1924-06-25

HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly
and Vercheres) moved:
That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be concurred in.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in making a motion
of this kind it is customary that the chairman should give 'his views to the House regarding the proceedings and the report of -the committee. I shall do so briefly and impartially. The charge made by the hon., member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) is as follows:
The Honourable James Muirdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank at its Ottawa branch on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein to his credit, using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to 'himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his .obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
I wish to state at the o-utset, Mr. Speaker, that I have nothing but praise for the hon. members of the committee, who throughout the proceedings of the inquiry have conducted themselves in the true spirit of the high traditions of parliament. I say this without any reservation whatsoever. The members of the committee bad to inquire into the action of one of their fellow-members, and it is to their credit that, following in -the footsteps of the hon. member for West Hastings when he made his speech in the House, they have avoided personalities and partisan feelings, and used throughout the whole proceedings a most temperate and sober tone.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Tlhe committee had several meetings and summoned a number of witnesses. The report which I now beg the House to concur lin reads as follows:
The evidence taken by the committee shows that Hon. James Murdock on the 15tih of August, 1923, drew out of the Home Bank of Canada at its Ottawa Branch, the sum of $4,050, but there is no evidence to show that before so drawing out said 6um he had received information as a cabinet minister of the probable failure of said bank. The evidence also shows that the only information Mr. Murdock had of the probable failure of said bank was received as a private citizen, from Hon. G. N. Gordon, in a friendly interview on tlhe 9th of August, 1923.
The committee finds that Hon. Jas. Murdock did nothing in connection with tlhe withdrawal of such money from the Home Bank contrary to his obligation as a minister of the Crown, or in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament, and that the charge submitted to this committee for investigation, so far as it affects the honour of Mr. Murdock, is not. only not proved but entirely disproved.
Every bon. member will realize that in order to substantiate his charge, the hon. member for West Hastings had to prove three things:	Firet, the withdrawal of the money
under the circumstances mentioned in the charge; second, that in doing so the Minister of Labour used information that he had received as a minister, of the likely failure of the bank; and third, that by using such information he has received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligation as a minister, and in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
May I be allowed to point out that in order to maintain the charge, not only one, but all of those three things had to be proved. May I also point out that the first two questions are questions of fact, and the third question is more a question of appreciation in the light of precedent, in the light of jurisprudence, more a doctrine or proposition than a positive fact.
Before considering the evidence on the facts, and the soundness of the third proposition in the light of the law, I wish to state that I endeavoured to conduct this inquiry in a judicial way. I based my reason for doing so first on section 2 of the Canada Evidence Act which reads as follows:
This Part shall apply to all criminal proceedings, and to all civil proceedings and other matters whatsoever respecting which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction in this behalf.
This seems to be clear. I followed the rules of evidence contained in this act. Secondly, I followed also the jurisprudence. I assumed that the members of the committee were the jury. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman), and the hon. member for 229
York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), speaking before the vote was taken in committee, contended that the rules of evidence at a judicial trial should not apply; that it was not for the member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) to prove his charge but it was for the Minister of Labour to prove his innocence. The hon. member for East Toronto drew my attention to the Marconi debate in the British House of Commons in 1913 where no such rules were observed. But I wish to draw the attention of the House to this point,-the hon. member for East Toronto overlooked the fact that we were proceeding with an inquiry where all the witnesses were sworn, while in the Marconi case in the British House of Commons in 1913 it was not an inquiry. In that case there was no inquiry whatsoever; there was no charge made and referred to a committee; it was an ordinary parliamentary debate where no witnesses were heard, where members simply spoke and gave their opinion. The proposition here is quite a different one.
I may say that I was gratified to hear the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), although he voted against the report, express the opinion on this matter which he did. That opinion is to be found on page 154 of the report of the proceedings of the committee. The hon. member for Leeds, as there reported, said this:
I assume, Mr. Chairman, that this committee is here as	a court of justice, that we	have	all	thepowers,	all the privileges,	all the rights,	all	theresponsibilities, and all the duties of a court, and if that be so, then the rules of evidence must apply and we	must discharge our	duties as a	court	and	notin any	other capacity or	from any	other	motives
than those which would characterize and must characterize judges and jurors in determining a question which is brought before them.
This doctrine is sound; it has been fob, lowed in every inquiry of this kind since confederation. It was followed in the Mc-Greevy inquiry in 1891; it was followed in the Lanctot inquiry in 1911; it was also followed in the Yukon inquiry presided over by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I repeat, it is sound doctrine. The suggestion that the ordinary rules of evidence should not apply, that they should be put aside, that the inquiry should be conducted in a haphazard and go-as-you-please manner is a most astounding proposition. Before I leave the subject I will quote the opinion of a man who has occupied one of the highest positions in this country, whose eminent character, fine legal mind and wide knowledge are undisputed. I refer to Sir Allen Aylesworth, ex-Minister of Justice. Speaking on the Lanctot case, as reported at page 7,900 of Hansard, 1911, he said:
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Every' one knows that it is the privilege of the person accused either to remain silent or to say: Not guilty, prove your case. Nothing is to be inferred against a man because he may choose to take that course.
I am therefore satisfied that the course which I followed was the proper one.
Let us now examine the first allegation: Hon. Mr. Murdock, two days before the failure of the Home Bank, withdrew the sum of 14,050 of his money. As I said before, and according to all rules of evidence, the hon. minister was not obliged to appear as a witness. But he did appear, and admitted that on 15th August, last at about one o'clock, two days before the failure of the Home Bank, he withdrew from the bank the sum of $4,050, his parliamentary indemnity, which he had deposited in the Royal Bank, and that later on, on 1st October, he used that money to pay a mortgage on his property. The mortgage itself, with evidence of the payment mentioned, was produced at the inquiry by Mr. Cuthbertson, the holder. The first allegation, therefore, was proven, but minus the frills and insinuations of the partisan press. Mr. Murdock did not withdraw his money after banking hours as stated in the liquidator's letter to him-and in the speech of the hon. member for West Hastings, a very material incident in the case as stated by the members for West Hastings, and York-Sunbury. Both these hon. members expressed their opinion as to this fact and the evidence on the point is to be found at page 13 of the committee's proceedings, where Mr. Clarkson, the liquidator, was being examined by Mr. Porter. I will cite it:
Q. Did you get any information of that character *from the officials of the Home Bank in Ottawa?-A. Not until after that letter was written-after settlement was made.
Q. Then what knowledge had you when you wrote this letter that the money had been withdrawn after banking hours?-A. I say, "the statement was made to me" that was so. The statement wras made to me by some officer of the bank that it was after office hours.
The Chairman:: Mr. Porter, I do not want to
limit you, but this is hearsay evidence. There is only one fact to be proven before this committee if you want to make your case, and that is that the money was withdrawn. Whether the money was withdrawn before hours or after hours makes no difference-
Mr. Porter:	I would think it would make a very
material difference.


George Newcombe Gordon: It makes no difference because the
reference is to the effect that money was withdrawn before the failure of the bank on the 15th day of August, 1923. That is the only thing we have to look for.
Mr. Porter: The time of withdrawal would be a very material consideration for the committee to consider.
Mr. Hanson:	I think it would be very vital. It
shows the intent.
TMr. Archambault.]
The Witness:	Mr. Porter, the manager of the bank
informed me yesterday that the withdrawal was not made after banking hours; it was made in banking hours, and the previous statements made to me were incorrect to that extent.
The evidence also shows, that without any obligation whatsoever in my opinion the Minister of Labour sent back to the liquidator every cent he had withdrawn. The evidence as to this is to be found at page 15 of the report. Let me quote it:
By Mr. Porter:
Q. Then the account, Mr. Clarkson, shows a balance at that time due from the Hon. Mr. Murdock of how much?-A. On May 16th it shows a balance of $3,000, excluding interest. Then we gave him a credit for $1,035.23, being 25 per cent of $4,140.94. That left a balance of $1,964.78. The interest on that was $150.30, which left him owing $2,115.08.
Q. Has the balance been returned to you as liquidator?-A. Yes sir, with that letter which you have in your hand.
Mr. Porter: I file a letter dated May 26, 1924.
Document filed as Exhibit No. 6.
Mr. Porter: This letter reads:
" May 26, 1924.
Dear Mr. Clarkson:
Acknowledging your letter of May 16, and your memo of May 20, re the amount which you compute is still due to you as liquidator in connection with my withdrawals from the Home Bank on August 15, 1923. I send you herewith cheque for $2,115.08."
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the depositors of the Home Bank have not lost one farthing, and the people of Canada have not lost one cent, through the action of the Minister of Labour.
Now let us look at the second fact. Was it proven that the hon. Minister of Labour withdrew his money from the bank using certain information that he had received at a meeting of council of the immediate failure of the bank? Every hon. gentleman must admit that if the second fact is not proven the case must fail. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is not one tittle of evidence given in the inquiry to show that the Minister of Labour had received any information as a minister of the near failure of the bank before he withdrew his money-nothing to show that he received any information as such minister. You can search the whole evidence and you will not find one witness who proved this fact. The directors of the bank came to Ottawa on the 14th August. They had an interview that evening with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), Mr. Graham, Mr. Robb and Mr. Saunders. They had not seen the Minister of Labour, and no information as to the state of the bank was given to him by any of his colleagues or by Mr. Saunders. The Minister of Labour only learned of that meeting much later. On page 85 of the Report of Proceed-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
ings evidence will be found to substantiate that fact, as follows:
By Mr. Porter:
Q. Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. I think that is all I want to ask for the moment. Mr. Murdock, I want to ask you one further question:	Were
you aware of the fact that the directors of the Home Bank met certain members of the cabinet at the Premier's house?-A. Not until after it came out generally.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Labour did not have that information, or was not aware of the meeting of the Home Bank directors on the night of the 14th, before he withdrew his money from the Home Bank.
Mr. SHAW. May I ask a question for information?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Yes, certainly.


Mr. SHAW:: Is the expression "Not until after it came out generally" interpreted subsequently by the minister (Mr. Murdock).


Joseph Archambault: Yes. I surmise it
would mean, "Not until it was known generally by the public".


Joseph Tweed Shaw: WThen would that be?


Joseph Archambault: That would certainly be after the next day. The Minister of Labour withdrew his money on the 15th, and that meeting was on the evening of the 14th. It is evident that he could not and did not know that that meeting had taken place until after he had withdrawn his money.


Mr. IRVINE:: Before the hon. member
leaves that point, I would like to ask a question, just for information. I understood the hon. member to say there was no evidence that the action of the Minister of Labour was affected by any information received at the cabinet council meeting. I want to know if it is not a fact that the only source of that information would be some member of the cabinet council, and they were not permitted by their oath of office to give that information. Is that not so?


Joseph Archambault: I am coming to
that point. After the meeting, or during the meeting, of the Home Bank directors at the house of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister decided that under the circumstances no assistance could be given to the Home Bank, and it was suggested that the Acting Minister of Finance should go to Montreal the next day, to interview the Bankers' Association, in order to get some assistance if possible. The matter was finally settled there. True there was a meeting of the cabinet next morning, at which the hon. Minister of Labour was present, but no evidence was given to show 229J
that t'he matter of the Home Bank was discussed at the said meeting. I ruled, according to all precedents and according to jurisprudence, that nothing could be asked of the minister of what transpired at that meeting. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that I was bound to make that ruling. The members of the Privy Council are bound by the oath of office to keep all matters which engage their attention at the meetings of the cabinet strictly private and confidential. I do not need to refer to all the authorities in this matter. May I. however, first ask the attention of hon. members to the oath of office which says:
-you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council, without publishing or disclosing the same or any part thereof, by word, writing, or any otherwise to any person out of the same council, but to such only as be of the council, and yet if any matter so propounded, treated and debated in any such Privy Council, shpll touch any particular person, sworn of the same council upon any such matter as shall in any wise concern his loyalty and fidelity to the King's Majesty, you will in no wise open the same to him, but keep it secret, as you would from any person, until the King's Majesty's pleasure be known in that behalf.
I desire also to direct the attention of hon. members to the work of Alpheus Todd on Parliamentary Government in England, second edition, volume 2, page 240, where I find the following:
The deliberations of the cabinet upon all matters which engage their attention are strictly private and confidential; being kept secret even from other members of the administration, who have no seat in the cabinet, and who therefore are not directly responsible for the conduct of the government. Upon their first introduction into the Privy Council ministers are invariably sworn to secrecy.
At page 84 of the same work Mr. Todd says:
The obligation of keeping the King's counsel inviolably secret is one that rests upon all cabinet ministers and other responsible advisers of the Crown by virtue of the oath which they take when they are made members of the Privy Council.
A judgment was rendered recently on the same matter by Mr. Justice McKeown who presided at the Home Bank inquiry, and I will refer to that judgment later on. The exclusion of such evidence may be unfortunate; but there are other circumstances when certain evidence cannot be accepted from witnesses, and other circumstances where certain evidence is not legal. Counsel, solicitors, attorneys cannot be compelled to disclose communications made to them in professional confidence by their clients; nor can doctors; nor can priests nor ministers of religion be compelled to disclose secrets confined or confessed to them under the regulations of their respective churches and religious persuasions. Hon. members who voted against the report

Mr. Murdoch and Home Bank
in committee admitted that. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), as reported on page 149, states:
It will be said that my learned colleague (Mr. Porter) did not prove affirmatively that the matter was discussed in cabinet council that' morning. Unfortunately the absolute privilege given by the cabinet ministers' oaths closes the transactions in cabinet council and precludes us from even asking the question as to who was there.
In face of that jurisprudence, in face of that ruling by Mr. Justice McKeown, I was bound to prevent anything that had transpired at the cabinet meeting from being disclosed at the inquiry.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. member lias compared the relationship between a minister of the Crown and the Crown with the relationship existing between a solicitor and his client. My hon. friend will realize that the relationship between solicitor and client is a qualified privilege only. I should like to know, as a matter of information, if the relationship between a minister of the Crown and the Crown is a matter of absolute privilege or a matter of qualified privilege.


Joseph Archambault: Mmisters of the
Crown may not divulge anything that transpires in council even by mutual consent. I would refer my hon. friend again to Todd at page 84:
As has been already observed, this secrecy is not a mere personal privilege or protection, either to the Sovereign or to the minister, that may be waived by mutual consent.
Now, not only has the prosecution not proved that the Minister of Labour used information that he received as a minister to withdraw his money, but the evidence shows conclusively that the withdrawal was made because of some other information. The Minister of Labour, although under no obligation to do so, as any member with any legal knowledge will admit, volunteered to make a statement. His evidence is to be found at pages 75, 76 and 77 of the inquiry. I will crave the indulgence of hon members for a few moments because this evidence is very important. At page 75 this is the statement of the Minister of Labour:
Bv the Chairman:
Q. Do you wish to make a statement to the committee, Mr. Murdock?-A. All right, I will do that. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I attended two meetings of the cabinet council on August 15, 1923. One meeting commenced at 10.30 a.m. and lasted until about 12.40 p.m., and the next meeting from 3 p.m. until 4 p.m. I withdrew from the Home Bank of Canada, Ottawa branch, around one p.m. on August 15th, the $4,050, which have been referred to. Neither at the time I made that withdrawal nor since did I for one moment think that I had in any way been untrue to my obligation as a cabinet minister or a member of parliament. How-
[Mr. ArchambaultJ
ever, having noticed certain newspaper reports in, I think, February or March, when the liquidator of the bank wrote me the letter of May 7th, which is in evidence, I decided as per my letter of reply dated May 14, and proceeded to return the money as promptly as it could be arranged. I think, Mr. Chairman, that covers the statement necessary. I might say of course, that I am precluded by my oath as a cabinet minister from intimating in any way whether any questions in relation to the Home Bank of Canada were or were not discussed at either of the cabinet meetings on August 15, which I have said I attended.
By Mr. German:
Q. Had you not prior to August 15th, had any information of ithe financial standing of the Home Bank, or as to its solvency or insolvency?-A. Yes, I had some days prior to that received what looked to me to be very conclusive information that it was not a safe place to leave my sessional indemnity.
Q. This was your sessional indemnity?-A. Yes. I drew it as a lump sum on July 3rd, deposited iit in the Home Bank, and changed its location on August 15 th.
Q. Did you receive that information in your official capacity as a minister of the Crown?
Mr. Porter: That is a matter for the committee.
Then there is a long discussion. Further on:
By the Chairman:
Q. Have you any objection to stating, Mr. Murdock, under what circumstances you received that information?-A. I have no objection to stating anything that will be of assistance to the committee.
Q. Just answer my question.-A. I received that information from a member of parliament some few days before, or, to be exact, on the 9th of August.
By Mr. Porter:
Q. Would you tell us who the member was?-A. The Deputy Speaker.
Q. The Hon. G. N. Gordon?-A. Yes.
By the Chairman:
Q. What information did you receive?-A. Mr. Chairman, my memory would be faulty to indicate just exactly what I received but I did receive that from hearing Mr. Gordon recite various facts in connection with the Home Bank, its then present condition and references to some of those who were connected with the Home Bank, and this gave me to understand that it was not by any means a safe institution. Further than that I do not think I should say definitely-
By Mr. Porter:
Q. And after getting information from Mr. Gordon did you get any further information?-A. No.
Q. You say "No"?-A. "No".
Q. Of any kind or description-or anywhere?-A. Not that would form my opinion in regard to the matter.
Q. It may not have formed your opinion, but did you get any other information?-A. No one else had discussed that matter with me at all.
Q. Had you any better knowledge on the 15th as to the condition of the bank than you had on the 9th? -A. I would say not.
Q. Why did you get in such a hurry on the 15th?- A. Well, I do not. know whether it was a question so much of getting in a hurry-
Q. It seems to be-


George Newcombe Gordon: Let the witness finish his answer.
The Witness: I proceeded to do on the 15th what I intended to do, and no doubt would have done, excepting that I neglected it for several days.
This evidence is corroborated by the Deputy Speaker whose evidence is to be found at page 109 of the evidence.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the hon. member
tell the House now whether he considers the evidence he has just quoted as intended to be a denial that the information was received at a meeting of council?


Joseph Archambault: I certainly do.


Arthur Meighen: Then how does the hon. member explain the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), which he quoted just before, that his oath forbade him to say what was discussed at the meeting of council?


Joseph Archambault: I do not think
that it would have been proper to ask the Minister of Labour to make any such disclosure, but in answering a question put directly to him, whether he had more information on the 15th than on the 9th, he could do nothing but tell the truth, and he answered that he received no further information on the later date.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
take the view that the answer constituted a breach of the minister's oath of office?


Joseph Archambault: I am not the judge and I will not decide that point. This evidence was confirmed by the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon) whose testimony is to be found at page 108.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Before :he hon. member leaves that point he might tell us what significance he attaches to the answer at page 77 in which the Minister of Labour stated:
There were other circumstances that brought the matter to a head on the 15th.
What were the "other circumstances" except the cabinet meetings?


Joseph Archambault: The minister stated that he proceeded to do on the 15th what he had intended to do on the 9th, and which he did not do on that date owing to exceptional circumstances that prevented him. Surely my hon. friend cannot infer from that answer that the Minister of Labour received his information at the cabinet meeting. The hon. gentleman has been practising at the bar a long time and he should know what legal evidence is.


Arthur Meighen: In the face of the minister's statement that he considered himself bound by his oath not to divulge whether or not the subject had been discussed at the meeting of the cabinet, does the hon. member think it is fair to argue from the quotation, as he has done, that it constitutes a
denial that the subject had been so discussed? Does he think that argument is fair in view of his own repeated rulings in which he refused permission to the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) to question other ministers on the very point, or to crossexamine them?


Joseph Archambault: In answer to the
right hon. member I must say that I stand by the ruling I gave. I have already explained, and I will explain again, that the question was put point blank by the hon. member for West Hastings to the Minister of Labour, whether he had any more information on the 15th than he had on the 9th. Probably it was not legal for the Minister of Labour to answer in the way he did, but the question was put and he answered it frankly without considering whether it was legal or not.


Arthur Meighen: Is not this the only
honest explanation-that the Minister of Labour considered that answer subject to his first reservation, that he would not say anything as to whether or not the matter had been discussed in council?


Joseph Archambault: That is hairsplitting. At all events, the House will consider the evidence and will form its own opinion upon it. I was going to refer hon. members to the testimony at page 108 wherein the evidence of the Minister of Labour is confirmed by that of the Deputy Speaker. Let me quote the following:
By Mr. German:
Q. Did you see the Hon. James Murdock in his office in Ottawa on the 9th of August last?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with him regarding the Home Bank of Canada?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you at that time know that Mr. Murdock had any deposit in the Home Bank?-A. No, I did not know it then.
Q. What did you tell Mr. Murdock in respect to the Home Bank?-A. I am not very clear what I told him about it, but my recollection is that I intimated that it was a lame duck and, I thought, the next one to go.
The evidence is therefore corroborated. Now, some hon. members who voted against the report have argued, as probably they will argue to-day, that the very fact that the Minister of Labour withdrew his money immediately after the meeting of the cabinet creates a strong suspicion that he had received further information at that meeting regarding the state of the Home Bank; and it is further contended that this suspicion is sufficient to convict the minister of the charge. This strikes me as an astounding doctrine; it is a doctrine which is contrary to every prin-

Air. Murdock and Home Bank
ciple of British justice. Who ever heard of convicting a man on a mere suspicion even though that suspicion be very strong? It is fundamental law that the presiding judge at a jury trial must instruct the jury that they cannot convict the accused on suspicion; and if the judge fails so to warn the jury and they do convict, then their conviction is invariably quashed by the court of appeal.
I desire to touch upon another point which probably is not of very great importance now, except in justice to myself. I ruled in the course of the proceedings that the minister could not even be asked to say who were the members present at the meeting of council. It is quite true that I gave that ruling, and mention of the fact is not important now, except for the reason I have stated, inasmuch as the Minister of Labour himself admitted that he was at the meeting. Let me, however, draw the attention of the House to the ruling of Chief Justice McKeown in the inquiry into the Home Bank of Canada, which ruling will be found at pages 562-3 of the proceedings of the royal commission that investigated that matter:
Q. At what time of the day was the meeting held?
A. I think we met in the morning.
Q. You were there?-A. I was.
Q. What other members of the cabinet, were there?
Mr. Lafleur: (Objects).
Right Hon. Mackenzie King: I have taken an oath as Privy-Counsellor to disclose nothing that transpires in the cabinet.
Mr. Reid: I am not asking about anything that transpired, I want to know who was present?-A. I could not say, I do not know, and I do not know that it would be proper for me to say if I did.
Q. Did the directors of the Home Bank come to that meeting of the Dominion cabinet?-A. No.
Mr. Lafleur: I respectfully submit that it is not proper to ask the Prime Minister what occurred at a meeting of the cabinet.
His Lordship: I think not.
Mr. Reid: I understand that is the ruling, but where there is a matter of such public importance as this it is important for the public and the shareholders and depositors to know what took place.
His Lordship: You need not argue, it will be excluded, I have a very strong feeling about it.
Mr. Reid: Does your lordship also rule that Mr. King is not allowed to tell us who was present at a meeting sitting as a cabinet.
His Lordship: I do not think that would be admissible.
Mr. Reid: There is a record of the attendance.
His Lordship: Perhaps you can get it some other way, but nothing that took place in the Privy Council would be admissible. I remember having that same question before me in connection with Mr. Fleming's investigation at the time when his acts as premier of the province were challenged. It was sought to be shown that certain things had taken place in the meetings of the government, it did not seem to me then to be admissible and it does not now.
Mr. Reid: Then on the night of August 14, 1923. when you had this interview at your house with Messrs. Robb and Graham and Low, I suppose in the >rdinary course the result of that interview would be placed pn record in the files of the government.

Mr. Lafleur: That is objectionable also.
His Lordship: The Prime Minister has told us all that took place there, you know.
Right Hon. Mackenzie King: There was no record kept of it, I made no record and there was nothing placed on file as a result of it.
Mr. Reid: Did you bring it to the attention of the other members of your government?
Mr. Lafleur: That is objectionable also.
His Lordship: I do not think you can proceed any further.
So in justification of the ruling which I gave, I would point out that Mr. Justice McKeown, who, as everybody will admit, is a gentleman of high legal attainments, ruled that the minister could not name even the other members who were at t'he cabinet meeting. Therefore I had to follow his ruling.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that I might rest the case right here without examining the soundness of the third proposition when the second was not proven by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). However, I purpose making a few remarks in regard to that proposition. Even if it had been proven that the Minister of Labour had received at the meeting of council further information respecting the position of the Home Bank, and afterwards had withdrawn his deposit there, I very much doubt whether 'his action could be regarded as something contrary to his obligation as minister and in derogation of the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament. I do not say that he would have been justified in doing so, but I entertain very grave doubts as to the absolute impropriety of such action. I may be wrong from a technical point of view, but I feel that I am right from a human and Christian viewpoint. Some people are under the impression that the oath of office taken by a member of the cabinet prevents him using information obtained in that capacity to avoid personal loss. There is no ground for such impression I quoted part of the oath of office a minute ago; in order to make the case clear I will read it in full. It is in these words:
You	do solemnly promise and swear
that you will serve His Majesty truly and faithfully in the Place of His Council in this His Majesty's Dominion of Canada, you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council, without publishing or disclosing the same or any part thereof, by Word, writing, or any otherwise to any Person out of the same council, but to such only as be of the council, and yet if any matter so propounded, treated and debated in any such Privy Council, shall touch any particular Person, sworn of the same Council upon any such matter as shall in any wise concern his Loyalty and Fidelity to the King's Majesty, you will in no wdse open the same to him, but keep it secret, as you would from any person, until the King's Majesty's pleasure be known in that behalf. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in any such Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare your mind and opinion to the honour and benefit of the

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Kins's Majesty, and the good of His Subjects without partiality or exception of persons, in no wise forebearing so to do from any manner of respect, favour, love, meed, displeasure, or dread of any Person or Persons whatsoever. In general you will be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in all your doings touching the King's Majesty's affairs; All which Matters and Things you will faithfully observe and keep, as a good Councillor ought to do to the utmost of your power, will and discretion.
So Help you God.
Hon. members will see that the oath contains nothing which could be construed as preventing a minister from withdrawing a bank deposit on information which he might have received at council. It must, I think, be admitted that a minister in choosing an investment could not make use of any special information so received; for instance, he could not invest in a company whose profits were to depend directly or indirectly upon a contract about to be entered into with the government; nor could he receive directly or indirectly in relation to his investment any favour from a person proposing to contract with the Crown; in a word, he is precluded from making any profit through information that he receives as a cabinet minister. But is he precluded from using any such information for saving what belongs to 4 p.m. him by right? Would it be contrary to his obligation and in derogation of his office and of the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament if, through such information, he were to remove his property from one place to another place where he has a perfect right to put it? I know that some hon. members have expressed a view to the contrary. I respect their opinion, but I have grave doubts whether this simple and human act of self-preservation, an act which was performed by hundreds of depositors of the Home Bank on the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th of August, would be contrary to the oath of office of a minister of the Crown and in derogation of the honour,' dignity and traditions of parliament. A very effective way, Mr. Speaker, of examining the soundness of a proposition is to cite some examples of its application. If I understand aright the contention of the hon. member for West Hastings, and also, I believe, of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in their opinion a minister of the Crown is, under no circumstances whatsoever, allowed to use any information received in his capacity as minister to save a loss or avoid something that may be detrimental to his interests, as pointed out by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) during the inquiry. The latter gentleman stated
that under no circumstances should a minister use any information which he obtains as a minister for the purpose of furthering his private interests or avoiding a loss. To show how absurd it would be (to make no exception whatever to such a rule-anid I say this with all respect-I will ask a few questions of the hon. member for West Hastings. Suppose, for instance, that at a cabinet meeting the hon. member heard that there was going to ibe a riot and that the House of Parliament might be ransacked and burned, could he not go to his room and take away his personal effects? If he does so, he is acting on private information that he has obtained at a meeting of council to further his own interests. I will go a step further. Suppose my hon. friend becomes a minister of the Crown in a Tory government-he might have to wait twenty or twenty-five years, but suppose 'he does- and suppose he has a bank account in his home town of Belleville and another in Ottawa; and suppose before leaving Belleville in the morning he has received in cash a sum of $4,000, but has no time to deposit the money in his bank at Belleville; and suppose he puts the money in his pocket and during his journey to Ottawa he decides that, it not being safe to keep so much money about his person, he will deposit it in his bank in this city; and, suppose further, that on his arrival here he proceeds towards the bank and on his way there he notices it is pretty late. The cabinet is sitting, and he changes his mind and says: I will put that money into the bank after the meeting of the cabinet. He attends the meeting of the cabinet and there learns that the bank where he usually deposits his money is going to fail. Now I am going to ask my hon. friend one question:	Would he, under those circumstances, after having attended a meeting of the cabinet, proceed to the bank and deposit his money?


Mr. PORTER:: If I got my information
there only, yes.


Joseph Archambault: Do I understand
that the answer is "yes?" Then, Mr. Speaker, parliamentary rules prevent me from saying what I think of this answer. If the hon. member was going to say "no," it would mean that he would avoid a loss through not depositing his money there because he would have learned at a meeting of the council that the bank was going to fail. I hope for the sake of my hon. friend that there will be a few people in this country naive enough to believe that, having learned of the im-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
minent failure of the bank, he would proceed to put his money into that bank that he knew was going to fail.
I have only this to say in conclusion. I recall a sentence which was uttered by one who I think was the greatest student of humanity, Saint Francois de Sales, who said: "Nous sommes des aigles pour decouvrir les defauts d'autrui, mais des taupes pour decouvrir les notres," or in English, "We have the eyes of the eagle to discover the failings of others, but we have the eyes of the mole to discover our own." Were I not chairman of this committee, I would not fail to commend this sentence in regard to certain actions which took place during the last administration, but my position as chairman prevents me from doing so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You cannot go any harder, can you?


Joseph Archambault: It would be very easy for me-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Go on; I would.


Joseph Archambault: -but I contend
that as chairman it would not be proper for me to do so. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, convinced of the righteousness of the report, and having in mind that a man's reputation and honour is his most precious asset, I have no hesitation in moving the resolution which I have placed in your hands.


Edward Guss Porter: Mr. Speaker, it is almost needless for me to say that I entirely disagree with the report that has been presented by the committee to this House upon this matter. I do not know that it will add particularly to my reputation that the chairman of the committee has paid me the compliment he did to-day, but still, I accept it. I cannot say that I am as enthusiastic or that I agree at all with the sentiments that the chairman has expressed in moving this motion regarding the conduct of the committee when this inquiry was made before it. I have very grave objections to the way in which that investi-tion was conducted, but I have endeavoured both in introducing this matter to the House and in my conduct of it before the committee of inquiry, to merit the compliment the chairman has paid me of conducting it in a fair impartial manner, and I think I have fairly well succeeded in doing that before the committee. The chairman himself pays me that compliment.
I do not want a verdict or a judgment from this House upon suspicion. As the 
chairman has stated, I have never asked, nor did I ever expect, a finding in favour of the charge I made against the hon. Minister of Labour upon the ground of suspicion; far from it. I would be one of the last to ask this House or to ask anybody to convict a man upon suspicion alone, but what I do ask from this House, and I ask it in all fairness and in all sincerity, is to give a judgment upon the facts, and upon the reasonable inferences and conditions and circumstances surrounding the facts that have been presented in this case.
I am not here asking for sympathy. This is not my case. Do not be confused on the issue. This case is just as much the case of every man sitting in this parliament as it is the case of myself. It was I who brought the matter to the attention of parliament, but the facts affect parliament just as much as they affect me. If those facts have been proven, then it is the duty, it is the obligation of parliament, to apply the proper remedy. It is not for me; I am only one of you. I have my voice and my say in the matter, but the responsibility in the last analysis rests upon every member of this House of Commons, and I propose in dealing with the matter to-day to pursue the very same course that I have endeavoured to pursue throughout this inquiry, and present the case in a moderate way, not asking for sympathy, not expecting political bias, but expecting a fair, square, and honest judgment upon the facts as I shall endeavour to present them to the House.
This matter comes before the House today in a very different manner from the question that came before the House last night, upon which I took occasion to say a few words. The church union question came before us without this House having had the opportunity of either hearing or reading the evidence or of hearing the argument of counsel upon the matter, and for that reason I argued last night-and I want to show my consistency-that the committee was better conditioned to decide that matter than a body of men who had not had the privilege of hearing or reading the evidence, or of hearing the argument in the case. But the case now before us is entirely different. In this case the precaution was taken and an order of the House was procured by which every word and syllable of evidence offered before the committee was printed and circulated and placed in the hands of every member of parliament. The evidence, the argument of counsel, the observations of the chairman, the cross-examination by counsel

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
who appeared on different sides-everything is there. Full information is before every member of this House, and there is no reason for any member to say, nor is there any excuse for him saying: I did not hear the evidence; I do not know what the facts are; the facts have not all been brought out, therefore I am not in a position, perhaps, to pass as fair a judgment on the matter as members of the committee.
This House is not in that position to-day; the precaution was taken to guard against that. Hon. gentlemen will observe that I moved before the investigating committee that the evidence be printed. That was done in order that it might be in possession of every hon. member so that he would be in a position to study the testimony and arrive at a fair and accurate judgment upon the matter. That is the position but it has entirely changed'since I rose in this chamber on the 22nd May last and made the disclosures that I did make, and preferred the charge that I did based on those disclosures. I shall have occasion to refer to that later on. During the almost twenty-five years that I have occupied a seat in this House I have had the privilege of seeing and hearing a great many reports of committees brought in. I have heard reports upon almost every conceivable subject that could come before parliament; I have heard reports made by committees of every possible political stripe; I have heard reports that I and everyone hearing them knew were influenced wholly or largely by political exigency, and political feeling, and that were characterized by political bias. One can well understand that. Matters of commerce, questions of political policy, issues relating to the development of our country, all these and many other subjects may properly be viewed from one political angle or the other and considered from the point of view of the results to be brought about-some good, others bad. But in all such cases it was possible to at least give credit to one political party or the other for an honest endeavour ,to carry out what that party believed, and honestly believed to be for the benefit of the country. But this is not a question of that character no matter from what point we view it. Here is a question which involves the honour and the dignity of parliament, and there is no political standard by which the conduct of the accused can be gauged or governed. The one standard, to my view of thinking, by which such conduct must be appraised is the standard of common honesty and respectability as it is known to the ordinary people of this country. I am asking the House to apply
that standard to-day. I am asking it to divest itself of all political feeling in this matter. It does not signify whether the Minister of Labour sits upon one side of the House or the other; whether the administration concerned is a Liberal cabinet or a Conservative cabinet; the question to be determined is this:	Has the Minister of
Labour, in view of all the facts that have been disclosed in this investigation, acted in such a manner as to meet the approval of the House, in such a manner as the House would like to have him act? Has he done the honest and proper thing. Has he done what any one of us would do? Unless we are in a position to answer that question in the affirmative there is only one course, it seems to me, for the House to take.
Now, in an ordinary matter-and I speak of it as an experience that might happen to almost any parliamentarian-where a member of parliament, or a minister of the Crown, has committed an error or made a slip, has done something that would not meet with the approval of his fellows or the approval of the public, but with no wicked intent, for no criminal object, and with no desire to do somebody else a wrong-under such circumstances the ordinary public, and members of parliament in particular, would adopt a sympathetic attitude. I would have found myself in that very position to-day had the Minister of Labour, in view of the evidence that has been given against him in this matter, taken a course such as would warrant the extension of sympathy to him. But to my view he has entirely forfeited any right, which under other circumstances he might have earned, to the sympathy of members of this House and to the sympathy of the public. From the very inception of this case he has pursued a course that has been defiant, he has adopted an attitude that has not enlisted the sympathy of any one. When first faced with this charge in the public press what position did he take? Did he come frankly before the people-because the matter having been ventilated in the press the charge was in the public mind-and say "I took this money" and tell exactly what the facts were? Did he say, "I admit I did this, but I did not think i was doing anything wrong"? No, he did not. When the charge was made he said, "I drew the money out to pay for a house, and I should like to know whether I have not got the right to do that?" Was that an honest straightforward answer to the charge? But the minister did not adhere to that; he has retracted the statement so far as-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Joseph Archambault: Will my hon.
friend point out where in the evidence tlhe Minister of Labour ever stated that he withdrew this money to pay the mortgage on his house? Is there anything in the evidence to Show that?


Edward Guss Porter: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is there.


Edward Guss Porter: I will come to it in good
time.


Joseph Archambault: Newspaper talk.


Edward Guss Porter: I do not want a snap verdict in this case. If any hon. gentleman desires to ask me a question and will be good enough to make a note of it I shall be very pleased to give him an answer, iif I can, when I conclude my speech. The first statement of the minister was that he was going to pay the money on his house. At the investigation before the committee, after witnesses had been subpoenaed to prove the fact, he was obliged to admit that the statement was not wholly true; he intended to pay the money upon the house at some time but did not pay it at that particular period. The time he intended to pay it was sometime about 1st October. That was the statement he made at that time, and that went unchallenged-not a word about it, until it came before this House upon the charge made by me and upon the request made to this House to grant me an inquiry to ascertain what the facts were. When he came before this House and made his statement, what was the attitude of the hon. minister at that time? Was he frank? Was he fair? Did he make a full and honest statement? Let us just examine for a moment and see what he did.
When he came before the House the only excuse, the only possible defence, the only semblance of a defence that he offered was to read two letters and a statemeut that passed between himself and Mr. Clarkson, the liquidator of the Home Bank. One letter showed that the liquidator of the bank had discovered, by conversation and otherwise, that the Minister of Labour had withdrawn his money from the Home Bank under circumstances that required explanation, circumstances that constituted a suspicion of wrongdoing, circumstances that would show the liquidator and did convince the liquidator that the money had been withdrawn illegally and improperly from the bank. As far as the bank's position was concerned, Mr. Clarkson, having discovered these facts, writes him a letter making a demand for a return of the money. Did 
the Minister of Labour have any intention of returning the money before that? Now listen to the false and untrue excuse that he gave in that letter. He wrote to Mr. Clarkson stating that he was going to return the money. And why? Not because he thought he was legally liable, but because he would not have any depositor or shareholder of the Home Bank suffer by reason of his action. He had a wonderful amount of compassion and consideration for the widows and orphans who were depositors in the Home Bank when he took the $4,000 out, knowing the bank was going to fail! He did not change his mind when the newspapers came out and charged him with it. He stuck to the money for months after the publication in the papers; he stuck to the money until the matter was brought up on the floor of this House. But when he was charged on the floor of this House, he said, "Oh I will give it back for the sake of the depositors."


Mr. CANNON:: He gave it back before.


Edward Guss Porter: He gave it back a few
days before.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. gentleman is
making a misstatement.


Edward Guss Porter: I am not making a misstatement. He read the letter on the floor of the House and that was the contents of the letter.


Lucien Cannon: He returned the money
before.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Edward Guss Porter: Mr. Clarkson's letter was
written on the 7th of May and t'he Minister of Labour answered it on the 14th of May, and on that very day it came out before Mr. Justice McKeown in the Home Bank inquiry that the hon. Minister of Labour had withdrawn his money from the bank. He paid it back after the fact had been discovered in an inquiry. And then he endeavours to say, "Oh, out of consideration and compassion for the Home Bank depositors I am doing this." But that is not all. He did not pretend when he was charged upon the floor of the House -which quite possibly might have ended the whole matter-to set up a defence that any reasonable man would say was a defence. He did not say then "Why the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon), told me six days before I withdrew the money about the apparent failure of the bank, and I drew the money out six days after, in consequence of what the Deputy Speaker told me." He gave no excuse or reason of that kind. It was absolutely

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
withheld from this parliament and from the public. If it is a defence now, why was it not stated at that time? What would any man who desired that the public and this parliament should know the full facts do under these circumstances? Hide it? Hide his light under a bushel? Or would he come out and say, "Here are the facts; if 1 have done wrong I regret it." But no, he kept the facts away from parliament. Then at iast parliament grants the inquiry and he is brought before the committee. He comes before the committee. True he was not bound to appear there, but he did appear. And what did he do? When parliament had forced the matter to an inquiry and the facts were bound to be discovered, he sat there day after day while the inquiry was going on and evidence was being adduced before that committee, and it was only when he must have felt the noose tightening round his neck, metaphorically speaking, and when he thought discretion was the better part of valour, when he thought it was better to come from under cover, he said to me through his counsel, "I would like to make a statement to the commission." He has had the fairest of fair treatment from me, so far as this inquiry is concerned. When he made that proposition I said "Yes, come on and make your statement;" and he did so. He made a statement I hat covers about half a dozen lines in the evidence taken before that committee. Did he tell the whole facts then? He came before the committee when the evidence was closing in upon him, when it was getting closer and closer every moment, and he said, "I did draw my money out of the bank, $4,050 on the 15th day of August." That is the statement that he made. Did that statement set forth all the facts we were after? We knew that fact and had proven it, and had the witnesses there prepared to prove every line and word of the statement made before the House on the 22nd of May. No, he does not see fit to answer that statement. He only added to that such facts as were forced from him on crossexamination, as members of this House will see on reference to the evidence. He did, however, add some things there, and he added some things that are very material. Then he having completed his statement at that time -the third attempt at defence-we went on with the evidence. I was not satisfied to let the matter rest there. I knew that all the facts had not come out, and I went on to prove the additional fact-and I did prove it -that when he took the $4,000 out of the Home Bank and deposited it in the Royal
Bank, he deposited it in the name of his secretary, Miss McCool. Why? Another attempt to evade discovery, to hide it away somewhere where it would not be so easily discovered. He felt the importance of this because again he said to the committee: "I should like to come in and make a statement; I should like to clear this up." If it needed clearing up, why did he not clear it up in the first instance? Why did he not tell the whole story, the whole facts? He was again allowed to come into the witness box and to add a fourth edition to the defence that he was trying to make to this charge.
It turned out that when he made the deposit in the Royal Bank he deposited it in the name of his secretary in order that she might draw this money out.


Mr. LOGAN:: I do not think the hon.
gentleman wants to 'be unfair, but he will remember that the evidence was that he did not deposit the money himself; that he handed the money to his secretary in his office to deposit.


Edward Guss Porter: My hon. friend is quite
right.


Hance James Logan: Then why not say so?


Edward Guss Porter: The minister carried the
money in his coat pocket from the bank. He said that he was carrying it in his outside coat pocket; he did not want to carry it there, so he handed it to his secretary to make the deposit.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that it
has been proven in evidence that the secretary had a power of attorney and has had a power of attorney for some time previously?


Edward Guss Porter: On an account in another
bank, but she had no power of attorney in the bank in which the money was being deposited. The money in the Home Bank was in the minister's name and she had a power of attorney to draw on that. She had no power of attorney in the Royal Bank and she deposited the money in her own name in trust. I cannot conceive of any honest reason for doing that. One can conceive of reasons for doing it. The only one that appeals to me is that it would have been much easier to discover the facts of this case if the money had been deposited in the name of the Minister of Labour rather than in the name of the secretary of the Minister of Labour. That has been the conduct that has characterized the Minister of Labour all through this matter, and it is for those reasons, and just speaking generally in regard to them, that I say I
3(528	COMMONS
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
think the Minister of Labour has forfeited all right, all claim, to the ordinary pleadings for sympathy that would go out from the ordinary man to a man who had made, say an innocent or a bona fide mistake. If I was assured as I was on the 22nd May when I made this charge against the minister, I am doubly assured now, because not only have the facts occurred as I related them to the House on that occasion, but they carry with them as the only reasonable and fair inference, a dishonest intent, and I am not putting the matter a bit too strong when I say that.
Hon. mem'bens will remember that when I first brought this matter to the attention of parliament, I dealt with the case in three different branches. I first endeavoured to lay down certain principles that should govern the conduct of cabinet ministers and stated what those rules were. I supported the statement that I made at that time by reference to the remarks or statements of some of the ablest statesmen known to the British parliament. When I had finished stating the principles that should apply to this case, not an hon. member in this House undertook to contradict or question in the slightest particular any one of those principles that I had enunciated and asked to have applied. In fact, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke on that occasion, he not only agreed absolutely with the principles that had been so stated, but said that he would go even further if that were possible; he was in absolute accord. I then took up the position of what the duties of a minister were as a trustee of the Crown, as a trustee of the people, and in his personal or individual capacity. And no question whatever was raised in regard to that; there was absolute accord again. Then I took up a statement of the facts, and in order that there might be no dispute, no cavil or controversy about the question, I numbered the paragraphs 1 to 12, twelve paragraphs of fact; and I made the assertion upon the floor of this House that I was credibly informed and believed, as I did believe, that I could prove every one of those statements of fact. I want hon. members to realize the position that the House is in just at this time in regard to this matter. We were in absolute accord in regard to the principles; we were in absolute accord in regard to the duties; the only question that then remained was the question of facts and the deduction to be made from those facts. I stated the facts, and I will take occasion to read them again. After having stated all those facts, I drew the conclusion that;
The Hon. James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank, at its Ottawa branch 
on the 15th day of August. 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein, to his credit, using certain information he had received as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of the said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawal, contrary to his obligations as such minister, and in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
That was a deduction from the series of facts that I had stated. That is the only deduction that could reasonably be drawn from the facts as presented to this House, and I asked this House on that occasion practically this in so many words:	There are
the facts and I can prove them; and it is a fair deduction, if they are proven to be facts, that the minister has been guilty of the wrongdoing with which I have charged him. I said to this House then:	Will you grant
me an inquiry to find out whether these statements are true or not? And what was the verdict of the House? Every hon. gentleman said, "Yes, have the inquiry."
Now, what onus or obligation did that impose upon me? What obligation did it impose upon the House? So far as I was concerned, it left it incumbent upon, me to prove the facts I had alleged; and the obligation was upon this House, if I did prove those facts, to apply the remedy. The position has changed just to this extent-the obligation still rests upon this parliament, and upon every hon. gentleman who wishes to see the honour of parliament vindicated, to declare whether or not the facts are proven. Every hon. gentleman must say for himself, "If these facts are as alleged, then I must perforce apply the necessary punishment if punishment should be meted out. And if the facts are not proven then it is my duty to declare that the charge must go by the board." I made my statement, bearing willingly as a member of parliament the whole responsibility in so doing. I am not in any manner shirking that responsibility now; I am perfectly ready and willing to take whatever may be coming to me in consequence if I have made a false accusation against the Minister of Labour. But I do hope and I expect that I shall get a fair, unbiased expression of judgment from this House.
Just before coming to questions of fact I want to refer for a moment to the only defence which it seems to me the Minister of Labour has attempted to set up in all four of the efforts he has made to clear himself in this matter. The thing has narrowed itself right down to a statement of alleged fact, that he received information from the Deputy Speaker on the 9th day of August; and he would have it inferred that by reason

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
of that information, received on August 9 he withdrew his money on August 15. But hon. members will search in vain throughout all the evidence to find one single word from the Minister of Labour to the effect that he did withdraw that money from the Home Bank as a result of what he was told by the Deputy Speaker. The minister has never made any such statement although he has had at least four opportunities of doing so.
Let us now examine for a moment or two just what the charge is, because I want the House to understand fully and precisely what I did charge; the House will hold me accountable only for the charge which I did make and which I am prepared to stand by. What is the charge I made?-and I am speaking now more particularly with reference to the oath of office. It was argued in the committee, and it has been argued to some extent on the floor of the House to-day, that so far as the oath of office is concerned the acts which it has been shown that the Minister of Labour committed do not constitute an offence. I wish to take issue with that point of view, I say that they do. But even if they do not, let me point out that I have never yet charged that the Minister of Labour violated his oath of office; I never used such an expression at any time. I want hon. members to understand that, because the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) argued the point before the committee. He read the oath of office and he said: "Why, gentlemen, there is not a single word within the four comers of that oath that prevents James Murdock from going and getting his money as he did." The hon. member went further:	"Why," he said, "you would
not hang a cat on evidence of that kind." Well, I do not believe that he ever would hang a cat on such evidence, or that he would have a chance to; indeed, I do not think that any self-respecting cat would be guilty of such a thing. But be that as it may, the hon. member for Welland thought that this was the right and the honourable position to take -that a minister might not be guilty because the oath of office did not say in so many words: You must not rob a bank, you must not defraud the widows and orphans who are depositors in the bank, you must not use the knowledge you secure as a minister in council, or out of council, you must not utilize the information you get as a minister, to your own advantage. Because the oath does not say that in so many words, therefore the position is Jaken that no man can be guilty of any offence in that direction. But what, did such men as Sir Rufus Isaacs and
Lloyd George say in a similar situation? When it was brought up in the British parliament in a resolution to the effect that the House regretted the fact that these gentlemen had been guilty of an indiscretion in buying Marconi shares, what did the men do whose honour was involved? Did they take the position which as I have just indicated the Minister of Labour took? No; they came before parliament on tire first occasion on which the resolution was moved and admitted every single statement that was made against them; they admitted the principle which the Prime Minister has admitted here; they admitted their duty; and they expressed their deepest regret that they had been guilty of such an indiscretion. And what did parliament in its charity do? Just as I argued a few moments ago that this House probably would do had the Minister of Labour pursued the course which those gentlemen adopted; had he expressed his regret, that would probably have ended the matter. But he has taken the very opposite course; he has taken a course of defiance of parliament; he has taken a course of defiance of what the common people of this country believe to be the right and straight thing.
To proceed with the question of the oath of office. As I have stated, I did not use the expression that the minister had violated his oath. This is what I said:
-using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister-
Not contrary to his oath. I said:
-contrary to his obligations as such minister-
In all fairness and in all decency let me ask every hon. member: Is it not contrary to the minister's obligation of office for him to conduct himself in this case in the manner in which he is proved to have conducted himself? If this House is prepared to say that that sort of conduct is to be approved, and that any other hon. member can do the same thing and justify himself, I must be content.
But it is not necessary for this House to find that the minister violated the obligations of his oath. I submit that I have proven to the very hilt, as I shall presently show, every one of the statements of fact that I made there. Having done that, I ask: Is it possible for this House, after having said on the 22nd May, "If you do prove those facts, a wrong has been done, and it must be remedied," to now turn round and say, "Well, although you have proven those facts, no offence has been committed?" I intend to argue, and I

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
think conclusively that not only has there been a violation of his obligations as a minister, but that he got from the cabinet the information which enabled him to violate his obligations. He may have got some, too, from Mr. G. N. Gordon. But either is sufficient to prove my argument. I call attention to the fact for this purpose. I charged that the minister had violated his office-not his oath-that he had as a minister done that which ought not to receive the approval of this House. Now, if he got from the Deputy Speaker such information as he swore to, even then he has brought himself within the charge that I made, because the evidence shows that he got the information from the Deputy Speaker in his, the minister's office, when they were together upon official business, he as Minister of Labour and Mr. Gordon as a member of parliament. Let me refer briefly . to the evidence to show the information which the minister then obtained. At page 75 of the report will be found the following:
By Mr. German:
Q. Had you not prior to August 15 had any information of the financial standing of the Home Bank, or as to its solvency or insolvency?-A. Yes,
I had some days prior to that received what looked to me to be very conclusive information that it was not a safe .place to leave my sessional indemnity.
Q. This was your sessional indemnity ?-A. Yes. I drew it as a lump sum on July 3, deposited it in the Home Bank, and changed its location on August 15.
In cross-examination by myself he is asked this question:
Q. Would you tell us who the member was?-A. The Deputy Speaker.
Q. The Hon. G. N. Gordon?-A. Yes.
Now this is what he ask9 this House to believe influenced him to withdraw his money from the Home Bank and deposit it in the Royal Bank:
By the Chairman:
Q. What information did you receive?-A. Mr. chairman, my memory would be faulty to indicate just exactly what I received but I did receive that from hearing Mr. Gordon recite various facts in connection with the Home Bank, its then present condition, and references to some of those who were connected with the Home Bank, and this gave me to understand that It was not by any means a safe institution. Further than that I do not think I could say definitely-
There is the information he got, and that is the impression which it made 5 p.m. on him. Now, let us turn for a moment to Mr. Gordon's evidence and see what he adds to that. I quote from page 108:
By Mr. German:
Q. Did you at that time know that Mr. Mura*ek had any deposit in the Home Bank?-A. No, I did not know it then.
Q. What did you tell Mr. Murdock, in respect to the Home Bank?-A. I am not very clear what I told him about it-

He is not clear; neither he nor the minister can say clearly what the conversation was.
-but my recollection is that I intimated that it was a lame duck, and I thought the next one to go.
Then he is asked further:
By Mr. German:
Q. What did you notify Mr. Murdock regarding this?-A. I did not notify him.
And again he is asked:
By Mr. Hanson:
Q. The conversation you had, Mr. Gordon, with Mr. Murdock, that information regarding the Home Bank was purely casual?-A. Yes.
Q. That was an opinion you picked up from people other than those connected with the bank?-A. Yes.
Q. Those who would have no intimate knowledge of the exact condition of the bank?-A. Not exactly. About a month before the session adjourned Mr. Herb Daly and I sat up on the C.P.R. train for a couple of hours and talked matters over.
Q. That would be about a month previous?-A. I would think so, before the House adjourned.
Q. Where was that?-A. We left Ottawa-
Q. Did Mr. H. J. Daly who, I understand, died this morning, state to you on that occasion that the bank was about to fail?-A. No.
Mr. Gordon had no evidence from any one that the bank was about to fail; he had picked up the information casually, as he says in another place, from lawyers whom he had talked with on the train and from other people that the Home Bank was one of those banks that would likely need nursing or help to keep it going.


Lucien Cannon: In order to follow my
hon. friend's argument rightly, may I ask him this question:	Does he contend, even
assuming that the reason for the withdrawal was the conversation between Mr. Gordon and Mr. Murdock of that date, that in view of the fact that Mr. Gordon went to Mr. Murdock to see him in his capacity of a minister of the Crown the minister violated his obligations by acting on that information?


Edward Guss Porter: Perhaps I could answer my hon. friend's question best by putting another. Does anybody believe that, sitting in his office as Minister of Labour, and discussing a matter of official business, as the minister himself put it, with Mr. Gordon, it would be possible that the minister could hear with one ear only what appertained to official business, and with the other ear only what applied to the Home Bank, and keep each separate and distinct so that one would not influence his conduct more than the other?

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend put a
question to me?


Edward Guss Porter: You have asked the
question. There is no use in pursuing it.


Lucien Cannon: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend-


Edward Guss Porter: Then wait till I am
through.


Lucien Cannon: -but I understood my hon. friend put a question to me.


Edward Guss Porter: It is not possible, to my
mind, for an hon. minister of the Crown to be James Murdock at one moment, in one part of the conversation, and to be the Minister of Labour in the other; it is impossible for him to entirely dissociate himself from one character or the other on the spur of the moment just as he might see fit to do. That, Mr. Speaker, is not possible. The rule goes this far, and it has been cited over and over again:	It is if he gets information as a
minister of the Crown; and he was acting there, with Mr. Gordon present, as a minister of the Crown, on official business, and he got information in that conversation. He is there well within the rule, and if that was the only defence that he was setting up, that he got his information from Mr. Gordon, there would be ample and sufficient in that to have him convicted of what I have charged him with, namely, of making use of information that he received as a cabinet minister to his own advantage. In the exact words in which I have charged him, it has been admitted and proved by both Mr. Gordon and the minister that he got that information on that occasion.
Now, the oath goes considerably further than the chairman of the committee would have the House understand. In the very first clause of the oath I read:
You will serve His Majesty truly and faithfully in the Place of His Council in this His Majesty's Dominion of Canada, you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council, without publishing or disclosing the same or any part thereof, by Word, Writing, or any otherwise-
It is not necessary for the Minister of Labour to use words in order to violate his oath. It is not necessary for him to disclose these matters in writing, but if his acts and conduct, as have been shown in this case, disclose the fact that he got his information in that way, and acted upon it, it is just as much a violation of his oath of office as if he had disclosed it by word or by writing. He must not do it in "any otherwise", and I submit that after I have dealt with the offence more fully, this House will come to the conclusion-it cannot well come to any other conclusion-that by his acts and by his conduct, apart altogether from anything he has said, he has disclosed the source of his information, and that he has acted upon that information.
It is singular and worthy of remark that after all the attempts at defence that the hon. minister made on the various occasions in the House and committee, he never mentioned, and the committee never heard, of a conversation with Mr. Gordon, the Deputy Speaker, or of the minister acting upon any conversation with him, until the morning after Mr. Daly, the man from Toronto, died. You could not call Mr. Daly. It never was mentioned before, but the next morning after Mr. Daly was dead this evidence was given. It is rather a remarkable feature, to say the least.
Now then, let me come down to the question of the facts, and I want the House to see that the question of fact is proven, as I have said before, right up to the hilt. At the risk of being somewhat tedious, I shall have to take the members of the committee through the various stages, but I shall do it as hurriedly as I can. If hon. members will look at Hansard of May 22nd, they will see what these statements of fact were.
Fact No. 1. That the Home Bank on the 14th day of August, 1923 held a meeting of its directors in Toronto, when it was made evident that the bank must fail unless it received assistance, and this position apparently was known for some time before.
Now if hon. gentlemen will refer to the evidence that was given in this case, they will find on pages 33, 34, 47, 48, 49, and on following pages, that the directors, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gough, and Mr. Wood all three of them, swore positively and distinctly that on the 10th of August and for some days prior to their visit to Ottawa they knew the condition of the bank. They knew that it had to have help or it would go to the wall, and they had received a written report to that effect, advising them to bring the matter before the government. That is fact No. 1. Now can anybody say that that fact is not proven? I need not argue that further.
Fact No. 2. On the same day, about ten or eleven o'clock at night, certain directors of the Home Bank having proceeded to Ottawa by order of its directorate, to consult the government with regard to obtaining assistance, one or more of the directors met the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and other members of the cabinet at the

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Prime Minister's house, when the disclosure of the bank's affairs was made in such a manner and to such a fearful purpose as to leave the Prime Minister aghast, and under the impression that if demands were made upon the bank within the next few days the bank could not meet them; and assistance was positively and absolutely refused'-on which date the government became fully aware of the serious financial condition of the bank, and on that date the members of the government became aware by the statement of the directors themselves as to what the financial condition of the bank was. There was no pleading want of knowledge after that.
I need only add that that statement of fact is entirely borne out by the evidence of the Prime Minister himself. I can read his evidence, if anybody desires it read. In his evidence the Prime Minister stated that, by arrangement made with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), he met Mr. Stewart, the bank director, with the hon. Minister of Railways and the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) at the Prime Minister's house, and there they discussed the affairs of the bank, and to use the Prime Minister's own words, the disclosure "left him aghast," and under the impression that if demands were made upon the bank within the next day or two it must fail. Now is that fact proven? I undertook to prove fact No. 2. Can anybody say that it has not been proven-for that is what somebody must say in order to arrive at what they are asked to arrive at here.
(3)	On the following day, the 15th of August, the cabinet held a meeting having all this knowledge before it, which was doubtless fully discussed. I do not think I need even to state that undoubtedly such an important matter ,is this would be fully discussed. That the cabinet meeting was held there is no doubt whatever. It is sworn to by the Prime Minister himself, sworn to by Mr. Graham, sworn to by Mr. Robb, and is admitted by Mr. Murdock himself. Now, there is the fact proven, as I said before, right up to the hilt.
(4)	Not obtaining assistance from the government the directors and the Acting Minister of Finance proceeded to Montreal on the evening of the same day, the 15th August, and consulted financial interests there for the purpose of obtaining help. The interests consulted in Montreal could not give answer until the following morning, the 16th of August, and when they did so, no help being forthcoming, the directors returned to Toronto, and I presume the Acting Minister of Finance returned to Ottawa. Is there any controversy about that?

Mj\ MACKENZIE KING:	In the inference which my hon. friend is seeking to draw, does he allege that the cabinet meeting was the result of the meeting held at my house the night before or in any way related to it?


Edward Guss Porter: I stated earlier in my
speech that I intended to confine myself solely to matters of fact first and to state the inferences that I thought I was warranted in drawing from them last. Fact number 4 has been proven by the directors and by Hon. Mr. Robb himself. I need not go any further than that.
(5)	The next day, the 17th of August, the bank failed and closed its doors, and I need only mention the sickening trail of suffering, poverty, hardship and alleged crime left in its wake.
That has been proven by the statements of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Clarkson, the liquidator, the directors and others. The fact is well known, too well known to be questioned for one moment. The evidence shows beyond any question that from 17th August the bank was insolvent, and it was sworn in evidence by the liquidator that
80,000	depositors and 16,000 shareholders were the sufferers from this condition of affairs.
(6)	The Hon. James Murdock had a deposit in the Home Bank, Ottawa branch, savings account, of several thousand dollars from about the 1st July, 1923, to the 15th August, 1923, the day of the cabinet meeting at which the financial condition of the Home Bank was fully known and doubtless was discussed, and on the same day and very shortly after the cabinet meeting adjourned, and just before the dose of banking hours, the Hon. James Murdock withdrew from his deposit in the Home Bank, Ottawa, having knowledge as such minister of its financial condition, thousands of dollars, and leaving only a small sum remaining to his credit, and from which he made further withdrawal, leaving only the infinitesimal sum of $89 there when the bank failed.
This was proved, except only as to the matter of knowledge. I may say that I am reserving the question of knowledge for the last of my argument. I intend to take that up separately, so that the House will have before it all the evidence, so far as I consider it important, upon that one subject as to the minister's knowledge. In the last paragraph I have dealt with the fact: I want to deal with the minister's knowledge from another source altogether. The fact is proven by the evidence of several witnesses; there is absolutely no evidence from any source to contradict the statement of fact that I have made.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
(7)	That in making such withdrawal the Hon. James Murdock refused to accept a marked cheque in the usual course of business, and demanded cash or legals for the amount of his withdrawal, and it being near the close of banking hours, the strong box of the bank had to be re-opened to obtain the cash which was paid over to the minister.
What took place was this: The minister went into the bank with his cheque and handed it to the teller. The teller handed it to the ledger keeper who marked it and handed it back to the teller. He was asked after the cheque was marked and was current in any bank if he wanted cash. He said he did. The teller had to get the accountant to go into the vault, open up the cash box, count the money, carry it back to the cashier's cage and hand it over. These are the facts brought out in detail in the evidence.
(8)	That immediately after such withdrawal the Hon. James Murdock re-deposited the same cash or legals he had withdrawn into another bank in Ottawa to his credit.
That is not strictly accurate. He did not deposit the money himself. The evidence is that he sent the money by his secretary to the Royal Bank and had it deposited in the name of his secretary in trust.
(9)	That on the following day, 16th of August, the same legals withdrawn by the Hon. James Murdock from the Home Bank were returned to it by the Royal Bank through the clearing house at Ottawa.
That is proven absolutely by the testimony of the teller of the Royal Bank; there is no contradiction to that.
(10)	That the Hon. James Murdock did not use the said withdrawal at that time for any purpose, but deposited it in another bank.
His own evidence covers that point exactly. He did not use the $4,050 immediately but left it in the bank until the 1st October.
(11)	That thousands of depositors in the Home Bank lost their deposits, entailing poverty, hardship and ruin. Many of them lost all they had in the world.
This statement has been fully established by Mr. Clarkson, the liquidator, who has shown the hardship suffered and the losses sustained by 80,000 depositors and 16,000 shareholders.	[DOT]
The final fact stated by me is that the Minister of Labour saved his deposit. It has been stated that I said he made a profit. I do not see that there is any difference between saving his deposit from an absolute loss and making a profit. I made the charge in the following words:
The Hon. James Murdock saved his deposit, thus profiting to the extent of thousands of dollars by making use of knowledge confidentially obtained as a minister of the Crown, through the means aforesaid: and in breach of his obligation as a minister of the Crown, and in violation of the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
I ask in all fairness, is there a member of this House who can say that one single fact that I stated when presenting the case to this House has not been proven right up to the hilt? Did this House not say by its action in granting me the inquiry "If you can prove these facts a wrong has been done, and the facts should be investigated." Those facts have been investigated. Have I drawn the right conclusion and the right inference from those facts?
I want to put the matter in a logical and succinct manner so that members can follow it easily, and see whether the conclusion I have drawn is a fair one or not. Where did the minister get the information upon which he acted? It does not signify whether he got his information from one source or another, unless he acted upon that information. That is the gravamen of the offence. It is no offence for him to receive the information but if he acted upon that information he committed a wrong. Where did he get the information upon which he acted? I will present the facts which I have proven and if any hon. member of this House will say the facts I have stated have not been proven, I will be glad to have him say so. I am going to assume these facts are proven, and I court any interruption if any hon. member will state that any one of those facts has not been proven. Here is the first fact: The directors of the Home Bank were aware on the 14th of August, 1923, that the bank was insolvent. That was proven by Messrs. Stewart, Gough and Wood, three of the directors. I was prevented from proving the records of the Home Bank. The committee would not allow those records to be put in evidence, but the fact was proven outside.
The second fact is that three directors of the Home Bank were directed by the board of directors to go to Ottawa to see the government. I have underscored those words " to see the government," and to prove that they did go to see the government. I refer hon. members to the evidence of the Prime Minister. He said in his evidence that they came to see him as representing the government, although the chairman of the committee and some hon. members would not have it that way. They wanted to put it that the directors came to see him simply as a cabinet minister and not as representative of the government, and it appears both ways in the



Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
evidence, the reason being no doubt that if they came to see the Prime Minister simply in his capacity as minister and not actually in cabinet there would be more liberty than there would be if they saw him as a representative of the government. But they came to see the government as the Prime Minister stated, on the night of August 14, 1923. Mr. Stewart came to Ottawa, and by arrangement made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) met the Prime Minister, the Acting Minister of Finance, and the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Saunders, at the Prime Minister's home, when a disclosure of the condition of the Home Bank was made. These facts will be found stated at page 40 of the evidence. Hon. members will note that when the matter was discussed at the Prime Minister's house, three of the ministers of the Crown had practically all the information that was necessary to advise them of the condition of the Home Bank at that time. At that meeting it was arranged, on account of the fact that Mr. Gough and Mr. Casey Wood, two of the directors were coming down that night with a more detailed written statement of the condition of the Home Bank, that they were to meet Mr. Wood the following morning. Now there is no getting away from that fact.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the three ministers who met Mr. Stewart were to meet Mr. Wood?


Edward Guss Porter: No, I meant Mr. Robb.
They were to meet Mr. Robb, but Mr. Robb came to the hotel in the morning before they had an opportunity to meet him. That was the point I was coming to. They were to get a more elaborate and detailed statement in writing from the directors, Gough and Wood on the following morning. The cabinet meeting was called for the following morning, the 15th. Before the cabinet met and before going to the cabinet meeting, the Acting Minister of Finance went to the hotel where Messrs. Stewart, Wood and Gough were staying, and there he got, as Mr. Stewart swore, the detailed statement in writing of the affairs of the Home Bank. Then he left Messrs. Stewart, Wood and Gough and attended the cabinet meeting.


Mr. ROBB:: May I correct my hon. friend to this extent, that Messrs. Wood, Gough and Stewart came to my room at the hotel where I was living.


Edward Guss Porter: I accept the correction. I think it is immaterial; nothing turns upon it.


James Alexander Robb: No, but I want to make it clear.


Edward Guss Porter: The point is that Mr. Stewart says that the following morning the Acting Minister of Finance was good enough to come to their room.


James Alexander Robb: No, he did not say anything
of the kind.


Edward Guss Porter: He may be mistaken.
That is the way he puts it. He says the Hon. Mr. Robb was good enough to come to his room and make the statement.


James Alexander Robb: Let us have the evidence
where Mr. Stewart made that statement.


Edward Guss Porter: Page 41 of the evidence.
He was cross-examined by myself as follows:
Q. What was done there?-A. A word might straighten this out, Mr. Porter. My visit on the Tuesday night was really for the purpose of arranging for an interview with some member of the government on the following morning when Mr. Wood and Mr. Gough would be there. On the following morning you refer to now, Mr. Robb was good enough to come to my room at the hotel with the deputy minister, and there met in conference myself, Mr. Gough and Mr. Wood.
Q. What was the object of the meeting?-A. To give to Mr. Robb in more detail information that the other directors brought down with them that night.
Q. Was that done?-A. Yes sir.


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that Mr. Stewart is wrong. He came to my room. That is not material, however.


Edward Guss Porter: No. The fact is that the Acting Minister of Finance got the detailed information in writing of the condition of the Home Bank at that time. We have this situation. We have the Prime Minister calling a cabinet meeting and he was present himself. We have the Minister of Railways and Canals at the meeting. He swore so himself. The Acting Minister of Finance was at the meeting, for he swore so himself. The Minister of Labour was there, for he swore so himself. Although the chairman was most assiduous in trying to keep from the committee the fact as to who was at the cabinet meeting, each one of those four ministers, in contradiction to the chairman's ruling, swore that he was present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I correct my hon. friend at that point? To show the kind of inference that he is trying to leave, may I say that my hon. friend has just used the expression: "You have the Prime Minister calling a cabinet meeting." In other words, he tries to leave the inference that the meet-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
mg of the cabinet held on the morning of August 15 was a meeting called in consequence of the interview at my house the night before.


Edward Guss Porter: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's words are plain. He says, "You have the Prime Minister calling a cabinet meeting." I wish to make plain to the House that the cabinet was in session the day before, the morning of the day on which Mr. Stewart arrived and had an interview at my house. This was during the summer. We had held a series of meetings; we had not concluded the business of the cabinet on that day, and we continued the business on the day following. The meeting held the day following had nothing whatever to do with the conference held the night before.


Edward Guss Porter: I am quite willing to accept the statement of the Prime Minister. It is of no importance why the meeting was called. The important fact is that there was a meeting of the cabinet on the 15th August. The Prime Minister, with all the knowledge he had, was there; the Minister of Railways and Canals with all the knowledge he had, was there; the Acting Minister of Finance was there with all the information he had of the night before and with the written detailed report in his pocket, and the Minister of Labour was there. Those are the facts that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. Let us see what each one of these cabinet ministers said in reference to that meeting, and let me turn first to the evidence of the Prime Minister which will be found beginning on page 91. A number of questions were asked in regard to the importance of the matter. He was asked as to the meeting as reported on page 93:
By Mr. Porter:
Q. Then at the very bottom of the page (reading):
" Q. It was of such enormous proportions. . . .
That is the condition of the bank.
.	.	.	. that it appalled you at the time?-A. If it
had been of small proportions, having been told what I had been told about the condition of the bank, I would have felt the government would not be justified in using public funds for purposes of that kind."
At the middle of page 94;
Q. " And that the government."-A. (Reading).
41 -and that the government was being asked to make a deposit of public funds to meet a situation of that kind."
I did not consider the amount, I looked at the principle of it and considered it was impossible to entertain any idea of any amount large or small. I think it is important to make that clear, because
230i
the amount that was asked for, I do not recollect at all; what did impress me was the circumstances that we should be asked to put in any amount.
Q. I take it from your answers as a whole, which I have read and which you have read, that the disclosure which was made to you at that time was of such a serious and important nature, or was of such an important nature that you would naturally desire to consult with your colleagues about it?-A. Yes.
Q. You would not feel justified in withholding that from the cabinet?-A. I felt that Mr. Stewart had spoken to me as a member of the government.
Q. And you would not feel that you were doing your duty in not disclosing that to your cabinet? -A. I shouid certainly wish to confer with my colleagues about it, yes.
There is a statement of the Prime Minister with the information ali in his possession of such grave and serious importance that he would want to consult his colleagues about the matter, that he would not feel justified in withholding it from them, and he goes to council on the morning of the 15th with all that in ni;nd. Could I ask you to believe that the Prime Minister was so derelict in his-duty that he did not bring that matter before his colleagues? His oath of office compelled him to bring that matter before them if he believed that it was a matter that should be brought before them. Do you think he violated his oath? I do not believe it. I refuse to Relieve such a thing as that. He says that he would feel derelict in his duty if he did not bring it before them; that it was a matter of such transcendent importance that he could not keep it from them. Do the people of this country want to believe that the Prime Minister, tihe head of this government, is a man of that character that he would keep such a matter away from his colleagues? Not only had he the facts only the night before, but his colleague, the Acting Minister of Finance had the written documents in his pocket. He took them right from the directors at the hotel to the cabinet meeting. Is it possible that the Acting Minister of Finance would sit still with those documents in his pocket which, he says, he got the following morning, that is the 15th and not bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues? Is it believable? Not only that, but the Minister cf Labour was there himself. If the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Acting Minister of Finance all desired to consult with their colleagues, as they swore they did with whom would they consult? There is no evidence that anybody else was present but the Minister of Labour. With whom would they consult? Mark the significance of this. He had word from the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon) on August 9 and he went to sleep thereafter and

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
slumbered soundly and comfortably, never waking up until August 15. Where was he on August 15? There is not a single word or tittle of evidence throughout the whole inquiry that he was anywhere else than at cabinet council. There is not a word of evidence that he met and discussed the subject with anyone else. I say, there is not a word of evidence to that effect and I defy any hon. member to indicate anything of the kind. So there you are. After this peaceful slumber from August 9 t_ August 15, the Minister of Labour woke up very suddenly. What disturbed his rest? Look at his evidence at page 77. First of all the evidence deals with the facts which the minister got from the Deputy Speaker. It proceeds:
Q. I understand, Mr. Murdock, that you said you Teceived that information on the 9th of August?- A. Yes, the 9th of August.
Q. And you allowed from the 9th of August till the 15th of August to elapse before taking any action in regard to the withdrawal?-A. I did not withdraw between those dates. . .	.
Q. But it was so important on the 15th-
That was the day of the cabinet meeting, remember.
Q. But it was so important on the 15th that you thought you could not leave it any longer?-A. There were other circumstances that brought the matter to a Lead on the 15th, yes.
Let hon. gentlemen ask themselves how they can square that. The minister went to sleep on the 9th and never woke up until he was at the cabinet meeting, when circumstances arose that "brought the matter to a head." It had not come to a head before; it could not have two heads; but circumstances occurred then which prompted the minister to action. He bad not seen fit to act before, but the matter was brought suddenly to a head then, as he swears himself. And I do not ask the House to believe any one else but him. What did the minister do when the matter did come to a head? He rushed from the cabinet meeting to the bank, the meeting having adjourned at 12.45 p.m.; and before 1 o'clock he had gone down to Sparks street to the Home Bank, had drawn his cheque, passed it in to the teller, the teller had passed it over to the ledgerkeeper, the ledgerkeeper had marked it and handed it back to him, then they had looked up the accountant and there was drawn out of the vault the strong box from which there was counted out $4,000 which was carried to the teller's cage and then handed over to the minister. And all this happened inside of fifteen minutes. A terrible hurry, after the minister had slept froiu August 9 to August 15.

Now, as a matter of fact, what were the "other circumstances" that induced the minister to withdraw the money? He could have told us in a word if he had dared to do so. He could have told us in a word if it would have helped his case, when he violated his oath to such an extent as to admit that he was at the cabinet meeting. Is there any reasonable conclusion which any fair-minded person can come to other than that the circumstances that moved the minister to action on that occasion had arisen in the cabinet meeting? If they did not occur there where did they occur? I repeat, the minister could have told us, but he has not done so. There is no suggestion of any other place where he could have got the information; and it is the duty of this House-I want to make this perfectly clear-not to decide this matter only upon the sworn word of the witnesses; it is just as important that the House should draw reasonable lmerenee from the facts and the circumstances that have been elicited as it is proper to consider the sworn testimony itself. That is the duty of every hon. member of this House; and how can any hon. gentleman, in the face of the facts that have been sworn to, draw any other reasonable conclusion than that the minister must have got his information at the meeting?
Is it not reasonable to infer that he acted upon that information therein received? Or, if you will, that he acted upon both the information he got at the cabinet meeting and the information he received from the Deputy Speaker? Is it not a fair inference that he acted at any rate upon both and that he has come within the letter of the charge I have made and has violated his obligation as a minister of the crown? Yet, notwithstanding this, the committee has seen fit to declare not proven the facts I alleged in this House on May 22. Dare any man in this House get up and say that one of those facts has not been proven, and point out wherein it is not proven? But not satisfied with that,-and this is the part I regret most of all-not satisfied with having found as a fact, upon the evidence, what the evidence would not warrant for a moment, indeed totally in disregard of the evidence, that the charge was not proven, in their anxiety to whitewash the Minister of Labour, if I may use that term, they have gratuitously gone away and beyond the commission given them by finding as a fact that the charge has been wholly disproved,-a declaration Which there is not one single word or titt'e of evidence

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
from start to finish to support. I move seconded by Mr. Stewart (Leeds):
That all the words after the word " the " in the first line be stricken out and the following words be substituted:
committee, having considered the resolution referred to the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections on the 22nd day of May, 1924, as follows:- " Thursday, May 22, 1924.
Ordered,-That the following:-
Mr. Porter, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, moved, That, E. Guss Porter, member representing the electoral riding of West Hastings, in this House, having declared from his seat in the House that he as credibly informed and that he believes he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence that:- The Hon. James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank at its Ottawa branch on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein to hiis credit using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament, be referred to the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections of this House to inquire fully into the said allegation with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath or affirmation, and that the said committee do report in full the evidence taken before them and all other (procedure on the reference, and the result of their inquiries to this House for such action thereon as this House may determine.
Attest.
W. B. Northrup,
Clerk of the House of Commons."
and having heard the evidence given by all witnesses submitted in support of the charge contained in said resolution and all evidence and statements made in answer thereto, and examined all exhibits filed on such inquiry, beg leave to report as follows:-
(1) That the charges contained in the said resolution have been proven and sustained.
All which is respectfully submitted.
made some statements, however, which I think I should take the time of the House to correct. When the operations of the committee were over, the hon. member for West Hastings moved the adoption of the report as prepared by himself, and stated that though he had a speech prepared in support of if he did not intend to make it then, but would reserve it for another occasion. So the lesser lights on that committee argued the case on behalf of the hon. gentleman's contention, and I thought to-day, after listening to his remarks, that I could very well understand why he had not made that speech on the former occasion. I believe he felt that it was a speech that would not stand, to use a French expression, being "rechauffe." I believe he felt that after having made it once he could not make it a second time, and I believe that with that every one who heard his remarks this afternoon will pretty consistently agree. He did the best, however, in my opinion, that any one could do in support of a very bad case and of a forlorn hope. He made some statements regarding Mr. Murdock which I believe even he, upon reflection, will feel like retracting. He stated that Mr. Murdock could have made a statement before the committee in the beginning, but did not do so. Now he knows as well as every other member of the committee, and as every one who will read the evidence must know, that Mr. Murdock was in the committee prepared to make his statement when the proceedings of the committee first began, and desired to do so.


Arthur Meighen: But did not say so, nor did anybody else.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment.


Mr. GERMAN:: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland)- Mr. Speaker, after what was said by the hon. mover of the report (Mr. Archambault) this afternoon in support of his motion for its adoption, it would hardly seem that very much more is required to be said to convince hon. members that it should receive the support of the House.
The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) took an hour and a half in stating a very large number of things with which no person had any quarrel or any dispute. He


William Manley German: The right hon. gentleman says he did not say so, nor did anyone else. His name, it is true, was not mentioned in express terms. I was at the committee when the hon. member for West Hastings suggested calling a large number of witnesses, whom we thought it was absolutely unnecessary to call because the facts were not in dispute, but were admitted. Mr. Murdock was there and every member of the committee knew he was prepared to make a statement and desired to do so. That went on for a few days until this calling of witnesses to establish something that was not in dispute became rather wearisome to the members of the committee, to the majority of them at any rate. We said "Mr. Murdock is here and he admits all these things; call him." The offer was made that Mr. Murdock should go into the witness box and give his evidence, but the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), said "No, I will not consent to that
3638	COMMONS
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
until I have had fifteen or twenty minutes to consult with my companions." Apparently a consultation was necessary before my hon. friend could decide as to whether or not Mr. Murdock should be allowed to go into the witness box and give his evidence. Later on the minister did give testimony and his statement was a truthful one; it impressed every one who heard it as being true, and I believe that is the opinion of the people throughout the country.
The hon. member made another statement regarding Mr. Murdook which I believe on reflection he will consider should not have been made, and which every member of the committee feels should not have been made *-that Mr. Murdock in having the $4,000 deposited in the Royal Bank in the way in which it was deposited was doing something in secret, was trying to cover up the fact that the money was so deposited. The facts are-as stated by Mr. Murdock himself, and by his private secretary, Miss McCool-that this money was in Mr. Murdock's hands in his office. He was engaged with an attorney from Toronto in connection with an injunction proceeding in which the government was interested. He called his secretary and said "Take this money and deposit it in the Royal Bank so that you can draw it; deposit it in the same way that you have always done." She said "I have no power of attorney to draw money out of the Royal Bank." "Very well," he said, waving his hand, "go and deposit it in your name as you have done before:" and the evidence shows she had deposited the money in her name on prior occasions. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) shakes his head as to that. Let me read just what was said and I will make the quotation as short as possible. This is the evidence given by Miss Sadie McCool:
By Mr. German:
Q. I believe you are the private secretary to the Hon. James Murdock?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the 15th of August you took $4,000 in money from him to deposit in the Royal Bank?-A. Yes.
Q. It seems you deposited it in your own name in trust?-A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain to the committee why you did that?-A. I came in from lunch and Mr. Murdock called me into his office where he was eating lunch. He had an appointment with a man and he said, " I have not time to go out, will you take this money and deposit it in the Royal Bank so you can draw it like you are drawing on my other account?", and I replied, " I cannot do that without a power of attorney unless I put it in my own name in trust."
Q. What happened then?-A. He said, "All right," and waved his hand, and I went out.
I will now quote the evidence of Mr. Murdock himself. This is his statement:
I will give it in another way. I was sitting in my affice with $4,000 in 400 ten-dollar bills in an envelope,
[Mr. German.?
which I expected to place in a safe depository. As a legal gentleman from Toronto was waiting to see me in connection with an injunction in which he had been engaged by the government, and this was the only time I could see him-right between the two meetings of the cabinet-I rang the bell and called in my secretary and handed the envelope to her with the money in it, and said, "Go and deposit that money in the Royal Bank so that you can draw on it as you have been doing on the other account."
By Mr. German:
Q. Had she been drawing in other banks?-A. She had a power of attorney since about September, 1922, just before I went overseas to Geneva in 1922.
Q. She had a power of attorney to draw on your account?-A. Yes, and you will notice that eighteen of those cheques out of the twenty are drawn by her.
By the Chairman:
Q. Is that all you wish to say, Mr. Murdock?-A. I think that is all.
By Mr. Hanson:
Q. You did not tell her to put it in her name in trust?-A. I told her to put it in the Royal Bank so she could draw on it as she had been doing before.
Q. The other deposit was in her own name?-A. Yes.
Q. You know now that this was not in your name? -A. I do, and I knew before she went out of the room that this would not be in my own name.
How anyone can attempt to say, in view of that evidence, that Mr. Murdock was trying to keep this matter secret or do anything different from what he had been doing in the past I cannot understand. I cannot even think that my hon. friend (Mr. Porter) has any such idea himself, but being led away, perhaps, by his feelings he said something more than he really intended to say. There was another remark made which I think was equally uncalled for.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
still say that there is evidence to show that other deposits were made in the name of the secretary? He knows that other deposits were not in her name at 'all.


William Manley German: All I can do is to call my right hon. friend's attention to what Mr. Murdock says.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows himself that they were not.


William Manley German: I beg my right hon.
friend's pardon?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows himself, it is proven, that the deposit was in the name of Mr. Murdock.


William Manley German: Is the right hon. gentleman referring to the deposit in the Home Bank?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Manley German: 
Mr. HANSON:: What other deiposits?
There is no evidence of any.


William Manley German: I* propose to argue this
case from the evidence on the record and not from the suppositions of hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me quote again:
Q. You did not tell her to put it in her name in trust?-A. I told her to put it in the Royal Bank so she could draw on it as she had been doing before.
Q. The other deposit was in her own name?-A. Yes.
That is easy enough to conceive. Mr. Murdock had confidence in his secretary; she had a power of attorney to draw on his account. She went to the Royal Bank and deposited this money in her own name in trust.
I am sure hon. gentlemen will not feel that there was anything done in an improper or dishonourable way in that connection.
There is another matter which I think the hon. member for West Hastings referred to this afternoon which did not do him very much credit, and I regret very much that he made the remark. I think he himself will regret it when he comes to consider it. He said that the statement made by the Deputy Speaker of the House (Mr. Gordon) was not made or heard of until after the death of the president of the Home Bank. The remarks he made were as follows:
It is singular and worthy of remark that after all the attempts at defence that the hon. minister made on various occasions in this House and before the committee he never mentioned and the committee never heard of a conversation with Mr. Gordon, the Deputy Speaker, or of the minister acting upon any conversation with him until the morning after Mr. Daly, the man from Toronto, died. You could not call Daly. It never was mentioned before, but the next morning after Mr. Daly was dead this evidence was given. It is rather a remarkable feature, to say the least.
It is a most remarkable thing that a man of the legal standing of the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) should draw on his imagination to such an extent as to insinuate against the Deputy Speaker of this House that he would make a statement after the death of Mr. Daly that he would not make during Mr. Daly's life. I think that statement should certainly be retracted.
Now coming down to the concrete facts of the case, what do we find? The hon. member for West Hastings mentioned a number of statements that he had made. He said, "I want to convince hon. members of this House that everything I have said has been absolutely proved". He read a large number of the statements that he made to the House when he first made his allegations and said, "Is this statement not true, is that
statement not true, and is the other statement not true"? He might have gone on with a hundred other statements, and everyone would admit they were all true. There was no contention about the fact that there had been a meeting of the directors of the Home Bank and that they declared the bank insolvent. All these statements were admitted, but he has failed to produce any evidence to prove the very crucial point in dispute in this matter. He appears to think that if he can convince the House that he has made a large number of statements which are true consequently the one statement which he made which is not true will be believed, even without evidence. In that I cannot agree with him. He started out to prove one particular statement, but not all the statements he made on the floor of the House when he made bis accusation. The allegation which he must establish as true in evidence is this:
The Honourable James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank at its Ottawa branch on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein to his credit, using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
That is what he has to prove. Every one knows that the bank failed. Every one, or at least most people, knew months before that the bank was likely to fail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Manley German: Every one who had his
eye on the financial horizon or had any particular knowledge of the banking situation knew for days and weeks previously that the bank was likely to fail. It is true that the Minister of Labour had four thousand dollars odd in that bank and that he drew that money out of the bank. That fact was never disputed and the Minister of Labour admitted it; but it is not true that he drew out that money on account of certain information he had received as a minister of the likely failure of the bank contrary to his obligations. There is no evidence to establish the truth of that statement. What is the evidence and the only evidence? Mr. Stewart came down to Ottawa on the night of the 14th of August. He met the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and the Deputy Minister of Finance, and they wait to the home of the Prime Minister. The whole situation was discussed at that time. The next morning

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
there was a council meeting. The only allegation put forward by the hon. member for West Hastings to sustain his charge that Mr. Murdock obtained improper information, or information on which he should not have acted is that there was a meeting of the cabinet on the Tuesday morning prior to his drawing the money out of the bank, and after the conference at the Prime Minister's house. How does that figure out? At the most that is only a suspicion. There is absolutely no evidence of it. I call attention to this feature, that the hon. member for West Hastings, when making these charges, stated that they could be proved in evidence, but he had at the same time a knowledge of the fact that he could not give any evidence of anything that took place in the council chamber. He was bound to prove his case outside of what took place in the council chamber, because he could not give evidence of that. What happened in the council chamber is a sealed book. You cannot ask a question as to what took place there. It is not a situation where a question may be asked and you may refuse to answer, claiming privilege; but it is not permissible even to ask a question. The occasion is absolutely privileged, and it is harder as against Mr. Murdock than it is against his accusers. They knew they could not give that evidence when the charge was made and that they had to prove their case outside of that evidence, or fail to establish it. Mr. Murdock is tied down by the secrecy of the council chamber.
Let us see how the situation works out. On the night of Tuesday, the 14th of August, these gentlemen, Mr. Stewart, the Minister of Railways, the Acting Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Saunders, were at the Prime Minister's house. They talked over the whole situation. In his evidence the Prime Minister declares openly, emphatically and finally:	In view of that
situation no assistance can be given by the government to the Home Bank, but the Acting Minister of Finance will go with your director to-morrow to Montreal, and if you can work out something there, if he can be of any assistance to you, all right. The hon. member for West Hastings, drawing on his imagination, thinks the inference must be that the Minister of Labour got the information as to the prospective failure of the Home Bank on the morning of the 15th in cabinet council.
I say that the indisputable inference is that nothing was said about this matter in cabinet council on the morning of the 15th. Why should anything be said? The Prime

Minister had stated emphatically in the presence of the leading ministers:	We are not
going to give any assistance to the Home Bank.


Edward Guss Porter: Why did he swear that
he wanted to bring the matter before the cabinet?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did not
swear that.


William Manley German: My hon. friend is absolutely wrong. What the Prime Minister said is this: That was a matter of such importance that I would have to bring it before members of the council.


Edward Guss Porter: When?


William Manley German: At any time after that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Manley German: My hon. friends are drawing on their imaginations to find inferences. Are you going to convict a man on an inference? That has never been done yet in this country or in any other country having British institutions. No one knows that better than my hon. friends opposite who are in the legal profession and no one knows better than the hon. member for West Hastings that no man under the British flag was ever convicted on inference or suspicion. There must be evidence leading indisputably to conviction.


Edward Guss Porter: Does the hon. member contend for one moment that a man has never been convicted upon circumstantial evidence?


William Manley German: My hon. friend knows very well that I did not say that, and he also knows that some of the worst criminals in the country have been convicted on circumstantial evidence and have been hanged on circumstantial evidence. It is very often the only evidence that can be established. Not only must there be circumstantial evidence that points to guilt, but there must be no other reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the circumstances that have been shown. Take this as circumstantial evidence. Can any one say that no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the circumstances in this case than a conclusion of guilt? That would be absolutely absurd. I have no hesitation in putting myself in the judgment of the best legal minds of Ontario that if that evidence was submitted to a court and a jury, the judge would immediately withdraw the case from the jury and say to the jury: This is suspicion and suspicion only. You cannot

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
convict a man on suspicion, no matter how strong that suspicion may be." You can call this strong suspicion if you like, but I am arguing from this point of view. When my hon. friend is talking about drawing an inference, I say that the proper inference to draw from the situation is that nothing was said about the Home Bank in council on the morning of the 15th August, because the Prime Minister on the evening of the 14th had stated emphatically and plainly that the government would not do anything at all about the matter, and the Acting Minister of Finance the next morning at ten o'clock made the statement:	I am going to
Montreal. There was nothing to talk about. If the Acting Minister of Finance had come back from Montreal with a statement from Sir Vincent Meredith of the Canadian Bankers' Association that probably something could be done, the matter might have been brought up before council and discussed. But prior to that time, I say that the inference is that nothing was said about the matter in council that morning.
You can search from the first page to the last and the only evidence is that Mr. Stewart came to Ottawa; a conference was held in the Prime Minister's house, of which conference Mr. Murdock knew nothing, because Mr. Murdock says in his evidence that he knew nothing about the visit of those directors until long after the visit had been made; the Acting Minister of Finance went to Montreal the next day, and Mr. Murdock at one o'clock the next day drew his money out of the Home Bank and deposited it in the Royal Bank. That is the sole evidence upon which hon. gentlemen opposite ask this House to convict a minister of the Crown of a heinous crime and misdemeanour in this country. No judge would allow such evidence to go to a jury on which to convict him, and this House will reject it, as I am certain the country will reject it when they have an opportunity to speak about the matter.
When the report alleges that there is no evidence to prove these charges, what I have stated confirms that allegation. Evil minds will have evil suspicions. My hon. friends opposite may have evil suspicions. We regret that, but we cannot help it. We hope they will change. But simply because they have a suspicion, let them not run away with the idea that a man is guilty of a crime. What does the Minister of Labour say as reported at page 77 of the evidence:
Q. And after getting information from Mr. Gordon, did you get any further information?-A. No.
This is about the failure of the Home Bank.
Q. You say:	"No."-A. "No."
Q. Of any kind or description-or anywhere?-A. Not that would form my opinion in regard to the matter.
Q. It may not have formed your opinion, but did you get any other information?-A. No one else had discussed that matter with me at all.
Q. Had you any better knowledge on the 15th as to the condition of the bank than you had on the 9th?-A. I would say not.
Q. Why did you get in such a hurry on the 15th? -A. Well, I do not know whether it was a question so much of getting in a hurry. .	.	.Q. It seems to be. .	.	.


George Newcombe Gordon: Let the witness finish his answer.
The Witness: I proceeded to do on the 15th what I intended to do, and no doubt would have done, excepting that I neglected it for several days.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon rather intimated-at least I took his remarks in that way-that when the Minister of Labour was making these answers, he was making them with a mental reservation as regards what might have taken place in the council chamber. I do not think so. That is another inference. When he answered that question by saying that he got no other information from any source, he did not seem to me as though he was making any mental reservation whatever; I took it that he was excepting no place, not even the council chamber. I thought at the time that the question was objectionable, but it was not objected to and it went through. In my opinon there was no mental reservation on the part of the Minister Of Labour in his answer to that question. He further says:
By Mr. Porter:
Q. Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. I think that is all I want to ask for the moment. Mr. Murdock, I want to ask you one further question: Were you aware of the fact that the directors of the Home Bank met certain members of the cabinet at the premier's house?-A. Not until after it came out generally.
Q. When did you first become aware of that?-A. I could not say, Mr. Porter.
Q. You cannot give me approximately the date? -A. No, I am sorry to say I could not.
Q. It was prior to your withdrawal?-A. Withdrawal ?
Q. Prior to your withdrawal of the money from the bank ?-A. Oh, no.
Q. What? I said it was prior to your withdrawal on the 15th of August?-A. No.
Q. Are you quite certain of that?-A. I feel quite certain of that.
The Minister of Labour not only did not know that these directors were here but he got no information of any sort except that which he received from the Deputy Speaker, according to his own sworn statement. And who among hon. gentlemen who sit in this House is prepared to stand up and say that the Minister of Labour was deliberately lying

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
when he gave his evidence in that regard? I do not think any hon. gentleman is ready to do that. Everyone thought that the minister gave his evidence in a most truthful manner. Why, the very cheque on which he drew the money was dated August 14, and all that the minister had to do if he wanted to be deceptive was to keep his mouth shut concerning that cheque. He was not asked the question as to when it was drawn but he volunteered himself the information as to its date; and if the statement had gone down in the evidence that the money was drawn on August 14 instead of August 15 it would have answered this charge almost conclusively. But the minister, in his desire to be absolutely frank with the committee, said: "I do not want to be misunderstood; although that cheque is dated the 14th the money was drawn by me on the 15th. I Went to the bank and drew the money that day." The minister appeared before the committee with absolutely clean hands and he was perfectly prepared to give a truthful statement in regard to everything that had taken place. He did not desire to conceal nor did he conceal any one particular circumstance in the whole matter. He answered all questions openly and aboveboard and the committee believed, as I am very much inclined to think the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Porter) himself believes, that he was telling the truth and was actuated by nothing but the purest motives. There is no evidence against him; there is no truth in the charges. He has spoken and refuted those charges and I say that not only have they not been proved but that they were absolutely disproved.
Let us take the other side of the shield for a moment. When any one stands up and asserts that a minister of the Crown shall not use any information that he has obtained in council for any purposes whatever, even for the protection of his own property, his life or that of his family, I must say that this is a proposition from which I dissent en-ti.ely. I would not subscribe to any such preposterously inhuman doctrine. Suppose for example a member of the council happened to learn, in council, that a riot would almost certainly take place in the town in which his family resided: would it be improper for him t.o telegraph his wife and get her and the rest of his family out of the place as quickly as possible? Hon. gentlemen smile; but why should not a man use such information just as he would use information acquired in any other way? Suppose, again, that a minister of the Crown had heard in council any time during the war that a ship leaving Quebec 
was likely to be torpedoed: would he be acting in any violation of his oath if he took steps to prevent his wife and family from taking passage on that vessel? Shall a minister not use information he has received in council for any purposes whatever? I say, I will not subscribe to any such doctrine.


Miss MACPHAIL:: In such a case would
not the cabinet minister be perfectly within his right in attempting to save the lives of many others besides his wife and children?


William Manley German: Most certainly he would,
and that is the point I am coming at. I may remark in passing, however, that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who is getting particularly interested in this matter now, did not take so prominent a part m the whole course of the proceedings in the committee. We did not. have the pleasure of hearing her. Now, references have been made to the statements of English statesmen, and with those statements I have not any fault to find. Mr. Asquith for instance has said:
No minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information that has come to him as a minister for his own private profit or for that of his friends.
With that statement I am 'jn absolute accord. But I should like to remind hon. members that there is a very great difference between that and the question we are now discussing. In that case members of the cabinet, after having received information as cabinet ministers, purchased shares in a company out of which they made thousands of pounds; and there is a clear distinction between that situation and the case of a minister going to a bank and drawing out his own money, to which he has an absolutely perfect right. The Minister of Labour had an absolute right to withdraw his money any minute he saw fit; it was his own money and he had a right to draw it out. And how in the name of all that is intelligent could the Minister of Labour on that day have had any knowledge that the withdrawal of his $4,000 would injure in the slightest degree any other depositors in the bank? No one else thought it would. It was known that the bank was likely to fail; but who would lose in consequence of such a withdrawal? The shareholders would lose, and that is the utmost that any one supposed, the utmost no doubt that the minister himself supposed. It would not appear to anyone that the minister's withdrawing his $4,000 would injure in the slightest degree any other depositors.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
explain why the minister drew out the money?

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


William Manley German: He drew it out for
the same reason that my hon. friend or I or any one else would draw out a deposit- because he wanted it in a safe institution and did not wish to have it tied up in a bank that might become bankrupt.


Arthur Meighen: If the money of other
depositor's was safe where it was, the minister's deposit would also be safe and he would not be running any risk.


William Manley German: That is all right as an
ethical proposition. It is mighty easy to be wise after the event, but if my right hon. friend found that his wagon was likely to break down I am sure he would get ouf before it did break down. I say therefore that there was no reason in the world why the minister should not draw out his monesn It was his own money. He is not a legal gentleman like my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from West Hastings; they in their superior knowledge- and virtue, perhaps-would not have withdrawn their deposits, but he in his innocence of business matters withdrew his money. Now, even supposing he got the information in council-and I am accepting for the moment the very supposition that he got the information from thL source-I would be prepared to stand up and say that he was justified in acting as he did, because the withdrawal of his deposit would not under ordinary circumstances injure other depositors; in this instance the failure of the stockholders injured the depositors. As soon as Mr. Murdock found out there was likely to be injury to other depositors by reason of his action he said, "Very well, I will pay the money back." He made a supreme endeavour to do what he thought was right. He has been criticised by my hon. friend from West Hastings for not paying back the money sooner. Mr. Murdock saw notices in the newspapers, but he said, "I take no stock in newspaper reports." He thought, like most of us, that the reports were merely political tactics, and therefore he paid no attention to them, but when he found that other depositors were likely to be prejudiced, then he, like the honest man he has shown himself throughout these proceedings, said, "Very well, Mr. Clarkson, I will return you the money, although I do not feel that I am legally bound to do so."
Without taking up your time any longer, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the report of the majority of the committee is the report that
should be adopted by this House. And I know mighty wed that it is the kind of report that will be adopted by 90 per cent of the people of this country.


Hewitt Bostock: When at six o'clock I
read the amendment and translated it, there seemed to me to be something irregular in its drafting. By rule 46, as the House is well aware:
Whenever the Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case.
The amendment recites the reference which was made to the committee on Privileges and Elections, and proceeds as follows:
That the charges contained in the said resolution have been proven and sustained.
While the section of the report, concurrence in which is asked by the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), is in this form:
That the charge submitted to this committee for investigation, so far as it affects the honour of Mr. Murdock, is not only not proved but entirely disproved.
The rule is that when a report comes from a committee a motion is made by the chairman or by any other member of the committee asking the House to concur in the report, and if objection is taken to the motion by some other hon. member he moves in amendment, that the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to amend the same. In the present instance the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has, in my humble opinion, forgotten that formality. Let me quote from Bourinot, as set out at page 141 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, No. 559:
When the motion is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend the same in any respect.
The essential part of the report is contained in the section which the hon. member wishes to supersede by his amendment. I find no fault with him in this respect, for it is his right and privilege to ask the House to concur in the views of the minority of the committee. But there is a technicality which must be observed, and I would suggest that in order to live up to the precedents and rules of the House the hon. member alter his amendment to read as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the first line be stricken out and the following inserted instead thereof:

Mr. Murdoch and Home Bank
the second report of the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections be referred back to the said committee with instructions that they have power to amend it by striking out the last three paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor the following:
The last three paragraphs are those to which objection is taken by the hon. member.
and having heard the evidence given by all witnesses submitted in support of the charge contained in said resolution, and all evidence and statements made in answer thereto, and examined all exhibits filed 3a such inquiry, beg leave to report as follows:-
That the charges contained in said resolution have been proven and sustained.
Of course, the hon. gentleman would have to have leave of the House to amend his own amendment, or another hon. member might move it for him. It is true that
9 p.m. the amendment is merely defective as to form, but it is essential in parliamentary procedure that we should adhere to our forms. Therefore I would ask that the hon. member be allowed to amend his amendment in the way I have suggested.


Edward Guss Porter: Mr. Speaker, upon reflection I feel quite satisfied that the course suggested by you is well advised. The intention of my amendment was identical with what you have expressed, but perhaps it was not aptly worded to carry out that intention. I will ask another member to move an amendment in proper form so as to comply with the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the House might be willing to allow the hon. member to amend his amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: If there is objection,
another member might move the amendment. The amendment moved by the hon. gentleman is out of order, and the question is on the main motion. Of course, it is competent for another hon. member to move an amendment in proper form.


Mr. GRAHAM:: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Suppose all the members who have spoken on what was thought to be an amendment ask the right to speak on that which is really an amendment; will they have the privilege?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In conformity with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move:
That the word " adopted " be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Referred back to the said committee with instructions to amend same in such a way as to report the charge against the Minister of Labour as proved and sustained by the evidence adduced.

As a member of this committee, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make some very brief observations on the subject matter of the resolution and of the amendment thereto. But before doing so, I desire to make one or two comments only on the observations which have fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). I can only say that his contribution to this debate has been quite on a par with his contribution to the argument that took place in the committee, when he constituted himself counsel-in-chief for the defence, and descended in my opinion, to the depths of the police court lawyer. I shall not follow him along that avenue. I desire to approach the consideration of this subject matter in the same spirit that characterized the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) when he laid his charge on the floor of this House on the 22nd day of May last, in the same spirit which characterized his conduct of the case throughout the committee, and in the same spirit that characterized his observations made on the floor of this House this afternoon, and I venture to say that no more convincing argument was ever adduced in the House of Commons.
I expressly dissent from those who in the committee and out of the committee, in this House or elsewhere, have taken the view that this was a criminal charge against the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). I have never so conceived it to be; I do not now so conceive it to be; but I do conceive that the charge made against the Minister of Labour was a charge against his personal honour, and a charge against the honour and proprieties of parliament. It is from that standpoint that the subject matter was approached by the hon. member for West Hastings, and dealt with by him in this House and in the committee, and by those associated with him.
Inasmuch as the charge was not a charge of a criminal character, inasmuch as the Minister of Labour was not charged with a breach of any section of the criminal code of this country, I have been of the opinion from the very first that it was incumbent upon the minister to take the first opportunity that could be availed of either to give assent to the statement of fact that was alleged against him or to give it the most unqualified denial; and I say the first opportunity, because his personal honour had been attacked, and because to do otherwise was to create in the minds of the public and of members of this House, the impression that his silence in a matter of personal honour and propriety would lead some people, at all events, to be-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
lieve that the charge against him might have been well founded. I believe, further, that it was incumbent upon him at the very earliest opportunity to have stated in language so emphatic that none would be under any misapprehension, just what his attitude and what his position was. But to the utter astonishment of every gentleman who sat in this House when the charges were levelled against the minister on the 22nd of May last, there was not one single word of denial of the specific allegations that were then and there made against him, but there was, if I may so term it, in the words of the old common law, a plea of confession and avoidance. There was a statement to the effect that he had taken the money out of the Home Bank under circumstances, inferentially at all events, such as the member for West Hastings had stated, and there was an avoidance by the plea that he had repaid the money; but unfortunately for the credibility of the hon. gentleman in any subsequent statements that he might make, when he disclosed the correspondence which he had had with the liquidator of the Home Bank, written as a result of a legal demand made upon him for the return of the money, he made one statement the truth of which has been challenged, and challenged from the very beginning, and the untruth of which would lead any sober, sensible man in this House or in this country to take with the very gravest degree of care any subsequent statement the hon. minister might make. I refer to that paragraph in the letter of the minister to the liquidator of the Home Bank, written on the 14th of May last, in which he stated:
On August 15th last I withdrew from the Home Bank, Ottawa branch, $4,050, and made this withdrawal in the ordinary course of business.
Is there a gentleman within the sound of my voice, is there any man who has followed the evidence in this case, who believes for one minute the statement made in that letter by the Minister of Labour to the curator of the Home Bank? Not only that, it now appears that in a previous statement made by the minister to a newspaper reporter, and which he has not denied, which during the course of the testimony he stated was in effect correct in practically every detail, he said that the money had been withdrawn for the purpose of paying for a house, whereas, as a matter of fact, when placed under oath he admitted, and had to admit it because all the record is the other way, that he had withdrawn the money on the 15th of August for the purposes of safety, and safety only.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have some observations to make as to the manner in which this investigation was carried on. I have not been a member of this House very long, and I have not had very much experience in the political arena, but I had had some political ideals and some ideals with respect to parliamentary practice and procedure, and what should be done on certain occasions, and it had occurred to my simple mind that when a charge was made specifically against the honour of an individual, which per se had no political significance, the investigation of that charge would be surrounded with all the sanctity of a judicial procedure. I was not originally a member of the committee in question, and was only appointed to relieve some gentleman who had to be absent from the House of Commons. But I attended all the meetings of the committee, save and except the organization meeting, and I wish to say, without fear of successful contradiction, that from beginning to end the atmosphere of the committee was charged, and charged as with electricity, with partisanship of the most blatant character.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. I do not think any member in this House should describe the conduct of the committee in the way the hon. gentleman is doing now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not say anything
about the conduct of the committee. I do say that the atmosphere of the committee was charged with partisanship. If the expression is unparliamentary I desire to withdraw it.


Hewitt Bostock: I do mot think a charge
of partisanship gives rise to a question of privilege.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member was
speaking for his own party.


Lucien Cannon: He was speaking for himself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not speaking particularly for myself but if it were necessary I could easily mention names. However, it is not necessary to go that far; the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) will know exactly what I mean-


Lucien Cannon: I was sitting next to the
hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and if he desires to recall the circumstance all he has to do is to read the records. On the whole, I am glad to be able to say, after the first session

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
or two of the committee better counsels prevailed. One or two of the cabinet ministers were absent after the first session or two, and a better feeling prevailed in the committee. It seemed to me as a newcomer in this House, as a new member of the committee, as one lacking in parliamentary experience, that after those old and trained warriors had left the scene we made better and fairer progress. Nevertheless, no one will say with any seriousness that the committee was conducted with that judicial decorum necessary in the premises, because certain gentlemen constituted themselves defenders of the faith, while others of us who had had no experience sat by contributing a word from time to time only. It is true that the hon. member for West Hastings conducted his own case, and he did so in a manner which reflected great credit upon him.
With regard to the rulings of the chairman I have criticism to make of one ruling and I do this with considerable hesitancy because of the strong position he took at the time. That was the ruling with respect to the rejection of questions-not only their rejection but even the right to put them- as to who were present on a certain privileged occasion. In passing let me say that in his remarks this afternoon the hon. member who was the chairman of the committee read a passage from the report which indicated that I had adhered to the view-in making the few remarks which I did to the committee-that not only was a certain occasion privileged but the fact as to who were present on that occasion was a matter of privilege also. I am surprised to have been so reported, but those who were present at the committee at the time referred to will recall that an appeal was taken from the decision of the chair and that I supported those who made the appeal. I want to make this correction as complete as posable and have the correction appear as a matter of record. While I always recognize-and while I recognize to-day-that any communication passing between cabinet ministers in council is privileged the fact that there is an occasion, which might be regarded as privileged is not to be accepted of itself as an evidence that it should be so considered. The fact that a certain gentleman was or was not in attendance has never yet been the subject of a judicial decision on the lines laid down by the chairman. It is true that some observations of Mr. Justice McKeown were read which would seem to support that view, but I venture the assertion that no legal gentleman present who has anything to do

with this class of jurisprudence, on reflection, will assent for a moment to a proposition such as that laid down by the chairman. I have no further cause to* complain of the conduct of the chairman save and except as to that one decision which he gave.


Joseph Archambault: Does my hon.
friend mean to say that the ruling of Mr. Justice McKeown was not a ruling on exactly the 6ame point?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it were I would just
as emphatically dissent from his ruling as I did from yours.


Joseph Archambault: I would rather
follow the ruling of Mr. Justice McKeown than yours.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true but it does not alter the circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: It is a prefeotiy absurd ruling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest with all respect to the hon. gentlemen, that he himself does not believe in the ruling.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The ruling in fact is
grotesque.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So grotesque in fact that
the gentleman against whom the charges were levelled, on reflection, did what he conceived the proper thing to do and, despite the efforts1-the misguided efforts-of some of his friends, frankly revealed to the committee that he himself was present on the alleged privileged occasion in question.


Lucien Cannon: Does my hon. friend contend that the conduct of the Hon. Mr. Murdock governs the law in the matter?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not contend that for a moment, and the hon. member should not ask such a foolish question.


Lucien Cannon: I am not calling the hon. gentleman to order; I suppose that is his natural way of expressing himself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now, Mr. Speaker, I
stated a little while ago that this being a charge against the personal honour of the minister himself it was incumbent upon him, at the earliest possible moment, to have made either a distinct denial of the gravamen of the charge itself, .or to have stated all such circumstances as would have satisfactorily explained the situation and the allegations. Did the minister avail himself of that oppor-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
tunity? I have already adverted to what took place here on the 22nd May last, and referring to the statement made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that the minister, at the first meeting of the committee, was ready to make a statement, I may say that I myself was present and observed pretty accurately everything that went on. If the minister had any such intention as that now disclosed to us, all I can say is that he most skilfully refrained from showing his intention and it was not until the hon. member for West Hastings had methodioally, logically and step by step, built up the case which he has outlined in his opening remarks on the 22nd of May that the Minister of Labour came forward through his friends, and offered to make a statement.
What was his statement? It is true a very large number of the questions of fact involved in this matter are not in dispute, because the member for West Hastings had the evidence available from independent, reliable sources to place them beyond (the pale of dispute. But as to the question of the intent of the minister, which is a very important element in the whole matter, the facts were not sc evident. Approaching the crucial point in the whole matter, let us ask ourselves this question: What was the immediate cause of the effect upon the mind of the minister that induced him to withdraw his money? Two views may be taken in regard to this matter. There is the inference that naturally follows from the mere statement of the facts and the circumstances that the minister, being present at the cabinet council on the 15th day of August, went directly from the meeting of the council to the Home Bank and withdrew his money. There is the other view that he obtained whatever information he had and whatever information he acted upon by reason of a conversation held in this city on the 9th of August with the Deputy Speaker. I do not care which view you take. I say whatever view you take, whatever communication reached the minister reached him in his capacity as a minister of the Crown. Why did the Deputy Speaker go to see the Minister of Labour? He went to see him on official business, and in the course of a conversation on official business he mentioned casually the course of parliamentary legislation respecting banking in the preceding session. If anyone doubts the nature of the evidence as to why the Deputy Speaker went to see the minister, all he has to do is to read the statement of the Deputy Speaker that he went there on public business, the business
of printing the revised statutes, and he went to the head of the printing department; he went there to see him, not as an individual, not as James Murdock, but as the Minister of Labour in charge of the public printing of this country.


Joseph Archambault: If my hon. friend were convinced that the Minister of Labour acted only upon the advice of the Deputy Speaker on that occasion, would he blame the minister for what he did?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would still think he was within the purview of the charge, it being not a matter of relevancy, but a matter of the strength of the charge. That would be the only difference there would be between the two positions. But is there anybody in this House or out of it who believes that the action of the minister during the lunch hour on the 15th of August was actuated by anything that was divulged to him by the Deputy Speaker? Is there anybody who will search his heart and his conscience and say that the minister's action in withdrawing his deposit, human though that action may have been, was the result of anything that had been communicated to him on any other occasion than the day in question? It is stated that the member for West Hastings failed to prove that the minister had any information other . than that which he received from the Deputy Speaker. I want to make it plain that on at least three different occasions it was open to the Minister of Labour to declare, without the violation of any principle or of any oath, that he had not received any information from cabinet council. He would not be violating this oath if he made that statement. What was to prevent the hon. minister from being frank not only with the committee but with this House, on the 22nd day of May, and stating "I did not, on my honour, receive any intimation in cabinet council with reference to the Home Bank, and I was not actuated in making the withdrawal by any disclosures of any character that were made to me". Surely no hon. gentleman will argue that he was prevented by his oath from negativing anything in that regard. The oath only deals with disclosure and not with non-disclosure. Not only could he have made that statement to this House on the 22nd of May, but he could have made the statement on the two or three different occasions when he was on the stand in the committee under oath. To me it is more than a passing wonder that the minister, surrounded as he was by astute legal gentlemen who left no stone unturned in his defence, who left no stone unturned to advise him- and there were lawyers there by the dozen de-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
fending him-never once took us into his confidence and told us he had not received an intimation from the source to which I have alluded. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the action of the minister in leaving cabinet council at fifteen minutes to one, on the afternoon of the fifteenth day of August, and going to the Home Bank and drawing out his money intact, followed absolutely, as the morning sun follows the night, information recently received on the situation such as I have suggested. To draw any other conclusion is, I submit, to do violence to one's own judgment of what would be done in like circumstances by a private individual, if he were not under the ban of trusteeship, such as this minister was.
It is all very well for the minister to say "I had information as to the condition of the Home Bank from the Deputy Speaker". What information had he from the Deputy Speaker? It is true they met in an official capacity, so far as the minister was concerned, but what does he say the Deputy Speaker said to him? Why he frankly states, in his roundabout, redundant style, that his memory would be at fault to tell the committee what the Deputy Speaker said. The only thing he said to the committee was that he gathered from the statement made by the Deputy Speaker that ^the Home Bank was not a safe depository for "his sessional indemnity. If it was not a safe depository for his sessional indemnity on the 9th, I submit it was not safe on the 10th, or on any of the intermediate succeeding days. However, it suddenly became very unsafe on the 15th of August after the cabinet meeting at which the minister was present. I suggest to hon. members of this House in all sincerity that they had better not do violence to the better judgment of the people of this country by resorting to a coat of whitewash on this occasion, because you may say what you like, no man who reads the evidence, who has discussed the situation, will believe anything but that the laws of cause and effect were in force on the 15th day of August, and that the cause of the effect was a communication that was disclosed to the minister and was by no means affected by what transpired on the 9th day of August.
There is one other feature to which I should like to refer. By some specious method of reasoning, by some casuistry or another, one hon. gentleman has sought to show that, because the minister did not positively and affirmatively make a profit for himself but only saved himself from possible or impending loss, therefore, there is a distinction, and that under the authorities, in the one case, he would be to blame and in the other he would

not be to blame. Such reasoning as that is beyond me. What I apprehend to be the true position is this: That the minister by reason of his position as such, whether he acquired the information in cabinet council or in his official position in any other manner, did acquire information whereby he attained a privileged position over and to the prejudice of other depositors, and all the illustrations that have been suggested in this House both by the hon. member (Mr. Archambault) who was chairman of the committee, and by the hon. member for. Welland, who suggested in effect that the minister would be foolish, that he would have been doing something which would not be a proper thing to do, repugnant to his reason, in fact, if he had not gone out and saved his money, absolutely ignore two considerations. The first is the position of the minister himself; the second, and far more important from the standpoint of the public, is that by his action he obtained and retained for months a privileged position over and above any other depositor. Therefore, his action was to the prejudice of other depositors, and it is not on that principle, if it was on any principle, that the minister must have been induced to return the money.
Just a word with respect to the repayment of the money. One would assume from the remarks of the Prime Minister when this matter was first brought up in this House, that because the money paid over, forsooth, was paid back, therefore no wrong had been committed. I have had a little to do with the administration of the criminal law, and I have seen many a thief, many an embezzler who, when caught with the goods on him, made restitution and, therefore, pleaded that he should be let off.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is an entirely false interpretation to put on my words. I made no such reference at all. I spoke of the minister's high sense of honour, in that when he learned officially that these losses had occurred, he should, without having any legal obligation so to do, have returned the money. I was illustrating the high sense of honour the minister had. I was not talking about restitution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that was the impression the Prime Minister wished to convey, he was not very happy in the language he used. I have read the Prime Minister's language and re-read it, and in the question which he asked of the hon. member for West Hastings, and by what he left unsaid more than by what he said, he intimated to the hon. member for West Hastings that, having

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
heard the statement of the Minister of Labour that he had returned the money, it would not be necessary to go on with the investigation. Only one conclusion can be drawn from that, namely that the Prime Minister himself was of opinion that because the money was paid back, the wrong had been corrected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My words do
not bear any such interpretation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly not, but the
Prime Minister's attitude and all the surrounding circumstances led me to believe that at all events.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member may speak for himself.


Joseph Archambault: He is easily led.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is true that the Minister of Labour repaid the money and I want to know why he repaid it. If the Minister of Labour did not have inside information, then I suggest that, as a matter of law, he did not have to pay the money back. If the Minister of Labour did not obtain the information which he obtained in any other way than that of an outsider, if he had no inside information which would put him in the position of a privileged depositor, then he need not have paid the money back. That is the policjr underlying preferences in assignments and in bankruptcy proceedings in this country. The minister did not even contest the legality of the demand that was made upon him.


Joseph Archambault: Yes, he did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What did he do? Such
is not disclosed by any of the proceedings.


Joseph Archambault: Will my hon.
friend look at the letter the Minister of Labour sent to Mr. Clarkson?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have looked at that letter a good many times.


Joseph Archambault: Will he look at it again?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I will. I say that he did not contest the situation. He says:
I may say that I do not think I am under any Jegal obligation to do so.


Joseph Archambault: What is that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what he states in h,s impression. What I said was that if the minister did not obtain payment of his 231
deposit on a privileged occasion as a privileged depositor, there was no legal liability on him, and he should have contested the demand as a matter of justice and fairness to himself.


Joseph Archambault: We say that there is no legal liability.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the first time anybody has suggested that outside of the letter of the minister. The very fact that the minister paid the money back without a contest before the official referee is evidence in the mind of the ordinary public, in the mind of the ordinary man, although it may not be in the mind of a legal gentleman, that he knew his position in retaining the money was untenable.


Joseph Archambault: Did the minister in his letter not state that he remitted the money from an entirely different motive?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose he drew the
money out from the same motive-to save the other depositors of the Home Bank from loss?


Joseph Archambault: That is no answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All the facts of the case show that the minister was occupying the position of a privileged creditor, a position that was untenable in law. Even had he gone before the official referee with the Deputy Speaker, having regard to the fact that they were communicating, one as a member of parliament looking for something for his newspaper, the other as Minister of Labour charged with the public printing of the country, and even assuming that the Deputy Speaker had some inside information regarding the affairs of the Home Bank, which he had not, then I suggest that a court of law would have found that, even on -that occasion, the minister would have received a preference, and it was because he knew that he would be exposed in the courts of this country as having received a preference over and above other depositors that he paid this money back without a struggle. More than that, the evidence of the record is that he was advised by certain of his colleagues to pay back the money, because he had received it under circumstances that he could not justify in a court of law.
I do not desire to say very much more about this matter. I am of the opinion that the statement of fact submitted by the hon. member for West Hastings this afternoon, in cogency, in thoroughness, in continuity of thought, presents what is really an unanswer-



Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
able ease, so convincing that in the mind of any disinterested jury in this country there would be but one opinion. I have no hope however that I shall be able, or that what the hon. member for West Hastings has said will tend, to convince hon. gentlemen opposite. That was very apparent all through the hearings before the committee and it has been apparent here to-day. I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite however that there is a great tribunal before which this case will be tried, the tribunal of public opinion in this country, and it may come sooner than some hon. gentlemen think. Let me say to the Prime Minister that he will be doing no greater service politically to gentlemen on this side of the House than if he retains the Minister of Labour in his government, for he will have to defend him on every platform from Vancouver to Halifax. The Prime Minister will have to defend his colleague on every platform and I wish him much joy in the effort. I see no better political strategy, if you want to put the matter on that plane, more favourable to gentlemen on this side than keeping this government on the defensive with regard to its personnel. God knows it is weak enough and it cannot smell much worse by the retention of the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad I
have not to defend my hon. friend.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	As a member of the select standing
committee on Privileges and Elections I voted against the finding of the committee, that the charge submitted to the committee for investigation, so far as it affects the honour of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), is not only not proved but disproved. To me, on the evidence submitted, the charge was neither proved nor disproved; nor could it be, without the vital evidence, withheld by cabinet secrecy, as to whether or not the matter of the Home Bank failure was discussed at the cabinet meeting on August 15. One can think or suspect much, and naturally the question arises as to why the Minister of Labour did not sooner act on the "lame duck" tip given him by the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. It is altogether natural to suppose that the chief subject of discussion of the cabinet on the day of August 15 would be the failure of the Home Bank; when a great calamity happens people talk about it a good deal, especially where those who are very much affected by it are gathered

together. If I were contemplating what I would do in the same circumstances I should decide that I would never go to a bank and withdraw money a few minutes before mealtime unless the need were very pressing; and if I took the money especially in such a large sum

which I would not have to take anyway-and I intended to deposit it in another bank, I would not in the meantime carry it up to my office and give it to someone else to deposit in my name, but would go directly when I was down town and get the thing off my mind.
If parliament is ever to be able fairly to judge such a case as this all the evidence must be laid before us; that is to say, the awful silence surrounding cabinet discussions must be broken. If at- the beginning of the session the Minister of Labour had frankly put himself in the hands of the House I believe he would have been most generously dealt with; he would have been by me at any rate. His evasion has led to suspicion, however. It was a shortsighted policy for a mlinister of the Crown to withdraw his money no matter where he obtained the information regarding the bank's condition. Such action was sure to react on the minister and upon the government of which he was a -member. A public man should in any crisis so act that his conduct will be an inspiration to others and will inspire them with faith and hope in public servants. And that faith and hope are at a dangerously low ebb to-day. People have almost lost confidence in public servants, and the finding of someone not guilty by this committee will not add anything to their trust. But we are told that we can form no judgment on suspicion. And all that I have been supposing is really after all just suspicion. But if we are not to be influenced by suspicion, if suspicion must be set aside entirely and the matter judged purely on the evidence submitted, then, if no further amendment is offered, a group of us will be forced to vote against the amendment that has already been submitted and as well against the report of the -committee.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland): There is no doubt the members of the official opposition are somewhat angry. The Murdock bubble has burst; the great scandals that were foretold in all their newspapers over four months ago, about four cabinet ministers who were to be driven out of public life, have vanished into thin air, and now they are trying to make a case of the only matter which they have investigated during this long session. My hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Macphail) is going to vote to drive a fellow member out of public life, simply because he did not get up four months ago and make some kind of statement upon ethereal charges which no one could get hold of; and she is also of the opinion that there is considerable ground for convicting the minister on the strength of suspicion. I am not going to refer to the speech of my hon. and fair friend on this matter any further than to say this to her:	I do not blame her, living as she does
in the province of Ontario where an exprovincial treasurer is now on the way to the penitentiary, that she has lost faith in public men in this country. I have not however heard her so far make any condemnatory references to those whom she knows best.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I shall be glad to if
I have the opportunity.


Hance James Logan: My hon. friend, I think, has the opportunity. Now, let us examine the state of mind of hon. gentlemen of the opposition. Let me take for instance my old colleague-I do not say "old" in point of age but from the point of view of parliamentary comradeship-the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), who is generally a gentleman of very congenial and jovial disposition. I can hardly believe that the hon. member for West Hastings would refer to any public man, especially a brother member of parliament, in the terms he has used; he declared that what the minister had said was false-and this upon oath, mark you-that certain matters were indecent, that he was dishonest, and that he ran for cover. Surely this cannot be the member for West Hastings! What is the matter after all? Why all this wrath and rage? It is all explained, as I said a moment ago, by the fact that the bubble has burst.
Let us for a moment without prejudice look at the matter calmly. What crime has the minister committed? The crime of which he is guilty in the eyes of hon. members occupying the comer opposite is that he is a man of labour who has risen by his own intelligence and ability, and through the faith of his fellow workmen, to be a cabinet minister in this country. I never expect any sympathy from that party towards a man who has risen from the ranks in that way and who still is a labouring man. But why condemn him at the present time? What heinous crime has he committed? Has he dealt in public offices in this country by endeavouring to get remuneration for transferring a man from one service to another? Has he charged large fees for selling junk to the government of which he is a supporter? Hon. gentlemen 231 i
strain at a gnat but they swallow a camel. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour-and I am proud to call him my friend-had 14,050 in a bank in this city. It was about all the money he had, and he had a mortgage on his home. He was told by the Deputy Speaker of the House on a certain day that the Home Bank was in bad condition. And the Deputy Speaker was not the only one who knew this; many of us, and I can speak for myself personally, had been able many weeks before to discern that the Home Bank was on its last legs. The Deputy Speaker approached the minister in his office, and in a casual conversation about banks told him this particular bank was in bad shape. And at this juncture, let me say one word which I think is necessary in reference to the Deputy Speaker himself. I was surprised above everything else-and I have heard many surprising things in this House-to hear the hon. member for West Hastings infer that if the Deputy Speaker had not known that Daly was dead he would not have said what Daly had stated. It is not to the hon. gentleman's credit to make such a statement in reference to an hon. member occupying the position which the Deputy Speaker holds in this House, and I am here to speak for the Deputy Speaker who does not take part in the debates. He informed me a few moments ago that when he went into the committee room to give evidence he had not the slightest idea that Mr. Daly had passed from this earthly sphere. What information he got in reference to it he obtained some time during the examination when the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) remarked to him, "Don't you know that Daly is dead?" Mr. Gordon replied, "No, I hadn't heard that." Yet we are told to-day that the Deputy Speaker said certain things because he knew that Daly's lips were closed for ever.
Mr. Gordon made a statement to Mr. Murdock on the ninth of August last, a few days passed-days go very quickly in Ottawa, especially in the life of cabinet ministers- and on the coming of the fourteenth Mr. Stewart, a director of the Home Bank, came to Ottawa and, knowing the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) as a leading minister from his province, got in touch with him and said he wanted to secure help for the Home Bank; the Minister of Railways telephoned to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb); the Acting Minister of Finance sent for the Deputy Minister of Finance, and together they went to the home of the Prime Minister where Mr. Stewart repeated the request; without hesitation the Prime Minister gave an empha-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
tic "no".-nothing would be done for the bank as far as putting up a deposit was concerned. It is to the eternal credit of the Prime Minister that he had the backbone to say "no" right there and then. The next day at a quarter to one Mr. Murdock went into the Home Bank and presented his cheque for $4,050 payable to cash-as we all make out our cheques when we are drawing money ourselves- had it marked by the ledgerkeeper in the usual way and proceeded with it to the wicket of the paying teller. He had been seriously alarmed by Mr. Gordon's statement to him regarding the stability of the Home Bank-apart altogether from any argument that may be made as to what took place in council-and drew the money out. A gentleman was waiting for him in his office on a very important matter as he explained to the committee and he rushed there, not even having time to go anywhere for his lunch but having it sent in to his office where he partook of it while he was discussing business with that gentleman. He knew he would not be able to go over to the Royal Bank, so he called in his trusted secretary, the secretary who had paid all his private bills- as most private secretaries do for their ministers. If ministers had to look after their small personal affairs they would have very little time to devote to public affairs. He handed the money to her saying, "Go and deposit that in the Royal Bank in a way so that you can draw on it." She said, "I cannot do that because I have not any power of attorney as I have with respect to your account in the Home Bank." He replied, "Go and deposit the money in trust,"-and waved his hand in a manner suggesting, "deposit it any way at all so you can draw on it to pay my personal bills from time to time." So the secretary deposited the money in the Royal Bank in her own name in trust. That is not at all an uncommon proceeding. There was no crime committed, no indiscretion in taking this course; in fact. it was the only way that I know of by which the money could be deposited so she could draw on it without a power of attorney.
We are asked to infer-as a matter of fact the whole argument against 'the minister is based upon inference-we are asked to infer that after the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Finance had said " mo," next day in council this one matter of the condition of the Home Bank was discussed. What do they do in council? Is it a debating society? Do they bring up all kinds of gossip? They have, I presume, an agenda in their minds, even if it is not put in writing, and carry on

according to that agenda. This was a financial matter, and I have no doubt that in regard to financial affairs the Minister of Finance does not always take his colleagues into his early confidence. But at any rate after it had been decided the night before that nothing was to be done to aid the Home Bank, I submit that the inference may fairly be drawn that there was no discussion of the matter in council that forenoon. But, upon the inference that the matter was discussed we are asked to condemn the Hon. Mr. Murdock.
The hon. member for West Hastings has no reason to complain of the report adopted by this committee. I undertake to say that never in 'the history of parliament has a man been treated more unfairly than the Hon. James Murdock, for he has been kept out of this chamber since May 22-more than a month- largely to suit the convenience of the hon.
member for West Hastings. I
10 p.m. would be the last man to object to that, because the hon. member was ill, and I know what that means. But I do not think it is fair for him to say that the widest latitude has not been given him and all the time given that could be reasonably expected to enable him to prove his charge.
But, Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention and the attention of the hon. member to a few things that he has not proved. It will be remembered how, four months ago, the papers were filled with wonderful stories about " Murdock and the Home Bank." The stories grew bigger and bigger until finally we were told that some kind of timelock had to be forced in order that the Minister of Labour could get at those wonderful things known as " legals." I commend this word particularly to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) -"legals." That word has become very common in Ontario during the last few months. Well, when my hon. friend from West Hastings made his charge against the minister he used this language, which will be found in Hansard of May 22, 1924. He said:
-and just before the close of banking hours-
Mysterious time, just before the close of banking hours. It was proved it was in the middle of the day, not just before the close of banking hours at all. It goes on:
That in making such withdrawal the Hon. James Murdock refused to accept, a marked cheque in the usual course of business-
I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not proved, and that accepting a marked cheque payable

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
to cash is not done in the usual course of business in this country. No bank in this country will certify to a cheque payable to cash to be presented at another bank. You cannot go to the bank where you keep your money and draw a cheque payable to cash and have the bank certify that cheque. It is a rule of the bank that a cheque shall not be payable to cash if it is to be certified. The minister handed in a cheque payable to cash; he was not asking for anything else. Then the hon. member for West Hastings says that he "demanded"-listen to this:
The Hon. James Murdock demanded cash or legals-
Awful word, "legals."
-for the amount of his withdrawal, and it being near the close of banking hours, the strong box of the bank-
Aha! The strong box of the bank! This is not newspaper language but that of the hon. member for West Hastings.
-had to be re-opened to obtain the cash which was paid over to the minister.
That immediately after such withdrawal the Hon. James Murdock re-deposited the same cash or legals he had withdrawn into another bank in Ottawa to his credit.
That on the following day, 16th of August, the same legals-
He has got away from cash then.
-withdrawn by the Hon. James Murdock from the Home Bank were returned to it by the Royal Bank through the clearing house.
He goes on to say that by his action the Minister of Labour profited to the extent of thousands of dollars. Now, if the hon. gentleman desired to be fair, why did he not state $4,050 as everybody in this country knew that was the amount of the withdrawal? The hon. member pretends to be fair in this matter, but he is just about as fair as a man who would kiss a child and then strangle it. I say this was not fair towards the minister, referring to Statements which the hon. member has not proved, and could not prove, and I say to him to-night not only have these charges been disproved, but he owes an apology to this House for making statements which he is not able to prove, and I challenge him now to read the evidence to show where he has proved the charges he made on the 22nd of May.


Edward Guss Porter: What charges do you say I did not prove? I used the words "cash" and "legals" synonymously. There is no difference between the two. Cash is legal tender, and cash is legals; I used them synonymously, and in no other sense whatever, and I proved that $4,050 was taken out of the bank in cash.


Hance James Logan: On the following day the
same bills were returned.


Edward Guss Porter: That was proved by the
manager of the Royal Bank. The same bundle of bills was taken back.


Hance James Logan: The fact of the matter is
that the money Mr. Murdock drew out of the Home Bank was in notes of the Home Bank itself. That was proved in this investigation.


Edward Guss Porter: What distinction does the hon. member make between them?


Hance James Logan: The implication in the
original charges was that he was demanding Dominion notes. The fact is the hon. minister did not ask for any kind of notes. He was paid Home Bank notes in the usual way,, and we have the evidence before the committee that the next day these were returned: through the clearing house.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
say bank notes are not legals to-day?


Hance James Logan: I am not saying they are
not legals, but the right hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that during the past few months there has been a peculiar notion of what legals are in this country. Legals are supposed to be Dominion notes of $500 and $1,000 denominations. This money was returned the next day to the Home Bank through the clearing house.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we might be fair in this matter. Let us remember, in the first place, that Mr. Murdock, when he drew this money, did not intend to deprive anybody of benefit. It was not presumed for a moment then that anybody but the stockholders and shareholders would be mulcted in this matter, and Mr. Murdock drew this money out in the ordinary way, for what purpose? We have had so many cases in this country where there is a real grievance that it does seem to me remarkable that the time of this House is to be taken up in discussing this matter, when after all, if you put the very worst construction upon it, you can only say that his action might have been indiscreet. But here we have been considering this matter week after week before the committee, and if the hon. member for West Hastings had called all the witnesses he desired, we would have been calling them yet; on my motion we at one meeting adjourned for fifteen minutes in order to see if we could not shorten the inquiry and get admissions put in to save the calling of witnesses. Time was saved in that way, but every latitude has been given. Is the hon.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
minister, because he wanted to get his all, not merely a fraction of his fortune, to pay upon his home, to be condemned? Oh, what a difference it makes whose ox is gored, and how different the punishment meted out to certain gentlemen in parliament from what is asked to be dealt out to the Hon. Mr. Murdock at the present time!
Someone says he did not need to pay out the money, because he kept it in the Royal Bank until October. He could not pay the mortgage until it was due, and the day the mortgage was due he paid it. He was trying to get money in order that he might be able to pay off the mortgage on his home. I say, Mr. Speaker, this House is too fair and too just to condemn this hon. gentleman upon such evidence as this. As I said a moment ago, if you put the very worst construction upon it, you can only say that he was indiscreet. At the same time I believe the feeling of this country from one end to the other is that there was no criminal intent, no harmful intent, on the part of the minister in this matter. I believe the Hon. James Murdock is an honest man before the bar of public opinion in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I hope the
hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) will not take it amiss if I say that there are other tasks in this House at which he excels much more than he does in the analysis and the presentation of evidence. I will not review the case in the order in which he has presented it, because really I do not think it was a very good order. Nor will I refer much to his address, save incidentally as I proceed. I do want, though, to make one protest against a position he assumed and a reference he made. We owe the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) fairness, and we owe him justice. In what I say I shall be scrupulously careful as to both and will not make my language as strong as it would be were the minister here. But we owe others the same, and among others to whom justice is due is even the ex-Provincial Treasurer of Ontario. I do not think it becomes an hon. member of this House to refer to a man as on the way to the penitentiary while he is awaiting trial. I am no admirer of the ex-Provincial Treasurer of Ontario but I am not able at the same time to fall down and worship the fairness of an advocate who pleads for the hon. Mr. Murdock in the circumstances in which he is now placed and refers to a man, as yet found guilty of nothing, as on the way to the penitentiary.


Hance James Logan: I quite recognize that probably the expression, used in the heat of debate, was not a proper one and therefore I desire to withdraw the reference I made to the ex-Provincial Treasurer as being on the way to the penitentiary. I admit with the right hon. gentleman it is hardly fair to make use of such an expression.


Arthur Meighen: I compliment the hon.
member on his promptness in this respect. May I refer to another matter though which I was not going to mention: I do not think it was much better to make vague and indeterminate references to other members of this House, without mentioning their names, as having been guilty of offences worse than this and still remaining members. I do not know to whom he refers but I think I do and if I am right-and there is no one else he could have had in mind-those hon. members paid the full penalty of their offences. If the Hon, Mr. Murdock pays an equal penalty, or in the same proportion, for his, nothing more will be asked on this side of the House. I think an explanation or an apology is equally due in respect of those references of the hon. member for Cumberland.
Now I come to just a few preliminary words as to what was said by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). He gave us some wonderful samples of argument; I really find difficulty in stating some of the things which he presented under that guise. When he was calling upon the House to be extremely careful before finding the minister guilty, when he wanted to get the House m a cautious mood-one of sympathy to the minister-he then referred to the charge laid as a heinous crime; begged us to go slow before we convicted him of this he'inous crime-those were his words. But when he was on the other tack and wanted to minimize the offence in the minds of those who thought it was proved he said "There is really nothing wrong about it at all; he was quite justified even if everything alleged is true."
This sample though is not a bit better than some others. I could not help but smile when he called to his mind the position of the minister. "Imagine," he said, "picturing this minister as doing something when he drew that money that might hurt the other depositors. Why, nothing could have been further from his mind. He had no reason in the world to think that the other depositors would lose any money. Why, all he could ever have to fear was that the stockholders would lose." It never seemed to occur to the hon. member for Welland that if the

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
minister did not fear the other depositors would lose he need not have feared he would lose himself. But the minister was on oath as declaring that he feared he would lose his money, and that is why he went there. Consequently he feared the other depositors would lose also, and fearing that he nevertheless drew his own money and let the others take the consequences.
But before I leave these real gems of logic I want to read a statement made by the hon. member for Welland before the committee. I marked it; I should like it to be submitted to the delectation of hon. members for a moment. Here it is on page 68 of the proceedings. All through this investigation the member for Welland was exceedingly solicitous about the privileges of cabinet ministers. He argued vigorously that you cannot state anything that took place in council. In the broad sense that is correct. He argued equally vigorously that you could not declare who were there. If you ventured to name anybody who was at council you were breaking your oath; you had not the privilege of refusing to do so or not. He said that a minister was debarred by his oath of office from even telling who went to council. Well, this was about the acme of absurdity unless one excepts the specimen I am about to reveal. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) had been examined, and the member for West Hastings was endeavouring to ascertain at what hour council adjourned on the morning of the 15th of August. The minister had expressed his inability to tell at what hour it adjourned and continued in that attitude notwithstanding the pressure of the hon. member. I now quote from the proceedings:
Hon Mr. Macdonald: What is the use of arguing with a witness like Mr. Robb?
Mr. German: There is another point which occurs to me. Supposing Mr. Robb makes the statement as to the time he remembers the council to adjourn and some other minister comes in with an entirely different impression as to the time. It would bring the ministers directly in conflict, which is against the very object of their oath that everything is to be kept secret.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. FINN:: Is there not a clerk of the
Privy Council who knows when council adjourns, ana is he not the proper officer to give that information?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, there is a clerk and a whole lot more who know, but what does the hon. member think-


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not think, I know.


Arthur Meighen: -of a member of parliament or even any intelligent or semi-intelligent person suggesting that it is a breach of a minister's oath of office to say when council gets through with its work, on the ground that two ministers might speak differently and there would be disclosure of secrets?


Robert Emmett Finn: Does not the right hon. leader of the opposition, as an ex-Prime Minister, know that the clerk of the Privy Council is aware when the cabinet adjourns-


Arthur Meighen: Of course.


Robert Emmett Finn: -rather than the ministers of the Crown who attend cabinet meetings?


Arthur Meighen: Of course the clerk
knows, and the reporters outside know, and anybody else can know who wants to. The ridiculous thing is that anybody would suggest that it is a breach of oath to tell.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: I know the hon. member never suggested that. The only suggestion I make to him is this: If he has a question to ask I will be willing to answer it. If he has nor he can make long enough speeches himself without interjecting stlill others into my remarks.


Robert Emmett Finn: If there is any gentleman in
this House that can make lengthy speeches without saying very much it is the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Now, I desire to come to a review of what is before the House for a decision, a decision as far-reaching in its importance, as impressive in its nature, as any at which this House has ever been called upon to arrive. It is first necessary that we fully understand just where we are placed and what it is we have to decide. We all recall the circumstance of the 22nd of May. We recall the definite allegation advanced in constitutional form against a minister of the Crown by an hon. member of this House. I will read the summation, of the allegation and the importance of these words I desire with all deference to impress as forcibly as I can upon hon. members. They have been quoted frequently, but I am unable to make my remarks orderly without inflicting their repetition upon the House once more. The allegation is in the following words:
The Honourable James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank at its Ottawa branch on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein to his credit, using certain informa-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
tion he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
This was the charge made. The precise facts which the hon. gentleman set out to prove are there stated, that the money was withdrawn on this date, that this date was two days before the failure, that the result of the withdrawal was to be of advantage to the minister to the extent of thousands of dollars, and that the money was withdrawn by reason of information received by the Minister of Labour as minister of the Crown. The hon. member for West Hastings said, "These facts I am prepared to prove on my responsibility as a member. I call upon the House to give me a committee, on the assumption therein recited that those facts establish that the minister's conduct was contrary to his obligation as such minister and in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament. I submit that the House having passed the resolution took the ground that those facts if they could be established did bring home to the minister that he had acted contrary to his obligations and contrary to the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament


Robert Emmett Finn: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Emmett Finn: I ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that evidence was given before that committee that the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons (Mr. Gordon) had been in conversation with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock)?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not mind hon. members opposite interrupting me, because they want to back up the leader of the opposition. I ask whether or not the Minister of Labour had information-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Denis, Joliette):: Although I suppose the right hon. leader of the opposition is well able to defend himself, I would ask the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) to allow him to proceed.


Robert Emmett Finn: When the hon. member makes assertions that are not correct, surely I have a right to correct him.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that
some hon. members be delegated to take care of the hon. senior member for Halifax.


Robert Emmett Finn: The only answer I have to
make is that the country should be delegated to take care of my hon. friend-to put him where he belongs.


Arthur Meighen: We are past the time for discussion as to whether these acts constitute a violation of the obligations of the office of a minister of the Crown, We have already referred those allegations for investigation, to ascertain whether they are true or not, on the assumption that they do constitute a violation of the obligations of a minister of the Crown, and in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament. Consequently it is only wasting time to debate whether or not, providing the facts are true, an offence has been committed. The House has passed on that already. But if it were a matter of argument, is there any hon. member of this House who is going to say, or who believes, whether he will say it or not, that a minister of the Crown can use information obtained as such minister to his own advantage, whether to avoid a loss or to make a profit? I do not say that because a minister hears something in council he therefore never can use it. Nobody suggests that, but if it is something which he receives as a minister of the Crown, which he would not otherwise be entitled to receive, then he cannot use it whether for his profit or to save a loss.


Robert Emmett Finn: He did not.


Arthur Meighen: And the minister receiving this information, being forbidden under the act -to make use of it for the purpose and advantage of others, certainly could not make use of it for his own advantage. What I am seeking to impress upon the House is that the whole question is whether t'he information received was received as a minister, and must be treated as secret information when so received. The point made by the member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) does not come in at all. Certainly if one hears about a ship going down, that is something which he is at perfect liberty to tell his neighbour, his wife or anybody else, but information which he cannot divulge to anybody else, he cannot use for his own advantage. It is an absurd argument to be addressed to the intellects of intelligent people to say that he can use this information to save his own money, to see that he

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
does not lose anything, but cannot use it to make a profit. I do not really know how to argue a matter of that sort. It does not appeal to one's mind at all. For example, suppose I am in the stock market, and I know that a duty is going to be imposed upon certain goods made by a firm in which I have some stock. I get that information as a minister of the Crown. I am not at liberty to tell anyone else. Would anyone suggest that I am at liberty to go out and buy more stock in that concern, knowing there will be an advance in price the minute the budget is delivered? An hon. member (Mr. Arcbamlbault) shakes his head in the negative. Let me put another question. Suppose I am a large stockholder in another concern, and I find that the tariff is going to be taken off the article it manufactures. I receive the information in council, and I know that the minute the budget is delivered, down will go the stock. Am I at liberty to go out and sell my stock so as to avoid a loss?


Robert Emmett Finn: That is never done.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Archambault) shakes his head in the negative. Certainly I cannot. The moment he shakes his head he admits, and his intellect would compel him to admit, that both these cases are precisely in the same category-the making of a gain and the avoiding of a loss. When one is brought home it has the same effect precisely as the other. The point is that the minister cannot use for his own advantage information he receives as minister. There is no use wandering into other fields. This matter is closed, I think, so far as this point is concerned.
I ask hon. members to note that there is no crime charged, no offence against the criminal code. An offence is charged against the traditions, the honour and the dignity of parliament. The offence charge is a malfeasance in office on the part of a minister of the Crown. What another man can do a minister of the Crown cannot do. The traditions of parliament, his duty to the public, deny him that right. When he goes into a cabinet he takes upon himself an obligation never to use information received there, an obligation to which he does not swear, but one which is as binding upon his conscience as any obligation man ever took upon himself. Therefore, we know the measure of the offence charged. The consequences of guilt we all know. I do not think I need expound them, either by textual reference or precedent. I
therefore come to discuss whether or not these allegations of fact, which undoubtedly if proved, establish the guilt charged in the indictment, are brought home. I say, first of all, that they are brought home, if anything can be brought home at all, by circumstantial evidence. We find the person charged proven guilty of this offence, whatever it is, by inference from circumstances proven. The hon. member for Welland says: "Did you ever know of a man being found guilty by inference?" I say in this House as one who has had some experience in law- but if one had none at all, the ordinary reader would know this just as well-that ten men are convicted on inference for one who is convicted by the seven senses. Ten are found guilty because of circumstantial evidence out of which the inference of guilt comes for one found guilty in any other way. Let us inquire: Are the circumstances such that the reasonable man will know that guilt is established or are they not? The undisputed facts, of course, I do not need to rehearse-the fact of the deposit of the money, of its lying there from about the 3rd July until the 15th August, only trifling amounts being with-dravrn in the meantime. Its withdrawal on the 15th day of August-this is admitted. Its withdrawal in cold cash on the 15th day of August; its withdrawal and deposit immediately in a larger and stronger bank-all this is admitted. It is admitted moreover that its deposit was in the name of a secretary "in trust". There is an explanation of this given and I will discuss the explanation later. It is admitted still farther that the fact of the impending failure of the bank came to the knowledge of members of the government, not all, on the night of the 14th August, in all its horror and all its pregnancy, and that those facts were so startling that the Prime Minister, to use his own words, stood aghast. That the bank failed is, of course, admitted. That tremendous suffering and hardship have followed in its trail, everybody knows and everybody has known right back from the last days of August to this hour. The loss of those depositors, thousands of them poor working people, the sufferings and agony entailed, all have known and known, not since the 17th or 14th of May but since the bank failed in August last. It is known as well that, upon there being mooted in the press an allegation that a minister of the Crown had taken advantage of his position to save his owrn money, and the Minister of Labour being accosted by a reporter and asked if he was the man, he stated that he withdrew the money, but that he withdrew it in the

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
ordinary course for the purpose of paying on a house. I have used his language on the record. Of course nothing can be disputed which took place in this House on the 22nd day of May.
I now come to the one fact around which the discussion, so far as it is relevant or useful, revolves. Has it been established! by satisfactory evidence that the minister acted on information gained as a minister of the Crown? I do not think anything else is worthy of debate. All other talk will only confuse.	Is the evidence on this feature
satisfactory or is it not? What is the evidence? First of all there is the evidence of the directors who, on the night of the 14th, informed at least three ministers of the Crown of facts so startling that, on the admission of all three, they were facts that should be brought to the attention of their other colleagues of the government, facts so startling and important that two of them stated on their oath that, if they failed to bring them before their colleagues, they would be derelict in their duty. I will quote to prove this, if I am asked or challenged, from the evidence sworn to here by these ministers, evidence they could not help but swear to, evidence every word of which was undoubtedly true. And even if that evidence had not been given, every one of us would have known that it was a fact anyway. Is anybody so childish, so hopelessly innocent and mentally uncouth as to imagine that, it being brought to the attention of the government that a bank was to fail in the course of one, two days or hours, they would not have brought the subject before their colleagues at their first meeting? No one who has ever had anything to do with a government will ever be told that, or, at least, not face to face. The absurdity of such a suggestion affronts the intellect, affronts one's common sense. This bank collapse was the most startling event in two years :n the commercial life of Canada, and imagine, after ministers are apprised of it, they conceal it from their colleagues for any time at all! No, they frankly say: Our duty certainly was to consult them. The Prime Minister tells us the view he took of the matter and the view he expressed to the delegates who came from the bank. That was his view; but he very properly, inevitably stated, could not avoid stating that before anything final was determined upon as regards a subject of such colossal importance to the people of Canada, he was bound to lay the matter before his colleagues.
On the afternoon of the 15th August, the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was

to go to Montreal on this very matter and, associated with the Home Bank delegates, to lay the truth before the Bankers' Association. For the purpose of their discussion of the subject, for the purpose of his own information, he acquires from the directors that morning in the hotel a written statement of the position, supplementary, perhaps, or perhaps only complementary of the presentation of the night before. It was already arranged that he was to go to Montreal. That is the evidence on record. What are his instructions to be down there? Those will be determined, and I ask hon. members: Where? Would they not be determined in cabinet council? Why, for the government even to intimate to this House that the final action, the final conduct of the government in this regard, even before the meeting with the Bankers' Association in Montreal, would be determined save when all council were consulted, would be an admission of an inappreciation of public duty. No, one only needs to argue simply for the sake of putting it in print that the matter came up in council. Common sense teaches everybody that it must have come up in council before the Acting Minister of Finance could go to Montreal, especially in view of the impending almost instantaneous collapse of a financial institution in this country.
But what is the other evidence? Immediately the sitting is through, about 12.45 p.m., the minister takes his route right across to the Home Bank, signs his cheque, lays it down, demands his money, demands $4,050 in bills. I ask hon, members to remember not only the bills, but the exact amount, $4,050. The haste of the minister immediately after council is some indication in itself of what council considered while in session. There is the evidence of the minister and, perhaps, I had better read it exactly. I will read first what the minister says in respect of what he considered his duty. At page 75 the minister after reciting the fact of the withdrawal and the fact of having heard reports in February and March, and having intimated his decision to pay back the money, says this:
I think, Mr. Chairman, that covers the statement necessary. I might say, of course, that I am precluded by my oath as a cabinet minister from intimating in any way whether any questions in relation to the Home Bank of Canada were or were not discussed at either of the cabinet meetings of August 15th which I have said I attended.
Thus in his first carefully prepared statement, the only statement he made save on cross-examination, 'he emphasized in the clearest, simplest terms that he was precluded

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
by his oath of office from saying a word as to whether this matter was or was not discussed. And in the face of that every hon. member who has stood to defend him in this House has asserted that, a page or so afterwards, he violated what he considered his oath, stating that the matter had not been discussed there at all. Are those gentlemen doing justice to the minister who stand and plead in his defence, what would be a violation of what the minister himself believed to be his oath? Or are those doing the minister justice who refuse to believe that he deliberately violated that oath? The whole circumstances show that when the minister stated, as reported on, the next page, that he had not discussed the matter with others, he meant others outside the cabinet council; and they who argue otherwise attribute to him a breach of what he believed to be his oath of office.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand that the right hon. member's contention is to the effect that the Minister of Labour under oath stated that the matter had not been discussed?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think that he said so. Does not the hon. member agree that the Minister of Labour never intended to say that the matter never was discussed?


Lucien Cannon: Knowing my right hon. friend so well, I would rather not give an answer just now.
Mr. MBI'GHEN: That is the safest course, perhaps. I stated very clearly what I thought the minister wished to convey. I do not think that the minister wanted to leave that impression at all; if he did then he is guilty of something which I think is worse than even what he is charged with by the hon member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). I do not think he violated his oath, but in view of his own statement he did violate it, if those who have spoken in his defence are right in their contention. Let me quote from the evidence. The conversation with the Deputy Speaker had been under review-this conversation which referred to the Home Bank as a lame duck, the nearest approach to the specific that was brought out in evidence. Then the evidence continues:
Q. And after getting information from Mr. Gordon did you get any further information?-A. No.
Q. You say "No"?-A. No.
Q. Of any kind or description-or anywhere?-A. Not that would form my opinion in regard to the matter.
Q. It may not have formed your opinion, but did you get any other information?-A. No one else had discussed the matter with me at all.
It is manifest what the minister meant; the only one he had discussed the matter with was the Deputy Speaker. And this was only two minutes after he had declared that he was unable by reason of his oath to divulge whether this subject was or was not discussed in the cabinet council by his cabinet colleagues. It is perfectly idle to argue that the Minister of Labour went on oath one minute and swore that if he said a word as to whether or not the matter was discussed at the cabinet meeting he would be violating his oath, and that the next minute he would step right forward and violate that oath as he understood it by stating that the matter had not been discussed. The minister meant nothing of the sort. The circumstances show that he never intended to convey such an impression; and those of us at least who do not wish to believe him guilty of perjury-must dismiss that view. Up to this point there is no denial at all. The facts show however that he proceeded post-haste to the bank and got his money out. These things are a clear indication, if we had not all these other facts as to the circumstances which would compel discussion that morning, that there actually was a discussion.
There are many other circumstances just as convincing as any I have cited and I am going to review them. I wonder, has it any significance that the minister withdrew $4,050? He had more than that on deposit; he had $4,150 odd on deposit at the very moment that he withdrew the amount I have stated. Now, the minister wtihdrew the money for the purpose of saving it. He admits that; there is no argument about it. Well, was he anxious lo lose the other hundred? Was he wanting to contribute that to the widows and orphans who had their deposits in the bank? Does anyone accept that explanation? The minister wanted to leave a little money in the bank. Why? The answer is, so that it would not appear as though he had withdrawn it to 3.ive it; he wanted to have at least one feature of the case which would disarm suspicion. Another circumstance worth observing is this:	I could not help thinking that the
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) had her mind centered on one very pertinent fact. Why did the Minister of Labour when he got his money out of the Home Bank walk right past the Royal Bank to his office and not forthwith deposit it? Is anyone present with a suggestion? Here is a case for the fertile mind.


Hance James Logan: He would not have to walk past the Royal Bank.
3660	COMMONS
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Arthur Meighen: It was just two or three doors away.


Hance James Logan: His office is west, and the
Royal Bank east, of the Home Bank.


Arthur Meighen: Well, half a block away, just a few doors. Why did he go to his own office with that money in his pocket? The hon. member has not offered any suggestion and he cannot.


Lucien Cannon: He was still afraid of
banks.


Arthur Meighen: The humour of my hon. friend never fails him. But the minister's confidence in banks was quickly restored as soon as he met his secretary in his office. On
entering his own office he instructs his secretary to take the money over and deposit it in her own name in trust. This evidence did not come from the Minister of Labour; it came out afterwards. It apparently was believed that when the minister made the statement that he had withdrawn the money after leaving the council, everyone would be satisfied and there would be no need of calling witnesses from the Royal Bank. But those witnesses were called and this evidence came out, that the money was deposited in the name of the minister's secretary in trust. Then came the minister at last with an explanation. I ask hon. members to keep in mind the fact that he said not a word about this in his own evidence in chief. The explanation given of this incident is this: The reason he put bis own money in the name of another was to enable that other to draw it out without a power of attorney. He wanted the money deposited in such a manner that the other person could draw it out. And, miind you, he could not withdraw it himself without a power of attorney. I ask the House to reflect whether that is a satisfactory explanation or not. I ask hon. members to inquire of their fellows how many in this House have their own personal and private funds in the name of a secretary, of a stenographer.


Robert Emmett Finn: Some are too cute.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I would think so. What I say is, and I say it in all charity, this explanation does not satisfy. This explanation is not an explanation at all. A man puts his money in his own name. If he trusts someone he may give that someone a power of attorney to cheque against his account, and he directs that attorney what to draw. But why would a man residing here put his money in the name of another person so that that person would be able to draw on his funds at her will, and he could not draw 
his own funds himself? He would have to have a power of attorney from his stenographer to draw his own money! There are other circumstances, but the significance of this cannot be and is not lost on any mind in this House. This method was adopted simply as a safeguard that the facts would not so likely get out.
But there are other circumstances too. I want hon. members to keep in mind that although the money was transferred to the Royal Bank on August 15, virtually nothing was drawn out of that account until October 1. The first time any publicity was given to the circumstance was, I think, in the month of March, 1924, some six months after the occurrence itself, some six months after the whole Dominion knew of the suffering entailed in the crash of the Home Bank. When the facts came out in the press of the money going right over to the Royal Bank, the very same bills rolling back the next morning through the clearing house into the Home Bank, those facts-those allegations rather, to be fairer, came out in Toronto-I do not think they were out the same day in Ottawa-then Mr. Murdock is interviewed by a reporter of the Ottawa Journal. The reporter did not give evidence because Mr. Murdock admitted the facts. He was asked if he was the man, and he answered " yes." His explanation, and the only one, was that he drew out the money in the ordinary course of business to pay on a house. Mr. Murdock was not then on oath. I ask hon. members of this House if they think he told the truth in that statement.


Hance James Logan: Certainly he did.


Arthur Meighen: He took the money out to pay on a house?


Hance James Logan: On a mortgage which was not due until October 1.


Arthur Meighen: Why, the hon. member says Mr. Murdock took the money out to pay on a mortgage. Mr. Murdock says on oath now that he did not, that he took it out to make it safer in another bank.


Hance James Logan: He took it out to make it
safer and to eventually pay off a mortgage on his house. Why don't you be fair?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, he took it out that it might be safer in another bank because he needed the money to pay on a house. Would it be any different if he needed the money to pay on something else? I suppose if he did not need it to pay on a house he would have left it where it was? How absurd! The

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
whole house idea was a shield put up to cover the withdrawal. The house had nothing on earth to do with the withdrawal of his money. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) knows it. If he wanted the money later to pay on another debt would he not have withdrawn it just the same? The withdrawal of the money was to make it safe. That is what he said. The simple fact is that he did not pay it until October 1.


Hance James Logan: When the mortgage became due.


Arthur Meighen: Yes; but this is all beside the point, it does not affect the issue at all. The fact is he did not pay a dollar on the house until October 1, although he protected the money on August 15. Was it frank, was it truthful on his part to tell the public that he was withdrawing the money from the Home Bank to pay on a house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was it not a
fact that the Minister of Labour at the time was expecting to make a trip to the West and be absent from Ottawa about the time the payment on his house would become due, and that this was his reason for removing the money as he did and leaving it in the name of his secretary who, being in Ottawa while he was absent, would be able to make the payment when it became due?


Arthur Meighen: That is not in evidence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
minister's statement to me.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps he did. I do not like this habit of the Prime Minister of fetching in evidence second hand from somebody else. But even if all that was stated in his evidence, why could he not leave his cheque to be payable when the payment became due, or why could he not send the cheque from where he was? I wonder if the Prime Minister has his money in the name of some secretary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of
fact, my secretary is the only one who has had my bank book for the last two years.


Arthur Meighen: So has mine, but the
bank book is in my name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
seen mine for the last two years.


Arthur Meighen: Whose name is it in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In my name.


Arthur Meighen: I should think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My secretary has a power of attorney to draw on my account.


Arthur Meighen: Very good, that is the
way Mr. Murdock's was before. The Prime Minister has no intention of changing that, has he? If the Prime Minister wants to pay anything on a house he would not have any very great trouble, I suppose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes he would.


Arthur Meighen: If he has money in his
account he would not have any trouble. What a paltry excuse to give to the Prime Minister, that he wanted the account in the name of his secretary so he could easily pay money on a house on October 1! Why this is only added evidence against the minister. To tell that to his chief is simply adding to the evidence of his guilt. The conduct of the minister from the beginning is just the conduct of a man who knew he had done something which he should not have done. Right from the moment that he got the money out, if he felt it was something he should have done 11 p.m. and was quite right in doing, he would not have gone to his desk first in his office, farther away, he would have gone to the Royal Bank right beside him and put the money there. There is other evidence still, although I do not attach the importance to it that some do. In his evidence he stated clearly that " other circumstances developed" that day which brought t'he contemplated withdrawal to a head. Is it conceivable that he would not have told what they were, if they did not take place in council?
But there is other evidence more important still. Here are facts which I know will sink into the minds of any one who has ever had to do with a trial of any kind. If this matter never was discussed in council on August 15, it was within the power of his colleagues to have cleared Mr. Murdock in five minutes without any violation of their oath at all. The fact of evidence not coming forth which if innocence existed is available to prove innocence, is always taken in a court of law as the very best evidence of guilt. Does anybody suggest that if the matter of the Home Bank had never been discussed at that council meeting on the morning of August 15, there was anything in the oath of any minister to prevent him saying so? Nothing could be more absurd, nothing could be more ridiculous unless it be to talk about anybody being forbidden to tell who goes to council, or when council gets out. Those things are perhaps still more grotesque. I do not care

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
what Judge MeKeown said. He did not give any ruling anyway, for the matter never came before him for consideration. He was just asked whether argument in council could be given publicity to, and he very properly said no, it could not. Then incidentally he was asked, "Could they say who was present?" and he said, "I don't think that could be given in evidence." Still if he had been doing any thinking he would not have said it. 1 do not like to refer even to what was purely an aside by the judge as ridiculous, but hon. members will on a moment's reflection agree that such an aside is ridiculous. In the British cabinet, where the oath is the same as here, there is announced every morning in the papers who was at council, and officially in books I have before me it is announced who was at council day by day; and any man, at least in our time, could stand right outside the council door and report to anybody who went into council. The oath of office does not say a word as to who went to council. The oath says you cannot give out what takes place in the deliberations of council. It has nothing in the world to do with facts as to who where there, much less as to facts as to when they went in and when they got out.
Now then, does any one suggest a minister cannot say what did not take place in council? I do not claim he is compelled to say what did not take place, but he is allowed to say it if he wants to. There is nothing in the world in the oath of office which precludes the minister from telling what did not take place in council. As a matter of fact, ministers do it all the time. They stand in this House, in all governments, and say that such and such a matter was not discussed. They even, indeed, say what was discussed, and it is no violation of the oath even then. It wias the practice in our time, and I do not doubt it is yet, to give to the Press a statement as to subjects that came up at council. This was very often the practice, and a proper practice, but you cannot go further and say what this member of council said about it, and this one, and that, or give out anything that is manifestly of a confidential nature. This is what is forbidden. Now does any one really suggest that a minister cannot say what does not take place in council? If I am asked: Did you discuss in council the South Sea bubble, am I breaking my oath if I say no? The thing is too ridiculous for assertion. So that every member of the government, if the fact was that this subject was not under review, was at absolute liberty to come before that committee and to 
declare before the committee: We never discussed the Home Bank in the forenoon at all; the subject never came up. And once he did so, he had gone very far to clear his colleague of suspicion in this matter. But not one of them did so. To their credit be it said they did not. Not one of them ventured even to intimate that the subject did not come up. What is the inference? I want to ask, could inference be any stronger, could circumstantial evidence be more complete? I venture to ask those having to do with the courts of trial in this country if they could imagine evidence which would be better or more convincing evidence of the facts stated in this allegation.
The circumstances are complete from beginning to end. The evidence, I know, convinces this House. The minister may have heard something. I am not now calling in question the honour of the Deputy Speaker, but I must say it seemed very, very strange to me that this information was delayed so long. It seemed very strange to me that Mr. Murdock did not say anything about it in March, very strange. It seemed strange that he said nothing about it in this House on the 22nd of May, but assuming it is correct, does anybody imagine that he went there on the noon of the 15th of August because of a statement about the bank being a lame duck on the 9th of August? Why, these general statements of rumour are current all the time. We have heard them about various banks. Everybody knew, anyway, that the Home Bank was one of our weaker banks. We all knew the Home Bank was not a strong bank of the nature of the larger banks, but there was nothing in what the Deputy Speaker said which disclosed any fact at all upon which any man would think of anything special in the way of danger existing at the time, and the fact that the minister never bothered about it, but let all the money stay there till the whole peril was reviewed right before his eyes on the morning of the 15th-the fact that he left it there till that time shows that he did not act at all upon anything of this casual indefinite character which he heard from the Deputy Speaker away back on the 9th.
Now, the minister's contention all through has been such as adds mightily to the web that binds him to this offence. The minister has not been frank with parliament from the beginning. The minister's duty when the facts were disclosed first, when the allegations were made, was to make a statement which was

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
true, a statement which was frank and full. It was his duty to make a statement by which he could abide; but he failed to do so. On the contrary, he made a statement which was not true at all. When the matter came up in this House, by all precedents-and the minister doubtless was warned by his colleagues; he certainly should have been-his duty then, if he was not guilty of this offence, was to enter a frank denial and make a plain statement to the House of the facts, so that those facts could be submitted side by side with these allegations to the committee; but he did not do so. He read two letters to show that he returned the money, and thereupon he sat down. Was that treating parliament correctly? Was that treating parliament the way an hon. member would whose conduct in this whole concern was without blame?
There is another circumstance to which I might refer, and this is the returning of the money itself. I ask hon. members to review that fact in all its bearings. When was the money returned? On the 14th of May, 1924, in response to a letter dated the 7th day of May of the same year. A part was returned then. To the fact that a part was returned I attach no significance at all; it is just the same to me as if he had returned all on the 14th. Now I want to know if the minister would have returned that money if his conduct in withdrawing it was in his own mind absolutely right? If he did not get any information as a member of the government, would he have returned that money? Why did he return it? He tells us he returned it because he did not want others of the Home Bank to suffer while he did not. Why was he of that mind on the 14th of May, and not of that mind on the 15th of the previous August? On the 15th of the previous August, on his own statement he drew it out so that he might save himself and others suffer more. Now, didn't he? On the 14th of May he wants us to believe he returned it so that he would suffer more and others suffer less. Is it reasonable? Why was he not of that mind on the 1st of May, the 1st of April, the 1st of March, the 1st of February, and all through the intervening six or seven months? Ah! he gets a letter on the 7th day of May from the liquidator, and he is told by the liquidator that facts are alleged to him which require him to ask that the money be returned; " Is it your will," the liquidator asks, " to return it or to fight the case before the referee?" Mr. Murdock was face to face with the legal battle if he did not return that money. He was face to face with a revelation of the facts in the courts of law before a judge, face
to face with a revelation of all the circumstances surrounding this withdrawal; and so face to face with that revelation, sure to come, Mr. Murdock returns the money. Now I ask hon. members, did he return that money because his heart was moved for the other depositors or because of that revelation which otherwise was to come? I appeal to the common sense, the cold reason and sanity of hon. members of this House. Was he affected by a different comparison on the 14th of May from any that ever affected him before? Or was he not affected by the threat of the liquidator, that if he did1 not return the money he would have to face and establish his bona fides before a court of law? Thereupon he returned the money. Therefore I say, to return it under those circumstances is still another cord which binds him to the offence embodied in this allegation.
Now this House owes justice to the hon. member for West Hastings just as much, and no more, as it owes justice to the Minister of Labour. It will not do for this House to treat these matters lightly. If the House goes on record as stating that in the face of all these circumstances a minister can so act, and be acquitted, then so much the worse for the conduct of cabinets and public men in the years to come; so much the worse for the honour and repute of parliament; so much the worse for the standing of our political institutions throughout the Empire and throughout the world. A man who enters the cabinet of this country must be governed by a standard consistent with our traditions. Such a man must be governed by a standard which appertains not to others; and when he falls from the standard he must accept the penalty. Hon. members will do themselves most justice will do this government most justice, and will do the minister himself most justice to pronounce a verdict in accordance with the facts.


Lucien Cannon: At this stage of the debate, and especially after the very complete summing up of the case by the right hon. leader of the opposition, my remarks will be very brief for two reasons: First, because most of the facts have been brought before the House; secondly, because the plea of the right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has shown beyond any doubt that the report of the committee should be upheld. I am quite sure that my right hon. friend is not aiming at such a result; but I think that when hon. members will have scrutinized his speech, when they will have weighed his arguments, they will come to the conclusion that the decision of the committee

Mr. Murdoch and Home Bank
on Privileges and Elections was a good one and should be upheld.
Questions of privilege are probably the most important questions that could come before us. They are generally questions where the honour of one of our fellow members is at stake. We may be divided on political grounds, we may differ in principle on public questions; but in the daily intercourse among fellow members even if we are political opponents we are all personal friends. Therefore, whenever the honour of a fellow member is at stake it is always with a sense of our responsibilty, with a very heavy feeling of our parliamentary responsibility, that we approach the question and give our views thereupon.
Not only are questions connected with parliamentary privileges questions of great moment and importance on account of the reasons I have just given, but there is this other fact to be borne in mind:	Since the
great upheaval of 1914 to 1918 the institutions which have governed the world have been menaced in so many directions and by so many means, that it is the duty of every public man in any country to try and do his very best to safeguard those institutions. Therefore, whenever a question arises here which might shake the confidence of the Canadian people in their parliament that question should be dealt with in a calm and dignified manner, and without any display of partisanship. If my hon. friend from West Hastings, (Mr. Porter) whom I have know for several years, had approached this matter in the spirit which I have indicated, if hon. members on the other side had conducted this question as it should have been conducted, and had taken. the attitude which they should have taken, they would have risen far above any party spirit. I am sorry to	say I	believe this whole
matter loses the importance that it might otherwise have had because it has been a political means adopted by the Tory party in this House to try and ruin the reputation of one of the ministers of the government. Had hon. members opposite risen in this House to uphold the privileges of parliament, if they had asked us to punish one of our fellow members whose conduct had been undignified, I would have been the first to support their contention and try and help them in the achievement of that object. But since the inauguration of this matter every word which has been uttered, every move which has been made, has shown that the object of hon. gentlemen opposite is not to safeguard the dignity of parliament but simply to murder politically one of their political opponents.

What was the reason for bringing this charge before parliament? How does it come that the hon. member for West Hastings has presented himself before you, Mr. Speaker, as the champion of parliamentary dignity? I have sat in this House for seven years, I have followed the actions of the hon. gentleman throughout the proceedings of parliament whenever 1 was present. He has been always a very pleasant, genial, agreeable fellow member, but never before have I seen him showing such zeal and ardour in protecting the dignity, honour and traditions of parliament. When did the hon. gentleman discover that his parliamentary honour was ruffled, that his dignity was slighted? When did the hon. gentleman discover that our parliamentary traditions were disregarded? The hon. gentleman discovered it wdien he thought he could bring before this parliament a matter which would hurt the reputation of the Hon. Mr. Murdock, a political opponent who had encountered the enmity of the Tory party on account of his having resigned from the Board of Commerce in 1921. It has been said that the reason why the Bourbon regime in France did not succeed after the downfall of Napoleon was that the Bourbons had not forgotten anything and had not learned anything. The Tory party in this country are the best Bourbon representatives we have. They never forget a man who has hurt the party; and the Hon. Mr. Murdock, having resigned under circumstances which were hurtful to the Tory party, is to be made the victim of their revengeful spirit.
Now, examining the proceedings of the committee I will advance first the proposition that as a matter of fact the charge laid by my hon. friend from West Hastings has not been proved. In this House we cannot proceed on suspicion. We cannot base a judgment on inferences. The leader of the opposition made an appeal to those who had experience in court rooms. I have had a certain experience in the courts, and never have I heard a lawyer of any standing at the bar in my province or in any other province asking that a prisoner be convicted on suspicion or on inferences. The evidence which has to be brought before a court- and this, Mr. Speaker is the highest tribunal in Canada-is positive evidence of facts. We have the proceedings before the committee. Every word that has been uttered by the witnesses has been printed. I challenge any member of this House, no matter on which side he sits, to show that it has been proven in any way that the Minister of Labour as a matter of fact has taken an undue ad-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
vantage of any knowledge he might have acquired a3 a minister of the Crown. We have to restrict ourselves and limit ourselves to the pertinent evidence lawfully adduced before the committee. All the witnesses who were heard were precluded from giving evidence as to what happened in council. When the decision was given by the chairman in regard to whether the witnesses could divulge the proceedings before council, my hon. friends who -it opposite to me were unanimous in saying that it was privileged-not only privileged in a qualified way, but absolutely privileged. Therefore we have no evidence whatever in the printed proceedings of what happened in council. No man in this House, no matter where he sits, or who he is, can say that it has been proven that the Home Bank matter was mentioned in council. There is no such evidence. Can we say, as we are asked to do by the leader of the opposition, "It is true there is no evidence but we can suppose." This is no matter of supposition. We have no right to suppose. We are the judges and we must weigh the evidence.
My second proposition is that even though every allegation of my hon. friend from West Hastings had been proven, even admitting for one moment that witnesses had come before the committee and told us that the Home Bank had been discussed, even admitting that after having heard the discussion among his colleagues, the Minister of Labour had 'left the cabinet chamber and gone to the bank to withdraw his money, and even admitting the whole case presented by the hon. member for West Hastings, I say that in law the charge which he has made is absolutely non-existent. There is no offence. A most extraordinary contention was brought forward by my hon. friend from York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson). He contended that although no evidence had been brought forward as to , what hgd happened in council, yet taking the evidence given in relation to the conversation between the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of Labour, if the Minister of Labour had spoken to the Deputy Speaker in his capacity of minister of the Crown, he had taken an undue advantage of his quality as minister, and he was therefore equally guilty. Let us, Mr. Speaker, consider the first proposition which is purely supposition, and then deal with the second proposition, which is totally absurd. Recently the Right Hon. Winston Churchill wrote a book about his experiences during the war. I understand that he sold his rights for an enormous sum. In that book he divulged happenings at council during the 232



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
war and published certain documents. Would my hon. friend contend for one moment that Winston Churchill should be expelled from parliament, if he were a member of parliament to-day?
Arthur Meighen: What on earth has that
to do with this case?


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend does
not see it-


Arthur Meighen: I do not.


Lucien Cannon: Then I am sorry. I
thought his legal intendment was much brighter.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think anybody
else sees it.


Lucien Cannon: Let us go further. The
ex-Prime Minister of England, Lloyd George, also published articles for enormous sums. He also has obtained financial advantage by using his knowledge acquired as a minister. That is a well known fact. His articles and publications are read by millions of people. Has any man in that Imperial House of Commons had the excessive sensitiveness of the member for West Hastings and raised the question as to his moral turpitude. Let us go further, Mr. Speaker. In the Marconi affair it was proved beyond any doubt that ministers of the Crown had taken advantage of the knowledge acquired as such to speculate in stock. Did the Imperial House ever raise that question? Lloyd George was mixed up in it. Lord Reading and others were also mixed up in it. Were these gentlemen ever expelled? They surely were not, because there was no offence, such as is claimed by ' the hon. member for West Hastings.
When gentlemen become members of the cabinet I understand they take two different oaths; the first as ministers, to the effect that they will administer their departments in the best interests of the public in general, and the second as privy councillors. The member for West Hastings has a right to ask the members of this House to condemn the Minister of Labour if he proves, first that his conduct was of such a nature that his departmental administration might have suffered. The hon. member certainly will not pretend that for one moment. If the department has not suffered, has the public interest suffered? Has it been shown here that the public in general has suffered through the conduct of the Minister of Labour? Has that been proved here to the satisfaction of hon. members? Has my hon. friend from West Hastings or his fellow-members in the House produced one



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
tittle of evidence to the effect that the conduct of the Minister of Labour was against the public interest in Canada? If, therefore, the Minister of Labour has acted in such a way as not to hurt departmental affairs with which he is entrusted, and if he has behaved in such a way as not to injure the public in general, we have no right to interfere. Where would be the offence?
I come now .to my third proposition. I stated first that in fact the case was not proven. I stated secondly that in law the case does not exist, and I state thirdly that the case is not practical, and we should not bother about- it in parliament. Who can go to the Minister of Labour andi complain of what he did? The depositors? My hon. friend from West Hastings is not a depositor. My hon. friend from York-Sunbury is not a depositor. I hope my right hon. friend, for whom I have great esteem, is not a depositor either.
Arthur Meighen: No, nor anywhere else.


Lucien Cannon: The same here. Then
what are we arguing about? Every cent that the depositors might have lost, Mr. Murdock has sent back, from a practical viewpoint, why are we wasting our time to-day? To have the hon. member for West Hastings show us that as he is getting older, he is getting wiser and purer, may be interesting, but it is costly. Has it been proven that Mr. Murdock took an undue advantage? That money in the bank was his property. He had a right to it. It did not belong to the shareholders. It did not belong to his fellow depositors. I't belonged to him and he went and got it. Supposing the hon. member for West Hastings owned a horse, and supposing he was a member of the municipal council and at a meeting of that council he heard that a thief had gone to his stall in the stable to steal his horse. He would go to the stable and, finding the thief going away with the horse, he would grab it. He would be doing only what he was entitled to do. Let us come down to ordinary common sense.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: Unfortunately, we have had very little from the other side. Leaving aside partisanship, can any man in this House, being a real man, not a politician, stand on his feet and seriously, without the risk of being laughed at, claim that he would not have done the same thing as James Murdock? I say that any man who would have done otherwise would not be fit to sit in this parliament.
I come to the most extraordinary contention of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, who [Mr. Cannon.J
says that when the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon) spoke to the Hon. Mr. Murdock, it was two political authorities meeting, and, therefore neither of the two should move on account of knowledge interchanged. It was not two men, two friends, meeting; it was my good friend the Deputy Speaker meeting the Minister of Labour. Therefore, if Mr. Murdock knew from the Deputy Speaker at that time that there was something wrong with the Home Bank he should not have spoken about it, and if he did, he ought to be kicked out of this House! Supposing Mr. Speaker, that instead of talking about the Home Bank, the Deputy Speaker, after having spoken about business with Mr. Murdock, had said to him: "Look here, Murdock. I forgot, your house is on fire." Mr. Murdock would have had to stay in his seat until he had ceased to be a minister! If the Deputy Speaker, instead of talking about the Home Bank, had said: "Jim Murdock, it is pouring rain," if Mr. Murdock had gone out as a minister, he would have had to leave behind his overcoat and umbrella! Are we here in parliament going to believe such nonsense, or are we going to listen to such arguments and vote accordingly?
I come now to the most farcical feature of the whole affair. To-day we have been given a standard of political morality by people who have been begging in such matters for twenty or thirty years gone by. We are going to be told what is the honour, dignity and tradition of parliament by the Tory party! I have seen good comedies, but I do not regret not having gone to any show in Ottawa to-night. I have seen a better comedy right in this House-this Tory party, this old party which is practically crushed under scandal after scandal, the party to which belongs the Canadian Pacific scandal, the Mc-Greevy scandal, the Canadian Northern scandal, the War-time Elections scandal, the wartime scandals. Why did the hon. member for West Hastings, instead of dragging before the bar of this House the honoured name of the Minister of Labour, if he wanted to be sincere and to reform political morality in this country, not bring before the bar of this House and of public opinion his former leader, Sir Thomas White? If the hon. gentleman had exhibited the same standard of morality with the same strictness in the case of Sir Thomas White as in that of Mr. Murdock, instead of its being an honour for Mr. Murdock to resume his seat, something quite different might have happened to Sir Thomas White, and my hon. friend knows what I am referring to. The Tory party is going to tell us what political morality is!

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Arthur Meighen: Sir Thomas White is
not a member of this House. If the hon. gentleman is making a reflection on him, he should make it at least specifically. I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, but as an associate I do not know of any more honoured name that ever adorned the public life of Canada than that of Sir Thomas White.


Lucien Cannon: I know whereof I speak.
This was a Minister of Finance, amongst whose followers was the hon. member for West Hastings and who knowing the condition of the Home Bank, never moved, never did anything to save the depositors, a man who, as minister of the Crown, had the whole responsibility and who, after being a minister, became the lawyer of the same bank and received SI,500 for coming here to try to get a Liberal government to save from ruin a bank that he, as a minister, refused to interfere with, for what reason I do not know. The hon. member for West Hastings should find out from his friend himself. This is the party in front of us, the reformers, the moralists, the scrupulous people who, meeting the Hon. James Murdock, have to cross the street because they are afraid of being contaminated! The spectacle that we are being shown to-day is one at which the people of Canada will ha've a good laugh because it is a joke. It is ridiculous, not only on account of the party, but on account of the leader of that party. I was listening to my right hon. friend, for whom I have great consideration; but when my right hon. friend started talking about morality, if it had not been for the honour, dignity and traditions of this House, I might have burst out laughing. Here is a gentleman who in 1917 did things of such a nature that to translate them he used language that nobody knew in Canada. Are we going to hear from this gentleman what political morality should be?


Arthur Meighen: I would advise the hon.
member to have some regard for the truth. The hon. member now is stating what he must know to be untrue. I suppose he refers to a miserable filibuster of the late hon. member for Cape Breton which failed about as ignominiously as anything ever did in this House, an allegation which not only he failed to prove but which was absolutely denied and which turned out to be based wholly on a forgery.


Lucien Cannon: Is my right hon. friend
in a position to tell us what language the telegram was written in?
232*


Arthur Meighen: I had nothing to do
with the telegram at all. The signature to it was not mine. There was no signature except initials, and they were not mine, they were never written with my authority, and I knew nothing about the matter. The hon. member knows that.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentlemen's secretary no doubt had power of attorney.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest to the
hon, member that he adhere to the issue if he has anything to say about it.


Lucien Cannon: I am sure my right hon.
friend is not very well pleased to have the issue enlarged with himself included in it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have detained the House long enough.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Go on.


Lucien Cannon: Let me sum up the case
thus:	First, the facts do not bear out the
charge in law; secondly, there is no charge; in the third place, there is no practical advantage in discussing the matter; fourthly, it is ridiculous and absurd for our friends opposite to presume to teach us anything touching public morals. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say Ithat this incident is to be regretted. Our friend who sits on this side (Mr. Murdock) has been out of the House for a considerable time; and not only has he been absent from the House, but in his own home I am sure that much anxiety must have prevailed by reason of the very hard conditions under which the Tory party conducted this investigation. Let us hope that this will be the last instance of excessive partisanship.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: I hope the hon. gentleman will take this matter seriously; it will do him a whole lot of good.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am still thinking of you.


Lucien Cannon: Let us hope that should
political warfare continue it will at least stop at the door of private life and before the sanctuary of family ties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This whole matter has
been so ably and fully reviewed that it would be short-sighted, indeed, to attempt in any way to go over the ground which already has been so fully and comprehensively traversed. However, I should not like the debate to con-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
elude without saying a word or two as to the significance of the decision we are being asked to make. As has been mentioned, it is not only the character and the good name of an hon. member of this House that are at stake in the report which the committee on Privileges and Elections have brought in and which we are being asked to pass upon; there are also involved the honour, the dignity and the traditions of this parliament. We are called upon to consider very carefully principles of which account should be taken in judging this matter. I shall not attempt to give views of my own as to the principles that should govern the House in coming to its decision, but I shall refer to one or two authorities whose names are greatly respected and whose opinion should be respected in reference to the judging of matters of privilege and personal reputation of members of parliament.
In 1891 a charge was brought against an hon. member of this House who was a minister of the Crown. The charge, which was a very serious one, was to the effect, not, that while he was in office as a minister, but that previously as a private member of the House, he had had an interest in a government contract and had profited materially from the fruits of that contract. That was the charge that was brought against him and which the government of the day was being asked to investigate. In answer to the request for an investigation, no less a parliamentarian thaD Sir John Thompson, who a little later led the party which my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Meighen) leads at the present moment, gave his views to the House as to the principles which should govern in determining a matter of this kind. I shall read one pertinent paragraph, I think hon. members will recognize in a moment wherein it bears upon the question we are considering. Sir John Thompson said, as reported in Hansard of September 23, 1891, volume 3, page 5946:
I am willing to treat this motion coming now, as if it were a motion placed on the order paper and reached in due course, and I shall ask the judgment of the House upon it with regard, not to any technical rule of order, but to the decision that the House should come to as the judge of its own privilege, and the judge of its own jurisdiction; feeling sure that the House will be careful to keep in mind the cardinal principle laid down from the time that the privileges of members and the privileges represented by members came to be appreciated-the cardinal principle that the House has power, where members have been guilty of a positive crime, or have offended against the laws and regulations of the House, or have been guilty of fraudulent or other disgraceful acts which proved that they were unfit to exercise the trust which their constituents had reposed in them, and unfit to continue to associate with the other members of the legislature;-to exercise its control: but remembering, too, the cardinal

principle which runs side by side with it and is of equal va-lue for the preservation of the liberty of constituencies and of members, that it is not for the House in the exercise of that jurisdiction to create a new disability or to enquire into the private transactions of members of the House.
That was the view Sir John Thompson took of how parliament should consider its rights and its duties in discussing matters affecting its honour and traditions; he held that it was not for parliament to create a new disability or to inquire into the private transactions of members of this House. I ask hon. members whether, the particular act to which the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has referred, falls into any category other than that of a matter in the nature of a private transaction, an action which, as the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) has just pointed out, was one that concerned wholly and exclusively the minister's own property. The minister was dealing as an individual with property that was exclusively his own in a transaction which was entirely a personal and private one. It was not a public transaction or concerned with any public matter, it was altogether personal and private with respect to property which belonged exclusively to the hon. member concerned. Now, that is true wholly irrespective of where the hon. member got the information, how he got it or any question of the kind. Are we at this time in interpreting the principle of upholding the honour and traditions of parliament, to declare that in so doing it is part of the duty of parliament to inquire into the private transactions of a member of the House with respect to a matter which relates itself en-*triely to his own private business?
May I cite one other authority, also greatly respected, the late Dalton McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy who was recognized as of independent judgment in public matters said, as will be found at page 5961 of Hansard of the date I have already quoted:
I think my hon. friend will admit that when the hon. member for South Lanark sits here under the writ which called on the people of South Lanark to return their representative, it does not lie with this parliament to turn out that representative and disfranchise that constituency except under the law, under the constitution, or under precedent which any man can cite.
Let me repeat:
It does not lie with this parliament to turn out that
representation-
And that is the effort of hon. gentlemen opposite-so to defame the good name and honour of the Minister of Labour that it will be impossible for him longer to sit in this House.
-and disfranchise that constituency except under the law.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
And they propose to do that, although it is admitted in this case that no law has been violated. If any has been violated, will my hon. friend or any other gentleman opposite tell us what that law is?
-under the constitution.
Where under the constitution has the hon. member offended in any particular with respect to any charge that has been made against him? Had he violated his oath of office as a minister of the
12 midnight Crown it might have been stated that under the constitution, he was liable to be censured or expelled from this parliament because the oath of a cabinet minister may well be regarded as a part of the constitution under which our parliamentary government is carried on. But there is nothing under the constitution which has in any way been violated by the hon. member with respect to the charge which has been brought against him.
-or under precedent which any man can cite.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have not cited a single precedent applicable in this case, which would justify the dismissal from or censure by this House of the Minister of Labour in connection with the transactions which are being discussed. If we were to take the attitude that hon. gentlemen opposite would like us to take, we would be establishing a new precedent. Now, we have responsibilities in maintaining the honour and traditions of this House, not merely with respect to the observance of precedents already established, but also with respect to establishing new precedents. The hon. member who has made the charge against the minister and who has brought in this amendment says that when the Minister of Labour talked with the Deputy Speaker in his office and was there told that the bank was about to fail, and acted on that knowledge, that of itself proves the charge. If we support the amendment which is before the House we are establishing that as a precedent. Will any hon. member say that we should make it an obligation upon members of the House and ministers of the Crown that, with respect to their own private affairs, they are not to be permitted to exercise the same prudence or the same discretion that they would be expected to exercise as private individuals? A minister of the Crown makes a good many sacrifices in the public interest that he may give his entire time and attention to public affairs. But I submit that it is going very far to suggest that a minister of the Crown must not, in that capacity, exercise the same prudence with respect to his own property and his own family as he would be expected to exercise as a private individual.
Now I ask hon. members if they disagree with that view. If they do not disagree with it, how can they, regardless altogether of where the Minister of Labour may have obtained the information which led him to act with respect to his own property as he did,'-how can they, I say, assert that he has violated some obligation as a minister of the Crown and thereby has violated the honour, the dignity and the traditions of this House? That, it seems to me. is a broad principle we are called upon to consider, and I submit that members should in this matter exercise just the same reasonableness and fairness in forming their judgment as they would in regard to any other matter which may come before them for consideration.
Speaking of these matters of honour and dignity and tradition, there is a motto with which, I think, we are all more or less familiar; it is a motto which finds its place on the royal coat of arms, it is a motto which we have learned to respect from our earliest days-honi soit qui mal y pense; let evil be to him who evil thinks. We can start out with the assumption that the hon. Minister of Labour is a dishonest man, that he has criminal instincts, that his purpose in public life is to enrich himself; or we can start out with the belief-which those of us who know him best hold in strongest measure-that he is among the most scrupulously honest of men and the most fearless and chivalrous. What has been the record of the Minister of Labour? He started life with very little in the way of personal means, with very little assistance at his command, but by his industry, his integrity, and his honesty he won the confidence of his fellow working men, not in tens or in hundreds but in thousands over the whole of this continent. He was entrusted with part control of the trust funds of the great organization of railway trainmen of which he was one of the honoured officers and leaders. When, some few years ago, he entered the service of this country as a member of the Board of Commerce he drew a salary from the government which meant a great deal to a man of his limited means. He resigned that office of emolument and refused to draw another dollar as salary when, as he told the government of the day, he found it impossible to discharge his duties in the interests of the public, because of the restrictions placed upon him. Hon. gentlemen opposite who wished Mr. Murdock at their bidding +o occupy an office and draw a

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
salary, but at the same time not carry out the duties of that office, or serve the public as his position demanded, now seek to drive him out of public life. Instead of attempting to drive Mr. Murdock out of public life, those who wish to see honest and fearless men in public life should do their utmost to retain Mr. Murdock in office.
My right hon. friend takes the actions of Mr. Murdock and interprets them all in his own way, he starts with the assumption that there has been some criminal intent from the outset; in imagination, he follows him from the council chamber, watches him go to the bank, notes whether he turns to the right or to the left, and finally discovers that he allows his secretary to deposit in another bank the money withdrawn from the Home Bank, and attributes this last action to a design to conceal what was done. Mr. Murdock is the last man in this world to conceal anything. The difficulty sometimes is to prevent him from saying the things that he wants to say in the freest and readiest way. Hon. members opposite have been saying, "Why didn't he answer the question: Did you withdraw this money on information other than that which you received from Mr. Gordon?" Let me ask them, why didn't they ask him that question, why didn't my hon. friend who laid this charge against Mr. Murdock, ask him that question? The reason they did not ask it was because they knew Mr. Murdock's answer would be "no", and the moment they gave him an opportunity of making that direct reply all their suspicions would be publicly dispelled and they would no longer he able to weave a case on purely circumstantial evidence.


Arthur Meighen: If the Prime Minister
thinks we did not ask him, will he tell us why Mr. German did not put the same question to his friend?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. German
asked Mr. Murdock the circumstances under which he took the money out, and he said he got the information from Mr. Gordon and acted on that information. And Mr. German believed him. Mr. German was not filled with the suspicion of mind and nature which characterizes my right hon. friend. Moreover, when the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) was speaking before the committee he used the following words: I read from the proceedings of the Committee page 138:
The onus is on him, and he is convicted, if I may use the word, by his refusal to give us particulars of this matter, nor to say, and his counsel would have

been very alert to have him say, that it was not through an official communication. It would not be disclosing anything that took place in council, if he were to say "It was not through any official communication that I withdrew the money. But there has not been one word of the minister's that has touched upon that point. I say he has carefully refrained from mentioning that, when his duty was to disclose fully and freely his position in the matter.
Hon. Mr. Murdock: Put him 'back on the stand and ask him those questions.
That- is what Mr. Murdock said. Try to conceal information? Fail to give the committee an answer to any question they wished to put? No, Mr. Speaker. He said: Put me back and ask me the question whether I took that money out on information that I got from any official source, and I will answer it for you. And yet these gentlemen to-night who would try to drive him out of public life, not one of them would ask that he should be put back on the stand and be given a chance to answer that question.


Arthur Meighen: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say that that was long after the case closed and during argument, and that the hon. member who was chairman of the committee told Mr. Murdock -I have not his exact words'-to keep quiet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just exactly
what I was saying. The trouble with Mr. Murdock is that he is always ready to tell everything.


Arthur Meighen: At the wrong time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was open to any member of the committee, at any time, to put him back on the stand, but that does not alter the fact, Mr. Speaker, that all the time he was on the stand not one of my right hon. friend's friends would ask him that question. They took good care not to ask him that question, knowing full well what the answer would be. Everyone now realizes that this is an inquiry on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, not of a character to help maintain the dignity and honour and traditions of this House, but rather of the nature of prosecution and persecution. For over a month the Minister of Labour has been denied his seat in this House in order that hon. gentlemen opposite might seek to make it appear before the country that in some way he was guilty of some serious offence.
The right hon. leader of the opposition tonight intimated that the government by allowing this matter to go to investigation had admitted that the facts upon which the inquiry was being based did constitute an offence which would violate the dignity and

Mr. Murdoch and Home Bank
honour and traditions of this House. We never admitted, never suggested anything of the kind. What we endeavoured to do was to give to hon. gentlemen opposite every opportunity that could be given to prove the serious charges that the hon. member for West Hastings had made. They have now had that opportunity, and not only have they not proved them, but the charges have been entirely disproved, and it is, I submit, best maintaining the honour and dignity and traditions of this parliament, when it is found that you are unable to prove charges, to admit in a free, ready and candid manner that you are glad to be able to report that having inquired into the matter you find nothing derogatory on the part of the minister affected, but that the charges made have not been substantiated. The fact is the honour, dignity and traditions of our parliament are so high that having searched through all the transactions of the years since this government has been in office hon. gentlemen opposite have only been able to find something of a character to which their suspicious minds have attached importance, and then they have not been able to prove the charges which they have made. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is best maintaining the dignity and honour and traditions of parliament to admit that candidly. This investigation has been made by a committee of this House appointed for the express purpose of taking evidence under oath in regard to the charges that have been made, and reporting upon the facts. That committee has reported, and the charges have been not only not proved, but entirely disproved. Let us, then, if we have regard for the honour, dignity and traditions of this House, hasten to support the committee and endorse its report.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had thought I would be able to get along without having to talk again to the House. So far as the speech of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) is concerned, there is no occasion to rise. Admiring him, as we do, as a stump orator and barn-stormer, he gave a wonderful exhibition to-night, and we all enjoyed it; but so far as having anything to do with this case, there was nothing in his speech to answer. We had an appeal to party prejudice, yes, an appeal to party prejudice and passion worked up to the last degree in respect to what ought to be a judicial function of this parliament.
The Prime Minister started out better. He really had an argument this time, but the trouble was he lost sight of it very, very soon. He had a pretty good argument. He took just about the bast argument he could
take in view of the fact that neither he nor one of his colleagues, called as they were before that tribunal, would state to the committee that the matter of the Home Bank's condition was not discussed in cabinet. He was on safe ground, therefore, when he did not deal with the facts but gave us the only defence he really is in a position to make. He gave us the words, for example, of Sir John Thompson, and the words of Mr. Dalton McCarthy. If myj right hon. friend had stopped there, it would have been a great deal better. If he had only had enough confidence in his own case and in his own argument to continue to appeal to reason instead of to passion, instead of appealing to party prejudice and the like, his subject would have been very much more befitting his high office. After all, is there any room for this kind of conduct in a Prime Minister who is really concerned with the honour and dignity of this House? Can nice questions of honour and dignity be dealt with in a flood of passion, loud language, and vituperation? It cannot be done at all. My right hon. friend would have done much better if he had rested upon his argument and had not made the declamation that he has made. Why, it is an admission that his case is such that it can only be answered by declamation, by stirring up prejudice. When declamation is attempted, it is an admission that the case cannot be answered on the facts. It is the old, old idea of doing everything that can be done to prevent anything like a decent consideration of what we have got before us, and it has gone on the whole time. We have had the same attacks made all the time. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, did you ever know the chairman of a committee, a. gentleman who in his position is supposed to act in a judicial manner on a question of this kind, come down here and fight through his report? That is what was done. Not only did he come down here and fight through his report, but he goes to the political lengths of making insinuations as to what would be done in other quarters. That is how this whole thing was done. Mr. Speaker, it is just as well sometimes that we keep our feet on the ground. That is not the kind of thing one expects, assuming that anything like fairness, propriety and a decent judicial attitude is to be maintained. I wonder what the right hon. the Prime Minister, the custodian of the honour and dignity of this House, thinks the actions of Sir Thomas White, what he did or did not do, have to do with the propriety of Mr. Murdock's conduct. Does my right hon. friend honestly think it has

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
anything to do with this case? He pounds his desk when that illustration is brought up but does he honestly think it has anything to do with this matter? He knows it has not. Does he honestly think that the question of the propriety of Mr. Murdock's conduct is met by making attacks on the Conservative party as to what happened at the time of the Canadian Pacific scandal and other matters? Does he honestly think that has anything to do with the rectitude of Mr. Murdock's conduct? This thing has degenerated into a farce, a perfect farce.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is only one of the scandals.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." Well, he has done his best and he has had his party do their best to preclude anything like a proper consideration of this subject. Now I am going to get down to where my right hon. friend talks business. He actually did talk business in connection with one argument. That was to the effect that nothing could be done with a man's private business, even though he happened to be a minister of the Crown. That is the effect, I think, of my right hon. friend's argument in that particular matter. He pointed out in the commencement of his remarks that questions relating to the honour of members of the House of Commons could not and should not be considered in the light of a new disability. I hasten to agree with my right hon. friend. Apparently he thought the only thing that ought to be considered would be a violation of the law and an offence against the constitution or an offence against a minister's oath.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not against a minister s oath but where there is no precedent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I will drop the point as to a minister's oath and take the case of violation of a law or an offence under the constitution. My right hon. friend says nothing should be done unless some precedent can be given for it. Proceeding from that point he argues that you could not inquire into a man's private business. Well, I am going to give my right hon. friend some precedents, and I am going in the first instance to lay down one or two propositions. First I submit, and my right hon. friend can object to it if he wants to, that no minister ought to engage in transactions which may bring his private interest or his private sense of obligation into conflict with his public duty.
[Sir Henry Drayton.j


Robert Emmett Finn: What is the ex-Minister of
Finance quoting from now? Is he laying that down as a principle or is he giving a quotation ?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend will allow me; just at the present moment I am putting this up to the Prime Minister. At present I am submitting a proposition.


Robert Emmett Finn: What is the proposition?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really think,
Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of my hon. friend are just as much in point on the issue here as anything that has been said from that side. If he wants to go on interrupting it takes less time than some of those speeches.


Robert Emmett Finn: Is the ex-Minister of Finance dealing with questions of law or of fact? If he is speaking as a lawyer let him keep close to his task. If he is speaking as ex-Finance Minister he is dealing with something he did not know very much about when he was in office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do you think,
Mr. Speaker that we can get on without any
more interruptions of this kind, or must we put up with them a little while longer. I am quite content to act in accordance with what the chair says.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is what I should like.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very well, we shall make another trial.


Robert Emmett Finn: Try again.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil, Bonaventure):: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I repeat, no minister ought to engage in transactions which may bring his private interest or private sense of obligation into contact with his public duty. My right hon. friend will find no statute relating to that; he will find no law that I know of.


Robert Emmett Finn: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Charles Marcil: An hon. member who has the floor cannot be questioned without his consent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister has had a bad effect upon the senior member for Halifax. As I was saying, I do not think my right hon. friend will find any statute for the proposition I spoke of a few minutes ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
precedent for that.	>
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes there is a precedent for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I admit all
the cases where precedents are given.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Furthermore, I
maintain that a cabinet minister should not make use of any special confidential information that comes to him in his capacity as a minister of the Crown.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
cannot use the information that comes to him in his position as a minister of the Crown for his own profit or advantage. My right hon. friend does not dispute the proposition that such is improper. I do -not say it is illegal but it is improper for a minister of the Crown to make use of information which he gets as such for his personal profit or advantage. My right hon. friend will agree that that proposition is covered by precedent. I am going to proceed a little bit further in the matter of precedent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it to a
man's profit to recover his own coat after it has been stolen from him? Is there not a great distinction between possessing the thing that is one's own and going out to recover something one has never possessed before?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am much obliged! for my right hon. friend's query; it gives me an idea as to what is in his mind. His position is that there is a distinction between hanging on to your own, even if otherwise you would have lost it, in the one case as against getting a profit in the other case. That is exactly the same distinction my right hon. friend made before but I thought he had abandoned it.
I thought he' had abandoned it when he allowed this committee to go, but my hon. friend sticks to it. I submit there is no more difference and no higher right of property in money deposited in a bank than there is in shares in a company. I do not think my right hon. friend would dispute that proposition. Further, if it be right to take advantage of information which you get for the purpose of saving money in a bank, it would also be right to take advantage of information you get to sell shares that you know are going to be worthless.


Mr. BUREAU:: Where is the information
got? That is the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has not been following this matter at all.


Jacques Bureau: I have.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think he
has been listening to campaign speeches. There is not very much trouble about the question as to where the information was obtained. My hon. friend knows where it was got all right.


Jacques Bureau: That is the gist of the
whole thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend was at the cabinet meeting on the morning of the 15th !he knows where the information was obtained. I do not know whether he was there. Yet again he says he could not tell. He could tell easily enough if nothing was said, and the answer could be given very, very quickly. In connection with this Marconi case which was referred to-


Robert Emmett Finn: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order. Are the proceedings of this House to be turned into a buffoonery, or have we any rights?


Charles Marcil: I have called the hon. gentleman to order several times, and I hope he will respect the ruling of the Chair.


Robert Emmett Finn: I certainly will, but my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition has been turning the House into a burlesque.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the Marconi case the charge was not disposed of at all in the way mentioned by my hon. friend. In that case there was an investigation as to whether or not a proper contract had been entered into with the post office authorities and the British Marconi Company, and the then Attorney General, Rufus Isaacs and the Master of Elibank, who are ministers interested with the Postmaster General, gave evidence before that committee, and it was found that in connection with that contract there was no impropriety and that the charges which had been made in connection with it were altogether wrong. Then it was stated in the House that six weeks after that contract was entered into shares were bought by the attorney general and by the Master of Elibank. The shares were bought long after the contract was entered into and the charge was made against them. What was the charge? Simply that the House is entitled to full information from its members. That was the whole charge, based upon the principle that as soon as anything comes up which calls in question in any degree at all
Mr. Murdock and Home Bank

the propriety of the conduct of a member it is immediately his duty to give a full disclosure of everything that has to do with it. The opinion of the Conservatives, the opinion of the Liberals and the opinion of everybody in the House was that as a matter of common honesty, as a matter essential to the proper carrying on of public business, lion, members must be frank in their disclosures to the House and tell everything they know.


Robert Emmett Finn: Why did not my right hon.
friend-


Charles Marcil: Order, order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are to have another interruption.


Robert Emmett Finn: Why did not my right hon.
friend-


Charles Marcil: I would remind the hon. the
senior member for Halifax that I have called him to order several times, and if he persists in these interruptions I will have to apply the rule.


Robert Emmett Finn: I can assure the hon. Speaker
that I will abide by the rules of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was the
absolute duty of all members to make full and free and frank disclosures of everything that had any connection with any matter that had to do with their personal honour or their conduct in the House, and although those shares were bought six weeks afterwards, and although the whole of that inquiiy had to do with private business, the matter was dropped on the ministers making the fullest and most ample apologies, the ministers saying that they were wrong and that that statement had to be made to the House. Does my hon. friend want any more precedents. He can find them here. I can give them to him at great length if he desires to have them, but he has already said that there was a precedent for the statement I have made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member is talking about the matter of speculating.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The right hon. Prime Minister is entirely wrong. That was not the offence. It was not what was considered in this case.


Joseph Archambault: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


Joseph Archambault: Did I hear the hon. member say there was an inquiry into the action of the attorney general, Rufus Isaacs and the other minister?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No I did not say so. I said there was an inquiry whether the original contract was properly let or not, and the matter came up incidentally. Here is the resolution, and the House will see how absurd the proposition is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was speaking about precedents for inquiries, and now the hon. member says there are no precedents.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am speaking about precedents which have to do with decency and the very matter my hon. friend was speaking about, matters which have to do with the decorum of the House. They need not be sent to a committee for inquiry. They can be dealt with by the House. The principles are the same, There is no use drawing a red herring over the trail. The principles are the same whether they ire considered in the House, as they were in this case altogether, or whether they are considered in committee first and in the House afterwards.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why did not
the hon. member adopt that method, instead of the process of a parliamentary inquiry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that there is very much difference.


Joseph Archambault: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: What were they accused of?


Joseph Archambault: The motion of Lord Cave was this:
That this House regrets the transactions of certain of His Majesty's ministers in the shares of the Marconi Company of America.
This motion was rejected. Is that not the fact?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we had better go on. The motion was a motion regretting the purchase of these shares, as I say six weeks after the contract. My hon. friend read that and stopped. There was absolutely nothing to show impropriety at all. The only thing shown in all these hundreds of pages is that there was not a frank, open disclosure to the House of the facts. My hon. friend stopped at a convenient point.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT; No.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Henry Lumley Drayton: The resolution
goes on:
And the want of frankness displayed by ministers in their communications on the subject to the House.


Joseph Archambault: And it was rejected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is, I think, wrong. The apology of the ministers was taken and, perhaps, I had better read the apology. We had better see what these accused ministers themselves thought just as to that one charge of lack of frankness. This is what the Attorney General said:
Let me not formulate rules, because nothing is more dangerous in cases of this character. Let me state the rule which I think is the one which I have been most in danger in breaking in reference to this matter. I should not state it as the hon. and learned gentleman stated it. I should not state it in those terms. I think, as I shall state it, that I shall command the assent of ail members of this House, and I think it imposes as high a test as you can impose. I certainly would say, first, not by any means exhaustive, that no minister should use any information which he obtains as a minister for the purpose of making private profit or of furthering his private interests.
I think my hon. friend agreed with that proposition or one very similar to it. Then again he goes on. I do not read solidly through, but he lays down this principle:
A minister should not place himself in a position which might reasonably expose him, in the opinion of fair-minded men, to the suspicion of corruption, even though his conscience is clear that in taking that position he is acting honestly and without a corrupt motive.


Joseph Archambault: Everybody admits that.


Mr. HEALY:: Where is the corrupt
motive?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What a trifling
admission? We have the query from the hon. member for North Essex:	Where is the corrupt motive?


Joseph Archambault: In this case?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have just
pointed out that it is not necessary to have any corrupt motives. The question of corrupt motives has nothing to do with the matter.


Albert Frederick Healy: Why refer to it? '


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know my hon. friend is hard to please. I am reading from a report that goes this length, and hon. gentlemen cannot get it into their heads that we are not treating this whole matter as if it was a criminal case, as if Mr. Murdock ought to be behind the bars. This is no criminal charge at all. The whole question is whether or not, according to the specified traditions of
parliamentary life, this conduct is becoming or not. We can have unbecoming conduct without the slightest corrupt motive. I have never for one minute urged that you could not, but I am pointing out how different things are sometimes. This is what the other person charged says:	He does not want any act to
be turned up such as the chief custodian of the honour of this House wants turned up, before he knows that the honour and dignity of this parliament is affected. He says this:
A minister should not place himself in a position *which might reasonably expose him, in the opinion of fair-minded men, to the suspicion of corruption, even though his conscience is clear that in taking that position he is acting 'honestly and without a corrupt motive.
I have formulated that rule so that I might place it as the highest test that a minister could impose upon himself.
That is what one defendant in this case says his standard is.


Joseph Archambault: I cannot understand how my hon. friend can compare this case with the Marconi case. Is it not a fact that in the Marconi case Mr. Rufus Issacs and Mr. Lloyd George had bought shares of the Marconi Company of America which was a subsidiary company to the Marconi Company of England?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, entirely
separate.


Joseph Archambault: And the government was entering into a contract with the Marconi Company of England. Is that not a fact?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, my hon.
friend is wrong. In the first instance the contract with the British Post Office was made six weeks before this purchase of shares was made.


Joseph Archambault: Not completed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Joseph Archambault: If my hon. friend will look at the report he will find that it was not completed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the
evidence of the attorney general. Besides that it was also shown that they were separate and distinct corporations.


Joseph Archambault: Yes, but subsidiary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, they were not subsidiary.


Joseph Archambault: The progress of
the American company Was in relation of the progress of the . English company.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
doubt that if one succeeds the other is likely to make a success. I will agree with that at once. I would also point out though that it was shown and admitted by everybody against the attorney general and the Master of Elibank that there was nothing wrong with that purchase. What was being urged against them all the time was thlat they had not made an honest disclosure to the House. If there is any doubt about that, I will go back and read the statements of the mover. Take for example at page 407:
In the second place-
And this is what was pressed more than the first a good deal.
they showed a lamentable lack of candour in their dealings not only with this House, but with the public.
Mr. Rufus Isaacs says exactly the same thing.


Joseph Archambault: I heard my hon. friend state that the shares were bought after the contract had been entered into. If my hon. friend will look into the report he has now, he will find out that the tender was accepted from the Marconi English Company on the 7th March, 1911; that the contract was completed in July of the same year, and that on the 9th March, two days after the contract was accepted by the British government, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs sold shares to Mr. Rufus Isaacs, his brother, and Mr. Lloyd George.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The evidence of Rufus Isaacs is at page 435 where he says that he purchased the American Marconi shares six weeks after the British Marconi tender had been accepted.


Joseph Archambault: But the contract was only completed in July.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know about that.


Joseph Archambault: That is very important.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The tender
was accepted. The contract was merely a matter of form. If the Prime Minister is correct in saying that the private affairs of members cannot be considered, he is absolutely denying the efficacy of the principles he believes in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. member believe that the obligation not to make private gain carries with it the obligation to incur personal loss?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It involves this necessity, that a minister cannot escape personal loss by reason of the obligation. It certainly does that. For the life of me I cannot see any difference between a member making $500 out of the knowledge that he has gained as a minister, and his using knowledge^gained in that capacity for the purpose of saving a loss of $500. Either way it is exactly the same. And if the Prime Minister is right in saying that you cannot consider the private transactions of a member there is no good in having any of these principles at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never said
that; I simply quoted Sir John Thompson and Mr. McCarthy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but the
Prime Minister was quoting for a purpose. He attacked the mover of this resolution for bringing the matter up and going into the withdrawal by the Minister of Labour of hi? deposit from the Home Bank, and he certainly made the point that we had no right to consider any member's private affairs. Well, if we have not that right there is no use in having these rules, and without such rules any one can speculate with information he obtains in his capacity as a minister. If we have not these rules budgets may be anticipated and all sorts of improprieties may occur.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I implied nothing of the sort.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the Prime
Minister says he does not say that, he is in effect withdrawing his argument against taking the matter up on the ground that it is an inquiry into the private business of the Minister of Labour. He cannot hold both views. I agree that the position of the Prime Minister is a difficult one; as pointed out by Mr. Asquith, m similar circumstances, he is in a peculiar degree the keeper of the conscience and the standards of honour of the House. Does he not really think that it would be very much better if he would even at this late date counsel his colleague to admit what the facts are and to say that so far as he was concerned he d'id not think they amounted to anything? Would it not be better to do that than for the government to put itself in this position? The government has to do certain things with this coat of whitewash; they will lay down precedents with it. Let us see what kind of precedents they will establish for the future with this coat of whitewash.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Joseph Archambault: We will buy it
from Mr. Ballantyne.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The money was returned. Why? It was returned after a threat of legal proceedings, and it is idle to suggest that such a threat had not to do with it. No one will believe it except perhaps a very Close political friend who might have some object in believing it. No one would believe that the man that took the trouble to go through all that has been gone through here did so just for the purpose, months and months afterwards, of wholly voluntarily returning the money. It was returned because a demand was made; and what was the justification for that demand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not returned for that reason ait all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: May I point
out that the Prime Minister is not asking a question but is attempting to make a speech? I do not intend to yield the floor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member was making a statement which was untrue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Prime Minister has no right to say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a right to say it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have every
right to argue what every man with common sense knows the facts to be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member can make any argument he likes, but he must not misrepresent things.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend has no right to say that I am making a misstatement; I can say a good deal in reference to misstatements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Say all you
wish to.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do ndt believe in that sort of nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want my hon. friend to make any misstatements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
Prime Minister doing on the floor at the present time while I am addressing the House; is he copying his supporters in the back
seats?


Joseph Archambault: Come back to
earth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why was that
money returned, I ask?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From a high
sense of honour and an obligation on the part of the minister to his colleagues.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was returned because he was honest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is why he took it originally of course-because he was honest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The money
was returned from a sense of honour which the hon. gentleman seems unable to appreciate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Am I to be bombarded with interruptions from all quarters? There seems to be a private caucus on the opposite side, but I do not blame hon. gentlemen for people in their position are usually perturbed. I ask, why was the demand made for the return of the money? The liquidator is not interested in the Minister of Labour's honour as a member of this House; he is not interested in that question at all. The liquidator is interested in seeing that there shall be no offences in the way of frauds and undue preferences. That is what 'he is interested in. Just see what kind of precedent this government is going to make: It is compatible with the dignity and the honour of parliament for members to be guilty of fraudulent and unjust preferences!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my hon. friend whether he thinks I should be expected to sit here and listen without protest to accusations against a colleague who is unable to be present by reason of the action of my hon. friend's party, when those accusations are entirely false?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Prime Minister knows he has no right to make that statement; if the rules are fair and equitable they should apply to the government just as well as to the opposition. But why did not the Prime Minister get up when he was a witness and give the kind of evidence he wants to give now? Why did he not when he was in the box swear as he could have sworn that there was not one thing said about the Home Bank at that meeting?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I answered
every question asked me and hon. gentlemen opposite had all the privileges they could desire in the matter of examination.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have heard a good deal about .the ruling of the chairman. Do we want to go back to that ruling? Was the ruling a farce entirely, and were we

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
to pay no attention to it? No; this was to be a sanctuary; there was not to be one word said about it. And now we are taunted because we did not ask questions on the point.


Joseph Archambault: Does the hon.
gentleman doubt the soundness of Chief Justice McKeown's own ruling?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt that my hon. friend thinks he is making a valuable suggestion.


Joseph Archambault: I am not suggesting anything; I am asking a question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a question that would never have occurred to me. But the Prime Minister is asking why we did not put these very questions that were ruled out of order, and when he does so the matter becomes of some importance. The Prime Minister says here, when he is not under oath, things that he would not say when he was in the box.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order The hon. gentleman has no right to say thai when the Prime Minister gets up in this House and makes a statement he is saying what is false.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say
that.


Jacques Bureau: That the right hon. gentleman would not say under oath what he says in the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: That means that you are
lying when you say in the House what you refuse to say under oath.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
submit that what I stated is absolutely in order. I did not say what the hon. gentleman imputes to me. I simply stated what the fact is that the statement made here to-night, if I understand my right hon. friend right, is not to be found in his evidence.


Jacques Bureau: That is not what you said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me draw
my hon. friend's attention to the fact that he is speaking about the question of Mr. Murdock returning the money. That was not a matter that had anything to do with cabinet proceedings at all. No question of cabinet privilege was ever urged in connection with it. That is the question which he said I refused to say anything about. I was not
TSir Henry Drayton.3
asked the question. Had I been asked I would have answered that the conversation I had with Mr. Murdock on that subject was not a conversation in the cabinet at all; he was giving me his own reasons for what he did.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Supposing we
start again-


Jacques Bureau: I want a ruling on the
point of order.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for West
York has put the point of order beyond dispute; he has given an explanation which I consider is satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: It might be a point of
order also to inquire how it is that the Prime Minister is always privileged to assert an untruth against the member for West York.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to that statement, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. leader of the opposition has no right to say that I ever stated an untruth about the member for West York.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently my right
hon. friend is not able to understand English at this late hour. What I stated was that the Prime Minister was continually privileged to assert an untruth against the member for West York.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has never
asserted an untruth.


Arthur Meighen: He attributed an untruth to the hon. member.


Charles Marcil: I think if the right hon.
Prime Minister insists, the right hon. leader of the opposition should withdraw that assertion.


Arthur Meighen: I have nothing to withdraw. I have stated what is absolutely correct, that the Prime Minister to-night has been repeatedly asserting that the member for West York stated an untruth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is different.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what I
said at the beginning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is another
twist and turn of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It is no twist or turn.
I said the Prime Minister was asserting an untruth against the hon. member for West. York.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw. Question.


Charles Marcil: Order. We are not able to
carry on the debate with these interruptions.


Mr. CAHILL:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
object to the remark of the member for Pontiac. I am subject to the rule of the Chair.


Frank S. Cahill: You seem to have to be
called to order quite often.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has not any right to say that. I have not so far been called to order.


Frank S. Cahill: You withdrew just now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to point out to my right hon. friend that he is making what I do not think is a very safe precedent for parliament to follow. He asserts that it is quite right for ministers to obtain a fraudulent preference. The report itself covers that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend making that as statement or as argument?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am making
it as argument, but I am also making it as statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend may argue as much as he likes, but I ask him to be careful in the statements he makes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is my
right hon. friend threatening about now? What is this nonsense? What is the trouble with my right hon. friend?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not intend to sit here and have my hon. friend attribute fraud or anything of the kind to any action of mine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I may have to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He may argue as much as he likes, but any time he makes a statement of that kind I shall not let it pass.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I point out to my right hon. friend that in connection with this very report he will find the following: The committee finds that Honourable James Murdock did nothing in connection with the withdrawal of such
money from the Home Bank contrary to his obligation as a minister of the Crown, or in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity, and traditions of parliament.
That is the report. Now, the money was paid back after demand had been made for its return as money received under circumstances which made it a fraudulent preference. Does my right hon. friend realize that he is asking this House to set the seal of approval upon that sort of thing? We might just as well know what we are doing. I want my right hon. friend1 to think this over. I am addressing myself to him, not because I suppose for one minute that he is in a frame of mind to listen to me, Mr. Speaker, but because, after all, he is the chief repository of the dignities and traditions of parliament. I am asking him to consider whe-1 a.m. ther he thinks the statement given by his colleague the hon. Mr. Murdock to the newspapers "that the withdrawal of the money was made in the ordinary course of business for the purpose of making a payment on a houtee " was correct? My right hon. friend knows it was not correct; and Mr. Murdock's own evidence shows that it was not correct. Does my right hon. friend think that that is not an offence within the principles laid down in the Marconi case? There the question was not false information, it was the withholding of information. Here we have information which admittedly was false.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend, having
read the proceedings, knows that the question was as to whether the persons concerned used information they had received as ministers to make money by speculating on the stock market. It was not a question of withholding information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite wrong. There were the two charges, but most of the discussion was on the question of withholding information. The charge of corruption was very quickly dropped and apologized for.


Joseph Archambault: If my hon. friend will look at page 398 of that report he will find that the accusation was the following: That the ministers had become interested in a company, the profits of which undoubtedly depended upon the conclusion and the confirmation of the contract that was then, being negotiated.
And at page 391 Lord Cave moved:
That this House regrets the transactions of certain of His Majesty's ministers in the shares of the Marconi Company of America.

Mr. Murdoch and Home Bank
Surely my hon. friend will not maintain that it was only an accusation of the withholding of information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never said
so.


Joseph Archambault: Oh yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, my hon.
friend is wrong. He is awfully excited tonight or he would not foe making such a statement.


Joseph Archambault: I am not excited,
I am as calm as my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The charge was just lack of frankness. There was no charge of misinformation. I want my right hon. friend to consider one or two other things.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does my hon. friend
think that Hon. James Murdock violated the dignity of parliament in greater degree than did Mr. Wigmore when he was Minister of Customs and wrote a letter soliciting business for his own firm?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not remember that there was any whitewashing business in connection with that case.


Lewis Herbert Martell: There was whitewashing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not remember any whitewashing at all.


Joseph Archambault: Do you remember Ibhe purchase of Sherwin-Williams paints?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder do
hon. members opposite think they are advancing the proper consideration of this matter by the tactics to which they are resorting. I admit that I like to hear their voices now and again, but I question whether we shall get very far if these interruptions are persisted in. If I had been left alone I should have finished long ago.


Mr. POWER:: We like to hear your voice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose I might just as well wait until the interruptions subside.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Charles Marcil: I must remind hon. gentlemen again that the debaite cannot be carried on unless these interruptions are discontinued.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I first pointed
out the facts in regard to the matter of fraudulent preference. I then pointed out the

misinformation given to the newspapers and absolutely admitted. That is something we are asked to set the seal of our approval on. We are asked to approve of the giving of a false statement to the newspapers in connection with something that is a matter of public record. Then I come down to the question of the honour of parliament and I point out when the withdrawal of this money really took place. The meeting of the cabinet was on the 15th August and the cheque was drawn on the 14th.


Joseph Archambault: That was explained.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a first
rate way of showing, on the face of it, that the cheque was signed before the cabinet meeting was held.


Joseph Archambault: That was all explained.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend please let me continue; I will deal with that point; I am trying to wind up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am glad to
have my hon. friends feeling so pleasant. But let me continue. That was before the cabinet meeting. The next thing we have in connection with this matter is the manner in which the money is handled, and the difference of name. It is quite true that after the charges were made and practically known the minister admitted the date of the 14th August was a mistake. But I will put this one question: Was anything left undone that could be done in order to hide the transaction, and do we really want to act from partisan motives? Do the government or the House want to put the seal of their approval on that sort of thing?


Jacques Bureau: As a member of the committee
I desire to add one word to what has already been said. First of all I take exception to the statement of my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) in which he tries to impute certain motives to the chairman of the committee. It was my privilege to attend the meetings of the committee and to observe how the proceedings were conducted, and I must confess that I never attended a committee where the chairman was fairer than my hon. friend (Mr. Archambault). If I may be permitted to use the expression of a former Prime Minister the chairman was a little more than fair to the accusers. The ex-Minister of Finance

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
seems to think it strange that the chairman of the committee should defend his report. Surely my hon. friend has been a member of this House long enough to know that when the chairman of a committee presents a report from that body he generally explains its recommendations, and the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres did so in a very fair hod impartial manner. The ex-Minister of Finance is a very astute man. He must consider his cause rather desperate when he resorts to the so-called arguments that he used to-night in answer to my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). The latter was absolutely right both in his facts and in his law. But the ex-Minister of Finance characterized those statements as "barnyard talk." Surely my hon. friend forgot himself. Such language as that is unworthy of his position in the House and the place which he formerly occupied in the cabinet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Bam storming.


Jacques Bureau: He charged the Prime
Minister with "long loud language, declamation and vituperation". The defence by the Prime Minister of one of his colleagues is characterized as vituperation; and the same with every one of the arguments of the leader of the government. Well, if that is vituperation I shall have to forget my English.
Coming down to facts the Minister of Labour is accused of having taken advantage of his position for private gain which involved loss to others. What are the circumstances? He had drawn his indemnity, and he is not overwhelmed with the goods of this earth. In that position he is like myself. He had deposited this money in the Home Bank, but he learned from a colleague in the House, Mr. Gordon, that the institution was on the eve of failure and he withdrew the money. The hon. member for Dorchester rightly asked the question, and I repeat it: What man will stand up in this House and conscientiously say that if he had been in that position he would not have drawn that money. I shall not go to hon. gentlemen opposite for a standard of honesty but I freely say that I would have done it. I am not ashamed' to say that I would have done it, and any man with a heart in his body would have done the same. The Minister of Labour is a man with a family, he has children to protect, and in drawing this money he was defrauding nobody. The bank was only the custodian of money which belonged to James Murdock who saw fit to take this money out; he owed it to his family to do so. I ask what is wrong with that proceeding? Every other man would 233
have done the same. But now that the thing is over how easy it is to be good! No hon. gentleman opposite would get up and say he would do that and yet in so saying he would be guilty of hypocrisy.
My hon. friends opposite reproach him with having paid back the money. Well, he went one	better than I would because I
would have waited for the verdict of the court before I would have done so. By what right did he pay it back? Naturally the liquidator said, "Gentleman, pay back." In his own interest and to show how clever he was, Mr. Clarkson was willing to take money in any way he could get it, to recoup the depositor. I said to an hon. member this afternoon, "I am not sure that Mr. Clarkson will get judgment against any of the depositors." That money belonged to the depositors. It was in the bank for safekeeping, and there was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to pay it to the liquidator.
Now my hon. friend terms withdrawing the money a fraudulent preference. Well, I think that is pretty hard language. He did not mean it. He was a little fatigued by the interruptions, and he went further than he would go if he were cool and talking business. He argued that the minister was using information obtained as a minister to get a fraudulent preference. I claim he did not get a fraudulent preference. There was no preference. He was handling his own money. He went and got the money that belonged to him. There is a rule of this House which provides that when a member gives his word in the House it must be taken. Are we to suppose that the moment a member comes within the doors he changes his conscience, changes his mentality and becomes a better man, and that we have to take his word just because he has passed inside the door of the chamber? The Minister of Labour was on the stand. He was asked a question. Hon. members are trying by all sorts of means to establish the fact that he took the money out of the bank because he obtained the information in council in the morning. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) read from this evidence this afternoon, but I think it is well to repeat it. In the printed evidence I find the following:
Q. And after getting information from Mr. Gordon did you get any further information?-A. No.
Q. You say "No"?-A. "No."
There is no equivocation about that, and that question is asked by my hon. friend, the guardian of the honour of this House, the hon. member for West Hastings, who is trying to get the admission from him, that he used



Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
the information he got as a cabinet minister to withdraw that money. Then the examination continues:
Q. Of any kind or description-or anywhere?-A. Not that would form my opinion in regard to the matter.
Q. It may not have formed ^your opinion, but did you get any other information?-A. No one else had discussed that matter with me at all.
Q. Had you any better knowledge on the 15tih as to the condition of the bank than you had on the 9th?- A. I would say not.
What information could he get from council that he did not have from the Deputy Speaker? None. My hon. friend says he paid back the money and therefore he pleaded guilty. That is poor argument. I wmuld not have paid it back until the court said that I had to, and I do not know that Mr. Clarkson had any right to ask it. It may have been an excess of zeal on his part. That is his business. I do not think any man would pay back the money unless the judgment of the court went against him, except the Minister of Labour, who, as the Prime Minister says, in a sense of honour and out of consideration for his colleagues, thought he would pay it back, and did so. Now when a man does the right thing, an honourable thing-and I doubt very much whether he could be compelled to pay back- he is going to be charged with pleading guilty to an accusation of fraudulent preference on account of the information he got from council. My hon. leader quoted the words we see on the coat of arms, Honi soit, qui mal y pense. On this side of the House, among my friends from Quebec we have an old proverb, "To the pure all things are pure." But we have another motto: Evil be to him who evil thinks. My hon. friend must think much evil.
Referring to the Rufus Isaacs case, I may say that gentleman had a brother called Godfrey Isaacs who formed the Marconi Company in England at the same time they were forming a company in America. They said these were not subsidiary companies. They may not have been. They had the same objects and were formed for the same purpose. Godfrey went across the ocean and bought some of the American company's stock because he thought in view of the contracts being obtained by the English company, the other company would naturally do a good business. They went in for the purpose of making money-speculating. The government were giving contracts to the English company or about to give contracts to them. That was the information obtained in council. They did not go into the thing to get what belonged to them. That case does not apply to the present case. Here is a case of a man who goes to the bank and deposits his money.

He has never parted with the title. He did not deposit his money for speculation. He did not make any profit when he drew it out, or cause anybody to lose anything. That is the whole case. Now because this man acted like any other man would have done, the hon. member for West Hastings, who is the selfconstituted guardian of the honour of the House, proposes that we shall say to Mr. Murdock, "Your political life is over, you will have to get out of the House, because you have acted as an honest straightforward loving father and have done what a good citizen would have done under similar circumstances." That is my way of looking at it. The right hon. leader of the opposition was asking if we were going to turn parliament into a burlesque show. My hon. friends have been doing much in that direction by their efforts to blacken a white man. My hon. friends spoke of whitewash. It is not a question of whitewash. It is a question of justice. It is a question of showing that this House and the committees thereof are not constituted for the purpose of singling out one man on suspicion-not even a suspicion-and making him the goat for political advantage at the cost of his future. I do not think that is a fair way of dealing with the matter. I think my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) saw he had a bad case. As the Prime Minister said, when the Minister of Labour came before the committee and gave his evidence contradicting the charge, it would have been more dignified for hon. members who were making the accusation to have said, "Well we wanted to protect the House and the public from any suspicion and we are now satisfied." But when hon. members come Ito speak of a whitewash, I do not know how to express myself. If rendering justice is whitewashing, and if rendering of justice cannot be understood by my hon. friends opposite, then let us call it a whitewash. In the case of every judgment which is rendered declaring a man not guilty we might, according to the hon. gentleman's logic, call it a whitewash. A peculiar theory has been advanced by my hon. friend from West Hastings in this matter. I was in attendance at the committee when he put forward a theory. It was to this effect: "Mr. Murdock, we have a suspicion against you. It is up to you to show you are innocent." That is practically what the hon. member said.


Edward Guss Porter: I beg pardon I never
said or suggested such a thing in committee The minister cannot find that anywhere in the evidence, and I defy him to do it.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Jacques Bureau: I may not use the exact
words, but the argument made by the accusers was that it simulated a criminal proceeding.


Edward Guss Porter: I did not say that even.


Jacques Bureau: That was the position
taken by the accusers.


Edward Guss Porter: Not a word. Show me
the evidence. Read it.


Jacques Bureau: I am not going to read the evidence.


Edward Guss Porter: No, the minister cannot.


Jacques Bureau: But I am going to judge
by my understanding. Persecution was the order of the day in all these proceedings, and the anxiety to find the minister guilty was oozing out of every one of these gentlemen. It was not 'a prosecution, it was a persecution and it was a wilful, malicious prosecution, trying to make out a case when they knew they had none. That is the result of the evidence and of the arguments to which I have listened. Where, in a British country, Mr. Speaker, have you seen a man taken up and told: I charge you with being a thief; now come on and prove that you are not. If my bon. friends want to keep up the dignity of the House, they had better start by showing that they are fair-minded men themselves, and that they, first, are going to observe the rules that will maintain the dignity of this House and of the members thereof. I do not think that men have any right to come here under the cover of upholding the dignity of the House, the standard that we -ought to live up to, and pick out one man and persecute him. I do not believe that when I go out of this chamber I am a worse man than when I am in it, and I believe if we were to investigate every action that is done by a man, many members would be out of this House. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martel'l) cited the case of a Mr. Wigmore who took advantage of his position to seek business. That was one case where the hon. member for West Hastings ought to have called the attention of his leader to the matter and asked that such things should not happen in the House of Commons, because it was against the dignity of the House. There are other men who have been guilty of offences in the transaction of public affairs, who have sat in this House and who are sitting in this House.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What about Sir George
Foster?
233j


Jacques Bureau: I am not talking about
him, but I am talking about a man who had to leave this House and who is now again in this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Denounce him.


Jacques Bureau: I am not going to denounce anybody. The question is whether we are going to submit to malicious argument, by gentlemen who are endeavouring to convict a man who is not guilty. I sat in that committee; I listened to the evidence, and there was a denial of the matter by Mr. Murdock. The only trouble is that these gentlemen who tried the case would like to call Mr. Murdock a perjurer and they dare not do so. The answer he gave when he was asiked if there was any other information is unequivocal. He said that he had received no further information from any other source. These gentlemen would like to say that he is a perjurer; but they dare not say that because James Murdock is too well known throughout the country, and the people know , that he would not perjure himself. But these gentlemen desire to take a roundabout way of saying that. If what they argue were the case, two members of parliament would not be able to speak together, or two -members of the cabinet would not be able to consult one another about private -business without trespassing -on the dignity of parliament. Such arguments are childish. If -the hon. member for Dorchester, (Mr. Cannon), as the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has said, has spoken barnyard stuff, I say that this is childish stuff that is being spoken, and if I were allowed by the rules of the House, I would say in some cases, dishonest stuff, and wilfully dishonest, but I am not allowed to say it.


Arthur Meighen: I would not be justified in remaining silent when such language is used in this House. This is a flagrant breach of the rules of debate. I have never witnessed such disgraceful condulc-t in parliament as I have on the part of some hon. gentlemen during this debate. If an hon. . member is to be allowed to say that but for the rules he would refer to the conduct of hon. members of this House as dishonest, then we might as well abandon all rules and allow parliament to be a mere burlesque.


Jacques Bureau: I never said that. I said
"statements," not "conduct." There is a difference. If I could by a circumlocution use the word "dishonest," I would repeat it. I have nothing to take back as far as that goes.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Marcil: The rule is that an hon.
member must not endeavour to say indirectly what he has no right to say diredtly, In the present case, I understand the minister is giving an explanation which I trust is satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: No. He has made no
explanation whatever. The rule might as well be abandoned.


Charles Marcil: I understand thalt the Minister of Customs and Excise said that he had no intention of referring to the conduct of hon. members as being dishonest. He said that what he referred to as dishonest was Statements.


Jacques Bureau: My right hon. friend called me to order because he said I had charged hon. members on the other side with dishonest conduct. When I used the word "dishonest," I said I am very sorry it was not parliamentary; that I would like to use it, ' but I could not. Therefore, if I used it, I would take it back. As far as the word "conduct" is concerned, I used the word "statements."


Arthur Meighen: Might I ask how long
this is to go on?


Charles Marcil: I understand it to be merely
an explanation. The hon. member is withdrawing the word.


Arthur Meighen: He is substituting the
word "statements" for "conduct."


Jacques Bureau: I never said "conduct."


Arthur Meighen: The Minister used the
word "dishonest."


Jacques Bureau: I used it, but I take it
back. With my limited knowledge of the English language, there was no other word at my command which I could use.
Certaines de mes expressions ne sont peut-etre pas parlementaires, lorsque je parle en anglais. Eusse-je employe ma langue ma-ternelle, j'aurais pu enoncer clairement toute ma pensee; que les subterfuges, les sophismes et les insinuations dissimulees ne constituent pas un plaidoyer juste et raisonnable.
No charge was proven. A malicious accusation has been brought and they want us to convict a man on a mere suspicion. It is not circumstantial evidence that they bring, but mere suspicion, and as long as I shall sit in

this House or on that committee, I may err,- and I am willing to own up to my errors- but I will never commit the crime of trying to induce my fellow members to condemn a man who is innocent.
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings!: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed just for a few moments to close the debate, it is not my intention to argue the case at any length; but some statements have been made during this debate that I think it only fair and right that I should have an opportunity and should take the advantage of explaining. The Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) was a member of the committee investigating this matter, and he was exceedingly anxious, if one may judge from his statements made in committee, that the investigation should be carried on in a dignified manner, just such a dignified manner as he has exhibited in the House to-night. The words he used as reported on page 18 of the inquiry are:
Hon. Mr. Bureau: If we are going to have a parliamentary inquiry, let it be dignified, and let not these little subterfuges come before this tribunal. We want to know everything.
A point of order was being discussed and I said:
Mr. Porter: Before you make your ruling, may I say a word? I do not want controversy over this question. I am not here determined to prove my case at all hazards. That is not my object.
Hon. Mr. Bureau: Oh, tut, tut.
That is the same dignity shown by the hon. member who has just spoken. I shall not take time to refute the statements of evidence by the hon. member, because he has not in a single instance where he quoted the evidence, quoted it as it is printed in the record. Wrhere he quoted the evidence he did not read from the record and I am contradicting the statement he made.


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order.
I quoted the evidence from page 77 of the report of the committee of June 6, 1924, and if there is any word that I have not correctly quoted the mistake will appear in Hansard in due course.


Edward Guss Porter: The hon. member made a statement which I am contradicting. He did not read from the record although I asked him to do so when he made the statement.


Jacques Bureau: I read from the report
of the proceedings of June 6, at page 77


Edward Guss Porter: The hon. member also
charges that I am the self-constituted guardian of the honour of the House.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, I said that.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


Edward Guss Porter: Well, what is wrong with
that? I want to know from the hon. member what is wrong about my constituting myself the guardian of the honour of this House. Does he complain of that?


Jacques Bureau: I said that the hon. gentleman was the self-constituted protector of the honour of the House.


Edward Guss Porter: What is wrong with that?


Jacques Bureau: Why ask me that? If the hon. member does not like the appellation he need not accept it.


Edward Guss Porter: The hon. member will not answer the question and therefore I will not press it. Now, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) stated that I did not exhibit the same amount of zeal during the years I had been in parliament that I have done on this particular occasion, to safeguard the honour of members of parliament. He did not however cite, nor can he cite, one single case that came to my knowledge or attention which I negljcted to bring to the notice of parliament. It is simply a bald statement without any foundation in fact.


Joseph Archambault: What about the
case of Wigmore?


Edward Guss Porter: I do not know.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member was in the House at the time.


Edward Guss Porter: There was never any charge brought on the floor of the House and no investigation was held.


Joseph Archambault: Why did the hon. member not bring a charge?


Edward Guss Porter: No one brought any
charge at all. Reference has been made to books written by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill and by Lloyd George. The book written by Churchill gave away certain things, if I may use that expression, and it is significant that Churchill has never been in the British parliament since he wrote that book, and parliament has never had an opportunity of bringing him before its bar. And so far as Lloyd George is concerned, he has never been accused of giving away state secrets; I defy any man to produce any record to prove that he has ever done so. What is the use of referring to such matters to determine the question which is involved here? It seems to me nothing but stage play; it does not answer nor touch the question at all. Let us be manly in this matter.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Edward Guss Porter: The hon. member for Dorchester and one or two others have advanced what they term the human argument. I am not objecting to that, but the argument does not apply in a case of this kind. To put it in a word, they say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) did nothing more than thousands of others would have done in the same circumstances. Do hon. members realize that this parliament is not the keeper of the conscience or the honour of the thousands of other men who are out in the country ? There is only one Minister of Labour here and the conduct of that minister in so far as it touches the honour of parliament is in the keeping of this House. Parliament must therefore investigate matters of this kind, and when a minister or a member of parliament transgresses the rules, or sullies the traditions of parliament, or impinges upon its honour, we must take cognizance of such conduct. To use the argument that thousands or tens of thousands of others would have done the same thing does not make one bit of difference to the case as it stands.
Now, just one word in reference to what the Prime Minister has said touching the precedent he cited in the case that occurred in 1891. He did not state the name of the case but I think I know it; I think he had reference to the Rykert case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was
the case of Hon. John Haggart.


Edward Guss Porter: Will the Prime Minister
say that the punishment was not applied?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; the government of the day even refused to investigate the charge, holding that the offence if proved would not show that Hon. John Haggart had violated any law, and that no precedent could be cited to afford a ground for his removal even if the charge could be proved.


Edward Guss Porter: That is what I expected the Prime Minister to say with reference to the Haggart case, but that is the reverse of what this parliament did. The facts as disclosed before parliament in that case did not constitute an offence in the first instance in the opinion of the House, and an investigation was refused. In this case however the facts do constitute an offence in the opinion of every hon. member of the House who has voted for the investigation.


Jacques Bureau: No, not at all.


Edward Guss Porter: If hon. members were of
the opinion that the investigation would amount to nothing at all, what would be the sense of ordering one?

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What would
the hon. gentleman have said if the government had refused to grant the investigation?


Edward Guss Porter: If the government had declared that they were satisfied that no offence had been committed, I should say they would be right in refusing to grant an investigation.


Jacques Bureau: You would have charged
the whole government with being guilty.


Edward Guss Porter: When however the government ordered an investigation, thereby admitting that the facts as stated did constitute an offence if proven, it is clear that it must have been the opinion of every hon. member who voted for the inquiry that on the face of it an offence had been committed which should be looked into.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the time I pointed out to the House that power had been given to a royal commission to make an investigation in so far as the facts were concerned; but it was the insistence of the hon. gentleman that this would not satisfy him and those about him that led me to say in the name of the government that we were prepared to grant an investigation.


Edward Guss Porter: The Prime Minister knows better than I can tell him that the power of this House, the right of this House, to inquire into any charge affecting the honour of any member of parliament as such or of any minister of the cabinet is not a matter that can be delegated to a royal commission or a judge of the supreme court. It is a matter within the keeping of this House. It is a matter of the honour and conscience of the members of this House, and of nobody else. For that reason a royal commission would not be accepted, and the House agreed with that position. Instead of insisting that it go to a royal commission, the House granted an investigation by the committee on Privileges and Elections, and here we are with the facts as I have endeavoured to prove this afternoon.
Now my right hon. friend addressed this further argument to the House:	Is this
House upon the evidence that has been submitted going to turn this man out of public life, is it going to punish him in that way? And he repeated the question. It is not for me, it is for the House to say whether it will turn him out of public life or what other punishment it will inflict. It may be that the House will be of opinion that some other punishment should be meted out, but it is up to the House to declare what punishment the minister deserves at its hands for

an offence that he has been proven guilty of; nothing more, nothing less. So far as I am personally concerned, as I have stated over and over again, I have tried to conduct the case fairly against the Minister of Labour. But as to this, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) differs very materially with the chairman of the committee (Mr. Archambault) who this afternoon was so loud in his praise of the manner in which I had conducted the inquiry all the way through.


Jacques Bureau: It is a question of appreciation.


Edward Guss Porter: The member for Three
Rivers differs from him entirely.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely.


Edward Guss Porter: So they are not on the
same basis there.


Jacques Bureau: If my hon. friend will
allow me-my reason for differing from the chairman of the committee is that my hon. friend s actions were so contrary to his words that they forced me to that conclusion.


Edward Guss Porter: It is easy for you to
make the statement, but you have absolutely no evidence to prove it.


Jacques Bureau: The evidence is to be
found in your argument and in your conduct of the case.


Edward Guss Porter: I am willing to submit to
the opinion of this House whether I have conducted the case fairly or not.
Now, the right hon. Prime Minister addressed this further question to me, and it is a very pertinent one:	Why didn't you
ask the hon. minister himself if he got his information from the cabinet or as a minister? Well, the chairman of the committee laboured this afternoon for half an hour to show by precedent, by rule and by law that he would' not permit-and he did not-questions along that line at all. Over and over again he ruled as is shown in this evidence. What is the use of asking me why I did not put the question when I was not allowed to?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was not the question I asked my hon. friend.


Edward Guss Porter: I so understood it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon
friend is mistaken. I quoted these words which will be found at page 138 of the report:
It was not through any official communication that I withdrew the money.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Was "he minister asked:	Was it through
any official communication that you withdrew the money?


Edward Guss Porter: I would not be allowed to
ask that question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why not?


Edward Guss Porter: Because I could not ask a question at all in regard to any information coming from the cabinet, I was precluded by the ruling of the chairman. The only one who could give that evidence would be the minister himself, probably by a negative answer.
Mr. xMACKENZIE KING:	May I draw
my hon. friend's attention to the fact that his own colleague on the committee used this expression:
That would not be disclosing anything that took place in council, if he were to say, "It was not through any official communication that I withdrew the money".


Edward Guss Porter: That was what was endeavoured to be proved, and that is what was proven by the facts and the circumstances of the case. What was the use of proving he got the information somewhere else? Now, this hair-splitting about getting the information out of the cabinet or in the cabinet prompts me to put this question to the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister got informs tion, so did the Minister of Railways so did ".he Acting Minister of Finance-they all got aformation as to the condition of the Home Bank. They all got it out of cabinet; two of them got it in the Chateau Laurier hotel, the other got it in his private residence, Would any one of them undertake to say that next morning, if he had $10,000 in the Home Bank, he would have drawn the money out to the detriment of the other depositors? Speak up and say so if you would. I should like to know.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is not the evidence before the committee.


Charles Marcil: Order.


William Irvine: Before the main motion is put, I desire to move an amendment, as follows:
That the second report of the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections be not concurred in, but be referred back to the said committee with instructions tihat they have power to reconsider the same and to strike out the words "not only" and "but entirely disproved" in the last line of the third paragraph thereof.
I wish very briefly to explain the difference this would make in: the main motion, and to take a very few minutes to give my reasons for moving it. I can assure the House that at this hour I shall not impose upon them, but I feel it is necessary for me to make my position clear on the issue before us. The difference that would be made by the amendment, if adopted, would be this: That the charge submitted to the committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation, so far as it affects the honour of Mr. Murdock, would be simply found "not proved." The amendment would delete the words "not only" and "but entirely disproved."
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that my lack of
experience in parliamentary life is responsible for the fact that I have taken this charge and this discussion very seriously.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is not what the hon.
member is endeavouring to do is to bring into this country the old Scottish verdict of "not proven?" That is about all that he is getting at,


William Irvine: If the hon. member will
just contain himself, if possible, I shall endeavour to explain exactly what I am getting at. When interrupted I was pointing out that I am taking this charge seriously, both in the interests of the hon. member against whom the charge has been made, and in the interests also of the honour and dignity of parliament, which it is alleged has somehow been impaired. I say I feel as a member of this House a great responsibility first when I think that perhaps by some vote of mine the honour and dignity of parliament may be impaired; and in the second place, I feel a great responsibility when I think that a vote of mine may possibly inflict an irreparable injustice upon an hon. member.
I have listened to the arguments of the prosecuting attorney, so to speak, and also to the arguments of those who have defended the hon. gentleman who has been charged. I have tried to have regard to the legal aspects involved in the honour and dignity of parliament. and I have been trying also to pay due attention to the human phase of the situation, and I have come to a certain conclusion. That conclusion may not be, strictly speaking, a legal conclusion, but I hope 'it will be regarded as possessing reasonable common sense, and that it will be as human as the situation will permit. The evidence required either to prove or disprove the charge that is made against the hon. Minister of Labour by the hon., member for West Hastings has been properly or improperly withheld. The evidence that would have made dear the situation to the House would hinge upon this question: Did the Minister of Labour use information received at a cabinet meeting in such a way as to lead to his own financial betterment and to the disadvantage of others? That is the question that in my mind leads us to the very crux of the charge. This question has not been answered. The only source from which the evidence implied in that question could have been received was from the cabinet itself, and it has been ruled that the members of the cabinet could not be questioned. That ruling, so far as I have heard has not been challenged. I am not claiming sufficient legal knowledge to say whether the members of the cabinet were improperly or properly not called, but I have to say this: Without the evidence which they might have given, if they had been called, it is impossible to decide either the honesty or the guilt of the Minister of Labour. That being so, in the absence of the only possible evidence that could enable us to come to an intelligent deci-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
sion, the door has been left wide open for all kinds of suspicion. I feel that if I were to follow suspicion I would undoubtedly have voted for the amendment that was moved by the opposition, but not being inclined to follow suspicion what is there left for one to do? If I take the action itself it would seem to lend itself to the conclusion that there was indiscretion, weakness, or perhaps worse, on the part of the Minister of Labour. Certainly it would exhibit a type of action that is far below that which we hope from honourable and responsible public servants in Canada. If the drift of the suspicion be unfair to the minister then he must be content to suffer the disabilities that follow the iprivileges of secrecy, and the onus must be placed upon the cabinet itself to remove that suspicion from him. The secrecy which has been maintained and sustained with regard to the cabinet council may be advisable in some instances to a reasonable degree, but I maintain that such secrecy should not hold when the character of a member of the cabinet is at stake. The point is that there is not enough evidence to ensure an intelligent decision, and in the absence of evidence we are called upon to make a guess. But it will be argued, I suppose from a legal point of view, that if this is the opinion that I hold why not exculpate the hon. gentleman and vote for his exoneration? It may be contended that it is a practice, a well established axiom in law in this country that a man must be held to be innocent until he 'is proved guilty. I understand that is a generally accepted and wholly admirable rule in criminal cases. But I do want to suggest that I would be very willing to apply that same rule to this case if all the evidence that might have been given had been permitted. However, in this case I do not accept the parliamentary practice of old as a final thing, that when the character of an honourable gentleman is at stake, the cabinet could not reveal the secrets they were talking about in order to give him his liberty, or rather to clear him of the suspicion cast upon his character. I think that the evidence which the cabinet could have given had it not been considered contrary to parliamentary practice to permit their evidence would have been indispensable- in arriving at a verdict and in the absence of that evidence I find myself unable to simply say the Minister of Labour must be absolutely exonerated since we cannot have sufficient evidence to prove him guilty. Now, the other side may say "But you are bound tlo find him guilty since he cannot be exonerated." To that I also reply briefly, that I cannot justify myself in drawing an inference from evidence that was not submitted. There is the situation as briefly [DOT]as I can put it before hon. gentlemen. What about the fact then, someone will ask? Is it not so that the money was taken out? I know that this is made light of by the Prime Minister himself. It was also held as a very trivial matter by the hon. member who preceded the Prime Minister in debate. I cannot look upon the charge as being so trivial a 'thing as the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) endeavoured to make out. Even though I beg the question to the extent of saying that there is no imputed guilt to a minister who may use information which he receives in the cabinet council for his own advantage, still I am bound to say that the action of the minister in question was indiscreet and perhaps worse than indiscreet. It 'has been argued that he only took his own money. That is not true strictly speaking. The fact is that he put $4,000, or a little over, into this bank. Really he had only the right to withdraw one thousand of that since the bank could only pay 25 cents on the dollar. Only one thousand of that under the circumstances was his money. Here you may advance the human argument and say "Would not all of us have done the same thing?" I for one would not hiave done the same thing.
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Oh, oh.


William Irvine: Wait until I explain what
I mean by that. I am willing to admit that I, like the minister in question, would have taken the action that in my opinion looked to be best for myself. I believe that is what he did. I believe every hon. gentleman in this House in a similar position would have done the same thing. It has transpired, that the minister was very short-sighted, he took the course that was really the wor^t for himself. That is one reason why I hesitate to vote complete censure upon him; because if he had been politically wise he would not have taken that course. Whatever else he may be his action certainly proves the hon. Minister of Labour is not a good politician because if he had been a good politician he would have seen at a glance that in taking out his money he was placing himself in the position in which he now finds himself. Yes there is a human side to this question, and I want to give consideration to that very briefly. I know that the hon. member for West Hastings, who moved the amendment, did say that Mr. Murdock had forfeited all right to the sympathy either of the public or of this House. In regard to that I want to say that a man has got to go a long way before he forfeits his right to human sympathy.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
I certainly do not agree with the view that, even if the charge had been proven to the hilt, the minister has placed himself beyond the pale of sympathy of hon. members of this House.
In closing I say that we are called upon in the lack of evidence to take a chance on the one hand of doing an injury to the honour and dignity of parliament of which we are all professedly so very jealous. On the other hand, we are called upon in the lack of evidence to take a chance of doing irreparable injury to one of our fellows. I therefore have moved an amendment which neither exonerates nor condemns. It takes the position of the old Scotch practice which permits a finding that the case is not proven. There is no other logical conclusion to which I can come. If it is argued or suggested that this position leaves a cloud of suspicion on the head of the minister, then I reply that the course is open for the minister if he be innocent and the cabinet concerned to take such action as will immediately dispel that cloud, and that action will be to give the evidence that is necessary to enable this House to come to an intelligent conclusion. That is briefly the reason for this amendment.	*


Arthur Meighen: The amendment moved
by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) sets out definitely and- finally the view of those whom I have the honour to lead in this House. We have voted in support of that amendment whicih represents our position. The amendment now moved does, I admit, reduce somewhat the absurdity, the enormity of the original motion, but still it does not represent what we feel should be the finding of the committee and of this House, and inasmuch as it does not, I purpose to vote against it, and certainly against the main motion as well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) clearly does not go as far as the committee has stated in their opinion we should go in this House, and so far as the government, and1 I imagine all members on this side of the House who wish to support the report of the committee are concerned, we will not be able to support the amendment of my hon. friend.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: I desire to
say a few words in support of the amendment before the House. As I conceive it, the question before us resolves itself into two or three propositions. In the first place, we have to 
ask ourselves what the charge is, and in the second place, has it been proved; and in the third place if proved, what can we attach to it? I am not going to trouble the House with any definition as to what the charge is. I would much rather endeavour to see what its quality is and what its definition is. To my mind it is purely a partisan charge, and that puts the impartial onlooker in a difficult position. As far as I can see, it was introduced purely in a spirit of partisanship, and as far as I have been able to see, on the other hand, it) has been defended purely in a spirit of partisanship, and that makes it very difficult for the impartial onlooker to make up his mind with regard to it.
I think that it is not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) that is being tested at the present time. It is this system of running the business of this House, known as the two party system, whereby for nine or ten hours we have these partisan charges bandied to and fro across ithe House, while the business of the House at the end of the session is being neglected. That is the thing that is being tested before the country to-night.
There is a real human element in this discussion to-night, and that is the position of the Home Bank depositors. We have the spectacle of the two great parties in this country standing on a point of honour, and I believe the human element has been forgotten altogether. I was in (the committee this morning when the Home Bank depositors appeared before us presenting their case. We begrudgingly, perhaps of necessity, gave them two or three hours to state their case. We had to hurry them up, in order that they might place their sad story before us. Since that time we have spent nine hours in discussing a question of honour and of dignity, and in discussing it we have shot the dignity of this House all to pieces.
Now has this charge been proven? Of course, it has not been proven. Has it been disproven? Of course it has not been disproven. We have been denied access to the very place where the evidence resided. How can we form an intelligent opinion on this question when we are not allowed to enter secrets of the cabinet where the evidence rests. I think that the government made a very serious mistake in not taking this House straightforwardly into their confidence. Taking the defenders of the Minister of Labour at their own estimate, they say this thing after all does not amount to anything. If it does not amount to anything, why not make an open breast of it? I do not think the country at large will understand the defenders of the Minister of

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Labour standing upon precedent. Who is Judge McKeown? He may be a dignified judge of great ability, but I do not think invoking Judge McKeown or any other precedent in order to shut out inquiry will commend itself to the people of this country. I think this House has a right to know what went on inside the cabinet that night.


George Perry Graham: It is not a question of Judge McKeown's ruling or the chairman's ruling. The ministers could not give that information without violating their oath. Would the member advise us to do that?


Thomas William Bird: I do not see the point of my hon. friend's remarks.


George Perry Graham: The members of the cabinet are sworn to secrecy as to what takes place in council.


Thomas William Bird: Notwithstanding its importance or unimportance.


George Perry Graham: It makes no difference;
that is their oath. Does my hon. friend advise that the members of the cabinet should have violated their solemn oath?


Thomas William Bird: If that is so, and if the cabinet is bound by an oath of that kind, I must withdraw my remarks, and I do so straightforwardly. I was speaking in my ignorance of the situation. But it is a very peculiar situation that forbids the cabinet to disclose its proceedings in a case of this kind.


Mr. VIEN:: Did not my hon. friend take
cognizance in the committee of the fact that the oath of office was read and was printed as part of the evidence?


Edward Guss Porter: There is nothing in the
oath to prevent a negative answer being given, as was pointed out this afternoon and not contradicted.


Thomas William Bird: I suppose that oath of secrecy
is imposed in order to safeguard the interests of the nation, and I think the interests of the nation are involved in this very question. It seems to me a very far-fetched interpretation of the intention of that oath to deny the cabinet the opportunity of doing something which I think the public would have been glad to have justified them in doing. However I will leave that. I made an error in making that statement, and will pass on to other questions. If this charge were proven, what weight would be attached to it? Shall we look at this thing through the thick end of the telescope with our friends here, or through the thin end of the telescope with our friends
over there? Here is a tendency to magnify the thing out of all proportion, and over there there is a tendency to belittle it. I think that on a question of this kind it is beside the point to inquire what any one of us would do under the circumstances. I will agree that none of us is so virtuous that he could stand up here,-unless it is my hon. friend from East Calgary, (Mr. Irvme)-and say just what he would have done or would not have done under the circumstances. I think perhaps. I have done worse things in my past life than the Minister of Labour did on that occasion. But I have no desire to repeat those things. I do not admire them, and while what Mr Murdock did is apparently satisfactory to some hon. gentlemen over there, if he had felt self-possessed enough not to have done it.
I think I interpret the minds of hon. gentlemen correctly when I say that it would have been more satisfactory to them if he had not done it. There may be some kind of red-blooded virtue which says: Now that is just the kind of thing I would have done; I would have followed the human nature that is in me and have done that thing. But that is not the kind of talk that commends itself to the people of this country, because the people of this country-and we are proud of the fact- demand a high standard in our public men, and I hope that standard in our public men may remain, no matter what degree of virtue exists in us. We are not here as individuals. We are here to uphold a standard of public virtue. I am not disposed to overestimate this thing that Mr. Murdock has done. As I said, perhaps any one of us would have done it; very likely we would, but I think there is a medium course. We must look at this thing as it is. We must not underestimate it as I am sorry to have seen some of my hon. friends here to-night, nor overestimate it as some of my hon. friends to my right have done, and, I am afraid, with something of ia partisan motive. Do not let us twist it .out of its proper shape. I am not here to judge Mr. Murdock at all, but I think, perhaps, he made a mistake. I do not think the heinousness of it was so great as our friends to my right tried to make out. I think it is something that we as a House could have left to his constituents to juidge upon if they thought fit. But to make this thing an issue on .the floor of this House; to Say that the dignity of the House is involved in it, and then to throw the dignity of the House aside and to make it a moment for partisan fray, I think is what every mind here to-night that is in

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
possession of itself must decide against, and this is tihe only opportunity that I cm see for such minds to decide. Personally, I am going to yote for the amendment.


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that this was a Progressive day in parliament; that the two old parties would tear, rend and devour each other; that we would be left alone in our glory, and that it would be really a pleasant occasion. But it seems now that there is a Progressive angle to this complication. We have heard the discussion of the testimony as to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). After listening to it for a day, we have decided that he is not guilty. That is, we have decided by a very large majority of this parliament that he stands before us to-day innocent of the charge that has been laid against him.
There is this angle to the testimony that was introduced before this committee. Mr. Murdock testified that on the 9th day of August that he got certain information from the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon). The Deputy Speaker testified that he gave him certain information. Mr. Murdock testified that at the time he drew out this money he had no further information on the subject. It is now proposed to say that the charge was not disproved. If the charge is not disproved, Mr. Murdock is a perjurer; he has sworn falsely to that point. Are we, who, a few minutes ago, voted that he was innocent; that he was an honest man, to vote now that his testimony as to that point was false? I do not think such a course is consistent, and I believe this amendment that the charge is not disproven should be voted down. If Mr. Murdock is an innocent man-and we have so voted-then his testimony upon that point is entitled to credit and we should give him a clean bill of health. For that reason I shall vote against the amendment.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Irvine) which was negatived on the following division:
Bird,
Brethen,
Brown,
Elliott (Dundas), Fansher,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Hoey,
Hopkins,
Irvine,
Lewis,

++YEAS
Messrs:
Macphail,
Milne,
Sales,
Shaw,
Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Humboldt), Thurston,
Wallace,
Ward,
Woodsworth,-22.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Archambault,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Baldwin,	Kyte,
Bancroft,	Laflamme,
Beaubien,	Lanctot,
Beland,	Lapierre,
Benoit,	Lapointe,
Binette,	Lavigueur,
Black (Huron),	Leader,
Boivin,	Logan,
Bouchard,	Lovett,
Bourassa,	Lovie,
Bureau,	Low,
Cahill,	Lucas,
Caldwell,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Cannon,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Carruthers,	Maclean (York),
Casgrain,	McBride,
Charters,	McConica,
Chevrier,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Chisholm,	McGiverin,
Church,	Mclsaac,
Copp,	McKay,
d'Anjou,	McMurray,
Dechene,	McTaggart,
Delisle,	Malcolm,
Denis (St. Denis),	Marcile (Bagot),
Desaulniers,	Marler,
Descoteaux,	Meighen,
Deslauriers,	Mercier,
Desrochers,	Michaud,
Drummond,	Millar,
Elliott (Waterloo);	Morin,
Ethier,	Motherwell,
Euler,	Munro,
Fafard,	Ouimet,
Findlay,	Papineau,
Finn,	Parent,
Fontaine,	Pelletier,
Forke,	Porter,
Forrester,	Power,
Fortier,	Prevost,
Fournier,	Pritchard,
Gauvreau,	Putnam,
Gendron,	Rankin,
Gervais,	Raymond,
Gordon,	Reed,
Gould,	Roberge,
Graham,	Robitaille,
Guthrie,	Ross (Simcoe),
Halbert,	St. Pere,
Hammell,	Savard,
Harris,	Seguin,
Hatfield,	Sexsmith,
Healy,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Hodgins,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Humphrey,	Speakman,
Hunt,	Stansell,
Jelliff,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Johnston,	Stewart (Leeds),
Kellner,	Stork,
Kennedy	Tobin,
(Glengarry & Stormont),	Tolmie,
Kennedy	Vien,
(Port Arthur & Kenora),	Walsh,
King (Huron),	Woods,-129.
King (Kootenay),	
The House divided	on the motion, (Mr. Archambault) which	was agreed to on the
following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Archambault,	Beaubien,
Baldwin,	Beland,
Bancroft,	Benoit,

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Binette,	Laflamme,
Black (Huron),	Lanctot,
Boivin,	Lapierre,
Bouchard,	Lapointe,
Bourassa,	Lavigueur,
Brethen,	Leader,
Brown,	Lovett,
Bureau,	Lovie,
Cahill,	Lucas,
Caldwell,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Cannon,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Carruthers,	McBride,
Casgrain,	McConica,
Chevrier,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Chisholm,	McGiverin,
Clifford,	Mclsaac,
Copp,	McKay,
d'Anjou,	McMurray,
Dech&ne,	McTaggart,
Delisle,	Malcolm,
Denis (St. Denis),	Marcile (Bagot),
Desaulniers,	Marler,
Descoteaux,	Martell,
Deslauriers,	Mercier,
Desrochers,	Michaud,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Millar,
Ethier,	Morin,
Euler,	Motherwell,
Fafard,	Munro,
Fansher,	Ouimet,
Findlay,	Papineau,
Finn,	Parent,
Fontaine,	Pelletier,
Forke,	Power,
Forrester,	Prevost,
Fortier,	Pritchard,
Fournier,	Putnam,
Gauvreau,	Rankin,
Gendron,	Raymond,
Gervais,	Reed,
Gordon,	Robb,
Gould,	Roberge,
Graham,	Robitaille,
Halbert,	Ross (Simcoe),
Hammell,	St. Pere,
Hatfield,	Savard,
Healy,	Seguin,
Humphrey,	Sexsmith,
Hunt,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Jelliff,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Johnston,	Speakman,
Kellner,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Kennedy	Stork,
(Glengarry & Stormont), Tobin,	
Kennedy	Vien,
(Port Arthur & Kenora), Walsh,	
King (Kootenay),	Woods,-119.
King, Mackenzie (York),
 NAYS Messrs:	
Anderson,	Ladner,
Arthurs,	LeSueur,
Black (Yukon),	Maclean (York),
Bowen,	Macphail,
Charters,	McKillop,
Church,	Manion,
Doucet,	Maybee,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Meighen,
Duncan,	Milne,
Elliott (Dundas),	Porter,
Gardiner,	Ross (Kingston),
Garland (Bow River),	Senn,
Garland (Carleton),	Shaw,
Grimmer,	Spence,
Guthrie,	Spencer,
Harris,	Stansell,
Hocken,	Stevens,
Irvine.	Stewart (Hamilton),
Stewart (Leeds),	Tolmie,
Sutherland,	Wallace,
Thompson,	White,
Thurston,	Woodsworth,-44. PAIRS
(The list of pairs	is furnished by the Chi Messrs:
Murphy,	Ryckman,
MacKinnon,	McQuarrie,
Low,	Preston,
Duff,	Dickie,
Kay,	Wilson,
Fielding,	Bristol,
Robinson,	Hanson,
Jones,	Morrissy,
McMaster,	Simpson,
Logan,	MacLaren,
Kelly,	Black (Halifax),
German,	Chaplin,
McCrea,	Clark,
On motion of Mr. MACKENZIE KING the House adjourned at 3.30 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, June 26, 1924