevant, the judge said he would he glad if Mr. Grant would cut this sort of questions short, as much of it bad no bearing unless names were given. Mr. Grant then mentioned Moy Chung, without further apparent result,-H Y'd On was released.	.
Mar Ben Quin, a smiling Chinese from Prince Rupert, who used to live in Vancouver some years ago, told that he had heard something on a visit to this city about a plan for "elegant landing in Vancouver". But pressed for details he wished to refer the matter to Mr. McDonald, as after telling things to the latter, he said he did not think much more about them.	-
If I know anything about this man McDonald he is apparently a partner of this man Kelly. Perhaps my bon. friends from Vancouver can check me up if 1 am wrong in that. Am I wrong? I understand that ' they are partners in various enterprises,
' the chief among them being a large block of land that they got from this government . up the river a little way for something like $1.50 per acre, which is worth $1,000 an acre to-day, and has made these men over >a i million dollars. I wish I was a constituent t of the Minister of Inland Revenue in Van-t conver, for I could become a millionaire [DOT] in a short time in that way.
-	McCrossan, again tried to get a distinct
3 story in witness' own remembrance,'but witness could r jcollect nothing, and said that
[Stage Direction]
if he had known he would have to come here h-e would have written it 'all down in & book.
That finiisthes the evidence taken that day. The next day's slitting was occupied with the< discussion of Yip On. He appears again on the iscene and is examined at some length by counsel. The details are given in the 'News-Advertiser' of Thursday, February 2, page 1:
There was much curious expectancy amongst the audience at the opening session of the afternoon to see what the stenographer's official notes would disclose as to Yip Jung Sung's apparent turn-back on his overnight statement regarding Yip On being the man who took gold from him and afterwards returned it after the examination at the detention shed, but nothing transpired.
T /hi Hiu, with the marriage name also of 1/in Chim,
[Stage Direction]
llhe House will understand that a Chinaman sometimes has two or three names. Amongst other names he has a marriage name. If he i® a bachelor, like the Minister of Agriculture, he is not allowed to nave what is known as a marriage name, l make this explanation so that the reference here in the report will be -understood.
r	the marriage name also of
^pearame- °f ,Sedate' *0t t0 Say clericaI
Evidently due to the fact that he was a married man.	-
was sworn by the paper oath, the oath being translated by David Lew. He had been here over three years, from Hong Kong. Here he first looked after business" and was a goldsmith, working at the bench for Tip Quong I or the first two months be was "looking for
mnnfpf' ahen w'°:rked for Li Sang, for $20 f w a 'Commission on profits, if any, for
W £	'u'i he ~"1*h*
This man was four years here before he became a partner or a merchant.
While in Bong Kong for five months he lived at a drug store, and previously had been a
Australia11	Askedwll*e livid in
Australia, he gave the curious geographical
answer Singapore", and "Annam". Asked further who told him to say he was in Australia, he said he was really there.
Anybody who knows anything about geography knows that Singapore and Annam are not in Australia.
Who got him to come to Canada?
Bis mother, and because he was not healthy, and was also looking for business. Be wai aware that it cost $500 to enter Canada bul he was told by his "eousins" that "when you do business you don't have to pay." He came in by a passport, got through Jin Ding Yuan, a sort of vihage esquire. Be went from Bong Kong to the village, staying four months there. Which made his stay in Bong Kong, said Mr. f„-y?fan'x.OIlly ifcwo m<>ntbs. Witness said he paid the shunshee $92 Mexican for his pass-Mr. CURRIE (Rimcoe).
poet. Be did not go to the British consul. The shunshee got it vised for him from the viceroy at Canton. The photograph on the passport was his. Be came in on the Empress of China in a different name to that of the passport, being told he could use either of his names, as they were both the same sound. The judge wanted to know more as to the why and wherefore of this, but all witness would say was that either one would answer. He got Ijis photo taken before the passport was issued. Choy Chee Dung told him to have this done and also told him that business men going to Canada were exempt from tax. He did not know the Yah Wick firm or the Lam How firm. When be came through the Vancouver customs he had one or two hundred in gold, which he got from his mother, but no drafts.
'But be told us before that when he landed he had not enough to go into business with/ said Mr. McCrossan. Witness explained that lie had not enough. When he landed and was examined Mr. Bowser was there, although he did not know at the time that it was Mr. Bowser. People told him shortly after lie was landed that Mr. Bowser was the customs man. Yes, Yip On was there, too, and several white men. asking questions. He told them he came to do business, was a business man and had money. Judge Murphy rather snubbed Mr. Taylor for badgering Lew regarding his interpretation, the judge stating that Lew iseemed to be giving quite correct translations.
Shown a photograph on a passport and asked whether the photograph was not, Lee Hong, a fellow worker at Yip Quong's place and that the passport was also his, witness replied the photograph certainly somewhat resembled him.
There was much curious expectancy amongst the audience at the opening session of the afternoon to see what the stenographer's official notes would disclose as to Yip Jung Sing's apparent turn-back o_p bis over-night statement regarding Yip On being the man who took gold from him and afterwards returned it after the examination at the detention shed, but nothing transpired.
Jin Hin, with the marriage name also of Lin Chim, and of sedate, not to say clerical appearance, was sworn by the paper oath, the oath being translated by David Lew. He bad been here over three years, from Hong Kong. Here be first ' looked after business ' and was a goldsmith, working at the bench for Yip Quong.	-
For the first two months he was ' looking for business,' then worked for Li Sang, for $20 monthly and commission on profits, if any, for a period of two years, after which he mid the $400 for the partnership. While in Hong Kong for five months he lived at a drug store, and previously had been a jeweller in Australia. Asked where he lived in Australia. he gave the curious geographical answer ' Singapore/ and ' Annam/ Asked further who told him to say he was in Australia, he said he was really there.
Who got him to come to Canada?
His mother and because he was not healthy, and was also looking for business. He was aware that it cost $500 to enter Canada, hut was told by his 1 cousins ' that ' when you do business you don't have to pay/ He came in by a passport, got through Jin Ding Yuan, a

sort of village esquire. He went from Hong Kong to the village, staying four months there, which made his stay in Hong Kong, said Mr. McCrossan, only two months. Witness said he paid the shunshee $92 Mexican for his passport. He did not go to the British' consul. The shunshee got it vised for him from the viceroy at Canton. The photograph on the passport was his.
He came in on the 'Empress of China' in a different name to that of the passport, being told he could use either of his names, as they were both the same sound. The judge wanted to know more as to the why and wherefor of this, but all witness would say was that either one would answer.	_
He got his photo taken before the passport was issued. Choy Chee Lung told him to have this done, and also told him that business men going to Canada were exempt from tax. He did not know the Yah Wick firm or the Lam How firm. When he came through the Vancouver customs he had one or two hundred in gold, which he got from his mother, but no drafts.
But he told us before that when he landed he had not enough to go into business with,' said Mr. McCrossan. Witness explained that he had not enough. When he landed and was examined Mr. Bowser was there, although he did not know at the time that it was Mr. Bowser. People told him shortly after he was landed that Mr. Bowser was the customs man. Yes, Yip On was there, too, and several whit© men, asking questions. He told them he came to do business, was a business man, and had money. Judge Murphy rather snubbed Mr. Taylor for ' badgering ' Lew regarding his interpretation, the judge stating that Lew seemed to be giving quite correct translations.
Shown a photograph on a passport and asked whether the photograph was not Lee Hong, a fellow-worker at Yip Quong's place, and ihat the passport was also his, witness replied the photograph certainly somewhat resembled him. Lee Hong did not come on the same boat. He also had $400 interest in the goldsmith's business of Yip Quong's, at which they both were now working.
Mr. McCrossman found out that the cook at this store was Lee Foon, another passport man, three or four months here from China. Mr. McCrossan had tried, unsuccessfully, to also find this man during the morning. Witness expressed his willingness to go with an officer and bring Lee Foon to the court, and Mr. Taylor held it was unnecessary, as this man had paid the poll tax and was not a passport man at all, but Mr. McCrossan thought differently, and said he had the mans photograph. Witness failed to identify the photograph on the passport as Lee Foon, but he had seen the original of the photograph around the store a few days ago on a New Year visit. He did not work there.
Another passoort man, by own name Yip Lee was then brought in. He seemed rather of a different type to last witness. He was very cheerful. He was also sworn by the paper oath to tell the truth.	.
Of course he had other names, one of which was 'Yip Gee Gong," his 'marriage name, and as for nicknames he had ' more than he can remember.' This effort at forgetfulness, however, did not help him out much, the
judge ordering him to write out any and all of such names as he might ever have signed as a signature. This brought out conditionally the ' firm ' name of ' Lim Gee Wing,' ' Yip Sung ' and ' Chick Chang,' which, he said, included the lot
He was now over 40 and was about 34 he thought when he came here, having lived previously in China and Singapore following the ' jewellery ' business for himself. He firmly but politely denied counsel's suggestion that he was a peddler. He was, for instance, ten years in business at Han Kow on his own account, and for a year at Hong Kong, which city he left for Canada, hearing that things were good and prosperous here.
When he came he brought in $1,000 worth of gold leaf, and at Yip Quong's request, went into business with him, holding $500 partnership interest in his Yip Gee Gong name, and being registered, so he had been told by Yip Quong.
Why did you come in under a wrong name, said Mr. McCrossan? Witness stated he came in under his old ' trade ' name, and that the ' gentry ' who got the passport for him took his name.
Mr. Gordon Grant asked witness his profits for the year? They did not make much. He got only $300 in addition to his wages of $300. He also had to look after the interior.
Sort of minister of the interior, said Mr. Taylor amid laughter.	_
Are you prepared to take the chicken oath that this is your trading name, said Mr. Grant in his very fiercest manner. Yes, mildly replied witness.
Judge Murphy-You will have to get the chicken, Mr. Grant. Counsel said he would not object, if he could have the chicken afterwards.	.
Before starting on the cross-examination of Kung Jung Sing, Mr. Dilldale, clerk with the Canadian Pacific railway telegraph department, testified to receiving a cable message at New Westminster for Hong Kong, and thought he could identify the sender. On Yip On and Yip Suh Foy standing up in court witness positively identified Yip Suh Foy, whom he had seen twice, when he had sent two cables. These cables were sent on October 12th and 13th.
Mr Taylor sought, by questions as to how Yip Suh Foy was attired, to break down this evidence. Witness was very decided, however, remembered details, and knew that it was at night, about eleven, when few people w^re calling in. He clearly remembered that Yip Suh Foy was wearing a cap, and when Mr. Taylor suggested it was strange he should recollect one particular Chines© after that period, witness said 'it was pretty hard to forget that face once you had seen it.'
Mr. Taylor apparently failed to shake the evidence of witness, or at all to disturb his confident self-possession, and after half an hour witness left.
The interpreter's trouble was minimized her© by the appearance of Mr. Hugh Arthur, who agreed to check the evidence.
Yung Jung Sing said his English name was Johnson, his school name Yung Gar Gip, and he had no married name, for the reason that he was not married.
Arriving in Vancouver in 1907, he gave as
[Stage Direction]
his name the name which was on the paper, which he had used all the way since he got the paper at Hong Kong.
Did he know that if he gave his right name he could not land? He did not know, he only knew that if he went under the assumed name he would land. He did not know he was defrauding the customs, or know anything about the law. He went, as told, just according to the paper. Witness declared quietly, on being questioned by Mr. Taylor as to his veracity, that he was prepared to tell the truth and was doing so.
As to his using the name of Lee Su Hung, and giving it to the customs here, lie did not remember whether he signed or not. This could not be ascertained, as this particular passport was mislaid, but Mr. Taylor assumed that witness had signed it, and taxed him accordingly, but the latter did not remember. The. reason he repeated, why he did not use his own name, was because the man at Hong Kong told him to use the other name. Before he hired to come to Canada, he lived several years in Hong Kong, as a typesetter on the newspaper ' Sut-Bo,' and was hired to come here by Lung- Sun Hang of Hong Kong, whom he remembered he had not seen before or since.
How was it, then, that he had sworn that this man was connected with the Yah Wick Company ?	.
The people of the ' Sut-Bo ' in Vancouver sent a letter to Lung Sun Hang at Hong Kong, so he was told by the latter, who lived at the Yah Wick Company, at which place witness saw him before the latter left Hong Kong.
When did witness first meet Yip Yen?
On the morning of his departure. He was a very stout, heavy man, about his own height, five feet five, and about forty years old. He had since once seen Yip Yen over here, but not to speak to. When he saw Yip Yen the *morning of his departure Yip Yen gave him a paper and a photograph. His ticket was handed to him that morning by Yip Yen with a letter. In all, he was handed three things, the passport, ticket, and the latter, the latter of which he did not open. A fellow passenger, whose name was Lee, asked for the letter, and he gave it to him in the detention shed here. He did not know what became of the letter, or the man, nor did he recollect to whom it was addressed. It was some funny name. Tlie names .of some dozen Chinese were mentioned, but it was none of these, and the judge wondered if Mr. Taylor would get more out of a Chinese witness than Mr. McCrossan had done.
' When you went through the customs you told Yip On you were a merchant and were going to enter business?'
Witness said that was his original idea. He was hired to work for the newspaper, but if he could get the money he would go into business. What he told Yip On was that he was going to enter into business, and now he had a $100 interest in a merchandise business here Wnng Sing's, 61 or 91 Pender street, into which he had, so far, paid $25. He did not remember how much money he had when he got here, perhaps about $30 or $10 Mexican. He thought there was a draft in the letter, the envelope being marked ' $1,000 ' or some

hing like that, but it was directed to Lee Su Mr. CTJRRIE (Simcoe).
Hung, his other name, care of the firm whose name he did not remember.
He saw Yip On at the shed, but was not spoken to by him at that time, Yip On did not ask him if he had any drafts; Lee, who got on board at Hong Kong, had got the letter. He did not know why Yip On had given him the letter instead of giving it to Lee, and he did not understand why he should have handed that letter ami envelope to Lee. He did so without question when the man said ' let me have it.'
' Did any one go to see him before he gave his evidence here?'
David Lew and another man, a white man,
who was Detective William McLeod, called on him.
Mr. Taylor then suggested that witness, having read the evidence before the commission and set up type for the Chinese newspaper, knew that passport men were being sought for and was, therefore, in fear he might be found and punished for his illegal entry. Witness said any fine would not affect him. it was a matter for those who had hired him. He knew nothing of the head-tax at that time. He was served with a subpcena yesterday afternoon and came to court accordingly.
Yip On was told to stand up.
' Was this the man who gave you money?' ' No.'
' Who gave you the money ?'	' Lee.'
' But you said last night it was Yip On.' No answer.
Judge Murphy said that was clearly the way he had interpreted it, and Mr. Gordoti Grant said it was a typical instance how Chinese evidence would change from night to next day.
Witness swore he said yesterday it was Lee and not Yip On who had given him the money.
The judge stated that nobody could make him believe except what witness stated last night, which was that Yip On gave him the money.
Mr.  S. S.@: Taylor asked how it was that yesterday witness had stated that it was Yip On, and he asked that the stenographer's notes should be put in during the luncheon interval, as it appeared clearly that Yip On was mentioned.
Addressing witness, Mr. McCrossan said he had told him yesterday that he had no money, and that some one gave him back the bag of gold, which he put in his pocket. He had stated that the interpreter gave him that money and that the interpreter took it away.
Witness here stated that he gave it back to ' Lee.'
' You told us yesterday that he gave it back, after the examination, to the interpreter.'
' I did not give it to Yip On. Lee gave it to me and I gave it back to Yip On.'
Did not Yip On and that crowd have control of the paper which witness worked for? Witr ness did not know.
' That paper in its editorials is strongly in favour of Yip On?' 'No, only fair.'
Then there .was a dinner and it is just as well to read a little about it. The Prime Minister will be glad to know what a diner the Minister of Inland Kevenue is. Mr. Glover is examined in favour of the Min-

ister of Inland Revenue, and it is only fair I should give his side of the story:


Mr.  W. F.@: li. Glover, assistant general manager of the British Columbia Electrical Railway Company, Limited, was the first witness called. He had read the statements regarding Mr. Foster and Hon. Mr. Templeman incident, and, considering them unfair, he wished to explain the facts. He would have done so before, but had been up country.
In reply to Mr. McCrossan witness stated he gave a dinner party to Mr. Templeman at the Vancouver Club on the evening referred to last September. There were also present Messrs. Harry Senkler, Robert Kelly, George Macdonald, E. J. McFeeley, Lieut-Col. Duff-Stuart and Capt. Sclater. After dinner Mr. Templeman remained in the smoking room talking to friends until eleven o'clock, when witness suggested going home, Mr. Templeman agreeing. Witness sent for a cab, but before he, Mr. McFeely, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Templeman were going to it Dr. Munro came in and started to chat with Mr. Templeman. The latter then told the driver to go to Glen-wood, where Mr. Foster was staying, and, on arrival Dr. Munro went upstairs, then returned, saying, Mr. Foster was in bed and would see Mr. Templeman tomorrow.' After driving to Mr. McFeely's, where Mr. Kelly left, witness and Mr. Templeman went to the hotel where Mr. Templeman went to bed.
Was Mr. Templeman drunk that night?
No.
Were you? I think not. There was nothing of that sort.
Judge Murphy remarked he did not see what all this had to do with this inquiry at any time.
Mr. Gordon Grant asked witness some questions. The dinner was a purely social friendly one it appeared, and witness had known Mr. Templeman for several years. They met at the club at seven-thirty, and Mr. Templeman did not leave until he went away with witness. Mr. George Macdonald did not go with him in the cab.
I 'am going to pass over some unimportant evidence which concluded the session af Vancouver, after which the commission went to Victoria and took evidence there. This is the report of that evidence as given in the 'News-Advertiser' of February 10:
Vancouver, Feb. 9.-That Chinese can evade payment of head tax by paying $100 or less into a business firm and crossing to Canada as merchants, thereby being bona fide merchants within the meaning of the Act, and that passports would have to be accepted were they printed in English or French instead of Chinese were points brought out at the morning session of the Royal Commission to-day. That the condition of affairs at Vancouver was astounding in view of the knowledge communicated in the department at Ottawa by Collector Newbury was another point made. Judge Murphy said:	'With this knowledge at the
head of the department it seems astounding that things went on at Vancouver the way they did.' Evidence was also given that an investigation had been made by the collector concerning the work of Mr. Lee Mong Kow, and it had developed that everything had been carried on in a proper manner. It was shown 311
that stricter supervision had been maintained over immigration at Victoria, and as Collector Newbury said:	'There had not been as
much business done.'
Mr. Newbury explained in detail the method adopted in handling the Chinese business at this port, showing how two officers were always engaged in handling outward men and three to land returning men. There had not been much trouble with the exempt class at this port, the officials being strict and there had never been more than two or three on any boat.
He had been surprised that there were 60 many landed at Vancouver as merchants. He had not known how many there were until he had seen the totals in the papers. He pointed out that the eighteen taken from the 'Empress of India' were exceptional, having been booked to Vancouver and taken off by Mr. Foster at this port. More trouble had to be taken with merchants' sons than any other class of exempts, and the procedure was to hold a preliminary examination of the son, then to get statutory declarations from son, father and partner, with .two certificates from white merchants. Mr. O'Hara, when he visited Victoria had looked over the local practice, and the government form had been adopted as a result.
Judge Murphy said the passports seemed to have been an open 6esame at Victoria.
Collector Newbury.-I cannot understand that. I never accepted a passport for anything but corroboration. A man was not worse off with one; but I never considered him better with one. Examination was entirely apart from the passport. I had heard much how these passpouus could be -secured in China. Any one who knew the ropes and was willing to pay for one could get one. 1 wrote to Mr. O'Hara about that. I believe he took it-up diplomatically with Hong Kong. He was disgusted with the answer. The consul said he considered it his business to facilitate emigration, not stand in the way of it.
Mr. McCrossan asked if an inquiry had been held concerning Lee Mong Kow. Witness replied that indefinite allegations had been made, suggestions that he was 'in on- it' with regard to admission of new men as returned men. Witness told the interpreter he would take over the work himself for a month and Peter Hing was brought iu as interpreter. Nothing was ascertained to show that evei'y-thing was not right.
Mr. Newbury said be had seen no need to change interpreters. Mr. M'ong Kow had done good work. He was also a good clerk and the department made much of his services as such. There was, perhaps, too much economy in carrying out the work. He understood that at Vancouver the interpreter did no clerical work.
The Judge-His only clerical work consisted of making copies of records in the evening.
Mr. Newbury said that while the interpreter could be of great assistance he did not think an interpreter could swing the whole thing. He failed to see how the interpreter could do anything not correct without the officials knowing, if they were alive tt>
their business.
The Judge-I don't know that you could ex-chide Chinese under the Act if they had, say, $100 in a firm and came as merchants.



Witness-It is difficult to define what is a merchant.
That seems to be the whole trouble under tihlis Act-to get a . -proper definition of a *merchant.
Mr. Newbury, continuing, said the finger print system was not used. Mr. O'Hara wa6 opposed to it as being undignified. He did not think it necessary if the present system was properly carried out.	.
The Judge-If these passports were m English or French you would have to accept them.	,	,
Witness-I never construed that this was obligatory.	.
The Judge- I think it is.
At the afternoon session the question of the desirability of establishing a water patrol at Victoria to prevent the smuggling of opium came up.	_	.
Collector Newbury when cross-examined on this point, said that the port had now reached such a size that money spent in this direction would not be wasted. He considered, however, that other means could be adopted, such as giving more power to the police.
The chief customs clerk, Mr. Davey, on being recalled to the stand said that he had made a mistake in saying that -the customs officers at Union Bay lived four miles from the wharf. Often vessels coaling at that point were brought within a few yards of the wharf, where the official was stationed.
The Inspector of Customs, Mr. William Marchand, was on the stand when the commission adjourned for the day.
In the Sunday issue of the Vancouver 'News-Advertiser' of February 12 appear the ' figures found by the commission, showing that at the port of Victoria there have been fewer than ten merchants landed since 1904, whereas in Vancouver the number landed in three years totals 548.
Having examined the officials at Victoria the commission met again in Vancouver, where a number of witnesses gave evidence. Our friend Kelly was put in the box, and a report of his evidence appears at page 17 of the Vancouver 'News-Advertiser' of February 21st:
At the reassembling of the commission, morning session, Kobert Kelly was the first witness called. Mr. G. E'. McOrossan represented the Dominion government. Mr. S. 6. Taylor appeared for Yip On.
I might state that Mr. McOrossan is Kelly's brother-in-law.
Mr. Kelly, examined by Mr. McOrossan, said he was a member of the executive of the Liberal Association in this city. Asked what he knew of -the telegram signed by Mr. Senkler to Sir Richard Cartwright, he said a certain telegram was sent recommending Yip On should be reinstated. Mr. Bowell brought it in, and witness suggested he take it to Mr. Senkler, after asking what was the matter, and being informed that the Chinese were crooked. He did not sign the telegram, but he approved of it, as he knew there was a certain element at work trying to get rid Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
of Yip On and 'boost' themselves, and Mr. T. R. E. Mclnnes was at the head of this movement. Neither did Hon. Mr. Templeman ever send any such telegram.
Regarding the telegram of September 20, from Hon. Mr. Templeman to Sir Richard Cartwright, witness stated this telegram was sent at the request of Mr. Senkler, Mr. George Macdonald, himself, and several others, being assured there was nothing against Yip On. This was sent at the dinner given at the club. They had a very nice little dinner and every one was perfectly sober. Hon. Mr. Templeman signed the telegram after discussion on the subject had taken place.	.
On the judge asking what the discussion was about witness said it referred to the element at Ottawa who were trying to get Yip On discharged. Hon. Mr. Templeman met him the next day and told him he had seen Mr. Foster, who had assured him there was nothing against Yip On. As regards the bringing in of the name of Hon. Mr. Templeman he thought it very unfair. He had known Mr. Templeman for twenty years and had never seen him the worse for liquor. As a matter of fact, he was a man who drank very little at all.
Regarding the telegram of September 24 as to ' drastic action,' witness said he probably had seen it, but he did not sign it. At any rate he approved it. The Liberal Association or Hon. Mr. Templeman had never attempted to stop this investigation in any shape or form.	.
Did he know of any graft m connection with Chinese being brought into the country? No.
The Liberal Association, continued witness, never got subscriptions from Chinese, nor was this ever attempted. Being told that Mr. McLean had stated that witness controlled Hon. Mr. Templeman, Mr. Kelly stated he certainly did not control Mr. Kelly, nor did he think any other man in Canada did so. So far as Mr. McLean's remarks went he thought Mr. McLean was the only man who had tried to do so.
Mr. McLean had sent his brother Hugh to Ottawa, where witness met him at the Ruskell House, and where he was very pleasant. He stated that he wanted to get the matter of a lawsuit for $350,000 settled. He knew witness was an honest man, and he wanted him to see the minister, and witness agreed to do so. The claim was thrown out. He presumed they did not have any claim against the government.
In the opinion of witness, Mr. McLean was not fit to clean the dust off Hon. Mr. Temple-man's feet. He might say that Mr. Templeman had never done anything for witness in his life, and he had never asked him a f avour.
As to the visit of Hon. Mr. Templeman to Mr. Foster nothing was done at it. Mr. Templeman asked to see Mr. Foster and Dr. Munro said he was in bed, and it was left till morning.
By Mr. Gordon Grant:	He was not sure
that he was regarded by the people of Vancouver as a leader of the Liberal party. As Mr. Gordon Grant was proceeding to press him on that matter the judge stopped counsel, saying he was not interested in Mr. Kelly's

position with the Liberals, hut counsel could question him as much as he liked regarding the telegrams.
As to another telegram witness also assumed his share of responsibility for it. Mr. Bowell had brought in the telegram saying he was suspended and did not know the reason. On account of it the telegram had been sent.
Again as to ' the might of the party ' at the club witness said he had not to his knowledge prior to that dinner, discussed the matter with Hon. Mr. Templeman. He did not remember who drafted the telegram. It was filed with the Canadian Pacific railway, and he signed it. He did not know where it was typewritten, nor could he say whether any member of the Liberal Association had anything to d<J with the drafting of it.
Asked to explain how Mr. Templeman's telegram was typed by the same typist who typed his own telegram he could not say anything about that. It was not a fact that the Hon. Mr. Templem&n's telegram was typed at his office before he left tp go to the club, nor, to his knowledge, was it taken to his office to be typed, nor, to the best of his knowledge, did any one take it from the club to witnesses' office to be typed. He did not remember if he saw the telegram after it was completed. As far as he could remember- 'and my memory is not good sometimes'-said witness, he had no discussion with Mr. Templeman on the subject previous to the dinner.
Any assistance he gave Mr. Bowell or Col. Worsnop came from himself. He only did for them what he would have expected they would have done for him. They had never asked him to do anything.
Yip On had had no business with you?-No. His firm, Wing Hai On, had very little business with you?-Very little. What he did was for the Liberal party and with the idea that what was being done should be done by the Liberal party here and not from Ottawa. He thought this quite, right. Witness felt Yip On and Mr. Bowell should be retained in their positions.
As to Mr. Foster, he was asked could he suggest any reason why he should not be continued in his work in the same way he admitted Yip On should have been continued in his, witness said he did not know of any reason Mr. Foster should not have been trusted, or any reason why he should have been interfered with in his work as to Yip On.
He did not, to his knowledge, ask Dr. Mun-ro to send any telegram to Ottawa. He understood that Mr. Bowell was suspended on account of irregularities in regard to opium and bringing in of Chinese, and before sending the telegrams he heard from Col. Worsnop that all was right. He also got the same information from Dr. Munro. That was all the information he had, and he thought it justified him in sending the telegram requesting the 'reinstatement pending an investigation.' He did not know, at least he had not heard from Mr. Bowell or Col. Worsnop that all was right.. He also got detention shed at that time.
As for Yip On, he sent for him to come in to see him. He had not said twenty words to Yip On in a year. He did not think he introduced Y'ip On to Mr. Ralph Smith, and 3114
he did not remember if the latter was in his office at the time. Had he been in town he might, of course, have been there.
He knew of no other reason for communicating with the Hon. Charles Murphy beyond that he was a minister whom he knew.
Reverting again to the subject of Hon Mr. Templeman and the club dinner, witness did not remember who had asked him where Mr. Foster lived. The time was 11 o'clock or half past eleven. He knew what they were going to Mr. Foster for, which was to ascertain if there was anything wrong with the interpreter and if not verified Hon. Mr. Templeman was going to send a telegram. The telegram was sent at 9.40 the next morning.
Concerning the telegram ' David Lew's claim should not be entertained,' he did not know what was the reason for that phraseology. He was satisfied Hon. Mr. Templeman would always back up a man if he was doing the right thing, not otherwise. He did not think Mr. Foster would give him any information if he asked him, and he did not intend to bother his head about Mr. Foster. He took the word of Mr. Bowell and Col. Worsnop.
You were, I put it, trying to influence the government?-The government in this case was Mr. O'Hara, and he ought to be here.
You took it on yourself to back up Mr. Bowell against the government?-Yes, and I would do it again.
Had you any reason to think Mr. Foster was not as sincerely honest in his department as Mr. Bowell was in his? Witness considered improper influence might have been brought in. He was concerned in this, that if Lew got control of the interpreter's position, the work would go to the Blue Funnel line, who spent no money here. He wrould support a line who spent money in the city, not one who bought their supplies on the other side. He thought, too, that Lew was not straight, and he also considered Mr. T. R. E. Mclnnes was pushing the whole bunch, and he was to fight them. ' I'll give it to you if you want it.' snapped Mr. Kelly.
I don't suppose it's much good asking the question, said Mr. Gordon Grant, but I will do so. Did you not think it fair to have gotten from Mr. Foster the facts on which he had procured the suspensions?
Witness said he was not concerned with Mr. Foster; he did not owe anything to Mr. Foster; he did not think him worth seeing, and he would not go across the street to see Mr. Foster. If Mr. Foster wanted to see him he could have come to his office to do so, lie would not have charged him anything.
He knew inspector Busby as an efficient officer and never endeavoured to get him dismissed, or never saw the Minister of Customs at Ottawa to that effect.
Judge Murphy (to Mr. Grant).-Before you ask that question you must give Mr. Kelly the name of your informant. I have allowed a lot of latitude, but I am not going to allow it any further, either in Mr. Kelly's or any other cases.
Mr. Gordon Grant stated his information was that witness had seen the inspector of customs and Mr. McMichael, and had tried to get inspector Busby dismissed. Was there any truth in that?
Witness wished to have the name of the informant, and counsel agreed to furnish the

name after reply to the question. Witness then stated that he had never seen Mr. McMichael in Toronto in his life. That gentleman had called at witness' office to get a box of cigars. What counsel had been told was a falsehood, and there was no man who could substantiate it. He never, in any shape or form, tried to get inspector Busby dismissed. It was quite the reverse. Prom all that was said about him, concluded witness, people might think witness was a sort of horse thief.
Mr. Gordon Grant then stated that the name of his direct informant was Mr. Norman McLean. ' Sure,' responded witness.
Asked by Mr. McCrossan for the name of his indirect informant Mr. Grant said it was inspector Busby himself, and the judge stated he would recall Mr. Busby on the subject. Witness having made a few uncomplimentary allusions to Mr. McLean, the subject dropped, and Mr. S. S. Taylor commenced his crossexamination, which was short. The signature of Mr. Senlder, representing the majority vote of the executive, was, witness agreed, known to be so at Ottawa, and was purely an official signature.
As to Yip On the Liberal Association or any member of it, to his knowledge, had never made a dollar through either opium or through illegal immigration. Their position was that they should make a stand against the proceedings of Mr. Mclnnes at Ottawa.


Mr.  S. S.@: Taylor said that witness should have an opportunity to say something as to Hon. Joe Martin's general charges as to graft in connection with the Liberal party.
Mr. Kelly stated that he wanted to say he had never made a five cent piece by graft in the Liberal or any party, and rising in his chair and thumping the table in front of him, witness further stated that he defied any person to prove it. He did not get his living that way; he did not have to do so. And as to offering a judgeship for sale he had never done anything of the kind, and he would make the man who said so prove it. After giving some interesting personal details of his early struggles here, commencing with $200, and having since made money, witness concluded, amidst the broad smiles of the court, the bar, and the audience.	.
Ka Kim Yang came from New York to give evidence in place of Ching Hing, who was ill. He also mentioned the name of Tong Chung Wing, of the ' Sun Bow ' Chinese newspaper in this city. Ching Hing was a student.
Now, I think I have placed on record the most important portion of the evidence taken by this commission in British Columbia. Unfortunately, in doing so, it has been necessary for me to occupy a certain portion of the time of the House. I have endeavoured, in putting this on record, to give not only the evidence that tells against the government, but also the evidence as to the goodness and excellence of the Minister of Inland Revenue. I trust the House will not allow this matter to drop, as it has been disclosed that a serious wrong has been done. The Prime Minister says that the people prosecuted in this matter have, unfortunately, left the country. But the report discloses the Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
evils that have existed, and, so far as I can see, there is no reason why it is not proper that that report should be placed on the table in order that we may know what the conclusions of the commissioners were. I hope the House will take action on the matter at an early day, and, if possible, place itself on record. For, if we are going to allow any such practices to obtain in connection with the customs, in a short time we shall not have an efficient customs service and the revenue of the country will be steadily depleted.
I regret having occupied the time of the House so long but there was no other course open in the matter and having now placed the evidence before the House, I will leave it for the House to taken future and further action in this respect.


Mr. G. H. COWAN (Vancouver).: I wish at the outset to draw your attention to the fact that this inquiry and this discussion which is, in fact, a very brief summary in three or four hours of the evidence taken at the inquiry, which extended over a period of two or three months, have to do with ' a matter of peculiar scientific interest apart altogether from its political significance. The inquiry has to do with 'a new and secret process, devised by oriental cunning, patented and operated by Caucasian rapacity, a process for diverting the people's money from the public coffers and with the least possible friction and waste to convey that money into the private pockets of the Caucasian Liberals and the Asiatic Liberals of Vancouver. That, I say, is a matter, apart altogether from its political significance, of peculiar scientific interest. Science is the accumulation of the wisdom of the ages, but when that wisdom is made up of oriental craft and Caucasian graft it is a combination that the world has never seen before.
I would like to pursue the scientific side of this question. Science has, in the matter of transportation, annihilated distance. In the matter of manufactures science has created the waters of the world into a force many times greater than the power of man. Science has done wonders in other directions, but has never before been applied to the study to which the good gentlemen, Orientals and Caucasians, of Vancouver, have applied it, and I can understand, when the report of Commissioner Murphy came in, that the Prime Minister would desire to kill time and pigeon hole the report because it contained what was to him a suggestion that if that were done the criminals would have time to get out of the country. Accordingly the report was pigeon-holed. The premier did not find it necessary to read the whole of that report, he was content to read the conclusions. The conclusions state that in the interests of justice certain parties should be prosecuted and

in order to let the machinery of justice begin its work, in order to have the warrant served, it might be well not to make public this report. Another part of the report, however, was made public, and communicated to the newspapers. I read this portion of the report which deals with Mr. Bowell, the collector of customs at the poTt of Vancouver. We are glad to find that the commissioner did his duty in regard to Mr. Bowell. Everybody knew that Mr. Bowell had not been guilty of one single act of dishonesty. Everybody knew that this new device was not of Mr. Bowell's making and did not operate in his interest or to his advantage. But the fact remained that the report was made public, at least so much of it as concerned Mr. Bowell, and then it was pigeon-holed. Then, while justice, with lagging feet, was slow to execute her duty, the alert feet of the criminal carried him beyond the bounds and the reach of justice in Canada. Then the premier comes into this House and tells us forsooth the reason why this report was withheld from this House and from the people of Canada, was that a suggestion of that kind was made by Mr. Justice Murphy in his report. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Murphy was made in order that justice might be quick and sure and that the warrant should issue and be executed at once. Mr. Justice Murphy had no thought in his mind when he made that suggestion that justice should be so slow in Ottawa. When the premier made that public statement today he advertised to these fugitives from justice in Canada, the fact that it is better for them to remain, as W. T. R. Preston remained beyond the reach of justice. Who knows but some of these fugitives from justice may, like Preston, turn up one of these days as trade commissioner in Japan or some other oriental country. We know at least that this House and this country are not going to get from the government these trade secrets by which $1,000,000 have been filched from the public treasury of Canada. From the first I could see in the illumined countenance of my friend the Minister of Inland Revenue that he had no thought of attempting in the slightest degree to defend this charge. We know that at great sacrifice to himself and this country he snatched enough time from his needed rest and sleep to go to Vancouver and testify to the working of this new and secret process; but we know that when the offence was brought home to the criminals-we could see it in the light of his beaming countenance-that he had no thought of standing up in this House and defending his department or himself against the negligence which lies at their doors. I could see from the face of the Minister of Customs, after he woke up that he fhad some thought that this related in some degree to his department, that he
had something to do with the Chinese Immigration Act-and $1,000,000 had leaked out of the profits of his department. But, I could see that he had no defence to offer. I could see that he had no thought of making a defence of any kind to the charge. It was left to the premier. We know that this new method of closer relations between the occidental and oriental population of British Columbia, and in particular of the city of Vancouver, is more or less in line with the policy which the premier has been developing in Canada during recent years. For example, we know that this scheme of plundering the public treasury and dividing the P ur-der between the oriental and Occidents, participants, and incidentally of allowing the oriental to evade the provisions of the Immigration Act, is exactly m line-an<l
I speak with absolute accuracy-with that
policy which hands over to the party hee -ers of British Columbia and their confederate Japs the licenses and right to fish m the waters of British Columbia. If you take, for example, the herring licenses issued in British Columbia for the years 191011, you will find that every single herring license was issued either to a party heeler of this government, or at the instance of	a party heeler of
this government, to a Jap confederate, and after being issued to the heeler it was traded off to the J ap for a consideration. The waters of British Columbia under the license of this government are fished by Japs and by Japs alone. I know myself of four reputable white fishermen, reputable citizens of Vancouver, who applied for herring licenses, but they might have known, as others have assumed, that no white man need apply. They were refused, and I say again that in harmony with this	new, scientific device	is	thepolicy which hands over the fishing in-dustrv	of	British Columbia,	not	to	thepeople	of	British Columbia,	but	to	theparty heelers of this government and their JaD confederates. These two things are entirely in line with the world-wide policy which we heard announced in this House, on the day before we rose, a policy conceived	in	the fruitful mind	of the	premier brought into the daylight and given its place in the sun of beautiful things bv the obstetric art of the Minister of Agriculture, which guarantees by solemn treaty to the Japanese, and which proposes to guarantee by solemn treaty to every Asiatic immigrant, that he shall enjoy a preference in Canada over Bntis immigrants. The measure of that preferimmigrants-	;
7- . -	* TT
ence in dollars and cents is $50 per. Under the treaty with Japan, under the treaty which the Minister of Agriculture says the government proposed to make with other Asiatic nations, Japanese immigrants, of whom there is a possible


An hon. MEMBER.: To the grave.


George Henry Cowan: mitting some of these great questions to the people of Canada before their management and control shall have been handed over to another power. If we succeed in it, and if by chance the people of Canada should mete out to the government what the people of Canada are almost sure to mete out-their just desserts-Let me say now to my good friends on the other side of this House that there is really no occasion why their countenances should be so drawn. It is the fortune and the fate of all men to have reverses. It is only delaying the hour. If you make it short, true you cannot make it sweet, but you can at least make it less bitter.
. If there is any human instinct uplifting in its character still dormant in the breasts of our friends across the House, and if by any effort of ours we can make that instinct active, and thereby lead the government to the performance of its duty towards the people of Canada, then I apprehend it is but right that we should labour to awaken that instinct and awaken that sense of duty, and to aid so far as we can the government party in the performance of its duty.
I cannot think that there is the slightest doubt in the mind of any member of the government awake in this House at the present hour that it is the plain duty of the government to go to the country and go at once, and accept its Waterloo like men. If, on the contrary, I misread the signs, and if the fortunes of war are to be still with the government party, for my part I am content. It is the will of the people, and that is what I value. The will of the people is my pleasure and my duty. Could I get my friends across the House to feel and think in the same way, could I get the members of the Liberal party to realize that no divine right rests in them to carry on the business of this House after they have proposed to introduce legislation so entirely subversive of the policy and the institutions of this country, that the whole procedure is out of joint with the best constitutional practice of this and every other representative House in the English speaking world?
If I can persuade them that it is their duty under these conditions to go to the people, and go to them at once, I think that the solatium and the comforts which hasty appointments, judicial preferments and commissionerships afford, ought to be sufficient to allay the fears of the less courageous of the party. I cannot think that the low appeals of self-interest are the only appeals that can be made to that party. I cannot help thinking that there members in the party actuated by higher motives-anxious to serve their country and to serve it well. Inhere are any such men in the Liberal party-and I believe there are-surely they have the


George Henry Cowan: courage and the force of character to impress upon their colleagues, not only the wisdom but the duty of submitting this great question of reciprocity to the people of Canada, as soon as the country is properly represented by redistribution; otherwise we shall have to continue to hold up the mirror which, in the hands of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr.' Taylor) and other hon. members, reflects with peculiar accuracy the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and we shall have to continue that process to the end. By the way, I sometimes think that there are gentlemen on the other side of the House who make too frequent use of the mirror. I have wondered when I heard the Prime Minister appeal to the people of Quebec and declare to them that he had gone to England to break a lance with the powers of darkness that would wrest from them their rights and their autonomy, and, after making this declaration, appeal to them to ' follow where the white plume leads.'
I have wondered whether he has not been making too frequent and too free use of tiie mirror. Can it be that it is reserved for our Premier to suffer the sad fate of that other gentleman who made too frequent use of the mirror? I refer to Narcissus who gazed into the limpid waters of the Castalian spring so long that he finally fell in love with his own image reflected there, and later died in adoration of himself. As a student, and somewhat interested in the old mythology may I apply these myths to the conditions of the present day-not in the way the Caucasian Liberals and the Asiatic Liberals of Vancouver have applied them. May I not counsel the Premier that it might be better instead of making too frequent visits to the mirror, instead of pursuing the course of the fate of Narcissus he should go before the people of Canada and discuss on its merits the question which to-day agitates our people. It is not a question of the white plume-as my hon. friend from New Westminster has most aptlly said; if the delay is 'continued it will become a question of the white feather. Now, I think in all seriousness


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear hear.


George Henry Cowan: I thought that I heard
some of the babbling and the murmuring of the limpid water into which the leader of the House gazes. Let me say in all seriousness that the time has come when each of us should go fearlessly, courageously, man-fashion to our masters and say: Have we done right? if we have, approve, if not, condemn. There is no use trying to dodge the issue; you will not succeed. There is no use in hybernating, or the reverse, in this Cham-

ber; no use in delaying the fateful day. If the v^orst comes to the worst and you are driven from power, accept your fortunes like brave men and take that which fate and destiny provide for you. Waste not the time of this House and this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear hear.


George Henry Cowan: I noticed a smile when I said 'waste not the time of this House and this country.' Will the gentleman who owns the teeth that that smile discovered to this House tell me one bit of business, of real business that concerns the welfare of the people of Canada, that has been done in this House since this session opened on the 17th of November last? We are not in control of this House, allow me to correct, not in numerical control of this House. The party in control of this House, I say again, has not put upon the statute-books of Canada one piece of valuable legislation since the 17th of November. The party in control of this House, in numerical control of this House, has not done one single bit of administrative work to the advantage of Canada since the 17th of November last. In order to help to meet the political exigencies of this party, and of the branch of this part? across the line, two of the members of the government journeyed unto Washington, and they came back with new gods for the faithful. The worship of these new gods has been not entirely unmixed with nausea. Indeed, the development of faith and belief in these new gods has been but slow. The development of faith in these new gods in the country is yet to begin. I do not want to discourage too much the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, and it may be that there is still a chance for them. But it may be that the thought of the slimness of that chance is bringing grief-even tears it may be -to some of the members of this government. But whether that is true or not, I again appeal to men of undoubted virility men of moral courage, men like 

if I may be permitted to do such a thing as single out an -example-men like the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). I appeal to that young mind to instil into the older minds of the government a new born faith in the party, a new hope a new expectation. It may be that the vigour of that young man can attain a success as yet unattained. And whether it can attain that success or not I feel it is his duty as a rising star in the Liberal firmament to shed some light on the fading stars of that party, even though it may be ' a little of the light that leads astray.' Then there is my friend from British Columbia. Can I not persuade him to rise to his accustomed vigour and energy and by the mere force and weight of himself and
his character compel that party to go to-the country and to do its duty.
I cannot help thinking that there remains to me an appeal that will be effective, an appeal to a man who, though of riper years, has yet preserved his health and strength into a vigorous middle life, and I hope will preserve it to a healthy old age, that man of single (blessedness, my appeal is to him. It may be that by a shorter, a briefer use of his power of speech with a more vigorous and energetic exercise of his well-known virile nature, he can effect the desired result and induce the government to rise to the occasion and get to the country, to the tali timbers.
But, Sir, I know there is one member of that government whose keen sense of duty, whose high appreciation of the rights of the people, upon whom the moral restraints necessary for a proper exercise of the franchise and for a proper performance of the duties of a representative are strong, a man of influence, of credit and renown in his native province, a man whose fame has gone throughout the length and breadth of Canada, the Solicitor General. I cannot help thinking that without an appeal from this or any side of the House, tnat gentleman will rise to the occasion and do his duty. Can it be that we are to write upon the portals of this chamber: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. I refuse to think so meanly of the government party.
I know that there are motives to which I can appeal not far from this chamber, the judiciary, in the Supreme Court. Can we not at once add to the efficiency of that court and expedite an appeal to the country? I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to join me in this.
I look into the future far as human eye can see.
I can see that my appeal to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not been made in vain. Again there is our eloquent friend who is always eloquent, always interesting, always theatrical, I appeal to him. There may be, away in the dim and distant future, the glories of leadership waiting for him. It may be that the future will be brought nearer to the present if the delay between now and election day is shortened. I know that the Postmaster General can see that political sagacity alone dictates that his party should no longer linger in this chamber devoting its time to Micawber-like hopes and aspirations that something may yet
turn up.	,
The hour is late and I may have mucn more to say to-morrow.	_ _
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fitting hour, and a proper, and that it would be a useful act, and a gentlemanly act if this House should adjourn now. There


P875 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
are other matters to which I would like to refer briefly. They have to do more or less with the investigation, perhaps more than less. In handling a question of this kind I attempt to be guided by this principle that I will not in my public career, I hope, charge dishonesty or fraud of any kind against a man private or public unless I have the proof. Our duty as public men, involving as it does a party system imposes it upon us to observe gentlemanly rules of conduct. One of these gentlemanly rules is that no man on the floor of this House should be charged with any wrong doing or dishonesty or fraud unless the proof is in the hands of the man who prefers the charge. It is for that reason that I have hesitated to. use in a public way, either on the public platform or in this House, the material reported in the public press with reference to that investigation. I have hesitated to use it because I did not know how much of the evidence was reported correctly, how much of it was omitted, how much of it was distorted from its true meaning, and I regret, therefore, that the absolute refusal of the government to bring down to this House, and make known to the people of Canada- the real evidence, and the real report based upon that evidence compels us in the interest of the public, and in the interest of justice to deal with the evidence such as we have it in the reports of newspapers. That evidence displays a condition of political degradation, induced by the policy and practice of this government for the last fifteen years, never surpassed in the annals of any Anglo-Saxon people governed by representative institutions. I can readily understand that your ear, Mr. Speaker, has never been offended with evidence going to show that tw'o factions in one party had actually quarrelled, not because the law was being violated, not because the Immigration Act was being evaded, but because the profits and plunder arising from that violation, and invasion were * hogged,' as it was put by themselves, and a portion not given to the executive of the party. I cannot understand human nature sinking to a lower level that that. I cannot understand how the premier of this Canada, a country forging ahead toy leaps and bounds as no other country in the world to-day is forging ahead, a country that has a future that ought to have public men guided by high motives, and high principles, can listen to evidence of that kind, can allow the men who committed the offences to go unpunished, and can hide from the public eye, can conceal from this House, the evidence of that iniquity. I cannot understand by what moral principles a man can be governed who permits that. I cannot understand how he is regulating his life among his fellow men when he allows that Mr. COWAN.
sort of thing to go on under his eye, when he withholds the arm of justice, delays the lagging feet of justice, does everything to prevent bringing home the crime to the criminal, and does everything to prevent the formation of a healthy public opinion upon the question, and the condemnation [DOT] of practices of that kind. I cannot understand why the man who has it in his power to expose this wrong doing, and to bring to bay, and to justice the men who are guilty of it will yet withhold his hand, and not exercise that power. The premier of Canada has the greatest power of any ruler of any country of the population and importance of Canada in the world, and why is that so? It is so because the premier of Canada is not tied down in formulating the policy of the country by the splendid sanctions of a resident Crown and by any great body of social opinion the result of the fine feeling of ages. He is allowed to plough his furrow where he will, and I say that a man in that position has a responsibility resting upon him that I fear the premier does not appreciate, but which I beiieve the people of Canada do appreciate, and because of that appreciation will mete ojut to him treatment appropriate to a man who fails to appreciate his public responsibility. The party which will uphold the premier in that position, knowing these offences, flagrant beyond any language which I have at my command with which to describe them, and which have been disclosed because of the quarrels of these people over the unfair division of the spoils, and the plunder, must share with him the responsibility for their action. It is a reproach upon the public morality not only of Vancouver, but of the whole of Canada, it is a reproach that can be wiped out only by bringing down the report of the commissioners, and acting upon its recommendations or acting upon better advice if it can be had. That is our bounden duty, that is the duty imposed upon me, and every member of this House by the solemn oath that we took when we became members of this House. If that oath of office, and that sense of duty are binding upon the public men of Canada that oath, and that sense of duty impel with irresistible force every man who has built up his character upon principles of morality to expose to the finish an offence such as this which has been committed against morality, and against the public life of Canada.
When we have men sitting in this House as deaf as an antediluvian boulder to the duty that devolves upon them, it is a black-letter day for Canada, and I believe in my heart that the people of Canada only await an opportunity to sweep them from the treasury benches. It seems strange that rational men, supposed to be guided

by reason and judgment, but men so devoid of the sense of the duty they owe to the memory of those who established free government, should be able to climb to high places in the councils of the country. If the Prime Minister listens, he will hear the ground swell of indignation, coming from the people, because the mind of the people after all is pure and their motives high and altruistic. I appeal to the young members of the government that they listen to the principles inculcated in their minds in youth; I appeal to them not to listen to the siren song of the boodler, the grafter, and the camp follower. The time has come when the people will demand that the men who control the destinies of Canada shall rise above such influences. We are inducing the people of the Orient to come to our shores, we are telling them that if they will come to Canada they need not have $50 in their pockets as the beastly British immigrant has to have, and while we do this why do we not attempt to elevate their mental and moral nature. They are the nroduct of a civilization older than ours; 2,000 years before Christ the Chinese empire had a civilization as developed as it is to-day, but it is a civilization that is not our civilization. If we induce these people to come to our shores, we should set them a good political and moral example and not teach them that when they reach Vancouver they can make a dicker with Mr. Party Heeler, living on Graft street by which they can discount their head tax of $500 by a large percentage and come in as merchant princes, instead of coolies and labourers. We should not let them see that the men who perpetrate these iniquities are not only allowed to go scot free, but are promoted to higher ofiice, are sent as trade commissioners to Japan or China, and are placed in positions of honour and power. The callousness with which the governments looks on at wrong-doing of this kind must have a bad effect upon the public life of Canada and more especially upon the orientals, for whom the Prime Minister has so much care. Now, I want to speak of another and a very important matter. On Friday, the 14th of July, 1911, there was consummated a new treaty of alliance between Great Britain and Japan, and which is of peculiar significance to the people of Canada, inasmuch as it removes the apprehension which existed under the treaty of 1905, and the preceding treaty of 1902, that in'case of trouble between Japan and the United States the mother land would be compelled by the terms of the treaty to take sides with Japan.
I am happy to say that this new treaty, entered into on Friday last, puts an eiid to the possibility of such a contingency ever happening. It provides' in express terms that in case of war between the
United States and Japan, the United Kingdom shall not be obliged to join on the side of Japan. That is a matter of rejoicing to the people of Canada, because we cannot forget that our good neighbours on the other side of the line are of the breed of our own sturdy race. For 2000 years we were of the same family; the common jurisprudence which they and we enjoy came down from Blackstone and Coke to Marshall and Story. Our common literature is enriched at times by a Tennyson, at times by ta Longfellow. The two countries have much in common. To each country our German friends have added their intelligence, their industry, their thrift, and our French people have added not only these, but their brilliancy and their love of art. So that they and we have much in common. But I think the Premier, when he was induced after much reluctance to put his seal of approval upon the little document which the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs brought back from Washington, wituout even crossing a 't' or dotting an 'i,' after it left the hand of President Taft, forgot the fact that although we and our good neighbours to the south have all these things? in common, yet we do not keep house together. We each must clean our own doorstep and warm ourselves at our own fireside, and I think it is good and well that it should be so, and as long as that is the case, I think our good Premier, whose brilliant gifts in other respects, I will say, have been an enrichment of our public life, should discuss public questions on their merits. But he failed to see the merits of the situation when he forgot that we and our good neighbours to the south do not keep house together; he forgot that each country must solve its own domestic problems according to its own point of view, and that as long as Canada remains a part of the British empire there is imposed. upon Canada the plain duty of having at least some regard for those interests which we have in common with the other parts of the empire when we seek to establish new relations with a foreign country. As to the application of this to the question in hand, I still have hope to pierce the thick veil of partisanship in some of our friends across the floor of this House, and reach the gray matter and influence the will and form the intelligence of those gentlemen. I still have hope to convince them that the cobweb robe with which they clothe themselves in regard to tuis Chinese inquiry, is indecent in the public eye, and exposes much that should not be exposed to the public eye of Canada. \s these great events are marching down the grooves of change in the political history of the world, Canada should be up and doing as a prime and foremost nation amongst the nations of the world. Cana-
[Stage Direction]
da's duty is not to hold back, but to proceed with the other parts of the empire, and to strengthen the bond and to cast away that foolish fear that there may be found some one in some part of the empire thrusting at the rise of Canada and tearing away our autonomy. That figment of the imagination, fed to the minds of the people of Canada, will tend to mislead them, and it behoves the public men who can rise to the height of informing the electorate of Canada as to their real duty, instead of appealing to their fears, to assume the duty of protecting the destinies of Canada in the future.
If so, Canada will follow the course dictated by self-respect, nationhood and manhood, and that course will be that Canada will stand as a nation, and as the foremost in the great family of nations composing the British Empire.	_
As the hour is passed the usual time for adjourning, and the gentlemen in the back benches have returned refreshed and rested, but have not had an opportunity of giving any intellectual expression to that refreshment, it may be that under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I should defer the remarks which I would otherwise make, to another occasion.
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.


Mr. THOBURN (resuming).: Owing to the fact that I spoke last night till after midnight, I would move that the committee rise.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Thoburn: I question if there is such a case on record in the annals of this House that an hon. member is compelled, after speaking tiH after midnight last night, to speak again at such a late hour as this. Now, I appeal to the right hon. the Prime Minister if I cannot have the privilege I ask.


Wilfrid Laurier: Go on.


Mr. FIELDING.: I move that the resolution be adopted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Thoburn: Then I suppose I must proceed. When the committee rose last night, I was discussing the reciprocity Bill now before the House. I had referred to several items in connection with the Bill, and was about to deal with the preferential clause when the committee rose.
You will have noticed that reference has been made several times during the debate to this clause by hon. gentlemen opposite. Looking at it from a purely business Mr. COWAN.
standpoint, I have been unable to find a single instance in which the preferential clause is of benefit to the farmers of Canada. Can any hon. gentleman in this House name one single article of Canadian product that gets a preference in the British market either in Canadian manufactures or in Canadian farm products. Canadian manufactures and Canadian farm products of all kinds sell in the British market on their merits, and that is the reason why the Americans are so anxious that the Reciprocity Bill should pass. They want to import Canadian farm products into the United States, and export them into Great Britain as American products. But, Mr. Speaker, while the American government is anxious to have reciprocity in farm products, they take very good care not to allow these products to enter their country after being partly manufactured. We know that while they will admit a million bushels of Canadian wheat into their country free of duty, the very moment you turn that million bushels irto flour they charge you a duty upon it. Why is it? Because the government of that country has always looked after the interests of the American workingman, and anv labour that has to be done on that million bushels of wheat they want done in the United States. Take the case of lumber, it is said that they will admit lumber into the United States free, in its rough state. That is true, but the moment you plane a board on one side, and export it to the United States there is a duty imposed upon it. Why? Because they are preserving that labour for the American workman, instead of having it done in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian workman.	.
I	cannot think for one moment that our farmers are going to stand for any such fraudulent bargain as this. They have the British market now, and they aTe going to 3o their best to keep it. It is a well known fact that the preferential clause means a larger importation of goods into this country, but what does that mean to the manufacturers of the country? What does it mean to the working class of the country? The greater part of every million dollars worth of manufactured goods that comes into this country might be manufactured here and supply labour and wages to the workmen of Canada.
Then, Mr. Speaker, you cannot but have noticed that there has been a frpe trade element in the speeches of some of the hon. gentlemen opposite in reference to the clause now under consideration. I am very glad that the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is in his seat to-night, because I wish to deal with some of the utterances of that hon. gentleman ir the year 1909, as compared with his utterances in the year 1911. In the year

1909 the hon. gentleman moved "the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this House such steps should be taken as may be deemed most effective in. conserving the home market to the Canadian coal operators.
After giving a very exhaustive statement he went on to say:
I have reason to hope that the government will be equal to the occasion, and that this House will support the government in inquiring into the cause which is bringing about such a great influx of American coal into Canada, to the exclusion of the use of our own Canadian coal, and that whatever steps are necessary to conserve to us our own market and to exclude American coal shall be taken.
I regret that I have been obliged to speak at such length, but the question is a very important one. I am not presenting alone the case of the capitalists for whom I can assure you I have no retainer, but I feel that it is my duty as representing a large number of working men as near to the foot of the throne as I can, and as far as I am able to submit to the government and the people generally that some measures should be taken to enable these working ,men to have employment every day and to earn sufficient money to support' themselves and their families in comfort. I regret that this winter they have not been kept in continuous emp^yment because of this displacement of Canadian coal in the home market by American coal. It is not at all necessary for one to call himself a labour candidate or to sit in this House as a labour member in order that he should put those issues before this House. Representing as I do a large number of working people, although I do not pose as a labour candidate, I believe that it is my duty to the best of my ability to present to the country and to the House the interests of these people and to appeal for a remedy to the only institution in the land which had power to provide a remedy which will relieve us from any further imposition of this kind, and which will hold the markets of Canada for Canadian coal which we are capable of producing just as well as they can produce coal in a foreign country.
And a little further on he said:
I have presented my views and these statistics to the House in the hope that the government will take into serious consideration the circumstances of those who are dependent on this trade for a means of livelihood as well as those who have had the courage and the enterprise to invest millions of dollars in our coal areas in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada.
What did the Minister of Finance say on that occasion?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not imagine that my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) desires to divide the House on this question to-night, especially as there is a very slim attendance of members present. I take it for granted that the purpose of a motion was to have an opportunity of presenting these very interesting statistics to us and to urge if it is necessary to urge the importance of the great mining industry. There will be no difference of opinion in that respect. We all recognize that the coal industry of the country not merely in Nova Scotia but in other parts of the Dominion, is a very great industry and that whatever may reasonably be done to advance the interests of our Canadian miners should be done. It is, however, a very vexed question. It is a question on which there will not be by any means unanimity of opinion. I do not imagine that my hon. friend desires to-night to challenge an opinion, and I would suggest therefore that the debate be adjourned so that at a later date when there is a better attendance of members any hon. member who desires may continue the discussion.
Now, that discussion was never coni tinued to my knowledge by the hon. member for North Cape Breton until this present session. It is utterly impossible to understand wihatt the hon. gentleman meant on that occasion when you compare the utterance that lie made then and his utterance during the present session of parliament. I refer to page 5120 of Hansard:
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to pay a little further attention to some observations that were made about the prosperous condition of this country, and before I reach that I wish to say something about the province of Nova Scotia, and the coal question. I suppose the coal industry is the largest of any one industry in Canada. The coal industry of Nova Scotia has a capital invested in it of something in the vicinity of $1,000,000,000, it has 10,000 or 12,000, possibly more, men directly dependent upon it, and for us in Nova Scotia the coal question is a very important one indeed. At the same time, we realize that we are part and parcel of the country, that it takes all kinds of people to make a world, and that all manner of agreements, give and take must be made in order that we shall get along peaceably and harmoniously the one with the other. That being the case, and knowing that, there must he duties raised in this country and that the consumer must also be taken into consideration of this question. Speaking as one representing the coal industry of Nova Scotia, while we would like to have seen .the duty remain as it was, and while we think it would have been perfectly justifiable to let it remain, we are content to take our share of the burden of taxation upon the people, and if eight cents a ton has been taken oft that coal we must put up with it, and do the best we can.
For utter political inconsistency, I do not know where you can find a parallel to this case. Was the hon. gentleman sincere when he made his statement in 1909? Or was he sincere when he made his statement in 1911. Speaking further on on the free trade question I wish to quote the remarks of the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. M. Y. McLean).

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a little departure and in doing so I shall say in what I say, I speak entirely on my own responsibility. To use a sporting phrase I wish to cast a ball off my own bat. I know from expressions used by my hon. friend the Finance Minister, that he and the members of the cabinet are not prepared to follow as far as I would like to lead, and also that many of my hon. friends on this side would not agree with the sentiments and ideas I am about to express. I believe those ideas to be in the best interests of the country, and therefore that it is my duty to give them utterance.
I believe that the best fiscal policy for this country is absolute free trade, the public revenue to be collected by the simplest, and most inexpensive method cf direct taxation that can possibly be devised.
Further on he says:
It has been stated by several members on this side of the House that they would feel better pleased if the government would increase the British preference to 40 or SO per cent. Now, Sir, I am prepared to go a long step further than that. I say that Great Britain admits our products into her market free, and that we should admit her products into our market free.
We have ibeen -lead to believe that the preferential clause was enacted to show an increased loyalty to Great Britain, but we are told now it was nothing of the kind. In this connection I would quote from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Garleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) who said:
Our hon. friends opposite may say that we introduced it in order to cater to the feeling prevailing at that time that we should do something to help out the British people and to prove our loyalty. I do not believe that was the object at all.
Further on he says:
I can assure the government that there is no way in which they can more ingratiate themselves with the people of Canada or do more good to the people of Canada than to bring down before this parliament adjourns a measure increasing the British preference to at least 40 per cent.
Those are the utterances of hon. members in this House in reference to free trade. We have also the utterance in the memorial presented by the United Farmers of Alberta, which stated that the association welcomed the reciprocity agreement as a first step towards free trade.
In addition to that we have the Americans clamouring for free trade with Canada in manufactured goods as well as in natural products. I quote the following extracts from a speech recently delivered by Senator Beveridge.
There must be reciprocity with Canada. Our 'tariff with the rest of the world does not apply to our northern neighbour. That policy already has driven American manufacturers Mr. THOBURN.
across the Canadian borders, built vast plants with American capital on Canadian soil, employing Canadian workingmen to supply trade. That capital should be kept at home to employ American workingmen to supply Canadian demand. We should admit Canadian wood pulp and Canadian paper free in return for Canada's admitting our agricultural implements, our engines, pumps and other machinery free. We should freely admit Canadian lumber to American planing mills in return for Canada's freely admitting other American manufactured products to Canadian markets."
In addition to that we have the utterance of Senator Townsy supporting reciprocity:
Not only would he lend lus support to the Bill now under consideration, the senator declared, but he would have favoured ' a treaty which would have included all of the products of Canadian and United States industries on the free list.'
Careful and unbiased study had convinced him that the agreement would benefit both countries.
' But I am convinced,' he added, ' that reciprocity with Canada can never he the greatest success until manufactured as well as natural products meet no customs walls in passing between the two countries.'
Senator Townsend argued that it was the duty of the United States and for its best good ' to enter into the freest trade relations possible with those nations where the conditions of living and industry are similar to those of our own country.'
Canada, he contended, came in this class. Personally, he said, he would have ' striven long and hard,' for absolutely free trade between the two countries.
I wish also to refer to some remarks made by President Taft in reference to the tariff between the two countries.
Washington, May 8.-President Taft indulged in some plain talk to-day in explaining to 25 members of the National Grange that he doe9 not intend to play politics with the Canadian reciprocity agreement even if the enactment of that measure by congress costs him the farmers' vote. The president told his visitors bluntly that he was sorry to hear that Republican farmers would desert the party if the agreement goes through, but fear of such desertion would not change his conviction as to the wisdom of such legislation. He said that he believed reciprocity to be the best thing for the whole country and that he did not intend to argue it.
But my conviction with respect to the advantage of this treaty is very deep. So far as is the effect of this on my personal political fortunes, it ought not to influence me, and does not influence me in the slightest. I believe this treaty to be the best thing for the whole country, including farmers, merchants, labouring men and all, because I believe it is contrary to nature, it is flying in the face cf Providence, to put an artificial wall like that between this country and Canada and not get the benefit that will inure to peoples of the same traditions, the same language, especially with the same character of labour. If we take down that wall we will benefit by it,____-

I wish the House to pay particular attention to this utterance. They are not entirely enacting this measure for the benefit of Canada.
procity in what we think a reasonable manner, then we think we should sit later and advance what we regard as the paramount business of the House at this moment.
-for we shall sell more agricultural products to Canada than she will sell to us. We do now, and we shall sell her even more after the treaty goes into effect. That is my judgment. I am not arguing-I am merely stating my conviction. If I did not believe this,
I should not have taken the responsibility of doing what I have done to put this reciprocity treaty through. I am willing to abide the judgment of history-the judgment that will come after the event. When you gentlemen come to see the result, I believe that you, a9 fairminded men, will admit that you have been wrong in your fears and that I have been right.
Senator Kenyon, of Iowa made the following statement:
Although President Taft has made several speeches of late, trying to convince the farmers in America that it will be the Canadian farmers who will suffer.
Just think of a statement coming from a senator that it is the opinion of the President of the United States that is the Canadian farmer who has to suffer if this reciprocity goes into effect. Can it be possible that the Prime Minister, or any cabinet minister, or any hon. member on either side of this House, would support such a Bill when the statement comes from the President of the United States that it is to be to the injury of the Canadian farmer? I cannot think so and I will never believe so until such a thing should come to pass Now, I do not wish to occupy the time of this House any longer. I want to put in as concise a form as possible my reasons for opposing reciprocity, and they are as follows :
1.	Because I firmly believe that it will be injurious to the Canadian farmer.
2.	The farmer has as much right to protection as the manufacturer has.
3.	It is taking a link out of the chain of our moderate tariff that has done so much to bring this country to its present state of prosperity.
4.	It is striking a fatal blow at the very foundation of our national resources.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman in that regard is making himself the sole judge of what is in the public interest.


William Stevens Fielding: I am expressing my own opinion. I do not object to my hon. friend having his opinion of what is in the public interest, but I think I am doing no wrong in expressing what I believe to be in the public interest. My hon. friend and I differ, that is our mutual misfortune.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be my hon. friend's misfortune,- I .do not regard it as mine. I was about to say that if matters of public importance are brought forward by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, such, for example, as the loss to the people of this country of a million dollars by a system of boodling, I ask if it be reasonable that we should be obliged to sit to an unreasonable hour simply because that particular matter has been brought to the attention of the House today. However, the hon. gentleman is entitled to his own opinion on the subject. I am certainly entitled to mine and the proposition, as I understand the hon. gentleman, is that no man on this side of the House shall be at liberty to bring to the attention of parliament, or the country any matter of any public interest whatever except at the risk of being obliged to sit to a very late hour in order to make up that time by a continuation of the reciprocity debate.
That is the proposition as I understand it. No matter what the subject may be- it may relate to the danger to the west of suffering from a coal famine, it may relate to irregularities and abuses in the public service-no one on this side of the House is to be at liberty to open his mouth in regard to any one of these subjects except under the penalty suggested by the hon. Minister of Finance. That may be regarded as a reasonable proposition; certainly, I desire to enter my protest against it at the earliest moment.


Mr. BEST.: Seeing that the hour is late I will move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret I cannot accept the motion. I think I may say frankly now that the desire of the government is that this reciprocity debate shall be continued in a reasonable manner from day to day so that we may make progress. If intervening proceedings, I will not say obstructive proceedings-that might be objected to-but if intervening proceedings occur to prevent the consideration of reci-


William Stevens Fielding: *engaged the attention, of the House at an earlier date. It is reasonable that there should be such an inquiry, but I do not agree that the reading hour after hour of columns of newspapers many, many weeks and months old is a legitimate contribution' to the debates of the House. However, if the hon. gentleman differs from me again I say it is our misfortune.


Robert Laird Borden: The columns and columns of newspapers to which my hon. friend refers are no later than the evidence submitted of the boodling to. which I have alluded. While I have heard the Prime Minister to-day state that there is an opinion expressed in the report that the report itself	should not
be laid on the table of the House, I have not heard a statement from any hon. gentleman on the treasury benches that there is any such reason to prevent the evidence itself being laid on the table of the House. It was urged by the right hon. Prime Minister that the commissioner had stated that his report should be kept private for some purpose that I have been as yet unable to understand, but even the right hon. gentleman himself did not state, and I do not think he will state, that the commissioner said that the evidence should not be laid on the table of the House. If that evidence had been laid on the table of the House as it ought to have been in common decency on the very first day we met here the reading of that same evidence in the form in which it had appeared in the public press would not have been necessary. It was necessary to go to the public press because of the neglect of this government to lay on the table of the House the evidence that in common ordinary decency should have been presented to the House the very first day that we were here.
I do not know, speaking of my own knowledge, in regard to this boodling, anything of it except from the statements read from the public press, not contradicted up to the present time, that seem to establish that there was within the Liberal organization in British Columbia a scramble as to who would be entitled to the moneys plundered from the public treasury. I am not responsible for that statement. The witnesses who gave their oaths to those assertions are responsible for.it, and up to the present we have been unable to appreciate the character of that evidence or to know really how correct, or how incorrect the statements in the public press may be simply for the reason that the government have not had the courage up to the present to lay that evidence on the table as it should have been laid on the table on the 18th of this month.


Mr. LENNOX.: Of course, the Minister of Finance must judge for himself in refer-
Mr. FIELDING
ence to the position he should take in this debate.
The Minister of Finance has more experience than I, but my opinion is entitled to consideration just as his is. I would be glad to see this debate proceed from day to day and a full elucidation of this important subject, but at the same time we are not going, at the beck of the ministry or at the call of the United States, to surrender our rights in this parliament as representatives of the people. I conscientiously attend every sitting of the House and I intend to stay here as much as I can while the reciprocity debate is in progress; but the Minister of Finance is not reasonable in asking that we should stay here until after one o'clock in the morning, because some hon. gentlemen in the discharge of their duty have discussed an important matter as to which the government has offered no' defence. This side of the House have no apology to make for entering on the discussion this afternoon. The Minister of Finance may do what he likes, but there are members of this House who intend to express their opinions on reciprocity at an hour when there will be an opportunity for these opinions to go to the public. I tell the Finance Minister with great respect that I shall use my privilege on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means to bring before the House any matter which I deem of importance, and I will not ask the permission of the ' Globe ' to do so. I am enumerated in the ' Globe ' to-day amongst what they call the obstructionists and that because in the briefest manner possible I called the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that I was not enumerated in the census. If the Minister of Finance is not afraid of discussion then he should not deter this side from giving the public an opportunity t(fc>
judge whether they want reciprocity or not. Until the people have an opportunity of saying whether they do or do not want to ally themselves with the people of the United States in this matter, I for one shall continue to protest against the action of the government.


James Davis Taylor: I am informed that while I was out of the chamber, the Minister of Finance thought fit to reflect upon my course, in, this afternoon, bringing to the attention of this House certain rascalities which, if the government has not actually encouraged, it has done nothing to prevent. I might, if I cared to, have prolonged the discussion this afternoon for at least an hour by reading the evidence under my hand reflecting personally upon the minister from British Columbia, but I was good-natured enough to cut that out and it comes with ill grace from these gentlemen opposite to taunt me with

wasting the time of the House when they very well know I had this damaging evidence here and could have read it had I desired. I have had this evidence in my possession since last December; week after week as it accumulated in the records of the committee it came under my observance and was ready for me to present to the House, but I thought it more decent to wait until the evidence and finding of the commissioner were presented before 1 discussed it. Over two months ago I inquired of the Minister of the Interior in a few words whether it would not be better to defer a Bill then before the House until this report was brought down, and speaking for the. government the Minister of the Interior told us that this request was most reasonable. Two months later, knowing that this report was long in the possession of the government I inquired if a formal motion would be necessary to have it produced. I then learned for the first time that the word of a minister of the Crown given to me across the floor of this House was not of value, that it was not the intention to implement his word and bring down the report, that the report was in the custody of the minister shown to be delinquent, and I knew that if we waited for him to decide to bring it down we would never have it. Then I considered that I would be derelict in my duty if I did not take the earliest opportunity to lay before tne people of Canada through this parliament the most scandalous condition of affairs that has ever -arisen in any -city of lOanada.


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEK@: I will ask the hon. gentleman not to enter into the merits of the question at this moment, though I will allow him to defend his action in speaking


Mr. TAYLOK (JNew Westminster).: I understood that 1 was attacked in my absence, and that is the reason I speak. For more reasons than one 1 do not want to enter into the merits of the question, for in my opinion it has no merits. 1 wish to resent the imputation cast on me by the Minister of Finance in endorsing the slur first cast by the First Minister, and afterwards withdrawn by him, that I was wasting the time of the House instead of serving the interests of the people of Canada.


Morley Currie: I wish to say a word in reference to the aspersions cast on me, as one of the speakers, by the Finance Minister. If there is one man who on political matters has only one view, who as it were lives all his life in a barrel and only knows what he sees through the bung-hole, it is the Minister of Finance. He seeks to coerce this House to discuss nothing 'but reciprocity and to force us to dis-312
cuss that question until it is disposed of. Coercion is the weapon of tyranny, and the day has gone when people will put up with it. We have had a few tyrants on this continent. We have done -away with Castro, Don -Pedro and others, and recently another tyrant on this continent was disposed of, and the time is not long before Laurier and his crew will be dispensed with. The First Minister and the Minister of Finance cannot coerce a free parliament into passing something which is contrary to the constitution, and which should -be submitted to the people. That is the question before this House: are we going to be coerced into adopting the views of the First Minister, who is in essence a coercionist? The very terms coercion and tyranny are distasteful to a British people, and they will not submit to it. The day is not far distant when this effort to coerce us to adopt a policy contrary to the genius of British people will meet with the same fate that befel another tyrant in another country not long ago. Six months ago there was no greater man on this continent than President Diaz in Mexico; he was the great immaculate; but to-day there is no one so mean or poor to do him any reverence. The Minister of Finance seeks to coerce this parliament into all-night sessions that it may pass a measure contrary to justice and to all the rules of public policy known to history. There has been nothing of the kind in any parliament since the days of the Long Parliament and ship money; and because we choose to discuss a public question of the most burning kind on the Pacific coast, he says we are wasting the time of the House. How long lias he wasted the time of the House? If he has wasted the time of the House, he has been very well paid for it. He can afford to -come back to this House and spend a few days here; he has a few dollars in his pocket to pay his board. Whom did he get the money from? If he got the money from honest and fair men, he should give the names of those who subscribed to his nice little purse. He of all men to talk of wasting the time of the House. He cannot understand for one minute how he stands in the eyes of the public of this country. The man who got $120,000-what for?-he to stand up and challenge honourable members with wasting the time of the House because they choose to discuss a question of this kind and put it on record. Mr. Chairman, I trust that all motion of that kind, especially from the Minister of Finance, will end to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says that I pressed for an all-night sitting. I pressed for nothing of the kind. The House frequently sits longer than this. I thought that the hour was late and that we might make some reasonable progress.



Mr. CUKK1E (North Simcoe). I am very glad the Minister of Finance has apologized to the House.


William Stevens Fielding: If I had occasion to apologize, I would be ready to apologize, and I would not expect the hon. gentleman to do so.
Mr. OUKK1E (North Simcoe). When it comes to a question of ethics, either personal or political, I do not take my ethics from the same book as the hon Minister of Finance.


John Best: If it is the wish of the House that I should proceed, I will do so.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be very glad if my hon. friend will proceed, and if he purposes to occupy any considerable time, after he makes reasonable progress, I will offer no objection to an adjournment.


John Best: Seeing that in some of the remarks I want to make I wish to refer to the Minister of Customs, I would like him to 'be in his seat.


William Stevens Fielding: I will guarantee that the Minister of Customs will read what the hon. gentleman says.


John Best: He. is paid to stay here and listen.


William Stevens Fielding: No, he is not paid to stay here and listen.


John Best: From the time the House met in November, for three or four months, there seemed to be an abundance of time. Members on the government side spoke for three or four hours, and there seemed to be very little objection. But things have taken a very sudden change to-night. The Minister of Finance suggests that the time is precious and that we should not take up the time of the House. It seems to me it is a policy of sit tight.
I have been looking for the time to come when we would hear from the ministers on the government side of the House what they were going to do for the people of Canada. We have heard them tell us that reciprocity was going to be a great thing for Canada-that it was	going to
enrich the farmer-going to do a lot for this country; but I have yet to find that they have ever made one tittle of proof that either nationally or financially we would be any further ahead than we are to-day. It puts me in mind of what happened last winter between two neighbours of mine-call them Jones and Smith. Jones had a very nice chesnut mare, and had been trying to get a mate for it. Smith was a professional horse trader, and he came along one evening about dark and said to Mr. FIELDING
Jones: 'I hear you have a nice chestnut mare. Now, I have a good mate for her. I will give you a trade for this horse.' Jones took him to be sincere, and asked him if the horse was all right, he said it was.,' adding ' If you take this horse it will go very well with yours, and you can do a lot of work with them, or if you want to sell the team you can make a pile of money out of them.' The trade was made, the next morning when Jones went to look at his matched team he found to his surprise that the new horse was broken winded, was heavy, had ringbones and was bogspavined. In fact everything that was bad. When he hitched them up and tried to drive off the new horse baulked and would not go at all. Now, I am of the opinion that many of the arguments put up here in connection with reciprocity are similar to this horse trade.
From the time the House adjourned on the 19th of May last up to the present time, I have had the pleasure of meeting the great majority of the electors of the county which I have the honour to represent, and, knowing what I am talking about, I should say that at least 90 or 95 per cent of the people of that county are absolutely opposed to reciprocity. When you consider that about 85 per cent of these people are farmers, why should we not say that they are thinking justly and rightly. Just think for one moment of the position of the farmers in the Dominion of Canada. They claim they have not got justice, and I claim they have not got justice. For instance, this present government will spend in one year between $140,000,000 and $150,000,000, and the farmers of Canada-who are the source of wealth, constituting 63 per cent of the population of this country will get less than $1,000,000, for there is less than $1,000,000 spent on agriculture. I say the farmers of this country have not been rightly used, and I say further that this government would be doing very much more for the farmers of Canada if they would help them financially in their agricultural pursuits.
If this reciprocity treaty goes into force the farmer of Canada will be in competition with the world without any protection whatever. After growing his wheat he takes it a mile down the road to the miller, and the moment it is turned into flour there is a duty on it. If he takes a load of hogs to the_ market^ he has to sell the hogs in competition with the world, but if he wants to take a pound of bacon home with him he has to pay duty. If he takes a steer or sheep to the market he has to sell it in competition with the world, but if he wants to take a pound of fresh meat with him he has to pay duty on it. I would ask the hon. members of this House if that is fair play for the farmer?

It is simply a matter of experiment with the farmer, who has been experimented with long enough, and I believe the day is not far distant when he will be experimented with no longer.
_ The farmers say to us: 'How is it that in 1900, 1904 and 1908, we never heard of reciprocity, yet it is thrown into the political arena now and we are told, here, take all or none.
The hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made a statement here to the effect that he wanted the question discussed fairly and clearly, but on the very same column of 'Hansard' you will find that he gagged every member of the government and said that it must go through. He told them that the honour of the government and the honour of the House was pledged to this treaty. I would ask the hon. Finance Minister if the government was so particular about doing as the farmers of the Northwest asked, why is it that nothing was done for them? The hon, Finance Minister and the hon. Minister of Customs went to Washington and made a treaty with Mr. Taft and his legislators, which treaty they did not want to have broken. Seemingly they have no regard for the pledges made to the people of Canada, but they have respect for a pledge made with the American people or with the President of the United States-that is something which must not be broken.
We are asked who suggested this when it was brought before the people. I find that the hon. gentlemen on the government side tell us that previous to 1896 the Conservatives asked fox reciprocity. Well, I make the statement, and' I believe I am correct, that it is not on record in 'Hansard' that any Conservatives ever asked to make a treaty with the United States whereby the farmers would be divested of every vestige of protection and would, at the same time, have to pay duty for *every article they use. Why did the present government not do as the Conservative government did in 1893? in 1893, the Conservative government sent some of the cabinet ministers to many counties throughout this Dominion to find out the needs of the farmers. Amongst others- they came to the county which I have the honour to represent, and there were 20 farmers sent from different parts of that county t<o interview the cabinet ministers. These farmers were not Tories nor Grits, but Tories and Grits combined. It was- a representative deputation of farmers, and with the exception of one man, who asked for free corn, we stood solid, asking the government not to take the duty off farm produce, but rather to raise the duty on it. Now, if the farmers of the Dominion, and especially of Ontario, wanted the duty raised on farm produce in 1893, why should they want it taken off to-day? To-day we have trans-312}
portation facilities which we did not have then. We have spent almost $500,000,000 in building railways and canals, and to-day we have the British market nearer to us than the American mairket was at that time. No one will gainsay the fact that the British market to-day is far superior to- the American market which we had at that time.
We have heard it said that the farmers made a great deal of money previous to the McKinley Bill coming into force. This may be true. But as a farmer, I know- as well as any other man-that if we got high prices sometimes for our products, for years we did not get so much.
But what was that leading up to the deterioration of our farms. I can say as a farmer that, no matter where you went, especially in the province of Ontario, the soil was depleted of its fertility. The farms were not growing, in most cases, within five or ten bushels of grain per acre as much as they do to-day. Our coarse grain was sent to the United States, and with it our steers were sent out to be fattened on the American side. The McKinley Bill came into force and many farmers thought they were hurt. I was one of of those who were of that opinion. We had to look about us and see what we were going to do with our coarse grains, and especially with our barley. We went to work to raise stock, of which, previous to this, very little was raised in Ontario. We started to raise hogs and cattle. And as soon as we began on this course we had the fertility coming back on the land, and that is the reason we have the land in a superior state of fertility to what it was at that time. And I can honestly say as a farmer that there is not a man in Ontario who is feeding his coarse grain to stock, as he should do, who sells his barley for less than 75 cents a bushel, and some of it is as high as $1.25. And this has been the case for the last ten years. Then, we have been compelled to build up the reputation of our farm produce and live stock in England. It took years to do that. I can remember when in the agricultural societies and farmers' institutes the idea constantly expressed was that we should try to build up a fine type of bacon hog. That took fifteen years to accomplish. But today we have that type of hog and our bacon stands second to none in the English market. Shall we allow the American hog to come in so that the American bacon shall be mixed with ours? Shall we allow Canadian bacon to be sent to the United States to be mixed with lower grade American bacon and sent to the English market there to lower the standard of our product? We are told that if the American market is not satisfactory we can still send to the English market. But we know that the Minister of Agriculture himself has

been telling us to send our best quality of cured meat and grain to the English market. This we have done, and it is because of that that we have such a reputation in that market. I quite admit that, for a small percentage of our farm produce, those of No. 1 standard we should probably get a higher price in the United States. But, while we get a little more for twenty per cent of our farm produce we shall get far less for eighty per cent. If we sell this high quality cured meats and grain to the United States, we have only the lower grades to send to the English market. The result will be to lower our standard and our reputation and the reputation of our farm produce in England, so that it will take another fifteen or twenty years to regain what we have lost.
Now, we have been told that from 1854 to 1856 good times reigned in Canada because we had reciprocity. But times are different to-day from what they were then. Simply because the times were good then with reciprocity between Canada and the United States, is that any reason why we should expect prosperity now under reciprocity? We cannot judge of the future by the past. Our fathers lived in log houses, but we do not want to go back to houses of that kind. We have been progressing in the last fifteen or twenty years, and we want to still go on. But some people insist upon judging the future by the past. They would hark back to the days of 18541866 and say that because reciprocity was good for Canada then it must be good for Canada now. It is not necessarily so. I believe that it was a good thing then, but to assume that it will be a good thing now is to assume that the conditions now are the same as the conditions were then. But they are not, decidedly not. When a farmer is told of the high prices received for his products during the latter part of the time that that treaty was in force he should remember that peculiar circumstances existed then that do not exist now. The great civil war was wholly within this period. The prices of that time were enormous, and need not be expected to-day. Think of our condition as a country then. There was not even a confederation of the provinces. Now, the scattered fragments of those days have been brought together and made one great Dominion. Then there had been no combined systematic attempt to find a market for our goods. Apparently the United States was our only market. We had not learned of the possibilities about us. Now, the federated provinces have expended $427,000,000 on railways and canals to develop means of transportation; the provincial governments have spent $36,000,000, and the municipalities $18,000,000 in the same direction. Furthermore, the provincial and federal governments Mr. BEST.
have guaranteed bonds for Tailway construction in Canada to the amount of $127,000,000 more. We are proposing a further expenditure of $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 for the Transcontinental railway. All this expenditure is to develop internal trade between the east and west, and make us independent of the markets of the United States. At the time of the la=t reciprocity agreement we were in large measure dependent on the United States for our markets. But we are not dependent on them now. The mother country has replaced the United States in this respect. Improved transportation and cold storage have brought the British market nearer to us to-day than the market of the United States was in 1854. In 1910, Great Britain took of our animals and their products $42,000,000 out of a total of $54,000,000 which was exported, equal to 77 per cent. Of our agricultural products they took $71,000,000 worth out of a total of $91,000,000, equal to nearly 80 per cent. In the same year the United States took of the first 20 per cent, and of the second 9 per cent. The United States took last year of our agricultural products only 7 per cent more than she took forty-two years ago. These figures show conclusively the ability of the mother country to take all our products, and at good figures. They prove our independence of the United States market. Let us. disabuse our minds of the idea that because reciprocity was a good thing for the Canadians in 1854 we need it now, that because it was profitable under conditions existing then it would be profitable under the changed conditions of to-day. Circumstances alter cases. Before we consider the effect of the proposed arrangement-, we must consider three things concerning this reciprocity treaty. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for an adjournment.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the commit tee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ADJOUKNMENT-BUSINESS	OF THE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Shall we continue the same discussion to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, continue this discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 1-30 a. m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, July 21, 1911.