1929-04-30

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St. Hya-cimthe-Rouville).

Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas) moved:: That the petition of Lewis Coit Dargavel, presented on the 29th of April, praying for an act to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and Grace Ethel Dargavel, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre)):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. Yesterday I stated that the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) was not present at the last meeting of the private bills committee. I find I was mistaken: he was present. I am sorry that I was misinformed, and hence misled the house.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I understand from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that he has had a word with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with regard to permitting interim supply to be granted. With that understanding I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the house to go into committee of supply to introduce a resolution to that effect.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: That is quite acceptable, Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself and those associated with me.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Interim Supply Bill


Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $40,909,873.57, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1930.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930, the sum of $40,909,873.57 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1930.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose it is unnecessary to state that this supply is granted on the same terms as we granted interim supply a few weeks ago-without prejudice to our right to comment on the various items of the main supply bill, and that it shall not be taken that we accede to the soundness of any appropriation without the right to criticize it.
I make that statement merely as a matter of form.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections two and three agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Post Office
Salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $16,305,000.
Miscellaneous, including Lucien Pacaud, secretary of the High Commissioner's office, as the representative of the Canadian government on the Pacific Cable Board, at $1,500; and $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties, or to dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,176,175.
Yukon territory, $150,000-Total, $34,926,639.40.
Richard Bedford Bennett: A few days ago I ventured to direct the attention of the house to the fact that I had heard grave and disquieting rumours as to the administration of post office affairs in the New Brunswick district, I regarded the matter as of sufficient importance to suggest that the files dealing with the administration of affairs in that district in recent years be made available, and the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) having made such files available, it now becomes my duty to present to the house the facts as disclosed therein. I do so for the moment without any comment as to what the inferences to be drawn from them may be, and I leave it to the house and the country to determine whether or not a department which is administered as that department is should have the confidence of this country or of this house. The matters with which I have to deal concern the administration of the department in the district office. The office in New Brunswick is under the control of a single superintendent, Mr. Woods, and there are two inspectors, Mr. Emerson, the senior, and Mr. Griffith, the junior. As was indicated the other day at times relations between the inspectors have not been harmonious, for reasons which I shall indicate as I proceed to unfold the case to the house, but one of the difficulties came about in connection with shortages in one or two of the offices under the control of the district superintendent.
There is a small post office at Dupey's Corner, the postmaster of which receives about $144 a year; on investigation it was indicated that a shortage of $907.06 existed at this post office. The investigation of this

office wa8 entrusted to the junior inspector, Mr. Griffith, and in consequence of the investigation which he made under instructions from Mr. Atwater, one of the chief inspectors at Ottawa, he made a report which indicated, as I have said, a deficit of S907.06. In order that there may be no misapprehension in respect to these various matters I am afraid I must ask the indulgence of the house as I place upon Hansard the record as indicated by the file.
Office of District Superintendent of Postal Service.
St. John, N.B. August 2, 1926.
H. E. Atwater, Esq.,
Chief Inspector,
Inspection Branch,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
On account of complaints from the financial branch that the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, N.B., was delaying his remittances to the bank and also had not taken into account two error notices, the above-named office was visited and inspected by Inspector Griffith of this district on July 29th. At the completion of the inspection it was ascertained there was a deficiency of $907.06.
The postmaster was not present when the office was inspected but arrived home in the afternoon and Mr. Griffith collected from him the amount of $61.45 which brings the actual shortage down to $845.61. Duplicate and triplicate receipts and bank draft for $61.45 are herewith attached.
The first irregularity reported against this office was from the financial branch with reference to an alleged remittance of $170.00 per registered letter No. 377 entered in the postmaster's cash account on January 31st, 1926. After much correspondence the postmaster explained that he was of the opinion that this remittance had been destroyed by his four-year old child who accidently put same in the fire. The postmaster explained he was unable to pay this amount at once but made arrangements to send in $20.00 per month. To date he has made three payments of $20.00 each in May, June and July respectively. This leaves a balance of $110.00 in connection with this irregularity.
A further letter from the financial branch stated that an error notice, number not given, was forwarded to the postmaster in December, last, with reference to a remittance of $60.00 claimed at item 16 in the postmaster's cash account of the 30th November, forwarded under No. 353.
Another report was in connection with error notice No. 5899 for $10.00 to correct an error in the postmaster's return for the 31st of January 1926.
Another report was received regarding a deposit of $180.00 entered in the postmaster's cash account of June 8th alleged to have been forwarded to the Bank of Montreal on that date under registered number 463.
Supply-Post Office
In the postmaster's account of July 22nd he claimed $608.57 worth of postal notes on hand. When the office was inspected on July 29th he had $173.51 worth of notes on hand.
The postmaster was instructed to make up his cash account to July 29th, inclusive, and forward same to the department, entering the amounts above stated on the debit side. Copy of financial statement is attached herewith.
Also attached you will find a translated copy of the postmaster's statement given to Mr. Griffith. It will be noted that he admits using post office funds for his own business, his method being to hold remittances and forward same after he had sold money orders, stamps and postal notes; also by claiming a larger amount of postal notes on hand than he had when the accounts were forwarded.
It will also be noted that the postmaster volunteers to make good this amount by monthly payments of $40.00. He was informed by the inspector that it was not likely the department would entertain this proposition and that he would be expected to forward the amount of the shortage without delay in order to avoid more serious consequences. The seriousness of his actions was drawn to his attention by the inspection officer and also in a letter from the district superintendent under date of July 31st.
The money order business of this office was closed out on July 29th and the money order books, postal notes, and equipment were removed. The office was 1 ft in the care of Mr. Hebert with a stamp credit of $25.00.
If agreeable to the department it is the intention to have an inspector again visit this office in the course of a few days to make a strong endeavour to collect the amount of the shortage.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) H. W. Woods,
District Superintendent.
That was the report made to the office at Ottawa with respect to the conditions existing in that post office. That report was acknowledged by the chief accountant on August 23, 1926, by letter which is also under my hand. It is directed to the district superintendent, and is as follows;
With reference to your letter of the 2nd instant, addressed to the chief inspector regarding the shortage in the accounts of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, I beg to say that the department is willing to consider the question of allowing the postmaster time to make the amount of his deficit good but before taking this up and endeavouring to fix an amount that should be paid each month I should like to be advised as to the postmaster's ability to fulfil any engagement in which he may enter. It is presumed that he has some business other than that of running the post office. Will you please let me know what is the nature of this business and whether its present standing is sufficient to guarantee the postmaster eventually making good all the shortage. What sureties, if any, can the postmaster give for the execution of any agreement in this connection?
That letter was signed by the chief accountant, and in due course a reply was sent from

Supply-Post Office

the district superintendent at St. John under date of November O, 1926, as follows:
In reply to your letter of the 6th inst. regarding the balance due by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, and the assurance given that he would make good the sum of $200 by the 1st November, and at least $40 a month thereafter, would inform you that nothing further has been heard from this postmaster.
It is the intention of Inspector Griffith to visit this office within the next few days when a report will be made to the department.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) H. W. Woods,
District Superintendent.
At that time, as I have indicated, after crediting the amounts paid and deducting the salary and commission for October, amounting to $21, the balance due was $850.93. Then on September 9, 1926, a further letter was sent by the district superintendent, Mr. Woods, to the chief accountant of the financial branch, Mr. Austin Bill:
In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, JAO/JMH, asking for a reply to your letter of the 23rd ult. regarding the shortage in accounts of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, N.B.-I beg to say that Inspector W. F. Griffith is expected to see the postmaster of Dupey's Corner some day this week and will give full information on his return to the office.
On December 1, 1926, Mr. Griffith wrote to Mr. Austin Bill and the letter, although marked personal, is now upon the file. I think, in the language of the editorial which appeared in tihe Winnipeg Free Press the other day, it will be admitted that no document is personal which deals with public business, as is the case here. This letter proceeds:,
With further reference to our conversation re shortage in accounts of the postmaster of Dupey s Corner, N.B. I beg to inform you I visited this office last week and while it was 11 ot possible to see Mr. Magee to ascertain whether or not he would endorse the notes for the postmaster I can personally assure you that there will be no doubt about the monthly payments as promised by the postmaster, and I would respectfully suggest that you concur in the arrangements set forth in official communication from the district superintendent's office of this date.
That letter is signed by Mr. Griffith and refers to a conversation he had in Ottawa with Mr. Austin Bill, chief accountant of the financial branch. On the same day a letter was sent, signed by the district superintendent and bearing under the signature the initial "G." It reads as follows:
With further reference to my memo of the 9th ult. and previous correspondence regarding balance due by the postmaster of Dupey's Corner N.B.. I beg to inform you Inspector Griffith visited Dupey's Corner last week and received from the postmaster the sum of $150 on account of the shortage.

The postmaster promised to pay at least $50 more by the 15th of December, and will complete the balance in twelve monthly payments.
The inspector is positively sure that the postmaster will be able to make the payments as promised, and it is respectfully recommended that the department concur in the recommendation.
Attached please find duplicate and triplicate receipts and bank draft for $150, as per above.
That letter was written by Mr. Woods, the district superintendent. It will be observed that in the letter written on the same day by Inspector Griffith he refers to Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee was not, so far as the correspondence indicates, in any way connected with the postal service and just why it was suggested that he should sign a note or give a guarantee for the default or deficiency in the Dupey's Comer office does not appear. I merely mention that in passing; otherwise, it might be thought that he was in some way connected with the office.
On December 3, 1926, two days later, the chief accountant at Ottawa directed a communication to Mr. Griffith, the inspector at St. John, reading as follows:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st inst. regarding the collection of the amount due the department by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner.
The matter has been taken up writh the Deputy Postmaster General who has directed me to say that the offer of the postmaster to pay $50 a month can be accepted if the department has your personal guarantee that the payments will be duly and promptly made, or if a written endorsement of the postmaster's promise can be obtained in the form of a promissory note from Mr. McGee.
I would point out that it is necessary to have such assurance of payment as the postmaster has, both in the preparation of his accounts and in carrying out the promise already made not given the department reason to have great confidence in him.
I would point out that the suggestion of a personal guarantee to be given by Mr. Griffith comes from the chief accountant after Mr. Griffith had visited Ottawa and had discussed with him the deficiency at Dupey's Corner.
On December 11, 1926, Mr. Griffith wrote to Mr. Bill, the chief accountant at Ottawa, in these terms:
Replying to your AB-JMH of the 3rd instant with further reference to the collection of the amount due the department by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, I beg to inform you that I personally guarantee that the payments will be duly and properly made; that is. at the rate of $50 a month, not later than the 15th day of each month.
That note is marked " personal." It is quite true that it is now upon the files but just why a personal note should be written by a post office inspector at St. John, N.B., to

Supply-Post Office
the financial department of the post office at Ottawa, guaranteeing a deficiency or default in the accounts at Dupey's Corner post office in Westmorland county, does not appear.
The chief accountant acknowledged receipt of that letter, and in order that there may be no misunderstanding I am going to quote it. This letter is dated January 29, 1927, and reads as follows:
With reference to your letter of the 11th December, W.F.G./E., relating to the collection of the amount due to the Post Office department by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, in which you advised that you would personally guarantee that the payments would be duly and properly made at the rate of $50 a month and not later than the 15th day of each month, as no payment has been received this month I shall be pleased if you will advise me concerning this matter.
A reply to that letter was sent by Mr. Griffith on February 7, 1927, reading as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt fo your personal letter number JAO-JMH of the 29th ult., with reference to the collection of the amount due the Post Office department by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner. My absence from the office was the cause of same not being replied to sooner.
I may say that the postmaster has been sick in bed this last month or more, and was unable to make his payment in January. I am arranging to go down there some time next week and can assure you that a double payment will be forthcoming before the end of the present month.
I expect to be in Ottawa the early part of next week and will drop in and discuss this matter more fully with you.
Then we have a letter directed by the Deputy Postmaster General to his superior officer, namely, the Postmaster General, the present incumbent of that office. That communication is dated February 25, 1927, and reads as follows:
With reference to the attached letter from the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, N.B., to the Postmaster General, he is informed that on the inspection of the post office on the 29th July last there was established a shortage of $907.06, which was later reduced by adjustments to $874.93.
I might observe that the letter written by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner to the Postmaster General is not attached to this file but it is referred to in this letter of the Deputy Postmaster General to his chief. The letter continues:
The first payment received from him was $150 collected by Inspector Griffith and forwarded to the department on the 1st December. At that time the postmaster promised to make up the balance by a payment of $50 on the 15th December and monthly payments thereafter of the same amount. Inspector Griffith having recommended that this offer be accepted, he was advised that some 78594-131J
further assurance of payment should be given. Mr. Griffith replied that he would personally guarantee that the payments would be duly and properly made not later than the I5th day of each month.	[DOT]
As no further payments had been received uip to the 29th January Mr. Griffith was asked on that date to advise the department concerning the matter. He wrote on the 7th February that he expected to be in Ottawa the following week and would discuss the matter fully then. In an interview with the chief accountant Mr. Griffith said that he would see the postmaster personally on his return to New Brunswick and arrange for a double payment before the end of February.
In anticipation of this payment no further action has been taken by the department in the case.
That was a communication from the Deputy Postmaster General to his chief, who is now the incumbent of the office of Postmaster General. On March 23, 1927, the chief accountant at Ottawa wrote a further communication to the district superintendent, reading as follows:
When Postal Inspector Griffith was in Ottawa some weeks ago he stated that on his return to Now Brunswick he would arrange for a double payment on account of the shortage in the Dupey's Corner account before the end of February.	No word has been
received from you in this connection. I shall be pleased to be advised as to the progress made.
Mr. Woods, the district superintendent, replied to that letter on March 2, 1927, as follows:
Receipt is acknowledged of the chief accountant's letter AB-JMH of the 23rd inst., with reference to the statement made by Postal Inspector Griffith when he was in Ottawa some weeks ago that when he returned to New Brunswick he would arrange for a double payment on account of the shortage in the Dupey's Corner account before the end of February.
The district superintendent begs to say that until the receipt of this letter he was not aware that the inspector had made this promise, and that on the return to headquarters of the inspector, who is now on field duty, the matter will be brought to his attention with the hope that the same may be adjusted to the satisfaction of the department.
That was the position on March 25, 1927. On April 14, 1927, a little less than a month later, the chief accountant at Ottawa again wrote to the district superintendent in these terms:
With reference to your letter of the 25th ult., HWW/M., in which you advised that Postal Inspector Griffith was on field duty and the question of the shortage in the Dupey's Corner accounts would be brought to his attention upon his return, as nothing further has been received relating to this matter I shall be pleased if you will advise me concerning the arrangements made as soon as possible.
Supply-Post Office

On April 19, a few days later, the district superintendent replied to the chief accountant as follows:
Replying to your memo of the 14th instant, number JAO-JMH and previous correspondence, I beg to inform you that Inspector Griffith visited Dupey's Corner in connection with the shortage in the accounts of the postmaster of that office, and reports that owing to the illness of the postmaster, he was unable to make the payments as promised. It was arranged, however, that the sum of $150 will be forwarded to the department not later than May 5.
While the payments have not been made as promptly as promised, the inspector guarantees the department that the amount will be paid in full, and that the department will suffer no monetary loss.
To that letter the chief accountant wrote as follows on the 12th May:
With reference to your letter of the 19th ult., and previous correspondence, in which you inform me that owing to the illness of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner the promised payments have not been made but that arrangements had been made that the sum of $150 would be forwarded to the department not later than the 5th May, as no payment has been received I shall be pleased if you will advise me by return mail as to what action has been taken.
To that communication seven days later, namely, on the 19th May, 1927, District Superintendent Woods wrote as follows:
Replying to your letter of the 12th instant, JAO/JMH, referring to previous correspondence in regard to the indebtedness of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, N.B.
I beg to say that no payment has been received from this postmaster at this office, and on questioning Inspector Griffith, who has been dealing with this matter, he advises me that he has not heard from the postmaster since his report of the postmaster's illness on April 19th, and arrangements are being made to have the inspector again visit him at an early date.
On the 9th June the chief accountant again wrote the district superintendent as follows:
With reference to your letter of the 19th May-HWW/M-in which you advise that arrangements had been made to have an inspector visit Dupey's Corner at an early date with a view to collecting the shortage, as nothing further has been received in this division relating to this case I shall be pleased if you will advise me as to what action was taken.
I might inform you that after the salary has been applied to date the balance due is $608.93.
To that letter District Superintendent Woods sent this reply on the 17th June:
With further reference to the matter of shortage in the accounts of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, and in reply to your letter of the 9th inst, asking to be advised as to what action has been taken in this matter.
I beg to say that as stated in my letter of the 19th May, arrangements were being made to have Inspector Griffith visit Dupey's Corner at an early date.
[Mr. Bennett.J
Unfortunately, however, the inspector has not found it convenient to do so, and on the 13th inst. I made a personal visit and interviewed the postmaster, and received information from him, if corect wrould show that he has not been given full credit for all moneys that he has paid the inspector.
The inspector has not been in the office nor reported^ to me since the 6th instant, and I am awaiting his return to the office in order to get his explanation. As soon as this is received a full report will be made to the department.
I would ask you, therefore, to consider this confidential, and to hold the matter in abeyance until you further hear from me.
That letter was placed on the official file although the district superintendent marked it "confidential" and directed it to the chief accountant. I believe, in placing it upon the public file, the officer pursued the correct course. On the 20th June the chief accountant wrote to District Superintendent Woods in these words:
1 am in receipt of your letter of the 17th inst. marked "confidential" regarding the shortage in the acounts of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner. Of course, you will realize that if there is anything serious in the transactions between the postmaser and one of your inspectors the matter cannot be kept from the heads of the departments. On the other hand. I am glad for the sake of the inspector referred to that it is not necessary to place your letter on file as it may cast reflections on him which are not justified by the unsupported word of a postmaster who has been grievously at fault in accounting for post office cash.
I note that you say that the inspector has not been in the office nor reported to you since the 6th inst. I would suggest that this is a matter on which a special report should be made to the department and not embodied in a "confidential" communication to one of the officials.
It was for that reason, I assume, that the letter was subsequently placed on the official file. I now come to a letter written on the same date, the 20th June, 1927, a very important communication. It was originally marked "confidential." It is dated ait St. John and signed by District Superintendent Woods. It is addressed to the chief accountant of the Post Office Department at Ottawa, and reads as follows:
Referring further to the matter of shortage in the accounts of the postmaster of Dupey's Corner, and to my confidential letter of June 17 in which it was stated that I made a personal visit and interviewed the postmaster, and received information from him, if correct, would show that he has not been given full credit for all moneys that he had paid the inspector.
By referring to report from this office of August 2. 1926. WFG/S, it will be noted that Sir. W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service, visited Dupey's Corner office on July 29, and at the close of his inspection he found that the postmaster was $907.06 short. After the in-

Supply-Post Office
spection there was collected from the postmaster $61.45, which was deposited in the Bank of Montreal, Saint John, on August 3.
This reduced the indebtedness to $845.61.
According to our files the postmaster has paid nothing since, with the exception of $150 on December 1, which was placed to the Receiver General's credit in the Bank of Montreal on that date, as per deposit slip No. 2516.
Inspector Griffith, who was specially assigned this case, and who according to his letter of December 11 to the chief accountant, in response to one addressed to the inspector dated December 3, gave his personal guarantee that the payments promised by the postmaster would be duly made. Since then he has frequently been reminded of the indebtedness of the postmaster, and always gave assurance that the postmaster was all right and that he would see that the amount was collected, and on April 19, 1927, he reported that he had visited Dupey's Corner, but owing to the illness of the postmaster he was unable to make the payments as promised.
As I have not been satisfied with the course that the inspector has been pursuing in this case, and considering it strange that he would guarantee the postmaster's account, I decided to visit the office personally. This I did on the 13th inst., and in my conversation with the postmaster I concluded that there was something irregular going on.
The postmaster produced the following receipts, which I have now in my possession, for money paid to the inspector on account of the Post Office Department: -
Date of inspection:
July 29	 $50
August 23	 40
September 30	 50
Besides this he stated, and verified the statement by entries in his registration book, that he sent to Mr. Griffith to his home the following amounts:

Nov. 8-registered letter No. 526... $200 Dec. 2-registered letter No. 545....	40
These registers have been traced and found that they were delivered by letter carrier to Mr. Griffith's house and signed for by Mrs. Griffith.
The $50 mentioned as being received on the 29th July I feel confident is part of the $61.45 that was deposited to the Receiver General's credit on August 3. This would mean that if the postmaster's statement was found to be correct there should be placed to his credit $330, instead of $150 as per bank receipt No. 2516, December 1, 1926.
On acount of the inspector's absense from the office I was unable to question him in regard to these discrepancies until this morning.
When asked how many payments the postmaster had made to him he replied that there were three, namely:

Or a total of .. ..	$150
and while he was unable to give the dates that he received these amounts he stated that from time to time he got the first until he received the third there would be about six weeks elapse.
He was then asked if the postmaster had made a payment at any one time of $200, and after hesitating a moment he replied "Yes", and stated he received it by registered letter. He was asked if he had received from the postmaster any other registered letter, but said "No". He was then told that the postmaster had stated to me that he had also sent by registered letter $40. The inspector then stated that he had no recollection of receiving this. He was asked if the $200 that he received from the postmaster by registered letter was on Post Office account, and he said "Yes". He was then asked why there was no record on the Dupey's Corner file of these amounts, and he stated that as he had become accountable for the amount due by the postmaster that he was holding them until the amount would make a fairly decent payment in order to make a good showing for the postmaster.
While the inspector has not yet admitted that he received the $40 that the postmaster says he sent on December 2, by register 545, I am quite convinced that he did receive this amount, and assuming this acording to my information there should be placed to the credit of the postmaster the following amounts:
August 23	 $ 40
Spetember 30	 50
November 8	 200
December 2	 40
Or a total of	 $330
instead of $150, or a balance due from Mr. Griffith of $180.
It will be noted that the inspector received on or about November 9. $200, and that he did not place the $150 to the postmaster's credit until December 1, which would go to show that the reason he gave for not turning these amounts over when he received them is not a very substantial one.
Going into this matter a little closer I find that in a letter dictated by Mr. Griffith to the financial superintendent on December 1 he stated that he had visited Dupey's Corner last week, and received from the postmaster the sum of $150. In checking up his journal of proceedings for November I see that he refers to a trip to Dupey's Corner on November 15, leaving there that same day.
The postmaster advised me that he had not made any payment at any time of $150 to Mr. Griffith. It can, therefore, be assumed that he made incorrect statements in his letter of December 1.
Again in his letter to the chief accountant of April 19, he states that he had visited Dupey's Corner, and that owing to the illness of the postmaster he was unable to make the payments as promised. The postmaster said that he did not visit the office during the month of April, and there is no mention of his being at Dupey's Corner in his journal of proceedings for the month of April.
Mr. Griffith has just called upon me, and has delivered to me on account of the shortage of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, $180, and the same will be deposited in the Bank of Montreal, Saint John, this date.
That is the letter, as I have said, of the district superintendent, under date of June
Supply-Post Office

20, 1927. Following that, a letter was sent by District Superintendent Woods to the acting financial superintendent, reading as follows:
Referring to previous correspondence concerning the indebtedness of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, I beg to report that the sum of $180 has to-day been deposited in the Bank of Montreal, Saint John, towards such indebtedness, and herewith are duplicate and triplicate receipts and bank draft for same.
Then followed on the 23rd of June, 1927, a letter addressed to Mr. Coolican, the assistant deputy postmaster general, and this becomes important, Mr. Chairman, in view of subsequent communications that I shall read. It is directed by the acting financial superintendent, Mr. Atwater, to Mr. Coolican, the assistant deputy postmaster general, and reads as follows:
Re Dupey's Corner, N.B., we find that original shortage was $844. and that at the present time we are still short about $469. The office only has a revenue of $144 yearly, and why the postmaster was ever allowed to go on as he did, I do not know as I believe the matter was taken up by Mr. Glover a year ago.
Instructions have been sent to the district superintendent to-day to inform the postmaster that he must make an immediate settlement of the balance, the reason being given that he has failed to keep his agreement to pay $40 monthly.
There appear to Ire certain very disturbing factors in connection with the payments that have already been made, and probably they will be reported on by the district superintendent.
That letter was dated the 23rd day of June, 1927. On the 24th of June, 1927, the next day, the acting financial superintendent, Mr. Atwater, wrote to District Superintendent Woods a letter which although marked personal is upon the file, and lest it be that a precis of it would not be satisfactory I venture to trespass upon the time of the house by reading it:
My attention has been called by the chief accountant to a very serious ease in connection with the shortage at Dupey's Corner, N.B.
I find that out of the original shortage of $844, there still remains $469 owing the department, although it is nearly one year since the shortage was first brought under investigation. Yon will receive an official communication asking you to have this balance collected immediately.
Will you be good enough to see that personal attention is given to the matter, and that steps will be taken immediately to call upon the postmaster at Dupey's Corner to make good the balance of this amount without further delay. It cannot be expected that so large a sum of public money misappropriated by a postmaster can be left indefinitely for the postmaster to make good as he sees fit. The postmaster should have been placed under arrest when the shortage was first discovered if he failed to make it good. We have numerous cases, not nearly so seriou, one of them hap-
pened a few days ago, in which postmasters in other districts are promptly placed under arrest if they do not make good the shortage at once.
I do not know why the postmaster was allowed so much freedom, but it is quite evident that the case has been treated with a benevolence towards the postmaster, which is not usual. As the shortage took place a year ago, I am not aware of all of the facts, but in any case it is requested that this matter be adjusted without further delay.
To that communication District Superintendent Woods, on the 29th day of June, 1927, directed a reply, addressed to Mr. Atwater, the acting financial superintendent, reading as follows-and this letter becomes rather important in view of what subsequently transpired :
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th instant, 1-66 with reference to the serious case in connection with the shortage at Dupey's Corner, N.B.
The official notification to which you refer asking me to have the balance due by the postmaster collected immediately has also been received, and the postmaster under registered cover has been advised that it will Ire necessary for him to have the amount due, namely. $469.43, in my hands not later than July 5th.
You will remember that the chief accountant after consulting with the Deputy Postmaster General wrote a letter dated December 3rd to Mr. W. F. Griffith stating that the offer of the postmaster to pay $50 per month would be accepted if the department had his, Mr. Griffith's, personal guarantee that the payments would be duly and promptly made.
In response to this letter Mr. Griffith wrote on December 11th personally guaranteeing the account.
Will this demand made on the postmaster annul the guarantee given by Mr. Griffith, or will his guarantee still hold good?
I note that you say the postmaster should have been placed under arrest when the shortage was first discovered if he failed to make it good.
On July 31 the postmaster was written to and it was pointed out to him the seriousness of his position, and a number of sections were quoted from the Post Office Act among which was the following:
"Every officer of or connected with the post office who converts to his own use in any way whatsoever, or by way of investment in any kind of property or merchandise or lends with or without interest, any portion of the public moneys entrusted to him for safe-keeping, transfer, disbursement, or for any other purpose, shall be deemed to have stolen so much of the said moneys as is taken, converted, invested, used or lent, and is guilty of an indictable offence."
He was told that the matter was being referred to the Post Office Department at Ottawa, and was advised that I was of the opinion that the department would not accept the offer that he made to the inspector.
A report dictated by Inspector Griffith was sent to you as chief inspector on August 2 giving information as to the shortage of the postmaster.

Supply-Post Office
While this report did not recommend that criminal proceedings be taken against the postmaster, I may say that I was somewhat surprised when I did not receive authority from the department to do so, and I am at a loss to know why the postmaster was allowed so much freedom, and quite agree with you that he has been treated in a benevolent way.
It may be that the inspector's sympathy for him was made known to the department, but no early record of this is on file at this office, although a letter from the chief accountant dated November 6 refers to a conversation that took place with Mr. Griffith on October 14. which gave the chief accountant assurance that the postmaster would make good the sum of $200 by the 1st November, and at least $40 per month thereafter. Previous to this conversation the inspector had already collected from the postmaster $90 for which he had not given the postmaster credit. $40 of it was paid the inspector on August 23, and $50 of it on September 30.
It is quite evident that the inspector did not mention these payments to the chief accountant.
It is a sorry state of affairs when the action of trusted officials is such that their reliability is questioned, and it is regrettable that Mr. Griffith should so far forget his duties as an inspector as he has in this case.
I have my doubts as to the ability of the postmaster to meet this payment for I saw on my visit indications of poverty and distress, and the farm on which he lives belongs to his father and it is mortgaged up to its full value, namely, $1,400. However, he has been advised of the department's demands and you will be further informed in regard to the matter in a few days.
I am taking it for granted that you do not wish an arrest to be made until authority is received from the department.
On the 5th of July, 1927, District Superintendent Woods addressed a letter to the chief accountant, Mr. Austin Bill, reading as follows:
With reference to previous correspondence regarding the shortage in the accounts of Mr. Edouard R. Hebert, postmaster at Dupey's Corner, N.B., and in response to your letter of the 22nd ultimo, asking that the postmaster be called upon for an immediate settlement of the balance due, namely, $469.43.
The postmaster was written to on June 28 and advised that it would be necessary for him to have the amount of the shortage in my hands not later than July 5, and the following letter has been received from his father, Raymond F. Hebert:
"In answer to your letter to my son Edward, postmaster of Dupuis Corner, re shortage in his account, I must say that I had the occasion to meet the hon. Postmaster General yesterday and referred the matter to him and asked him to extend the time for one month to enable me to raise a part of the money and would make arrangement for the balance.
The hon. minister promised me to either write or phone you to-day.
Hoping you will grant me the extension of time, I am, sir, with thanks,
Yours very truly,
Raymond F. Hebert."
I am acknowledging the receipt of this letter and advising Mr. Hebert that the matter has been referred to the department.
I may say that up to the present I have had no communication either by letter or phone with the hon. Postmaster General regarding the matter.
You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that that letter is dated July 5, 1927, and on the day preceding, according to the statement made by the postmaster, he had interviewed the Postmaster General with respect to this prosecution and requested that he be given an extension of time to make good his shorts age of cash.


Mr. VENIOT:: I think the hon. gentleman is making a mistake; it was the father.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank my hon. friend. It was the father of the postmaster. On July 9 the acting financial superintendent wrote a letter to the general superintendent of postal service, Mr. T. P. Coolican, reading as follows:
Referring to letter of the 23rd ultimo, in regard to Dupey's Corners, I am enclosing copy of report from the district superintendent at St. John.
I have sent a copy of this report to the Deputy Postmaster General.
The financial branch is following up the case as regards the collection of the shortage.
The district superintendent has been notified to have this amount collected without further delay.
The question of any action as regards Inspector Griffith in connection with this case is, of course, not a matter for the financial branch.
On July 9, the same day, the following memorandum appears to have been prepared by Mr. Atwater, t'he acting financial superintendent :
Memorandum for Deputy Postmaster General.
Please find attached copy of report from the district superintendent of postal service at St. John, in regard to collection of instalments paid by the postmaster at Dupey's Corners on a shortage in official cash at that office.
The district superintendent has been instructed to take immediate steps to collect the balance due by the postmaster, without further delay. This will be followed up.
In the meantime, the matter is submitted in connection with the regrettable action taken by Inspector Griffith.
Copy of a letter to Mr. Woods, dated the 23rd June, is also attached.
Copy of this report is also being sent to the general superintendent of postal service.
On July 14, five days later, there appears on the file this memorandum:
Mr. Gaboury.
When this difficulty occurred at Dupuis Corners Mr. Griffith personally informed me of arrangement made to get it straightened and I approved of his giving time to postmaster to settle and when all was paid we would dismiss him. I did not think it necessary to
Supply-Post Office

make the arrangement a matter of record. Griffith guaranteed payment. The postmaster's father saw me a short time ago and I told him if the amount was settled within next four months we would not prosecute and 1 know nothing about amount received by Mr. Griffith. Leave matters stand for a while.
P. J. Veniot.
That, Mr. Chairman, you will observe is dated July 14, 1927. It indicates at least one thing clearly in these words:
When this difficulty occurred at Dupuis Corners Mr. Griffith personally informed me of arrangement made to get it straightened and I approved of his giving time to postmaster to settle and when all was paid we would dismiss him.
Then follow these words:
Griffith guaranteed payment.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, without drawing any inference at this stage with respect to this correspondence, that that memorandum abundantly establishes the reason why they suggested a guarantee should be given by Griffith himself. The real reason why Griffith gave a guarantee in respect to this matter-


Peter John Veniot: I do not think my hon.
friend wishes to be unfair, but if he will look back he will find that this occurred in June or July, 1926, when I was not Postmaster General, and that Mr. Griffith had given his guarantee before 1927. So when it is stated that I saw Mr. Griffith, and so on, it refers only to the first time I became aware of the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. Postmaster
General is quite right in saying the difficulty in the office at Dupey's Corners occurred at a time prior to his accession to office; but he overlooks the fact that it was in September, 1926, that we first have any reference to a guarantee being given by Griffith. Further, the minister's own signature to the memorandum of July 14, 1927, makes it clear that when his attention was directed to the difficulty at Dupey's Corners he discussed it with Griffith, with the result that I have just read from the memorandum.
Now, we find next that on the strength of that memorandum of July 14, 1927, Mr. L. J. Gaboury initialled this memorandum to Mr. Atwater:
Please close this case. P.M.G. instructions to me. L.J.G.
So whatever may have been his knowledge at the inception of this trouble, it is perfectly clear that by July 14, 1927, the minister had apprised himself of the situation, and that Mr. Gaboury had taken the action to which I have referred under instructions given by the minister. Let me follow it further. On

August 19, 1927, Mr. Atwater made this memorandum for the Acting Deputy Postmaster General:
After instructions were sent to the district superintendent St. John, on the 23rd June, 1927, to take immediate steps to collect the balance of a shortage owing by the postmaster at Dupey's Corners, a report was sent in dated June 29, by the district superintendent, indicating that certain moneys had been turned over to inspector Griffith by the postmaster, Dupey's Corners, which had not been turned in to the department by the inspector until a considerable time after.
This matter was brought to the attention of the Deputy Postmaster General on the 9th July, but in accordance with instructions given by the Postmaster General at that time, it has been allowed to stand for the present.
Now, mark you, sir, that is the memorandum from Mr. Atwater, the acting financial superintendent, to the Deputy Postmaster General of Canada. It proceeds:
Since that time the ease has come up in connection with the theft of mail matter at Shediae post office.
To which I shall presently refer.
The culprit in this case is a young man by the name of Leger, who was apprehended.
There is a dispute between Inspector Griffith and Leger in regard to the amount turned over to Griffith by Leger. It appears that district superintendent Woods questioned Leger in this matter, and a copy of Inspector Griffith's statement to the inspection service is attached.
There is no definite evidence that Inspector Griffith received any amount more than he accounted for from Leger, although he does not dispute the possibility.
In view of the fact that District Superintendent Woods has considered it necessary, having regard to the cases mentioned, to refuse his recommendation of Inspector Griffith's yearly increase, it would seem advisable that this matter should be definitely cleared up and the actual facts ascertained.
Since the department is aware that there is considerable personal animosity between District Superintendent Woods and Inspector Griffith, it would be very unwise to accept the statement^ of either one without independent investigation.
It is therefore suggested that as soon as the acting chief inspector, Mr. Fortier, returns to duty he should be instructed, subject to the Postmaster General's approval, to go to St. John and investigate these cases to ascertain what are the actual facts.
I shall not now refer to the Shediae case, which I shall deal with as a separate matter. Nor shall I refer for the moment to the recommendations made by Superintendent Woods with respect to Inspector Griffith; I shall deal with that also as a separate count in the indictment against the Postmaster General. Then follows a letter, written by the district superintendent to the chief accountant, Mr. Atwater, dated September 17, 1927:
Referring further to the indebtedness of the postmaster at Dupey's Corners, N.B., I beg to

Supply-Post Office
report that a further amount of $75 has been collected from the postmaster, and the same has been deposited in the Bank of Montreal. St. John, towards his indebtedness, and you will find herewith duplicate and triplicate receipts and bank draft for same.
Then we have on September 17 a report dealing with the situation in its entirety, signed by the district superintendent:
Enclosed herewith you will find copy of a memorandum sent to the chief accountant advising him that $75 has been placed in the Bank of Montreal, St. John, N.B., as a further payment from the postmaster at Dupey s Corners on account of shortage found in the postmaster's accounts as per reports from this office WFG/S, dated August 2, 1926.
Not receiving any reply to my letter addressed to the chief accountant of July 5, in which a copy of a letter from Raymond F. Hebert, father of the postmaster, was quoted, which was to the effect that Mr. Hebert had been in conversation with the hon. Postmaster General with a view of having the time of the settlement of his son's case extended, I made a visit to Dupey's Corners on the evening of the 15th inst., and saw the postmasteT, who advised me that he did not have any money, but he thought that his father had come for me.
I then called upon Mr. Hebert, Senior, who lives about ten miles distant from Dupey's Corners, and received from him the $75 mentioned above. Mr. Hebert advised me that it would be impossible for him to make any further payment on this account before spring.
In my conversation with him he stated that his son had told him that he was of the opinion there was $80 more that should have been placed to his credit than what has been. He was told that he must be mistaken in this, as the postmaster had not told me anything about it. but was advised that if the postmaster had any evidence that would show he had paid more than what was put to his credit to let me know at once.
Then followed a communication from the chief accountant to the district superintendent, merely acknowledging the receipt of the money and dealing with what was proposed to be done with respect to verifying the alleged facts touching the $80. I shall not take up the time of the house reading that. On October 6th, 1927, a letter was written to the financial superintendent by the district superintendent at St. John in the following words:
In reply to departmental memo of September 23, AB/JMH, relative to the shortage of the Dupey's Corner post office, and suggesting that an inspecting officer interview Mr. Hebert, sr., and have full investigation made of the claim that another $80 had been paid in for which credit had not been given, the financial superintendent is advised that Inspector Peck visited Dupey's Corner on the 4th inst. and interviewed Mr. Hebert, sr., as well as the postmaster, Edouard Hebert.	.
Upon questioning Mr. Hebert, sr., it was found that the extra amount which he thought had been paid was $50 instead of $80. He obtained this information from his son, as the son had informed him that he had made a payment of that amount at the time the office was inspected and the shortage discovered. He was shown that credit fpr this amount had been duly given opposite item 30 on the inspection report, and investigation shows that the amounts paid by him correspond in total with the credits given him up to the present time. The correct balance now due from him is $375.93, as per statement attached to the above-mentioned memo.
The inspector pointed out to both Mr. Hebert, sr., and the postmaster, the great leniency that had been shown them by the department, and pressed them very hard for another payment at this time. This they both stated was absolutely out of the question, and from observation made by the inspector, he is convinced that such is the case.
Mr. Hebert, sr., is undoubtedly doing his best to pay off the shortage, although he cannot promise to pay anything before spring, and it is thought that this duty will devolve entirely upon him, as the son has all he can do to make a living. The latter has a family of six in very poor circumstances, and great hardship would be entailed upon them if he were arrested, and nothing would be gained towards a speedier payment, as there is no security to offer for a loan, and the promises made by Mr. Hebert, which are thought to be sincere, offer the only means for the department to recuperate its loss.
I fancy the word was not "recuperate" in the original but that is the way the copy reads. On the 22nd day of November, 1927, a letter was written by the district superintendent of St. John directed to the Postmaster General.
Dear Mr. Minister,-
I nm in receipt of a letter from Mr. Raymond F. Hebert. Shediac, N.B., in regard to the misappropriation of post office funds by his son, Mr. E. R. Hebert, postmaster of Dupey s Corner, N.B., in which he expresses a willingness to make good the amount of the balance of the misappropriation, but says that he cannot pay the amount all at once. He states that his son has a large family of small children and his wife is delicate, and that it takes all he can earn to support his wife and family. He further states that he will pay $75 this coming winter and at the rate of $150 per year until the amount is paid up.
Mr. Hebert enclosed with his letter a letter that he received from you dated 31st October, which would indicate that you are satisfied to leave the settlement ot this case to the district superintendent at Saint John. _
As this case has some complications I hesitate to take the responsibility of making a settlement without first receiving direct instructions from you as to the department's wishes in the matter with authority to act.
Yours very truly,
H. W. Woods, District Superintendent.
The letter referred to as being directed.by the minister to Mr. Hebert was not attached to the file; it is not on the file. Now, the reply to that letter is found in a communication directed to the district superintendent.
Supply-Post Office

Mr. Woods, by the acting financial superintendent, Mr. Atwater, under date December 1, 1927:
Keferring to your communication addressed to the Postmaster General under date of the 22nd instant, you are authorized to make a settlement with the postmaster at Dupeys Corners for the payment of balance of the amount due the department on account of shortage in post office cash.
If the settlement suggested in your letter is the best that can be obtained in the circumstances, this may be allowed, but in permitting the postmaster to make good the amount in this way, the department must obtain adequate security that the amount will be paid.
Will you be good enough to immediately take up with the postmaster the question of security that is to be furnished by him, or by his father, who is making good the amount, to guarantee payment.
No promise of settlement can be made until the department is satisfied in regard to the security given.
To that letter Mr. Woods, the district superintendent, wrote a communication under date December 14, 1927, addressed to the financial superintendent, and although marked confidential it appears on the file. As it deals with purely public business, I assume it was put on the file for the purpose of being read. It reads:
Pursuant to directions contained in departmental memorandum of December 1st, authorizing a settlement with the late postmaster of the above office in accordance with suggestions made from this office under date of November 22nd, the superintendent is advised as follows:
On the 12th instant Inspector H. B Peck interviewed Mr. Raymond Hebert, (father of the late postmaster) at Shediac who made the re*orred to in above-mentioned letter. Mr. Hebert stated that his property which lie valued at $1,800 had a mortgage against it of $1,400. This the inspector verified by consulting with the attorney who transacts Mr. Hebert's business and he also stated that there was no one at Shediac who would join Mr. Hebert in becoming responsible for the amount m question. All the security Mr. Herbert could offer was his own notes. When informed that this was not sufficient and being asked if he had not some relative to assist him he replied that he had a brother who was a priest at Buctouche and to whom he did not wish to apply for assistance and who knew nothing of the matter.
The inspector suggested that he be given a letter of introduction to Rev. Phil. Hebert, the brother above referred to, notifying him that the matter would be laid before him with the intention of obtaining his signature to joint notes covering the amount due. This Mr. Hebert finally assented to and the inspector first obtaining the signature of Raymond Hebert to the notes covering the amount proceeded to Buctouche and after explaining the whole matter to the Rev. Phil. Hebert, the latter also signed the notes which are herewith enclosed.

. The superintendent is assured that the above is the best settlement that could be effected and is undoubtedly considered adequate security for payment of the, shortage.
'The several parties were given to understand that the settlement as made was contingent upon its acceptance by the department and in no case was it to be binding nor did the department relinquish its right to take such further action as might be deemed advisable in the event of any or all of the notes not being met at maturity.
That closes the incident, except for a letter written by Mr. Atwater, the acting financial superintendent, under date December 19, 1927, in which he says:
Please find enclosed five notes in favour of the Postmaster General, to cover balance of shortage, not yet made good, by the postmaster, Dupey's Corner.
These notes have been signed by the postmaster's father, who is making good the amount, and Mr. Hebert's brother, who is parish priest at Buctouche, and who has consented to jointly sign the notes, as security for the department.
It is requested that steps be taken to have these notes brought forward at proper intervals, for settlement.
Steps should also be taken to withdraw the total amount from guarantee fund, to recoup revenue, and as each note is settled, the amount can be returned to guarantee fund.
That closes the incident so far as the records before us indicate. We now come to what may be described as the Shediac incident in connection with the administration of the office by Mr. Griffith. The record of that incident is not lengthy but it must be dealt with frankly. Before I deal with that however it may be convenient to deal with the case connected with the reports made by the district superintendent, Mr. Woods, to the chief inspector regarding the administration of the office by Inspector Griffith. As the committee is no doubt aware, it is the custom of the department to submit to the district superintendent annually an efficiency report, and on that efficiency report the ratings are made in relation to increases in salaries. In this instance we have before us two documents with the relevant exhibits dealing with the increase in salary to Mr. Inspector Griffith. I think perhaps it is well, without taking up too much time, to direct attention to the application made for the 1927 revision. The 1927 revision was for an increase in salary of $180 to take place April 1, 1927. District Superintendent Woods reported for instance a 90 per cent rating in regard to the quantity of Mr. Griffith's work; as to quality of work and industry, he gave a rating of 80 per cent; he rated at 90 per cent his intelligence, resourcefulness, initiative and ability to carry on work without supervision, his ability to carry out instruc-

Supply-Post Office
tions, and his knowledge of the work of the branch. He placed at 80 his tact in meeting the public and in dealing with other employees, and at 80 his willingness to cooperate; his fairness toward assistants and his conduct in his relations with superiors was placed at 70; his physical fitness was placed at 90, punctuality at 80, ability to plan and supervise work and to instruct and direct others at 90; his judgment and ability to accept and carry responsibility at 80, and his success in charge of staff is placed at 90.
On the reverse of the sheet, however, the district superintendent was asked whether or not he could recommend that the inspector be given his salary increase, in these words: 26. In case the employee is not at his maximum, <lo you recommend him for increase in salary? No.
If not. state why. In view of the irregularities of Inspector Griffith as per report from this office of June 20th, 1927, regarding shortage in the accounts of the P.M. Dupey's Corner; also report of the 13th July, 1927, dealing with claim of Mr. Edwad T. Leger of Shediac that he had paid the inspector money which was not placed to his credit, the district superintendent cannot recommend Mr. Griffith for increased salary.
That was the recommendation made by the superintendent of the New Brunswick division in 1927. He made the same report in 1928, but then we find a most amazing letter on this file. This letter is signed by P. T. Coolican, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General; it is dated August 27, 1927, and headed " Memorandum for Inspection Service." The letter proceeds:
The Postmaster General instructs that Mr. Griffith's annual increase be proceeded with, notwithstanding the report by District Superintendent Woods.
The Postmaster General advises that he knows all the details of the case-hence, the above instructions.
As I have said, that memorandum was signed by the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, and when the matter came up for further consideration in 1928 Mr. Woods, the district superintendent, then referred to the instances which I have mentioned with the result that he did not recommend the increase. It is not until September of 1928, when Mr. Woods wrote Mr. Fortier, that we have a further memorandum in the following words:
Referring to your communication of the 17th instant, enclosing form 24 G, in connection with the annual increase of salary of Mr. W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service, St. John district, and particularly to your remarks as regards cases reported on June 20th and July 13th, 1927, on acount of which you say you cannot recommend Mr. Griffith for an increase
in salary, I desire to inform you that these eases have been inquired into personally, by the' Postmaster General and the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General when the matter was brought to their attention last year, and the explanations given by Inspector Griffith have been considered satisfactory, so under the circumstances, these cases are considered closed, and further mention of them need not be made in any further reports of the conduct or efficiency of Inspector Griffith.
I trust that this committee will realize just what those words mean, Mr. Chairman. At this moment I do not propose to comment upon them; I merely direct the attention of this house and the country to what has been done in this matter; I leave hon. members to be the judges. Personally I am drawing no inferences from these facts; I am leaving them as they appear.
With respect to the Shediac matter, which perhaps might have been taken sooner, but which I can deal with chiefly without encumbering Hansard with the complete record, the fact is that there was a shortage of $334 in the Shediac post office and it was contended by the Legers, who had to pay that amount, that they had not received credit for all the money they had given Mr. Griffith. That is the instance referred to by District Superintendent Woods and by the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General who, under the instructions of the Postmaster General, treated the matter as one not to be mentioned or heard of again. On July 13, 1927, the district superintendent placed the Shediac matter fully before the acting chief inspector in these words:
In compliance with the acting chief inspector's memorandum Insp. 68413 of June 22nd, which enclosed official cheque No. 879 for $29 representing the balance of the sum of $334 collected from J. Leger, sr., Shediac, N.B.. to make good the losses of registered mail matter due to the depredations of his son.
A cheque for $29 payable to J. Leger, sr., was forwarded to the postmaster at Shediac, with a request that it be handed to Mr. Leger taking from him receipt for the same.
This cheque was duly received by the postmaster, and when he presented it to Mr. Leger it was not accepted by him because it should have been made payable to Edouard T. Leger instead of J. Leger, sr., and also that it was for an amount less than the difference between the amount that Mr. Leger paid and that for which he was given credit.
By referring to report from this office WFG/E. of June 22nd, 1925, it will be noted on page 2, paragraph 2, that postal inspector Mr. W. F. Griffith stated that he had received from Mr. Edward Leger a total amount of $300, and in a memorandum from the district office dated September 1st, 1925, there was enclosed duplicate and triplicate receipts from the Bank of Montreal for $334, which showed that $34 had reached this office besides the $300 above referred to.
Supply-Post Office

In a statement furnished by Mr. Leger to the postmaster at Shediac on the 9th inst. he claimed to have paid the following amounts to Inspector Griffith:-

A total of	$349 00
As this showed that there was $15 missing a visit was made to Shediac by the district superintendent on the 12th inst., and a declaration was received from Edouard T. Leger, which reads as follows:-
"I, Edouard T. Leger, of Shediac, in the county of Westmorland, do solemnly declare that due to certain losses from registered mail matter on account of depredations committed by my son, Alban Leger, I paid the Post Office Department indemnity to the amount of three hundred and forty-nine dollars ($349) as follows, that is to say, on or about June 19th, 1925, I paid to W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service, one hundred dollars ($100); on or about June 22nd, I paid to Mr. J. V. Bourque, postmaster. Shediac, N.B. two hundred dollars ($200); on or about August 20th, 1925, I paid to Mr. W. F. Griffith on the train between Moncton and Shediac thirty-four dollars ($34), and some time in the month of October, 1925, Mr. W. F. Griffith called at my home and told me it would be necessary for me to pay fifteen dollars ($15) more, and this amount was given him in my presence by my wife, Delphine Leger."
Besides this, the following declaration was made by Mde. Delphine Leger:-
"I am the wife of Edouard T. Leger, and that some time in the month of October, 1925, I, on request of my husband, and in his presence paid to Mr. W. F. Griffith fifteen dollars ($15):"
In the conversation held with Mr. Leger he stated that he received no receipts from the inspector for any of the money that he had paid.
On this date Inspector Griffith was questioned as to the amount of money that he received from Mr. Leger, and he stated that as this case dated back to two years ago he couldn't remember exactly what amounts he did receive. He was shown his report of June 22nd, 1925, and also a list that had been made out of the abstractions against the Shediac post office, which totalled $334, and besides this the original receipt for the deposit of that amount made on Sept. 1st. As this covered the only record that is on the file of money received Mr. Griffith said he presumed that the $334 is all that he had received. The only moneys, however, that he was positive in receiving was the $300 that is mentioned in his report of June 22nd, 1925.
He \yas asked if he had met Mr. Leger on the train or at his own home, and he stated that he had remembered seeing him at Moncton station, but could not remember whether he got money from him there or not, but was quite positive, however, that he did not receive any money from Leger at Leger's home, with the exception of the $100 that was paid on June 19th.
At this juncture the inspector was told that as there appeared to be a discrepancy between his statement and that of Mr. Leger's, it would be necessary for him to give a written statement of his knowledge of the matter. To this [Mr. Bennett.)
he objected and refused to give any statement until he saw Mr. Leger. This did not meet with approval, and he was told that it was absolutely necessary for him to give a written statement, and after some more conversation the stenographer was called and the following is a statement signed by him:-
"I cannot say positively what moneys I collected from Mr. Leger.
I have positive recollection of receiving $309 in three amounts of $100 each; $100 cash and $200 money orders issued at Shediac post office payable to me at Saint John."
I do remember going to Moncton, I think on two different occasions."
"I went once to the C.N.R. shops, Moncton. The second time I went to Moncton I saw him at the station, shook hands with him, and saw him get on board the train for Shediac, but I do not remember whether I got money from him or not at that time."
"The time that I met Mr. Leger at the station is the last time that I saw him."
"The first payment that I received from Leger was paid me in his own home, and this is the only money that he paid me in his own house to my recollection."
"I have never received any money from Mr. Leger's wife, to my recollection."
"(sgd.) Wm. F. Griffith."
It was not until after the inspector gave his written statement that he was told that the district superintendent had seen and gotten declarations from Mr. Leger and his wife, and he showed much annoyance and accused the district superintendent of playing a mean, and underhanded trick.
As to this the district superintendent has no comments and he refrains from making any recommendation in this case, but is of the opinion that the total amount that the inspector received from Mr. Leger is $349 instead of $334, leaving a balance due from Mr. Griffith of $15.
That is the communication which Mr. Woods sent the department at Ottawa. On July 18, 1927, and this date is rather important in view of the memorandum signed by the hon. Postmaster General himself, the following letter was written by Mr. Griffith to H. Fortier, the acting chief inspector:
On Wednesday of last week just before I was leaving the office the district superintendent called me and asked me to make a statement immediately about a case that I was dealing with during the summer of 1925, that is, the stealing of letters at Shediac post office by a young man by the name of Leger.
Naturally it is pretty hard for a person to remember everything that happened within two years and not having the file to refresh one's memory. However, I made a statement as near as possible from memory and after doing so the district superintendent produced a lot of papers from his desk and started to read affidavits foul different people. I then took a tumble that he had evidently been down to Shediac, and I asked him what he was driving at or what he meant. He informed me that in the settlement of the case the department had returned some money to Mr. Leger, and he, Leger, took exception to the amount.

Supply-Post Office
It seems there is a difference of $15 between what I have on record and what Leger claims he paid.
A11 I know about the matter is that when I was there I was paid $100, and within a day or two I received two money orders for $100 each, making $300 in all. This covered the total amount of losses at that time re-portecW
Some time afterwards other cases cropped up and instructions were received in each case to have the money collected from Mr. Leger. On receipt of those cases from the enquiry section I have a distinct recollection of going to Moncton twice and I know I collected $34 from him but cannot give the exact date.
It seems that some time later there was another case of $15 turned up and I went to Moncton to see Mr. Leger. I remember meeting him just as the train was pulling out for Shediac. It is most probable from what Leger ar.d his wife say that he did not have the money on him at the time and that I did go into Shediac later and received the $15 from him, but I certainly have no recollection of same at present. But there is one thing certain-Leger and his wife are honest people and if they are positive they paid this additional $15 I certainly would not dispute their statement, but I would be surprised if I received any money and I did not give them a receipt for same.
Now I have had no opportunity to see Mr. Leger since, in fact from the actions of the district superintendent I thought perhaps it would be better not to go near him.
With reference to this matter I may say I will make no move until I receive orders from the department.
As before stated, if Mr. and Mrs. Leger have any proof of paying me the above amount I will be only too pleased to either return it to them or forward it to the department, as directed.
The next communication is a letter dated July 20, 1927, from the district superintendent, Mr. Woods, to Mr. Fortier, in which he says:
Referring further to the acting chief inspector's memorandum of June 22nd, insp. 68413, authorizing a refund of $29 to be paid J. Leger, senior, Shediac. N.B., to make good the losses from registered mail matter due to the depredations of his son.
The district superintendent begs to call attention to his report of July 13, in which it was pointed out that the refund is due Edouard T. Leger instead of J. Leger, senior.
Will the acting chief inspector please authorize the paying of this amount to Edouard T. Leger, and also give instructions as to whether the claim of Mr. Leger for a further amount of $15 which he says that he paid to Inspector Mr. W. F. Griffith, shall be entertained or not.
On July 22, two days later, the letter was acknowledged in the following language:
Mr. Leger's claim for a further amount of $15 is receiving attention and the district superintendent will be further advised.
This $29 was paid to Edouard T. Leger, who acknowledged by receipt which is upon the file. On July 30, the following letter was sent by the district superintendent:
With further reference to the matter of refund to Mr. Edouard T. Leger, Shediac, N.B.,
in connection with losses from registered mail matter due to the depredations of his son.
Enclosed herewith please find receipts from Mr. Leger for $29, authorized to be paid him, as per the acting chief inspector's memorandum 68413 dated July 22nd.
The next letter, dated August 1, certainly throws a rather lurid light upon the administration of the department, and I use that language without being in any sense offensive. It reads:
Memorandum for the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.
This file has reference to the collection of $334 from Edouard Leger, sr., Shediac, N.B.. to make good the losses of registered mail matter, due to the depredations of his son.
In a statement furnished by Mr. Leger to the postmaster at Shediac on July 9, he claims to have paid the following amounts to Inspector Griffith:

a total of $349.
Inspector Griffith has not accounted for $15 of this amount, and, as a refund has to be made to Mr. Leger, there is a shortage of $15, which must be made good.
Mr. Griffith, in dealing with this matter in a memorandum dated July 18, claims that he has no recollection of having received a payment of $15 from Mr. Leger, and he states that, if Leger and his wife are positive they paid liim (Griffith) $15, he will not dispute their statement. He concludes his communication, however, by saying if Mr. and Mrs. Leger have any proof of paying him the amount in question he will be only too pleased to return it to them, or forward it to the department. ,
It is desired to point out that, in the Dupey's Corner case, various sums were paid to Mr. Griffith, which were not immediately accounted for.
It would seem that Inspector Griffith should be instructed to forward immediately the sum of $15 to the department so that same may be paid over to Mr. Leger, and the matter adjusted.
(Sgd.) Cantwell
H. Fortier,
for Acting Chief Inspector. Observe these words:
The P.M.G. mentioned this case to me before his departure for the east. Return this memo to me on P.M.G.'s return.
Initialled P.T.C.,
August 9, 1927.
We assume those to be the initials of Mr. P. T. Coolican.
Then the following memorandum, dated September 16, 1927, is placed upon the file: This case was discussed with the general superintendent a few days ago who intimated that action in so far as the inspection service is concerned might be allowed to stand as. this matter was receiving the personal attention of the Postmaster General.
(Sgd.) Cantwell.
Supply-Post Office

Let us now proceed to the next count to which I referred the other day, the insubordination in the administration of the office at St. John, N.B. This is a matter which vitally affects the public service and the seriousness of it arises from what took place prior to this year. I am going to read from the files and not make a precis of the case lest there be trouble hereafter as to the correctness and fullness of these statements.
Early this year it became apparent that it was necessary to look into the mail service in connection with the new Canadian National ships sailing to and from the West Indies. The Postmaster General said the other day that as Mr. Woods had not been feeling very well he thought that he would be a desirable person to look into the administration in connection with the mail service between the West Indies and St. John and Halifax. On January 2,	1929, District Superintendent
Woods addressed the following note to Mr. Coolican, the general superintendent of postal service:
No doubt you are already aware a trip has been arranged for me to the West Indies, and I expect to leave Halifax on the ss. Lady Drake on January 11th, returning to St. John on February 24th.
During my absence it is my intention to leave Inspector, Mr. John Emerson, in charge of the office.
Trusting that this may meet with your approval and with very best wishes for the new year, I remain.
Yours very truly,
H. W. Woods.
District Superintendent.
About the same day there is a direction from P. T. Coolican, addressed to Miss Theriault, as follows:
Please show to P.M.G. The usual thing is to have the senior inspector take charge during the absence of the district superintendent. In St. John this would be Emerson but the minister may have some views on the matter.
These views are expressed in a memorandum dated January 9, 1929, signed by P. T. Coolican, as follows:
Memorandum for the Chief Inspector With reference to the attached application from the district superintendent, St. John, for leave of absence starting on January 11th, the Postmaster General instructs that Inspector Griffith be placed in charge during the district superintendent's absence.
As Mr. Woods leaves on the 11th, it will be necessary to wire him.
I will not go one step farther than I would if I were a crown prosecutor opening a case to a jury. Without making any comments which in any sense are inferences, I would point out to the house and to the country that the man the Postmaster General

instructed should be placed in charge was the junior inspector when his deputy points out that it was usual for the senior to be placed in charge. And he also does it with the knowledge that Griffith had embezzled $150 which was an offence under section 98 of the Post Office Act, which section has been read into this record. That is the position and that cannot be controverted. All I have to do at this time is simply to ask this question:	Why? Why is a man who is admittedly an embezzler placed over men during the absence of his chief when the ordinary rule is that the senior inspector should be placed in charge, against whom, as I am reminded by an hon. member, there is not a single black mark. Under date of January 9, I find the following instructions given by wire directed to Mr. Griffith at his residence, 115 Lansdowne avenue, St. John, New Brunswick, and signed Fortier, chief inspector:
Instructions putting you in charge during Woods' absence going forward to-day.
Then follows the letter dated 9th January: Dear Mr. Griffith,
I have to inform you that during the absence of Mr. H. W. Woods, from the 11th instant to the 24th February, next, you are to be in charge of the St. John district office. The district superintendent has been advised accordingly.
On the same date Mr. Coolican, general superintendent of postal service, directed to Mr. Woods, district superintendent, a notice intimating that the same appointment had been made. Thereupon, on the 10th January, 1929, that is the day following, Mr. John Emerson, senior inspector of postal service of New Brunswick, against whom there is not a single black mark, wrote this letter to Mr. Griffith:
I beg to advise you that a letter has been received from the department addressed to H. W. Woods, district superintendent of postal service, advising that during his absence the office is to be left in your charge.
That is, the senior inspector does his duty by thus advising the junior inspector of his appointment over his head. Mr. Griffith writes to Mr. Coolican on the 11th January in these words:
Dear Mr. Coolican,
1 beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 9th inst. with the information that I was to be placed in charge of the Saint John district office during the absence of Mr. H. W. Woods, district superintendent, and stating that the district superintendent had also been notified.
Herewith for your information please find copy of notification received by me signed by Mr. John Emerson, inspector postal service, although Mr. Woods was in his office yesterday afternoon.

Supply-Post Office
According to instructions I assumed charge of the office this a.m., and enquired of Inspector Emerson and principal clerk of the office service section, Miss Howard, asking for the official letter regarding my being placed in charge. Miss Howard stated she had never seen it, and Inspector Emerson stated that Mr. Woods must have taken it with him. I would respectfully suggest that you forward another letter, so that the copy may be placed in the order books for the information of those concerned.
In other words, it will be observed that the junior inspector, thus placed in charge, was not willing to accept the intimation from his senior that the superintendent had sent the letter because the original was not in his hands. Thereupon Mr. Coolican, the general superintendent, sent a copy of this letter to Mr. Griffith on the 14th January, 1929. It was two days before that when Mr. John Emerson, senior inspector of postal service at New Brunswick, wrote to Mr. Coolican a letter which, although it is marked " personal " but dealing with public business, is on the files that have been produced. That letter reads:
Dear Sir,
Referring to the absence of District Superintendent H. W. Woods for a period of six or seven weeks on a trip to the West Indies, and to your letter of the 9th instant instructing that the Saint John postal district was to be under the supervision of Mr. W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service, I beg to draw your attention to the following facts:
As you are aware, I am the senior inspector of the Saint John postal district, having been appointed to that position on July 1, 1917. W. F. Griffith was appointed an inspector on the first of October, 1925.
During former absences of Mr. Woods, I have always been in charge of this district, and I would especially draw your attention to the fact that during the strike in June 1924, I was in charge for a period of 10 or 11 weeks; also during Mr. Woods' illness in the spring of 1928, I was in charge from February until May.
In view of the fact that the district superintendent notified you by letter on the 2nd inst., that he was leaving me, the senior inspector, in charge, I would respectfully ask on what grounds I have been passed over and one who is my junior in the service given charge of the district.
I may say that I deeply resent the action of the department and intend to see that my rights are recognized.
Trusting to hear from you at the earliest possible date, I remain,
Yours respectfully.
Then the assistant deputy on the 14th January wrote to Mr. Emerson as follows:
Replying to yours of January 12 I beg to say that you will receive a further reply to your letter as soon as I have taken the matter up with the Deputy Postmaster General.
In the meantime the matter was further considered by Mr. Emerson, and on the 2nd February, 1929, he wrote this formal letter which, though long, I feel I am bound in justice to the postal service, one of the most important branches of the public service in Canada, to read to the committee.
St. John, N.B. February 2, 1929.
L. J. Gaboury,
Deputy Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Referring to the absence of District Superintendent H. W. Woods, during his trip to the West Indies, and the authority contained in a letter to Mr. Woods, dated 9th January from the general superintendent of postal service, advising that during his absence the office was to be in charge of Mr. W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service.-In connection with this ruling of the department, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that on the 2nd of January the district superintendent, H. W. Woods, notified Mr. Coolican that during his absence it was his intention to leave Inspector John Emerson in charge of the office.
On the 12th ult. I wrote a personal letter to Mr. P. T. Coolican, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, protesting against the action of the department in passing me over and placing W. F. Griffith, my junior, in the service in charge of the Saint John postal district and I have patiently waited for an official reply to this letter, from the department, but up to the present have not received same.
In connection with this action of the department I wish to refer for your attention a letter which I received from you bearing date of the 18th July, 1924. bearing your personal signature and reading as follows:
"I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, in regard to the circumstance under which you assumed charge of the district since the absence of the district superintendent on account of illness.
I have made a note of your remarks in regard to the telegrams exchanged with the department. and. in reply I beg to reiterate the statements already made as to the procedure to be followed in selecting an officer in charge during the absence of the district superintendent from duty. When a district superintendent is absent for any reason, the senior inspector of postal service is to take charge automatically. If the senior inspector is absent for any reason, instructions as to the officer who is to assume charge of the district are to be obtained from the department, and no official is to assume charge until departmental instructions are received."
You will note from that, that according to your ruling on the date mentioned that when a district superintendent is absent for any reason the senior inspector of postal service is to take charge automatically and I, therefore claim it was my right to assume charge of the Saint John district in the absence of the district superintendent, even without being especially designated by the district superintendent that I was to do so.
As the records of the department will show I have been in the service since the first of July, 1890. I was appointed an inspector on the first of July, 1917.
20S4
Supply-Post Office

W. F. Griffith, entered the Saint John postal district as a transfer helper about 1908 and his appointment as an inspector dates from the first October, 1925.
On the morning of the 10th January, previous to Mr. Woods leaving the office he gave me the following list of cases which had been given to Inspector Griffith and which will be found on their respective files not attended to.
Upham R.R. No. 1.
Letter dated December 5, 1928, re report of R. M. Clark, E. W. Hammond as to unsuitability of mail car 3427.
Memoranda of August 13 and 30 re proposed Milledgeville R.R. No. 1.
Letter dated December 5, 1928, re frequent supervision and handling of mails at the Saint John station, not replied to.
Chief superintendent railway mail service, file No. 22490. re increase of rates for conveyance of mails. June 22.
Chief superintendent railway mail service, file No. 26845-15' apartment postal car.
Chief superintendent railway mail service memorandum June 29, classifying R.P.O's into two grades, viz: "A" and "B".
Complaint of Mr. J. M. Woodman, general superintendent C.P.R. re transferring mails at MeAdam, letter to inspector, December 14.
Complaint made by Doctor Yiolette relative to the mail service, St. Bazil.
Re postmastership of Norton station, request of deputy dated November 22, that inspector interview applicants. Reminder sent January 4, 1929.
Re loss of parcels posted by the T. Eaton Company, at Toronto addressed for delivery in the maritime provinces. File No. 69928.
Re memoramdum of mail service branch, referring to report 79B asking for an extension of Anagance, R.R. No. 1, August 14 and August 24.
Re petition regarding proposed Hampton station R.R. No. 1 dated August 25.
Re designation head-end of full postal car.
Re memorandum mail service branch, Peel R.R. No. 1 of November 27.
The district superintendent also left me a note, showing that W. F. Griffith had not been in the office between the 6th and 22nd day of December inclusive, neither had he made any report in connection with his doings, to the district superintendent during that time.
The district superintendent went to Fredericton on the 23rd of December and did not return until the 2nd January. During this period I was in charge of the office and W. F. Griffith was in the office on the 26th December from 1 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.
December 27-all day.
December 28-from 1 p.m. to 4.30.
December 29-not in the office.
December 31-not in the office.
January 2-not in the office.
January 3-not in the office.
January 4-not in the office.
January 5-not in the office.
It will be seen from the list left by the district superintendent that inspector Griffith has not been in the habit of making prompt reports in regard to any matter that has been handed over to him for attention. As a sample I would draw your attention to the fact that on the 11th May,'1927, an application was made for the establishment of a rural route at Petit-codiae to supersede the present Dobsons Corner and Petitcodiac mail service and notwithstand-IMr. Bennett.]
ing the fact that the district superintendent and the department at Ottawa made many efforts to have Inspector Griffith complete a report on the matter, the said report was not sent to the department until August 7, 1928, viz:-a period of fifteen months from the time of the receipt of the request from the department until same had been attended to by the inspector in whose hands the matter had been placed.
It will be noted in the list left with me that it refers to a letter from yourself, dated November 22nd, that Inspector Griffith interview applicants for the office of postmastership of Norton Station. This was handed over to Mr. Griffith and a reminder sent to him on January 4, 1929, but up to the present no report has been made to the department.
I would draw your attention to the fact that upon W. F. Griffith's apointment to that of inspector his duties were aligned by the department to the inspectorship in charge of the railway mail service of the Saint John postal district. These duties included inspection of all baggage car services of the province and also all water services.
This man has been in charge of the railway mail service for a period of three years and one-half and during that time he has made no reports to the department as far as I know, on-
Baggage car on trains 251. 252. 37, 38, C.N.R., between Campbellton and St. Leonard.
C.P.R. trains Nos. 373, 171, 172, 174 between Debec and Houlton, Maine.
C.P.R. trains Nos. 185, 186, between Fort Fairfield and Aroostock Junction.
Trains 47. 48. Fredericton and Centreville.
Trains 191. 192, Fredericton and Woodstock, Gibson branch.
Trains 27, 237, 28, 238, Newcastle and Fredericton, C.N.R.
Fredericton Junction and Fredericton, baggage car service. Nos. 119, 105, 111, 109, 107, 106. 108, 110, 112.
New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, Fredericton and Grand Lake, Norton and Fredericton.
C.P.R. Pinder and Southampton, Nos. 195, 194.
C.P.R. trains Nos. 162, 164, St. Andrews and Watt Junction.
N.B.S. Saint John and St. Stephen Nos. 115. 116.
Water service, between Grand Manan Island and the mainland.
Between Chatham-Hardwicke.
Between Saint John and Black's Harbour.
This statement can be easily verified by looking up the records in the office of the chief superintendent of railway mail service, Ottawa.
I would, therefore, respectfully ask whether in view of the facts that the department has been fully advised by the district superintendent of postal service as to the lack of official attention to duty of the inspector now in charge of the office, and also that the said district superintendent has refused to recommend his increases at least on two occasions, you, as Deputy Postmaster General and active head of the post office department, consider that the record of this man. W. F. Griffith, justifies the placing of him in charge of the Saint John postal district over the head of a senior inspector, who has on numerous occasions carried on the work of the office to the best of his ability, during the illness and absences of the said district superintendent.

Supply-Post Office
I believe I am within my rights in asking at least, a departmental acknowledgment of this letter, and also information on what grounds I have been passed over and a junior given charge.
I may say that I am sending a copy of this letter to P. T. Coolican, Esq., Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.
Trusting to hear from you at as early a date as possible, I am, sir,
Yours respectfully,
That was signed by John Emerson, the senior inspector at St. John.


Mr. POULIOT:: He was not complaining of not being in charge of the office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was reciting the circumstances under which the former order was no longer being made effective and a junior placed in charge.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was not complaining of an injustice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly was.


Jean-François Pouliot: A supposed injustice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We next find this memorandum dated February 4, 1929, and I ask that this house carefully consider this memorandum :
J. Emerson,
St. John
Assistant Deputy,
February 4, 1929 Postmaster General
That is the head of it. It goes on:
P.M.G. says O.K. He will not alter his instructions.
(Signed) Gaboury.
I wonder if the full significance of that is understood. There is a man who is admittedly an embezzler-under the statutes, a thief.


Jean-François Pouliot: For fifteen dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, $180 in the one case and $15 in the other. The section of the statute has already been read. He converted this money to his own use, and the Post Office Act says that this is theft. The Postmaster General admits that he knew of it, and in face of that knowledge and the complaint made by the senior inspector Emerson of the treatment he received, Mr. Gaboury makes this notation:
P.M.G. says O.K. He will not alter his instructions.	.
I will not make any comments on that now.


Jean-François Pouliot: The facts speak for themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Res ipsa loquitur. In
face of the fact that on the 4th of February the minister had put his imprimatur on Mr. Griffith's position, on the 26th day of February, twenty-two days later, Mr. Griffith writes Mr. Coolican as follows:
With further reference to my temporary appointment in charge of the district office from January 11 until February 24 during absence of the district superintendent as per your memo of January 9, I beg to inform you that the district superintendent, Mr. H. W. Woods, arrived in Saint John yesterday morning from his trip to the West Indies about 8.30 a.m.
I have been unofficially informed that he was in communication with the principal clerk of the office service section, Miss Howard, but on being asked if she had any information regarding him, she stated she did not know anything about him. On making ino.uiry at Fredericton this a.m. I learned that the district superintendent is now at home there. Officially I have no information of any kind, and in lieu of other instructions from you I will remain in charge of the district office until the district superintendent returns to duty.
Mr. Griffith on the 1st day of March wrote to Mr. Coolican as follows:
For your information I may say that the district superintendent, Mr. H. W. Woods, returned to duty this morning, and from this date I will be performing the duties of inspector of postal service.
The last letter is from Mr. Woods when he returned to duty. On the 4th day of March, Mr. Woods, the district superinendent, who had been absent for his health, wrote to Mr. Coolican, the general superintendent, in these words:
Sir:
Once again I find it necessary to advise the department of the insubordination of Mr. W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service, connected with the district office at Saint John.
It will be remembered that authority dated January 9 was issued by the department to place Inspector Griffith in charge of the district office during my absence on a trip to the West Indies. This authority was received on the afternoon of January 10 by Mr. John Emerson, senior inspector, who had taken charge of the office from noon that day.
I observe that it was from noon that day, although Mr. Griffith had complained that Mr. Woods had not communicated to him the instructions that he was to take charge, being in the office that afternoon, and would not accept the intimation from Mr. Emerson who sent him a copy of the notice that he was put in charge, but asked for another copy because he had not received one from Mr. Woods himself. Passing that by, the letter continues:
Mr. Emerson reached me by telephone as soon as possible after the authority was received, advising me of its contents.
Arrangements were made for the carrying out of the order and I left for Halifax that evening.	_
On my return to Saint John on Monday, February 25, I proceeded to Fredericton with-

Supply-Post Office

out calling at the office. From there I notified Mr. Griffith that I would be on hand to take charge on the morning of March first and asking him to let me have a memo of any changes of importance that had taken place during my absence.
I reached the post office building about 8.30 a.m. Friday. Not having keys with me that would open the door of the private office, I was obliged to wait in the other rooms until Mr. Griffith arrived.
At about 8.50 he reached the office and came into the inspector's room where I was. I asked him to open the door leading from the inspector's room into the private office and he told me he had no bey. I said he must have a key to the private office as he had been using it for the past six weeks and he cried out in a loud voice that I was a "liar," and in the short conversation that took place in this room, he not only called me a "liar" but a "dirty cur" and a "quibbler."
Knowing from past experience how prone he is of making protest of what he said and did not say. I invited him to step out into the staff office in order that those who were there might be witnesses to the choice language he was using, and in a most defiant and boldfaced manner he followed me out, and in the presence and . _aring of a number of the staff he used language to me that is rarely heard outside of a di _.iken brawl.
His attention was called to the strong language he was using and in a loud voice he declared he was making it strong so that I could understand it.
There was no provocation for his outburst of temper, but he has once more proved that he is unfit for any position of trust where honesty and restraint are required.
Shortly after he became attached to the district office and for some length of time he occasionally used to bluster and show signs of insubordination, but after I found it necessary to question him one day in June, 1927, in regard to funds paid him by a postmaster which had not been accounted for, he ceased to exhibit these signs openly. His flagrant disregard of the regulations of the department has been quite generally known, with the result that it has had an influence on some of the other members of the staff.
Had this influence not been so strong, it is believed that principal clerk J. V. Shea of the inquiry section, would have hesitated to withdraw charges in the police court of Saint John in connection with the Wm. A. Mclllwraith case, as per report of November 14, 1928.
I refrained from suspending Mr. Griffith at the time as I wished to do nothing in a hasty manner, and I felt that the punishment he so richly deserves would come to him sufficiently early, by leaving the ease in the hands of the department.
I wish, however, to say that in so far as my personal honour is concerned it makes no difference to me what name this man calls me, and I do not ask for any apology from him, but if my opinion were asked as to what disciplinary action should be taken because of the effect of his disgraceful actions, I would hesitate between two opinions-suspension or dismissal, but one or the other should be administered.
This, as I say, was written by Mr. Woods to Mr. Coolican at Ottawa, and a copy was sent to Mr. Gaboury, the Deputy Postmaster 
General. A letter of March 9, 1929, now appears on the file. It is marked, " personal and confidential," and is from Mr. Coolican to Mr. Woods. It reads as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your report of March 4. re insubordination of Inspector Griffith.
I will take the matter up with the Deputy Postmaster General and advise you of the decision as soon as possible.
Mr. Gaboury wrote to Mr. Woods on March 5 in these terms-


Mr. HANSON:: He telephoned him first.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
This is the letter:
Confirming telephone conversation at 9.50 this morning, I beg to advise you that the Postmaster General has instructed that when you are absent from office, even temporarily, the office must be left in charge of Mr. Griffith. The Postmaster General issued these instructions during your recent absence, and they must be lived up to.
I did not want to wire you for reasons which you will readily understand, and I wish you would please acknowledge this letter as well as the telephone conversation.
I am glad to hear that you are well again and that your trip was beneficial. I am sending your account through to-day and same will be attended to in due course.
That, as I say, was written bj' Mr. Gaboury. It will thus be observed that on March 5, on the instructions of the Postmaster General, Mr. Woods, the district superintendent, was notified that the man who had admitted that he had violated the provisions of the Post Office Act and had converted money to his own use by retaining $180 in his own hands for several months was to be placed in charge of the district office at St. John and the postal service of New Brunswick during the temporary absence of Mr. Woods on any account. Then follows this memorandum:
Memorandum, March 5, 1929.
At 9.50 this morning the undersigned telephoned to Mr. H. W. Woods, district superintendent of postal service at St. John. N.B.. that under no circumstances when he absented himself from the office, even temporarily, was the office to be left in charge of any person but Mr. Griffith. He was informed that these are the instructions of the Postmaster General and that they must be adhered to.
Mr. Woods stated he thoroughly understood the above, and the undersigned is confirming these instructions by letter, copy of which is herewith attached.
Then follows a letter from Mr. Woods, the district superintendent who, remembering that discipline is so necessary for the proper administration of the public service, wrote Mr. Gaboury:
Dear Mr. Gaboury,-
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., confirming telephone conversation at 9.50 (eastern time) of that morning advising me that it W'as the wdsli of

Suppty-Post Office
the Postmster General when I am absent from the office even temporarily that the office must be left in charge of Mr. Griffith.
The conversation was a little indistinct at first, but eventually I understood it clearly, and until further advised will act accordingly.
It is noted that the Postmaster General issued these instructions during my recent absence, but I may say that they do not appear on any files of the office.
On March 9 we have written by Mr. Emerson, the senior inspector, a further letter to the Deputy Postmaster General. He now realizes that he is to be replaced by Mr. Griffith on all occasions, and he writes as follows:
Referring further to my letter of January 12 to P. T. Coolican, Esq., Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, and registered letter forwarded to you and copy forwarded to the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General on the 2nd ultimo protesting against the action of the department in placing Mr. W. F. Griffith, junior inspector of postal service in charge of the St. John postal district during the absence of the district superintendent on his trip to the West Indies when I was a senior inspector of the St. John postal district, and on all former occasions had acted in charge during sicknesses and absences of the district superintendent, I again draw your attention to the fact that 1 have never received a reply to either of these letters.
I strongly feel that this is not the proper treatment to accord one who has been in the service as long as I have. I, however, take it for granted that you have received letter in question and have informed the Postmaster General as to the contents of letters above-mentioned.
In my communication of the 2nd ultimo 1 drew your attention in a very plain manner to the fact that Inspector Griffith has not been carrying on the duties of his office in a proper manner, and I have no hesitation in stating that this man has deliberately broken all rules and regulations governing the Post Office department and civil service of Canada.
During the year 1928 the said W. F. Griffith practically made no attempt to be present at his seat in the St. John office, and it is a well-known fact that he made his home his headquarters. In this connection, if his journals of proceedings for the above-mentioned period are examined, it will be seen that he claims to have spent a great deal of the time absent from the office supervising the handling of mails at the St. John railway station.
This practice of his became so common that on the 5th December last the district superintendent forwarded a letter to him asking for an explanation as to the necessity of the frequent supervision of the handling of mails at the St. John station, to which, however, it may be said there has been no reply.
It is well-known to the travelling staff of the St. John postal district that in the latter part of 1926 there was a shortage found at the Dupey's Corners post office in the electoral district of Westmorland, N.B.; also that Inspector W. F. Griffith was allotted this case. The result of his efforts are also well known, and it is my belief that the details available in June, 1927, were forwarded to the department.
78594-132J
I may say that if this case is reopened at any time I am in a position to give some evidence, which probably is not known to the department.
For your information I may say that the disgraceful way which W. F. Griffith treated the district superintendent, Mr. H. W. Woods, by calling him a liar, cur and quibbler, on his arrival at the St. John district office on the morning of March 1, concerning which you have no doubt been informed as Mr. II. E. Atwater was in St. John at the time, has become street talk in the city of St. John, and I may say that several citizens have expressed to me their contempt for one who would so far forget himself as to treat his superior officer as he, the said W. F. Griffith, did, especially when he knew that the district superintendent was not a well man. The general expression of opinion is that an employee who would so far forget himself is not fit to occupy any position of trust and should be dismissed from the public service.
In connection with the placing of this man over me, I would ask you to advise me as to whether it is to be understood that in future on all occasions when the district superin' tendent is absent that the said W. F. Griffith is to be in charge of the district office. * l this is the intention, I hereby notify the department that I reserve the right to take whatever action I deem fit and proper to see that my rights as senior inspector of the St. John postal district are recognized.
I am forwarding a copy of this communication under registered cover to Mr. P. T. Coolican. Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.
In closing I may say that I very much re gret the necessity for writing letters to the department, but you can readily understand that in this matter I have no other means of stating my views.
Trusting that you will advise me as to the receipt of this letter, I remain,
Yours respectfully,
On the 12th Mr. Gaboury, the Deputy Post master General, replied to Mr. Emerson as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th inst., received under registered cover No. 132, in regard to Mr. Griffith being put in charge of the office during the temporary absence of Mr. Woods, the district superintendent.
I did not reply to your letter of the 2nd ultimo, but acting on the instructions of the Postmaster General, notified Mr. Woods that in future during any absence from the office Mr. Griffith was to be put in charge. I am transferring your letter to the Postmaster General for whatever action he may see fit to take. As you are aware, I could not under any circumstances take the lead in this question, as it is a matter which rests entirely with the honourable the Postmaster General. When I notified Mr. Woods by telephone, and confirmed the conversation by an official letter on the same day, I thought this would cover your letter of the 2nd ultimo. I regret not having replied to your letter, and wish to say that so far as the Deputy Postmaster General is concerned there is no other course to follow, and therefore I am handing your letter over to the Postmaster General.
Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman? As a member of the jury, I have listened with care and attention to my hon. friend. May I ask if there is on the file a letter from Mr. Woods complaining of his treatment by Mr. Griffith?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I was reading rather rapidly and the hon. gentleman did not follow me. I read Mr. Woods' complaint, which was prior in point of time to the action taken. Then there is a letter from Mr. Coolican in which he encloses a copy of the letter I have read, followed by a further statement dated April 6, from District Superintendent Woods to the Deputy Postmaster General:
Referring to your telephone conversation of March 5 and letter of that date confirming the same, which gave instructions that when I was absent from the office even temporarily I was to leave in charge Mr. Griffith.
I beg to say that on the 5th instant I was absent attending the funeral of a very old friend, and during my absence Inspector Emerson was in charge, due to Inspector Griffith's absence in Montreal.
Trusting that this may meet with approval, I remain.
Then follows this letter, which I feel I must read, even though I have trespassed upon the time of the committee, but I can regard few matters as being of greater importance to the public interest than the communications I have just read. This letter is dated April 8, 1929-this present month-and is addressed to the Postmaster General himself:
Dear Mr. Minister,-
Since becoming a member of the Post Office Department-


Mr. SPENCER:: Who is the writer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is written by District Superintendent Woods to the minister himself, and is dated April 8, 1929:
Dear Mr. Minister:
Since becoming a member of the Post Office Department I have avoided addressing communications directly to the ministers, believing that the proper course was to carry on correspondence pertaining to the work of the office with and through the regularly appointed officials.
On account, however, of the apparent misconception of a serious breach of discipline, reported to the general superintendent on March 4th last, which has not been investigated, I am taking the liberty of calling your personal attention to this and other matters of irregularity committed by Inspector W. F. Griffith of this office.
From the time that Mr. Griffith came directly under the supervision of the district office he has shown signs of insubordination, so much so that on occasions he used to me insult-
ing language and while I admit that I should have reported him for this in the early days, I refrained from doing so hoping that he would eventually cease his bluster, bluff and loud talking.
May I in this regard call attention, Mr. Chairman, to the reports made by Mr. Woods with reference to Mr. Griffith. Let hon. members read them; they will now appear on the record. He gives him ratings of 90 per cent, 80 per cent, and 70 per cent, and I venture to think that no one who had not the fairest mind could give such an estimate of another in the light of the treatment he had received at that man's hands. It shows at least that he had no animus so far as the public service rendered by Mr. Griffith was concerned.
In the year 1926 the postmaster of Dupey's Corner, Westmorland county, was short in his accounts, and Mr. Griffith was sent to investigate. This investigation showed that the total shortage amounted to $845.61, and the postmaster made an offer to clear up the deficit by instalments, which the department accepted, but according to our files the only amount received from the postmaster up to June, 1927, was $150, which was placed in the Bank of Montreal, Saint John, to the credit of the Receiver General, on December first, 1926. From this on the postmaster appeared delinquent, and reminders received from the department were referred to Mr. Griffith; and on different occasions a memo was sent to the department giving some reason or other as to why more payments were not received from the postmaster.
Not being satisfied with the course the inspector had been pursuing in the case, I made a trip to Dupey's Corner on the 13th of June, 1927, and on interviewing the postmaster he gave me information that a much larger amount was paid by him than that placed to his credit, and showed me a record in his registration book of having sent to Mr. Griffith at his home address two registered letters, one of November 8th, 1926, and the other of December 2nd. 1926, containing $200 and $40 respectively. Verification that the registered letters were duly received and delivered was received at Shediac and Saint John. Postmaster also produced receipts from Mr. Griffith for the folio-wing amounts:
August 23rd, 1926	 $40 00
September 30th, 1926	 50 00
of which no record could be found at this office. These amounts, together with the $240 stated to have been sent by registered mail to the inspector, made an amount of $330 which the postmaster claimed to have paid, but as there was only the sum of $150 standing to his credit, there was a discrepancy of $180.
On interviewing Mr. Griffith in regard to this, he was asked how much money the postmaster paid him, and he replied that all he received was the amount that the file stated, but said that the last time he was in Ottawa they (meaning the financial branch) had talked with him regarding the postmaster's shortage and from the conversation that took place it would appear that there was a slight difference

Supply-Post Office
in the amount due-a difference of one or two dollars. After some more conversation with the inspector he admitted that he had received the two registered letters referred to, that he had not reported the receipt of the money, and that in doing so he had violated the regulations. It was pointed out that, according to the postmaster's statement and our records, he (Griffith) had collected $180 which he had not accounted for, and he was asked where this money was. He stated that he had it at home, hut this was a deliberate falsehood, as I have proof that the $180 he gave me that day was borrowed from a gentleman in this city.
In the year 1925 there was a number of abstraction cases reported that had as a common point Shediac, and Mr. Griffith was assigned the duty of investigating same, with the result that the son of the mail contractor between the post office and railway station at Shediac, was charged with the crime and acknowledged same.
The father agreed to make good the amount chargeable to his son's defalcations, and Mr. Griffith collected an amount sufficient to cover all the abstractions that had been reported which could reasonably be charged to this case. After the department had made final settlement there was an amount of $29 to be refunded to the contractor. On this amount being tendered to him he gave information that it was $15 short, and he made a statement under oath that some time in the month of October, 1925, Mr. Griffith called at his home and told him that it would be necessary for him to pay $15 more, and that this amount was handed to Mr. Griffith in the presence of his wife. This statement was verified under oath by the contractor's wife.
As this amount had not been accounted for by Mr. Griffith, he was questioned in regard to it, and while he did not deny that he received the money, he did not admit it, and up to the present this office does not know whether the $15 has been paid back to the contractor or not, but there is no doubt that the sworn statement of the contractor is correct.
The regulations require inspectors to keep the district superintendent advised as to their whereabouts, but for at least the last two years Inspector Griffith has practically ignored this duty, although his and the department's attention has been called to it frequently.
He has on many occasions failed to pay prompt attention to work assigned to him, some of which had been specially requested by the department.
The last glaring exhibition of his insubordination occurred on the first of March last-the day I returned to the office after my trip to the West Indies. On this date he called me a "liar", "dirty cur", and a "damned quibbler", and this in the presence of a number of the staff. This incivility was reported on March 4th and the only notice that has been taken of it as far as I know is an acknowledgment of its receipt from the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, with the exception of a visit the chief inspector made to this office which lasted from noon of March 25th until the afternoon of March 28th.	.
The chief inspector brought with him an order from the Deputy Postmaster General placing the chief inspector in charge of the office for an indefinite period, and naturally
I assumed that the object of his visit was to investigate the charges I made against Inspector Griffith, but to my surprise I was told by Mr. Fortier that he was not here for that purpose, but for the purpose of getting the office to function in a correct manner. He was asked in what particular this was not being done, and he told me that I was not speaking to Mr. Griffith and was giving him orders in writing. It was explained that I had adopted the plan of giving this inspector written orders for the reason that he was rarely in the office, and the only sure way to catch him was by written memorandum, as well as being the only safe way to deal with him.
By issuing written instructions there could be no chance of his stating that the orders were never given, or that what I said to him yesterday was different from what I said to him to-day.
I perhaps have said enough to show you that I certainly have much reason to complain because of the discourteous conduct of Mr. Griffith to me personally, and surely I have made my charges against him of insubordination and dishonesty sufficiently strong to have some action taken by the department, besides that of putting an officer from the department in charge of the district office for an indefinite period.
Permit me to call your attention to Section 98 of the Post Office Act, which distinctly states that any official connected with the post office, who deals with funds as Mr. Griffith did with money that was paid to him by the Postmaster of Dupey's Corner, is guilty of an indictable offence. He can also be charged with obtaining money under false pretences, in regard to the Shediac case. This, together with his disregard of the regulations of the department and the exhibition he made of himself before a number of the staff, is certainly worthy of greater chastisement than the promotion to the charge of the district office during my absence.
While civil servants guilty of indictable offences are sometimes saved from the full penalty of the law, this is the first case I know where an officer has been permitted to hold his position, and I have reason to believe that flagrant insubordination, such as this man has been guilty of, to go unpunished, is not conducive to the betterment of the service; and knowing you as w'ell as I do, I am convinced that with these facts before you, you will arrange to have the order, issued by the deputy on March 5th, making it necessary to place Mr. Griffith in charge during my absence, rescinded; and the order of March 22nd, placing the district office in charge of Mr. Fortier of Ottawa, recalled.
If this is done, and proper punishment administered to Mr. Griffith, I can assure you that there will be no question as to the correct functioning of the district office at Saint John.
I remain,
Your obedient servant.
H. W. Woods, District Superintendent.
A letter was written apparently on April 15, 1929, a week later by Mr. John Emerson to the
Supply-Post Office

Postmaster General. This letter I shall have to read inasmuch as it is directed to the chief of the department:
Honourable P. J. Veniot,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Referring to the absence of District Superintendent H. W. Woods during his trip to the West Indies, and authority contained in letter to Mr. Woods dated the 9th of January from P. T. Coolican, Esq., Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, advising that during his absence the office was to be left in charge of Mr. W. F. Griffith, inspector of postal service, I beg to draw yonr attention to the fact that on the 12th of January I wrote a personal letter to the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, protesting against the action of the department in view of the fact that I am the senior inspector of the Saint John postal district, and as such have always been in charge of the district during the absence of the district superintendent. '
Receiving no reply in connection with this protest, I wrote a letter on the 2nd of February to L. J. Gaboury, Esq., Deputy Postmaster General, quoting a letter to me over his personal signature, dated the 18th of July, 1924, in which he ruled that in the absence of the district superintendent from duty for any reason, the senior inspector of postal service is to take charge automatically. I further drew his attention to the fact that I have been in the service since July first, 1890, and was promoted to an inspectorship on July first, 1917, whereas W. F. Griffith entered the service as a transfer helper in 1908 and was appointed an inspector on October first, 1925. From this it will be seen that I was appointed an inspector more than eight years previous to the appointment of Mr. Griffith, and have been in the service eighteen years longer than he.
I wrote very fully, showing that Mr. Griffith has not been performing his duties in a proper manner, and denoting particulars in this regard. I also drew his attention to the fact that the district superintendent had refused to recommend increases of pay for him on at least two occasions, and further asked the Deputy to advise me on what grounds I was passed over and a junior given charge of the district.
Not receiving any reply to this letter, I again wrote the Deputy Postmaster General on the 9th of March, giving more data in connection with this question, and asked for a reply. 1 may say that I received a reply dated the 12th of March, in which he stated that acting on your instructions he had notified Mr. Woods that in future during any absence from the office Mr. Griffith was to be in charge. He further stated that my letter of the 9th of March was handed over to you, and I have been patiently waiting for a reply in connection with same.
I also take it for granted that my letter of the 2nd February to the Deputy Postmaster General has been placed in your hands.
I may advise you that I was very much surprised at your action in practically demoting me and placing a junior inspector over me in the Saint John postal district. Surely, after reading the information contained in my letters of the 2nd February and 9th of March to the deputy, the fact should be apparent to you that 
Mr. Griffith is not a fit and proper person to be in charge of the postal service even for one day.
As you must be aware, he has been charged in reports to the department from the district office for not making a return of a sum of money in the neighborhood of $200, which he collected on post office account from the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, Westmorland county in the latter part of the year 1926, and when on June 20th, 1927. the district superintendent brought the matter to a head and demanded an accounting of the moneys collected, he was unable to produce same, which is evidence that he converted same to his own use. In this regard I would inform you that on the afternoon of the above-mentioned date Mr. Griffith borrowed $200 and the cancelled cheque can be produced at any time when an investigation is held.
According to the Post Office Act. section 98, this man was guilty of an indictable offence in this matter.
There is also one other charge -which I am prepared to prove, and that is, that W. F. Griffith has been practically commercialising his position as an inspector by borrowing money and accepting gifts from some of those over whom he has had supervision, and also those who have been looking for advancement in the service. You will remember that there were two civil service commissioners relieved of their offices by the honourable Premier of Canada for an offence such as this.
For your information I may say that the present trouble in the Saint John postal district is due practically to the actions of this man, and I cannot see how, in view of the different charges that have been made against him, you. as the honourable head of the postal service in Canada, can come to any other conclusion than that he is not a fit and proper person to occupy any position of trust in the Post Office Department. In my humble opinion, the regulations in this case should be administered and this man dismissed from the service.
I would therefore respectfully ask that previous to your leaving Canada you instruct the Deputy Postmaster General to countermand the order issued at your behest to the effect that W. F. Griffith is to rank over me in the postal service.
I may say that in addition to the letters to the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General and Deputy Postmaster General, I stated my case to H. Fortier, chief inspector of the Post Office Department, when he was in St. John a few weeks ago.
Trusting that you will reply to this letter at as early a date as possible, I remain,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) John Emerson,
Inspector of Postal Service.
There is no reply to that communication upon the file, and I am not in a position to say whether or not a reply was sent. Neither am I in a position to state from the file itself whether or not Mr. Griffith is still the ranking officer in the St. John post office, but I can say that I am not relying upon rumour when I make the assertion that Mr. Griffith has openly boasted that he is practically the Postmaster General in the province of New Brunswick.

Supply-Post Office
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee, having read the correspondence, which I have endeavoured to present as far as possible without unreasonable or unfair comment, that it indicates a condition in the public service Which one would not believe possible if one did not read it with his own eyes or hear it with his own ears. It is almost incredible that a postmaster general should direct officials of his department to take the actions which have been taken in these cases in the light of the knowledge he possessed as to the conditions under which this office was administered. We do say that under the circumstances disclosed by this file, read without comment and without inferences being drawn, a situation has been disclosed which is an open disgrace to this Dominion of Canada. Worse than that, it reflects not only upon the Post Office Department but upon every department of the government. With the knowledge now possessed by the Prime Minister; in view of the position he has taken in connection with the public service on many occasions, of which the address he made over the radio the other evening is an example; with his earnest desire to maintain the integrity of the civil service, here is an opportunity for him to give concrete expression to that desire. The Postmaster General of Canada should no longer be in a position which will enable him to wreck the careers and ruin the futures of men who are his sub-
District Superintendent Woods had been carrying on the work of the district office as it should be carried on, why should he give Inspector Griffith the rating he did give him, on which I, as Postmaster General, would have to base my opinion of Griffith's work? No better rating, unless he was rated perfect, could have been given to Griffith than was given by District Superintendent Woods in 1927, and that report contained not one word of complaint against Inspector Griffith as to his absence from duty, as to his refusing duty, as to his non-attendance to duty or anything of that kind. Nothing along this fine was received until Inspector Emerson, Superintendent Woods and Inspector Griflith got into a row; then the whole story came out. Until that time, so far as the reports show there was nothing against Griffith. I am not now dealing with the Dupey's Corner case, which I will take up in a few moments, nor am I dealing with the Shediac case; leaving those two cases aside no one could have obtained a better rating than District Superintendent Woods gave Griffith. With that rating before me, and Mr. Woods having refused to recommend the yearly increase in salary to Inspector Griffith in spite of that rating, I believe I was quite justified in overruling that decision, acting upon the rating he had given this man. At that time I was not aware-


Mr. STEVENS:: Isn't that awful?
ordinates.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, in rising to reply to some of the remarks of the leader of the opposition I must first admit that his attitude this afternoon, although I am not complaining about it, has taken me rather by surprise. If I had known that my hon. friend intended to discuss this question in all its details I too could have reviewed the files and put myself in a position to meet his every argument.
At the outset let me point out that my hon. friend, in opening his remarks, said there were only two inspectors in the St. John district. There are four inspectors there. While that mis-statement of fact does not detract at all from the argument he attempted to advance, still it is well to keep the record clear. There are four inspectors in the St. John postal district, three at St. John and one at Moncton.
It is not my intention to discuss all the charges made by my hon. friend during the reading of these files, because an investigation into these questions has been begun and is proceeding along proper departmental lines; a thorough investigation will be made. However, I would like to point out that if


Peter John Veniot: Yes, it is very awful to have that happen, and it is very awful that hon. gentlemen never revealed it but kept it strictly to themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read the rating which was given the gentleman.


Peter John Veniot: And it was an excellent rating.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except that it said he was a thief.


Peter John Veniot: I want to say that neither Superintendent Woods, Inspector Emerson nor my friend the leader of the opposition can make the people of St. John believe that W. F. Griffith is a thief.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Put him on trial and see.


Peter John Veniot: That is what I am doing.


Jean-François Pouliot: We listened to you; now listen to us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: It was understood that this matter would not be discussed in the house while the investigation was under way. That is why I am merely bringing out one or two
Supply-Post Office

important facts, because I do not wish to do anything which might prejudice the investigation which is now proceeding.
Let us first consider the Shediac affair. This took place in 1925 and I was in no way responsible for it nor connected with it as Postmaster General. I knew nothing about the affair until 1927 when this matter was brought up regarding the payment of $15 to Mr. W. F. Griffith. The parties interested had paid to Griffith other items amounting to $334, and he held receipts for same and showed them to Inspector Woods. When the claim was made that there was a shortage of $15, Mr. Griffith made the statement that if these people would say they had paid him S15 he would accept their word because they were honest people, but they could not show any receipt or any voucher for that payment. I would direct the attention of the house to this fact; the $15 paid to Griffith was not money due to the Post Office department, and the discrepancy would be as between Griffith and the person who had paid the $15.
Now we come to the matter of Dupey's Corner post office. That defalcation took place before I was Postmaster General, and the first trouble arose during the time our friends were in power for a short period in July, 1926.


Mr. MANION:: May I ask the hon. minister a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends asked questions pretty often, and I have a right to ask one of the minister. Does the name of any minister of our government appear in this affair at all?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There was no minister, Mr. MANION: Oh yes, there was.


Peter John Veniot: I say that it took place in July, 1926, during the time that the so-called I do not mean that in an offensive way- shadow government was in power; that was before I took charge of the department. Reference to the records will show that any arrangements or negotiations which took place with Griffith as to his becoming personally responsible to the department or to the financial branch of the department for any part of the defalcation took place long before I had anything to do with the department at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It took place in December, 1926.


Peter John Veniot: It started long before that. He had visited this office and had made re-
ports. He had said that this man was a poor man but expected to be able to get someone to go guarantee for him by the endorsing or signing of a joint note, and he mentions the Hon. Fred McGee. Mr. McGee's name is dragged into this case because the postmaster expected that he would have Mr. McGee endorse a note for him so that he could make good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister realizes
that the Hon. Fred McGee's name is not mentioned. I said "Mr." McGee, and also said that I did not know who he was.


Peter John Veniot: I know who he is, because I made inquiries and found out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not know.


Peter John Veniot: It is the Hon. Fred
McGee who is mentioned there. He had no connection with the post office at all and I desire to clear his name after it has been dragged into this case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is not the slightest reflection on Mr. McGee.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a reflection, it
is just a remark.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. leader of the
opposition states that Griffith is a thief, that Griffith embezzled and used for his own purposes public moneys which he had acquired and for which he had made no returns to the department until after he had held it for a certain period. If the record is correct-I believe it is as the hon. gentleman has read it-rightly or wrongly Griffith was allowed by the financial department, then in charge of Mr. Glover, to become guarantor for the full amount of the defalcations, which amounted to over $900. During a period of months he collected certain amounts and every cent of the money collected by him was paid into the Post Office Department and the department has received full credit for it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not until after he was
charged with defalcation.


Peter John Veniot: He was never charged with stealing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Charged with defalcation.


Peter John Veniot: He was never charged with defalcation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes he was.


Peter John Veniot: Nor did the superintendent ever report him for defalcation, and the records will bear out that statement. When Mr. Woods drew his attention to the fact that he had collected certain moneys which he

Suppty-Post Office
had not reimbursed to the Post Office Department, Mr. Griffith came back with the statement that Mr. Woods must have known of the arrangement made between him and Mr. Glover, that he was guarantor for the amount of money. I do not say that he was right in doing that, but he did collect certain amounts and placed them to his own credit, and when that reached a certain amount he would pay it over to the Post Office Department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When he was caught he
had to borrow the money to pay it.


Peter John Veniot: There is no evidence of
that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is evidence.


Peter John Veniot: There is not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a letter on the
file.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: There is no evidence on
the file except a letter which states, " I can prove that he borrowed the money." I think I am right there.


Mr. ERNST:: And the cheque.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And an offer was made to produce the cheque which supplied the money.


Peter John Veniot: I wish the hon. member
would take his seat. The hon. gentleman should not get so excited as to have his pipe in his mouth and be trying to smoke during this discussion.
There is no evidence except the statement by John Emerson, the inspector, to the effect that he could prove that Griffith had to borrow the money to return it. That is the very matter we are looking into now. I want to say to the house that the investigation at St. John will be as thorough as any investigation ever held in the province of New Brunswick, and there have been a good many held in that province investigating the embezzlement of public funds.
I said I was not going to discuss the details of this matter, and it is not my intention to do so. While reading the file the hon. leader of the opposition said that he did not intend to draw any inferences, but it would have been far better, and perhaps more satisfactory to the house, had he dealt with these matters in an inferential way rather than the way in which he did deal with them. So far as I am concerned, as head of the department, with the defalcation by the postmaster at Dupey's Corner post office, let me say this to the house. My attention was first drawn to the
matter, at least a year and a half after arrangements had been made for the collection of the money from Hebert, postmaster at Dupey's Corner, by the father of Hebert, who came to my home. I knew there was trouble at Dupey's Corner, but I did not know any of the details at the time he came to me and told me of the trouble into which- his son had fallen and his heartburnings on account of the conduct of his son. He wanted me to give an extension of two years in which to pay up the defalcation, I refused that, but I said to the old gentleman in my own home at Bathurst-I think it was -around the Christmas holidays-"An extension of four months is as much as you can get for the payment of this amount." The old gentleman went away after promising me that they would make every effort possible to arrange to pay the amount so that his son would not be punished, and that after the amount had been paid, his son would hand in his resignation as postmaster.
The matter ran along for some time and the following summer Mr. Hebert again appealed to me, this time, I think, in writing. I replied that I refused to consent to a further extension, and that is the time I wrote to the Deputy Postmaster General the letter in regard to which he says: "The Postmaster General instructs me to close this matter." Yes, I wanted to close the matter, to see that proper steps were taken to protect the department, and to get the money that we were entitled to receive on account of this defalcation. That is the meaning of that notation that was read by the leader of the opposition.	My instructions were to see that
as much as possible of the money was obtained; after that the matter would be closed and we would dismiss the postmaster.


Mr. McGIBBON:: And it would not be
referred to again.


Peter John Veniot: I wanted it wiped out
entirely. The only time it would be referred to would be when that same postmaster's name appeared as one of those dismissed from the service, and our hon. friends opposite would say that the political axe had fallen once more when a man of this kind was dismissed.
I have stated to the committee my connection with the Dupey's Corner matter. Let me now come to the matter of placing William Griffith as a junior inspector in charge of the St. John office in- the absence of Mr. W. H. Woods, the district superintendent. I believed in Mr. Griffith. I knew the bad blood that had been created within the last two years in the office between Griffith, Woods
Supply-Post Office

and Emerson. I knew Emerson was playing both ends against the middle, because, as a senior, he believed that Mr. Woods, who was supposed to be exceedingly ill, would soon have to retire and that by playing both ends against the middle, setting Griffith against Woods and Woods against Griffith, he would have a better opportunity of being promoted to district superintendent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask a question?


Peter John Veniot: I did not interrupt the
hon. gentleman at all and I am not going to allow him to interrupt me. I kept perfectly quiet while all this was g-oing on, and I do not intend to allow hon. gentlemen opposite to take up my time by asking questions.
. There was also a vacancy for a postmaster in the city of St. John. Again jealousies crept in and it looked at one time, from the inside workings and special information that we were able to obtain, that this row between the two inspectors and the superintendent was spreading to the main office. We had to undertake to check this. Knowing all this; knowing the differences between these men; knowing that, according to the records of the Post Office Department, Griffith was an expert in postal administration; knowing that Mr. Emerson was playing the game that he was playing; knowing that Mr. Woods had no confidence in Griffith-owing to the row between them and not because of lack of ability, because as regards administrative ability Woods gave Griffith one of the best records that can be given to an inspector-and knowing further that there was special work to be done in the postal district, which work, owing to Mr Woods' ill health, could not be done by him,
I placed in charge the man that I considered ' the best fitted, from an administrative standpoint, to carry on. The record of his administration will show that there was more reorganization, more activity, and more useful work done during the period 'of the few weeks he was in office than has been the case in regard to any other inspector during the last twelve months in the city of St. John. The men in charge of the records can show that when an investigation takes place. As I say, knowing all that, I placed Griffith in charge.
Not a soul in New Brunswick will believe that W. F. Griffith, who was born in the city of St. John of honest parents and who is well known in that city and all over the province, would take to his own use for the purpose of stealing or embezzlement one dollar that did not belong to him; and no man will dare say in public what he says in the house, when he calls Griffith a thief. If W. F. Griffith held over $180, or $150, as the case may be, I know 
that he conscientiously believ'ed he was justified in doing so under the guarantee he had given to the department to make good the amount of the defalcation of this postmaster at^ Dupey's Corner, and only in that regard might he be considered to have acted irregularly. I take back water to nobody in my endeavours to instil honesty and discipline in the service over which I have control. Knowing that Griffith was an honest man; knowing that there were things that had to be done that I knew could not be done by Mr. Emerson; knowing that Mr. Woods could not do them on account of his bad health; and having myself suggested to Mr. Woods' that owing to the condition of his health, he should take a trip to the West Indies and look after certain interests we have there in connection with the new line of steamboats that were about to carry our mails, I gave an order to install Griffith in that office, and I do not regret doing so. I felt I was doing my duty; indeed, I was convinced I was doing my duty. I was convinced that I was doing no injustice to Mr. Emerson because there is not a rule or regulation of the Post Office Department requiring that the senior officer shall always take charge. I am informed by my head officials that, not very long ago the same thing took place in Toronto and in other large offices. The senior officer, it is true, provided that no orders to the contrary are issued from the department, automatically falls into the position left by the superintendent. In the present case I was doing nothing else than following the precedent that had been established for years under all governments. I issued an order naming the inspector, whether junior or senior, who was to be in charge of that office during the absence of his superior officer, the superintendent.
I am not going to speak about the row that took place on the return from Cuba of Mr. Woods, the superintendent. I know that a row did take place, but there are always two sides to a story. My information-we have nothing definite yet until we get through what we are doing now in connection with the matter-is that there was provocation and encouragement to a volation of discipline. I do not wish to excuse this man Griffith for what he may have said or done to his superior officer, and if it is proven on investigation that Griffith did treat his superior officer in the way stated in the charges made by the superior officer, I shall know what punishment to meet out to a man who is guilty of such a breach of discipline towards his superior officer.

Private Bills


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask the minister- perhaps I should address this question to the Secretary of State-if he will lay on the table at eight o'clock the civil service files regarding Griffith from the time of his appointment to date. I may say that I rang up the Civil Service Commission this morning and asked if the civil service files could be produced, and they intimated that usually they were produced through the Secretary of State, which I admit is the correct procedure; but they are ready, I understand, and can be produced.	.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


JOLIETTE AND NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. FERLAND (Joliette) moved the third reading of Bill No. 70, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 22, to incorporate Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I know that
the member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) desires to be present to discuss this bill.


Mr. CAHILL:: Where is he?


Robert James Manion: I do not know.


Hewitt Bostock: Does the bon. gentleman defer to the request?


Air. GARDINER:: When this bill was before the house last it was ordered to be reprinted. I do not find the reprint on my file.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


CLARENCE PERCY SHIELDS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 105, for the relief of Clarence Percy Shields-Mr. Hepburn

Air. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to on division.
On the preamble.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Are there any children?


Air. HEPBURN:: Not to my knowledge.
Preamble agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.


DORA TAYLOR
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 134, for the relief of Dora Taylor-Mr. Hepburn -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to on division.
On the preamble.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the hon. member as
fully informed on this bill as he was on the last one?
Preamble agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Naomi Pauline Wilson.-Air. Lawson.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Clarence Percy Shields.-Air. Hepburn.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Arnold Whitchurch Little-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Arthur James Taylor.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Dora Taylor. -Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Helen Awrey. -Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Isabell Leach. -Air. Lawson.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Alfred Res-corl.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Isabella Ein-boden.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Frederick Davenport.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Marjorie Grace Coleman.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of James Lyn-ham.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Bessie Stephen Lee.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Irene Sagar - Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Clifford Wilson.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Frank Arthur LeNoury.-Mr. Lawson.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Thomas Booker.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 155,, for the relief of Louisa Martha Weston.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Bella Solnik. -Mr. Lawson.
Motions for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Harry Babing-ton Mi 11 ward.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Constance Mary Kearns.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 1(B, for the relief of Thomas South-wood.-Mr. Howard.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Edna Louise Brown.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Alla Chretter. -Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Wallace Evered Gillespie.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Claude Le Cheminant.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Alice Gladys Barkey.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Irene Mabel Usher.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Anna Estelle DeNike.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Elizabeth Spain.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Louisa Hitch-man.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale) moved the second reading of Bill No. 132, for the relief of Myrtle Virginia Maulson.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I would ask the hon. member if there are any children in this case, and if so, what arrangement is being made to take care of them?


Mr. SPENCE:: I will not attempt to explain this case at all. While I have heard many cases in the divorce courts, I am not going to start to explain this case here. Anway, I don't think the hon. member is putting the question seriously.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I do not
desire to take up very much of the time of the committee, but I would like to touch upon a point or two brought up in the discussion this afternoon.
AVhen, as Postmaster General, I first received an intimation of discrepancy or irregularity in connection with the Dupey's Corner post office transaction, I had it looked into. It was shown that there was an irregularity, so to speak, in money being collected and not being returned immediately to the department or to the financial branch of the department. I happened to be in New Brunswick, at St. John, and I called in Inspector Griffith. His explanation to me was somewhat along the lines of that which he gave in a letter to the head of the financial branch of the Post Office Department at Ottawa. Knowing Mr. Griffith as I did and knowing his reputation, I could not for a moment believe that there was dishonesty in the transaction and I let the matter go at that in the meantime.
Later on difficulties developed in the St. John postal district between the superintendent and the inspector, and, I might say, the inspectors, at least two out of the four, and the matter came to a climax on the return of District Superintendent Woods from his trip to the West Indies. At that time there was no charge, but having received the information simply that there had been trouble between Inspector Griffith, acting district superintendent, and the regular superintendent on the latter's return from his West Indies trip, I obtained details. It was immediately decided that two men would be sent from the office at Ottawa to the office at St. John; that as Mr. Griffith and Mr. Woods were implicated in this quarrel, they would be set aside for a short period, and that these two men should take charge, one of the operating end and the other of the financial end, in order to see what could be done to restore discipline and a better system than had been in vogue for some years in the inspectoral part of the office as well as in the main post office itself. These men remained there, I think, the better part of three days. I happened to arrive in St. John I believe the day after they arrived.

Supply-Post Office


Henry Herbert Stevens: What date was that?


Peter John Veniot: Around Easter. .


Henry Herbert Stevens: This year?


Peter John Veniot: Yes. I was home for the
Easter holidays.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is close enough.


Peter John Veniot: I met both those officials
at the hotel. They reported to me that they had gone into the matter; that they had brought Inspector Griffith and District Superintendent Woods together, and that they discovered that there was a great lack of discipline and of proper system in the work of the inspectoral district as well as of the post office itself. The postmaster was a new one; he had been for years an assistant, and on the retirement on superannuation of the former postmaster, he became postmaster. The system that was in vogue in the main office was due not to the gentleman who was postmaster at that moment, but rather to a sort of routine way of carrying on that had been in vogue for years. I discussed the matter with the two officials, Mr. Fortier and Mr. Underwood. Their report was made to me verbally. They said that they had established a system that would bring about the necessary improvements in the district superintendent's office as well as in the post office itself, and they wished to see it in operation before they continued their investigation any further. They referred to the question of lack of discipline on the part of Inspector Griffith, stating that they wanted to find out exactly what caused this and what, if necessary, should be done to remedy matters. At the same meeting they informed me that it would take them about another day to complete their work; that they would go back to Ottawa, and that at a future date they would return to St. John to investigate the whole workings of the district office as well as of the post office.
At that meeting they were instructed verbally by me that in view of this quarrel, if I may use the term, between the district superintendent and Inspector Griffith, a thorough investigation should be held not only into the method of carrying on and the lack of discipline, but also into the matter of the amount of money collected from the Dupey's Comer post office, going back to 1927. I never mentioned the Leger matter of $15 because, to my mind, it was so trivial.
If it had been paid, it was not really money belonging to the department and I had on file in the department Griffith's word that he had no recollection of ever receiving the money, but that if they could show a voucher, which, of course, they could not show, he would hold himself responsible; that knowing these people to be honest, if they said he had received the $15 from them he would have to take their word for it. I did not think it necessary that I should issue instructions to go into a thorough investigation of that matter of $15; but my instructions were that when these men returned to St. John they were to go thoroughly into the matter of the Dupey's Corner defalcation and that was the intention of those men when they returned to St. John. After their return to Ottawa and after making their report to the Deputy Postmaster General as it appears on the file, they went further into the Dupey's Corner matter. There was a dispute about an item of $50 which appeared to be short of the amount supposed to have been received by Griffith from the Dupey's Corner- postmaster's father, That matter was cleared up on investigation here. It was distinctly shown that the $50 was duly paid and that the trouble was due rather to a mistake on the part of Hebert than to any fault or discrepancy on the part of Inspector Griffith. The intention is that these officials shall continue this investigation to the end. It is my intention to investigate not only these two matters, but every part of the operation of the office at St. John.
I do not desire to reflect upon the administration of any of the officials in my department, but I wish to say now that in the Dominion of Canada there are three offices which require thorough investigation, on the question not of honesty or efficiency, but of the lack or otherwise of a systematic method of carrying on. According to the reports that have been made to me by the head officials at Ottawa within the last year, or possibly a little longer, those three offices are not measuring up to the proper standard. I am firmly of the opinion that a thorough investigation will disclose that the want of proper administration is the reason for these offices costing more to administer than they should. I am going to name the offices to which I refer, so that the people will be prepared for this investigation and will know that at least I am doing all that is within my power to see that these offices are properly manned and
Supply-Post Office

properly administered. One is St. John, another is Halifax, and the third is the city of Quebec. These investigations must be held because I have to get better results than I am getting to-day from St. John, Halifax and Quebec. I have named three; there may be others, but I have determined that these three offices must undergo a thorough investigation by the experts in the department here at Ottawa with a view to getting matters straightened out so that better results may be obtained. That is all I wish to say at the present time touching the investigation. I want to assure the committee that I am sincere in carrying on these investigations. They will not be carried on by myself personally. I do not intend myself to sit on such a board of inquiry, because, in the first place, it would not be my duty as Postmaster General to do so, and in the second place I would not know enough of the working details of offices such as St. John, Halifax or Quebec to bring out all that should be brought out in such an investigation. These investigations will be held by men of experience, experts in their respective branches in the head office at Ottawa, and the results will be made known to parliament when it meets again or perhaps to the public before parliament meets.
Just one other point and I am through. I have been "pulled over the coals," if I may use that expression, somewhat severely because I promoted, as it were, a junior over the head of a senior inspector to act as acting district superintendent in the absence of the district superintendent on his voyage to the West Indies. Before six o'clock I gave my reasons for taking that action. I pointed out then that it was nothing new for juniors at times to be placed in important positions of that kind over the heads of seniors, and I gave instances of it. It may be said: While that may be correct, you placed over the head of a senior a man who, according to the leader of the opposition, was a thief. I think he used that word; if not, I stand corrected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that section 98
of the Post Office Act declares than one who takes money as Griffith admits he did is guilty of theft,, and he, I say, is a self-confessed thief on that record. Let there be no misunderstanding.


Peter John Veniot: I contend, of course, that he did not take this money and did not keep it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says he did.


Peter John Veniot: They did not lose one
single cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because he paid it
back.
Mr. 'VENIOT:	Where the whole mistake
was made so far as Griffith is concerned was in the person at the head of the financial branch of the department in any degree encouraging Griffith to become the guarantor of the amount of the defalcation. That is where the fault came in. So far as I personally am concerned I was not mixed up in it. I am not one at any time to attempt to shirk responsibility for my actions. I have always taken responsibility for my actions, and I am always prepared to do so, but I want to say now that if there was any fault in the administration of the head office it was in encouraging Griffith at any time to become a guarantor to the Post Office department of the amount of the defalcation, which he undertook to collect and reimburse to the government so that the country would lose nothing. That is where the weakness was. Griffith himself states in his letter that he did what he thought was right in trying to collect as much money as he could to hand in to the department. There were irregularities, I must admit, on his part in becoming guarantor for this amount of money.
But leaving that aside, I have been censured, I say, for the passing of a junior over the head of a senior in the administration of an important branch of the postal service, not as a permanent appointment, but as a temporary one. Now, if it is wrong for me to do that-leaving out altogether for the moment the question of money and any irregularities-if I am to be condemned for passing this junior over the head of a senior, what must be said of the appointment of Mr. Woods to district superintendent over the heads of two inspectors who were eight and nine years senior in that office? Mr. Woods was appointed in 1917, and at that date, Mr. Alex. Thomson, later on postmaster of the city of St. John, and retired a year ago under the Superannuation Act, was nine years assistant inspector to Doctor Coulter. Doctor Coulter was retired in 1917, and Mr. Woods was taken on. I am not finding any fault with Mr. Woods. I say he would have been foolish had he not accepted that position when it was offered to him. I mention it simply to show that w'hat is criminal for me is a virtue for my hon. friends on the other side. Mr. Woods was taken clear from the political field, without one minute's post office experience, an honest man, if you like, and with ability perhaps-no doubt he had ability

Supply-Post Office
in the lumber business which he was carrying on, a man perhaps of ability in the sphere of life in which he was brought up. I do not question that at all, but he had absolutely no post office experience, and he was placed in there over the head of men who were his seniors and who had been inspectors for nine and ten years. Is it any wonder then, with the chief of the postal district of the province of New Brunswick without one minute's experience in and without any knowledge of the postal service, without ever having entered for a moment a post office of the class we have in the city of St. John-is it any wonder that there arose a lack of discipline and a lack of system in the administration of the office at St. John? That is what we are up against to-day in the	post office	in St.	John,	andthat is one of	the matters	which	along	with
others I intend to have investigated.
As I said when I rose, I do not want to take up much	more of the	time of the	committee, but I	did want to	place	these	facts
on record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to ask the minister a single question. Has Mr. Griffith been suspended?


Peter John Veniot: No, sir.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he is still acting
in that office?


Peter John Veniot: He is still inspector.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is the section of the Post Office Act to which I referred. Section 9S reads:
Every officer of or connected with the post office who converts to his own use in any way whatsoever, or uses by way of investment in any kind of property or merchandise, or lends, with or without interest, any portion of the public moneys entrusted to him for safe keeping, transfer, disbursement, or for any other purpose, shall be deemed to have stolen so much of the said moneys as is so taken, converted, invested, used or lent, and is guilty of an indictable offence.
2.	Every person who advises or knowingly and willingly participates in such theft is guilty of an indictable offence, and shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay to His Majesty a fine equal to the amount of the money stolen, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than three months.
3.	The neglect or refusal by any such officer to pay over any public moneys in his hands, or to transfer or disburse any such moneys promptly, on the requirement of the Postmaster General, shall be prima facie evidence of such conversion to his own use of so much of the public moneys as is in the hands of such officer.
And here we have read into the records this day letters from Griffith stating he could not
collect the money. But he had used it^ himself, and when he was called upon to pay it he had to borrow from a man who gave him a cheque for $200, and that man offers to produce the cancelled cheque.


Peter John Veniot: That is why an investigation should be held. What the hon. gentleman now advances is no evidence of the borrowing of the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is evidence that from June to November he had that money converted to his own use, and in the meantime sent letters to the office at Ottawa and to other places that he could not collect from the Heberts.


Peter John Veniot: And the department is holding him responsible under that arrangement for the full amount of Leger's defalcation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was asked to pay and could not. That is the answer, Mr. Chairman. It is incredible that any attorney general or minister of justice of Canada would permit a colleague to make a statement like that. There are men to-day doing time in the penitentiaries of this country who were connected with the post office, and they are there for just the very offence that Mr. Griffiths admits he committed, men without any responsibility, young fellows who took the money and then said, "Oh, well, we will pay when the time comes." And when the time came they could not borrow the money and were found guilty of appropriating the funds of the post office. Yet we have a minister of the crown, not somebody on the hustings, not a politician, but a responsible minister of the crown telling the people of Canada that it was the proper thing for the man to steal this money under this section, and he justifies the man's action by saying he guaranteed to repay it.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to correct the hon. gentleman. I never used the words that he has just put into my mouth. I said I was not satisfied, and I am not satisfied to-night, that Mr. Griffith is guilty of this offence; and the investigation was begun before this matter was brought up in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Griffith says he took the money.


Peter John Veniot: Not in the sense the hon. gentleman wishes to impress upon this house and upon the country. The hon. gentleman is qualifying the statement of Griffith in that letter. If he joined the letter that
Supply-Post Office

Griffith wrote to the Finance department with the admission of Griffith, then the public would fully understand that Griffith was not guilty of what my hon. friend now says he is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read both letters.


Peter John Veniot: But you read them far apart.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read them one right after the other, in the sequences in which they were taken from the files. I am in the judgment of this house and of the country in declaring that no postmaster general can stand up and say that because a responsible official who received money, mark you, from a defaulting postmaster, put it in his pocket and lied about it for six months, and then, because his superior went down to the Dupey's Corners post office and found out the situation, came through with the money by borrowing it from someone else-I say no postmaster can justify such conduct. And yet behind Griffith to-night stands this minister of the crown. Let the people of Canada know that behind him stands the government of the country.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is
hardly fair.


An hon. MEMBER:: Very fair.


Peter John Veniot: I am forced to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman does not wish to be fair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot but express that
opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I never quarrel with
your opinion after what I hear.


Peter John Veniot: Nor will I quarrel with
yours, because your opinion changes so often-that it is hardly worth while quarrelling with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right.


Peter John Veniot: I am not behind Griffith
an the ground of appropriating to himself funds, or stealing, as my hon. friend would interpret the law to be, but because the very moment my attention was drawn to what might appear to be something as laid down by the hon. gentleman I ordered an investigation, and not as a result of anything that has taken place in this house this session.


Mr. DUNNING:: Long before.


Peter John Veniot: I started to look into the
matter and finally came to the conclusion that I would investigate thoroughly the disciplinary system they have there, as well as this matter of supposed retention of funds.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: And you promoted him in the meantime.


Peter John Veniot: Under the British law he
is innocent until he is proven guilty.
M>r. CHAPLIN: And subject to promotion.


Jean-François Pouliot: As we are all gentlemen
of the jury in this case, I desire to give my impressions of it. The hon. leader of the opposition stated that he was acting, as crown attorney at the preliminary inquiry, where the doubt is against the accused; at the trial the doubt is in his favour. That is a great difference. I believe the hon. leader of the opposition read too much and thought too little. I have followed this debate 'very closely. We must remember who are the actors in this melodrama. First of all, there is Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods is a saint, because he was appointed from the Tory ranks to his position in the civil service. He was a lumberman who had had no experience in postal work. He asked for a little holiday to visit, not the southern states, but the enchanted island of Cuba. Someone had to act for him during his absence. There were four assistants, two of whom have been mentioned in this discussion, Mr. Emerson and Mr. Griffith. Mr. Emerson had been the senior to Mr. Griffith in the office, just as another gentleman had been senior to Mr. Woods when he was appointed by the Tory party in 1917. A bad example was set by the Tory party in the first instance, and the trouble of the Liberal party is that they followed that bad example. In other words, what was right when our friends were on this side of the house is wrong when we are here. But anyhow, what happened even before that? There was a postmaster named Leger at Shediac. He seems to have been an honest citizen; but he had a crooked son who was a thief, and several times that crooked son stole money from the drawer in the Shediac post office. Then what happened?	Griffith-that bad Griffith-went
there as a good Samaritan and said:	I will
try to help you; I will be your guarantor, I will take full responsibility for the whole thing towards the department.
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!


Jean-François Pouliot: Yet, this is the fact according to what my hon. friend read from the file. Griffith said to Leger senior: If you are

Supply-Post Office
not able to pay right away what your son owes to the post office, well, I will pay it myself. And so they became joint debtors to the department, Leger senior, the father, and Griffith, the inspector, became responsible to the department for the debt of the son, and if Leger had not paid a cent to Griffith, Griffith would have had to pay the whole amount. Whether it is right or wrong according to the formality usually followed in the department,
I cannot say, but I think that morally no one can object to it, and it shows a good spirit on the part of Mr. Griffith towards Mr. Leger. At that time Mr. Leger was still holding this post office as postmaster. Afterwards, what happened. Perhaps the son stole some more;
I do not know. But for some reason or other Leger had to quit the office, and then the trouble started. And what evidence have we? There is no receipt on the files showing that Griffith had received a certain amount of money from Leger. There is no receipt for the amount which my hon. friend said this afternoon had been embezzled. There is no proof of that. The only proof, so-called, which would not be admitted in a court, is. a simple affirmation on the part of a man who is not under oath, and who, because he is not under oath, may lie. And nothing shows us that he is not a liar. That affirmation is to the effect that he gave a certain amount of money at several intervals to Griffith. But is there a sworn statement to that effect? There is none. Does Griffith admit that he had received money from that man?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; he says, "It might be, but I don't remember it". It shows his honesty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friends laugh,
but if they had the right idea of what honesty is in politics they would not laugh. They have the wrong idea. What about the carloads of mail bag padlocks which were bought by the Hon. Mr. Pelletier when he was Postmaster General? It was before my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) entered politics. There were so many padlocks, I am told, that there are still several carloads of them in the department. They are all rusted; they are of no use. I will not dwell to any greater extent on a matter of that kind. I simply want to show that there is no evidence to the effect that Griffith had embezzled a cent of the money handed in by Leger. And not only that; he was generous enough to assume himself the full responsibility for the debt in order to 78594-133
help that man. Can we blame him for that?
I believe that there are very few people who would not have done the same thing under similar circumstances, and no one will really blame the man for having done what he did. It seems to me that the matter has been satisfactorily explained by the Postmaster General and I am sure the mind of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is entirely satisfied in that respect.
May I tell you, Mr. Chairman, what I would say in regard to that post office affair if I were a Tory member in this house? First of all I should have a great respect for my leader and would try to be an example to my colleagues; I should say that what my leader said was all right and that I believed in him. And the other day, sitting in this house, I heard the leader of the opposition say that in itself there was nothing wrong about a dismissal for political partisanship. He was generous enough and broadminded enough to make that admission, and as it was not wrong he admitted that he had done so himself when his party was in power. He did it four or five times. Now we have two hundred and forty-five counties in Canada, and if every member requested four or five dismissals in his own county for reasons of political partisanship we should have over twelve hundred dismissals. Dismissals were made on a large scale when the Hon. Mr. Pelletier was in office in 1911, because inside of six months, I believe, there were at least twelve or fifteen hundred dismissals. Apparently and according to the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition there was nothing wrong about that, and my hon. friends opposite would say that these dismissals took place in the natural course of events. As a matter of fact, even persons who were dead were dismissed; this happened in several cases. As an hon. member remarks, there were post mortem dismissals. This year, on the other hand, the Postmaster General has been very severely criticized for having dismissed since he has been acting as such about one hundred and fifty persons for reasons of political partisanship, although that does not represent one dismissal per county. Surely, in the light of the figures which the files disclose for previous years, especially 1911-1912, this is a very reasonable record. But this is what I would say if I were a Tory member:	I would say that the present Postmaster General, in this respect only, is not effective enough; if he were a good, a strong Postmaster General, such as the Hon. Mr. Pelletier was, he would at least dismiss the Tories who have replaced Liberals in that time.
11EVI8ED EDITION
Supply-Post Office

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have just a word to say in regard to Mr. Woods. I should like to have some more information regarding him; I should like to know whether he is an angel.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just like Tasohereau.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well Tasohereau is a name I heard on a broken record in the cabinet of the gramaphone of Mackenzie and Mann. I repeat, I should like to hear something more about Mr. Woods if the Postmaster General can tell us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret that I cannot look upon this matter in the frivolous light in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pouliot) sees it. It may well be that, to some, this is an occasion for levity; to me it is not. I did not for two hours this afternoon read correspondence, without making any comments to speak of, merely for enjoyment. I did it out of a sense of t'he duty that devolves upon me in the position I occupy at the moment, and I believe it is the duty of this House of Commons to examine into the administration of this department.
The Postmaster General, I sometimes think, has a faulty memory because his statements are so entirely beside the facts. I find it so difficult to understand how any hon. gentleman who is at all jealous of his reputation for the statements he makes could have made such statements as we have heard from the Postmaster General to-night. For example, here is the fact as reported. Mr. Griffith received money as follows: August 23, $40; September 30, $50; November 8, $200; December 2, $40, or a total of $330. And he paid $150 of that into the department. Thus it will be noted that having received, on November 8, $200, he took $150 out of the $330 and put it to the Postmaster General's credit on December 1, and on the 20th day of June of the next year he paid $180 to the government of Canada. Surely the members of this house realize what that means. The letter of Mr. Woods reads:
Mr. Griffith has just called upon me and has delivered to me, on account of the shortage of the postmaster at Dupey's Corner, $180, and the same will be deposited in the Bank of Montreal, Saint John, this date.
The receipt follows. How would it be possible for the minister to make the statements he has made to-night in face of these facts, bearing in mind that when the question of Griffith's annual increase came up on August 27, 1927, only two months later, Mr. Coolican puts this note down for the guidance of the inspection sendee:

The Postmaster General instructs that Mr. Griffith's annual increase be proceeded with, notwithstanding the report by District Superintendent Woods.
The Postmaster General advises that he knows all the details of the case-hence, the above instructions.


Peter John Veniot: That was in 1927?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: What case was that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The case from which I
have just read is the case referred to by District Superintendent Woods when he declined to make the recommendation for Griffith's annual increase because of the Dupey's Corner and Shed'iac cases. On June 20, 1927, Griffith admitted that he had the money, and he paid it over. There is upon record, unverified it is true, the statement of a gentleman who says he will produce the cancelled cheque whenever it is required. I appeal to the members of this committee: Have you ever heard of a man who, being guilty of such an offence, has not been suspended? To-day that man is down there fraternizing with the officers of the department, and the public service is expected to be carried on while he is the chief rating officer under the directions of the Postmaster General. Is it any wonder that some of us regard a matter of this kind as serious and decline to treat it with levity as it is treated by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)?
It has been pointed out by the Toronto Globe, by the Regina Leader, by the Winnipeg Free Press and by the Moncton Transcript, certainly not supporters of the opposition, that we have a Civil Service Act. Here is the Civil Service Act; here we have this responsible official, the rating officer in the St. John district office, and we have the undeniable fact that on June 20, 1927, he paid $180 to the government of this country which he had converted to his own use for over six months. If he had been a poor, unfortunate letter carrier he would have been sent to the penitentiary, and at that he paid over the money only when his superior officer caught him, as the hon. member for Fort William points out. I do not think for one moment that the Prime Minister can look with approval upon this sort of thing, and I do suggest in good part that this man should be suspended. I ask hon. members of this committee if they could expect any sort of public service to be maintained when knowledge of these conditions has gone all over the city of St. John? When I heard the

Supply-Post Office
rumours I could not believe them to be true, but apparently the Postmaster General expects the public service to be carried on in St. John with that man, admittedly an embezzler of $180 for six months, in charge. Is it any wonder that we take a rather serious view of this situation?
The reason I endeavoured, difficult though it was, to dissociate myself from inferences and attacks directed against the Postmaster General in reading these documents this afternoon was because I hoped the house might, if I left the matter free from embittered comments or endeavours to draw inferences, be able to realize the seriousness of this matter. There is not one of us who is not affected, and there is not one of us who does not realize the difficulties and temptations in the paths of poor, underpaid officials in different sections of the country. The Postmaster General said the other day that in some instances he had extended clemency, but here he rewards embezzlement with promotion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no question of
saying "hear, hear"; it is not a question of applause but a matter which strikes at the very vitals of the life of this country. Are we to continue in this way or are we not? I think I can say with a clear conscience that I have endeavoured to do my duty by bringing this matter to the attention of this committee, but the Postmaster General brazenly says, "He is not suspended; he is down there bossing the job; I always stand up and take the responsibility." There is the record, and it shows the admitted embezzlement of this amount of money for six months.
What does the Minister of Justice say? Is it his opinion that a minister of the crown should stand up and attempt to justify himself in this way? I put it to the Minister of Justice: Here we have an official who admits that he received $330 over a period of time extending, as he says, from August to December in 1926. He paid over $150 of that total in December, 1926, and retained the balance until his superior officer found out about it, when he rushed in and paid the belance of $180 with, it is alleged, money he had borrowed. Is it just that that man should be permitted to lord it over those who were once his senior officers? Should he be permitted to insult them, to call them liars and scoundrels and all that sort of thing and then have the chief officer of his department, a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, the head of the great Post Office Department of Canada, stand in his place in this house 78594-1331
and justify conduct of that kind? I leave that with the Minister of Justice, confident that when he realizes the seriousness of the situation and when he applies the principles of law to the given facts he cannot possibly and would not, as Minister of Justice of Canada, endeavour to justify that conduct.
It is for that reason that we have endeavoured to place this matter fairly before this committee. The Postmaster General says he has not suspended the man; in other words he is defying parliament. Public opinion in Canada is defied; the opinion of this house is defied by the Postmaster General who says, within a month or two after the $180 was paid, that he was thoroughly familiar with all the circumstances, and who instructed that the salary of this man be increased contrary to the report of the district superintendent. We have not the civil service report to which the minister referred this afternoon with respect to this man's rating, so I make no observation with respect to it.


Peter John Veniot: I referred only to the
rating given Griffith by his own district superintendent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This afternoon I read
that rating from the record, and it will be observed that that rating was not quite so high as the minister would have us believe. The record of Griffith with regard to punctuality, attendance, his attitude towards his subordinates and so on was rated' sometimes at 70 per cent and sometimes at 80 per cent, while with respect to his capacity, ability and so on he was rated at 90 per cent. I do submit that this is not a case in which we should be content to merely make the statement; I believe this is a case which calls for action.
Let me put this to the members of the committee: Is there any one of us with a business of his own who would hesitate, having that set of facts before him, in suspending such an employee? Would any bank or any other branch of the public service hesitate for a moment? I can easily recall reasons which have resulted in men being dismissed from much less important positions than this; I can think of cases which I have observed personally of young men, sometimes pleading guilty, being sent to penitentiaries and penal institutions for just such offences as embezzlement. We must remember that, as the statute says, embezzlement consists of the conversion to your own use of money which you have received in your public capacity. Mr. Griffith received that money as the investigating inspector, and having received it as such he declined to pay it over on the excuse, mind you,
Supply-Post Office

that he personally guaranteed it. But he failed to keep his guarantee. Hon. gentlemen must remember the letters I read this afternoon; letter after letter was sent to him during this six months asking for the money. He replied once that the man was sick, once that something else had happened, and the record now shows that the excuses given were untrue, because we have his proceedings register, his record, showing aill these 'details. Still to-day that man is in charge of that office, superior to everyone except the district superintendent, and if the superintendent goes away for a day this man is in complete control of the business of that office. He has to deal with the rural postmaster who is short in his funds; he has to deal with problems of setting in motion the law having to do with those guilty of theft; he has to do all that. The member for Temiscouata thinks it is a joke, but I cannot see it from that point of view. If I could look thus lightly upon what I see to be the responsibility of this house I would be much happier, but I confess that when I read that record I was amazed and astounded; I confess at this moment that I a.m both amazed and astounded and my amazement is the greater when I find the minister still leaves that man unsuspended in that office and justifies in this house the conduct to which I have alluded. This action would have been unbelievable had it happened in any country other than this. I do submit that some action should be taken by the administration before supply is further granted to enable the minister-to do what? He says, "I am going to conduct an investigation," but there is such a thing as prirna facie evidence. The minister knows that the man brought in the $180 six months after he had obtained it. Is there any hon. gentleman in the house who would keep on one of his employees under circumstances of that kind?
I think not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not laugh at what my hon. friend said, but I was smiling at seeing so many of his supporters sleeping while he spoke.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Peter John Veniot: To enlighten the house
further I would draw their attention to the report and ratings given by District Superintendent Woods to Inspector Griffith. In 1927 he examined him and give him good ratings all down the line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be easy to read it.


Peter John Veniot: The inspector gives the
following ratings in his report:
Quantity of work	 90
Quality of work, carefulness and steadiness	 80
Industry and willingness	 80
Intelligence, resourcefulness and initiative	 90
Ability to carry on work without
supervision	 90
Ability to carry out instructions.. ..	90
Knowledge of work of office or branch. 90 Tact in meeting public or in dealing
with other employees	 80
Willingness to cooperate	 80
Fairness towards assistants or conduct
in relations with superiors	 70
Physical fitness and regularity in
attendance	 90
Punctuality	 80
Ability to plan and supervise work and
to instruct and direct others	 90
Judgment. Ability to accept and carry
responsibility	 80
If in charge of staff, indicate with what success	 90


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read the rest of it.


Peter John Veniot: It is pretty hard to understand, after seeing a rating of that kind, why the following should appear in the report:
Service rendered by Mr. Griffith has been fairly satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You might read question No. 25.


Peter John Veniot: Then the superintendent
goes on to give his reasons for being unable to recommend an increase in salary, as follows :
-regarding shortage in the accounts of the P.M. Dupey's Corner; also report of the 13th JuIy/27 dealing with the claim of Mr. Edward T. Leger


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
might read the rest of it.


Peter John Veniot: I was going to point out
that in 1927 he was not dealing with the Dupey's Corner matter, but merely with the Leger matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report says:
[DOT]-also report of the 13th July/27.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the minister is not to be permitted to read incorrectly.


Peter John Veniot: The report reads:
-also report of the 13th July/27 dealing with the claim of Mr. Edward T. Leger of Shediac that he had paid the inspector money which was not placed to his credit,-
That is the $15 matter. The report continues :
-the district superintendent cannot recommend Mr. Griffith for increased salary.

Supply-Post Office
That is in 1927, but in 1928 they combine the Leger and Dupey's Corner matter. In 1927, on account of the $15 discrepancy in the Leger case-the other case was not then being considered against Mr. Griffith-he gives him a good rating with the exception of one item. There is certainly a discrepancy of some considerable degree between the rating given the inspector and the final conclusion arrived at by the superintendent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot understand the
hon. minister. I hold in my hand a copy of the document, certified to as having been compared, and I find that the minister left out the reference to the Dupey's Corner matter. Let me read it.


Peter John Veniot: I did no such thing; I read the whole of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the floor at the
moment. This report is headed:
District Superintendent of Postal Service O. S. S.
Aug. 11, 1927 Saint John, N.B.
Annual Efficiency Report
Question No. 26 and the answer thereto read as follows:
20. In case the employee is not at his maximum, do you recommend him for increase in salary? No. If not, state why:	In view
of the irregularities of Inspector Griffith as per report from this office of June 20th/27, regarding shortage in the accounts of the P.M. Dupey's Corner; also report of the 13th July/ 27 dealing with the claim of Mr. Edward T. Leger, Shediac, that he had paid the inspector money which was not placed to his credit, the district superintendent cannot recommend Mr. Griffith for increased salary.
I am going to read the other one.


Peter John Veniot: I read both of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Question 25 and the answer thereto read:
25.	Has employee rendered meritorious service and increased in usefulness in the service? Inspector Griffith has shown a disposition to disregard instructions and in the opinion of the district superintendent has not rendered meritorious service.
Question 26 follows:
26.	In case the employee is not at his maximum, do you recommend him for increase in salary? If not, state why: In view of the irregularities as per reports from this office of June 20th and July 13th, 1927,-
That is the one about the Dupey's Corner matter which was read. The answer continues:
-and for the reason expressed above at item 25 the district superintendent cannot recommend Mr. Griffith for an increase of salary.
The minister omitted the Leger matter and referred only to the Dupey's Comer matter, which is the exact opposite to what the minister has said.


Peter John Veniot: I read both of them.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say about this matter. I would not have spoken at all had I not heard what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said this afternoon.
It seems to me that there is one element in this case which the hon. leader of the opposition has more or less left out of account, and which I think has considerable bearing on the matter-criminal intention. I have heard the leader of the opposition say that this man is an admitted embezzler, that he is guilty of theft under the section which he has read, but I must say that as a professional man I would think there might be considerable difficulty in convicting Griffith. One of the elements to be considered in proving the crime of embezzlement is that of criminal intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has not read the section.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know there are a great many cases under sections like that, but I am not familiar with the cases on this particular section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is under the Post Office Act, not the criminal code.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are a great many
cases under sections just like that. It has been held very often by the courts of the country that the element of criminal intent must be established even though we have sections of that sort. I submit that is the case in reference to this. My hon. friend says that there are many instances of young men who have been sent to penitentiary for embezzlement, for theft, under circumstances precisely similar to this; but if any of those men had been able to establish that, owing to the fact that they had given a personal guarantee for the amount that was due to the department, they considered the matter as being one between themselves and the department and that they were entitled to collect the money and remit later, they would not have been convicted. That throws a very different light upon the whole situation. Mr. Griffith might very well have believed that he had the right to defer those remittances in view of the fact that he had given to His Majesty the King a guarantee that the money would be remitted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had not done that.
Supply-Post Office


James Lorimer Ilsley: No question has been raised in the debate so far as to Mr. Griffith's financial ability to meet the demands that might and would eventually be made upon him by His Majesty the King, and under those circumstances the situation is quite different.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend
permit me a question? Apropos of his argument, is he aware that in the file which has been read from to-day very freely, there is statement after statement, including letters written by Mr. Griffith between the period when the money was collected in November and when he remitted it in June, in which he declares that he has been trying to collect it; that the postmaster on one occasion was ill and could not pay it; although Mr. Griffith already had the money in his possession for a month or two before he made those statements? Does that not alter the question of the trusteeship which is my hon. friend's argument?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Only partly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not familiar with the
file. If my hon. friends will permit me, I am attempting just as sincerely as they are to get to the bottom of this affair, and I deplore extreme language in regard to a matter of this sort. I do not know that the leader of the opposition is quite justified in denouncing this man as an embezzler and a thief in the way he did. I would not like to come to that conclusion without knowing more about the matter than I do at present. My hon. friend says that there are on the file statements in which he denies that he received anything. I did not take that from the letters that were read this afternoon. I am not, however, in a position to speak about that until I go more fully into the file; but before we come to the conclusion that this man would be 'convicted in any court of -theft or embezzlement, we should take into account that element of criminal intent, the mens rea, the animus furandi.


Mr. CLARK:: Would the hon. member
increase his salary?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not addressing my
attention to that feature of the case; I am referring simply to the statement made by my hon. friend that this man was a thief and an embezzler. I say:	Let us not come to
that conclusion too quickly. I understand he had been in the service for many years. I did not hear that he had been found guilty fMr. Bennett.]
of anything of this sort before. The Postmaster General says that he was an efficient man and that he proved his efficiency during the period that he was in charge of the office recently. Those are the only considerations that I have to place before the committee.


Mr. GEARY:: Will the hon. member say, having heard what he has, that a prima facie case of theft under the section has not been made out? I would also ask him from the depth of his experience to tell the committee whether he oan say that a grand jury would not bring in a true bill on the evidence as read?


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat a question?


George Reginald Geary: I am waiting for an answer to my question.


William Gordon Ernst: Postpone the Winnipeg strike.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I may deal with that later. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would be willing to charge openly outside of this house, where he is protected, that this man is an embezzler and a thief?


George Reginald Geary: If it were at all necessary and if I were the member of the government who has charge of the matter, I believe I would be justified in doing so.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member has not answered my question.


George Reginald Geary: That is precisely an answer to the hon. member's question.


Mr. FOSTER:: I do not think I can be accused of taking up -much of the time of the house; but knowing Mr. Griffith as I do and knowing a great deal about his family and all his connections, I cannot let this pass without my voice being -heard. I have known this man Griffith sinoe he was a boy, and I know his parents and his whole family. No more upright and honest people live in New Brunswick than the Griffith family. An hon. member said that he would like to know a little more about District Superintendent Woods. I have known Mr. Woods too, all my life. I know nothing against him except that when he was appointed inspector he was appointed not because of his qualifications but because he was a political organizer of the Conservative party. As a reward he was appointed post office inspector. He was a good organizer. I do not think I am going too far when I say that he is still a pretty good organizer. That is where the trouble has arisen in the Post Office Department. As regards Mr. Griffith, I should like to know if any hon. member on that side of the house would be prepared to go out in the street

Supply-Post Office
and make the statement that Griffith is a thief, an emblezzler? When -one comes to consider the matter, that is not a fair remark for any hon. member to make. I have travelled through the country with Griffith looking after mail routes, and I know him to be a gentleman and an honest man.


James Houston Spence: Is Mr. Griffith a good organizer, too?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, a good post office organizer. I know he helped me to get rural mail routes in many places where we were never able to get them before.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to bring before the committee a matter relating to the post office at Sutton, Quebec. The postmaster there, Mr. Olmstead, was dismissed by the Postmaster General of whom I should like to ask one or two questions before making a statement to the committee in regard to the matter. It appears from the file which has been produced that the Postmaster General ordered an investigation in connection with that post office. He personally wrote a letter to Mr. Gaboury, the Deputy Postmaster General, dated April 4,	1927,
reading as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am in receipt of numerous complaints about the way the post office is being run at Sutton, Quebec. I would like to have this matter investigated. I would suggest that you instruct the inspector that in this case especially I want no haphazard investigation. I am enclosing an extract from a letter which will indicate what the people think of the way things are being run at this post office.
There is an extract, Mr. Chairman, an unsigned extract from a letter; it does not state by whom it was written, and I would therefore ask the Postmaster General if he will produce the letter from which this extract which appears on the file was taken.


Peter John Veniot: The extract was not signed. It was handed to me during a sitting of the house by the member for that county. He said: " Here is an extract from a letter which I got touching the administration of the post office at Sutton." I took that extract and inserted it in my file. My hon. friend has just read from a copy of it.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask the minister whether the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi endorsed the sentiments expressed in the extract?


Peter John Veniot: He did, verbally.


John Arthur Clark: And did he request the dismissal of the postmaster at Sutton?


Peter John Veniot: In discussing the matter with me, after giving me the extract, he said he thought an investigation should be held, and I acted upon that extract.


John Arthur Clark: What I wanted to ascertain was whether the hon. member recommended the dismissal.


Peter John Veniot: He recommended an investigation into the conduct of the postmaster based on that extract.


John Arthur Clark: But he never recommended dismissal?


Peter John Veniot: I have no record of his recommending dismissal, but he did recommend, I am sure, an investigation.


John Arthur Clark: Then will the Postmaster General advise the committee what were the numerous complaints he had received and which are referred to in this letter?


Peter John Veniot: I had received these complaints. There was the extract, and also in conversation with me the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi informed me that numerous complaints were being made to him touching the administration of that office, and he cited to me some of the complaints.


John Arthur Clark: Was political partisanship ever mentioned?


Peter John Veniot: No.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister state the revenue of that post office in 1924, 1928 and 1929?


Peter John Veniot: In 1924, $5,562.49; 1925, $5,347.49;	1926, $5,806.98;	1927, $5,810.04;
1928, $5,160.01; 1929, returns not in for the fiscal year.


John Arthur Clark: And the salaries?


Peter John Veniot: The deputy tells me that he could not get the salaries and allowances after six o'clock as the office was closed, but I will get that information for the hon. gentleman.


John Arthur Clark: I wonder if the minister will admit that the salary has been increased since the dismissal of Postmaster Olmstead.


Peter John Veniot: The salary is based on
revenue in an office of that kind.


John Arthur Clark: I think the Postmaster
General is incorrect in that, because I am advised that the salary paid to Olmstead was $1,869 or thereabouts, based on a revenue of $5,562, and that the salary now paid is over $2,000.
210S
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman must
remember that the commission paid on stamp sales has been increased from 50 to 70 per cent on the first SI,000, also 30 per cent, I believe, from that up to $5,000. That may account for an increase in the salary, although the revenue may be smaller.


John Arthur Clark: Does that apply throughout the country?


Peter John Veniot: Oh, yes, that is general.


John Arthur Clark: The minister will admit that this particular post office is a Civil Service Commission appointment.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, yes.


John Arthur Clark: This case, Mr. Chairman,
divides itself into several parts. There is first of all, the dismissal of the postmaster without cause, without an investigation-


Peter John Veniot: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


John Arthur Clark: I will come to that and show what investigation there was. There is next the appointment of a postmaster by the Postmaster General, temporarily, it is true, without any lawful authority for such appointment. There is next a very long delay in reporting the vacancy to the Civil Service Commission. Then there is a deliberate delay in sending to the Civil Service Commission the report of the superintendent upon the applicants, and after that a delay by the Post Office Department in furnishing further particulars requested by the Civil Service Commission. Lastly, there is the withholding in the office of the Civil Service Commission of the file for some months until a request arrived from the Post Office Department for a delay in the appointment, and then the admission on the file of one who I believe is a civil service commissioner that he had held the file in his office.
I would first review, Mr. Chairman, the facts that led up to the dismissal of this postmaster at Sutton. In 1924 the then sitting member, Mr. Andrew McMaster, made representations to the Department of Public Works that a building was required at Sutton for the use of the Post Office, Immigration and Customs departments. The Deputy Minister of Immigration stated that such a building was not required because one of the railway companies at that place was furnishing both the Department of Immigration and the Department of Customs with plenty of accommodation. However, some time later, in January, 1925, Mr. McMaster represented that one R. G. Crowell of Sutton had a building

which would be an excellent location for a post office as well as for the immigration and customs services. This representation was investigated, and it turned out that the Crowell building was a brick building some twenty odd years old which had been burned down, but the brick walls remained, and the building had been rebuilt wiith wood and iron, and painted red. About the same time a petition was forwarded to the Postmaster General signed by some eighty-five per cent of the patrons of the post office at Sutton, expressing satisfaction with both the service and the location as it then existed.


Peter John Veniot: May I interrupt my hon.
friend? You are not connecting the present Postmaster General with that phase?


John Arthur Clark: No; but there were investigations during that time, all of which were before the present Postmaster General assumed office. All those investigations indicated that the service and location of the office and the character of the postmaster were absolutely satisfactory.
Now, pressure was brought to bear on the Post Office Department by the then sitting member, and on March 11, 1925, the department wrote the superintendent at Montreal stating:
This is a special case as Mr. McMaster is personally interested in either the purchase or rental of this building.
On March 21, 1925, the district superintendent at Montreal made a very elaborate report on this building, in which he stated incidentally that there were no complaints whatever in the town of Sutton against the management of the post office by Mr. Olmstead, the then postmaster. But in April. 1925, Mr. McMaster became insistent, and Mr. Dastous, post office inspector at Sherbrooke, went to Sutton to make a further investigation. Mr. Crowell expressed his disappointment at Mr. Dastous being selected to make the investigation. Mr. Dastous made another attempt to interview Mr. Crowell, at a later date and Mr. Crowell stated:
Tell the Post Office Department that I absolutely refuse to make complaints to you.
Despite these efforts no change was made under the administration of the Hon. Charles Murphy. Every investigation indicated that the administration of the post office was entirely satisfactory. Incidentally it might be stated that the postmaster had been honoured by the citizens of Sutton on several occasions with the office of mayor.
Shortly after the accession to office of the present Postmaster General instructions were

Supply-Post Office
given by him, as already stated, on April 4, 1927, to have this post office investigated.
I might repeat the Postmaster General's own words:
I would like to have this matter investigated.
I would suggest that you instruct the inspector that in this case especially I want no haphazard investigation.
He refers to numerous complaints, also. There are no numerous complaints in this file. There is what appears to be an anonymous letter complaining about the postmaster at Sutton. As a result of that letter an investigation was carried out by the inspector at Sherbrooke, Quebec. That inspector once more went to Sutton and interviewed twenty-four prominent citizens. Seventeen of these stated that they were absolutely satisfied, and spoke in the highest terms of the management of the post office. Two stated that they had heard a complaint, but had none to make themselves. One stated that he thought there should be someone in the office who could speak French. It might be observed here that the postmaster himself spoke French. While he was not in the office all the time he was in the adjoining room and was there on call whenever required. One stated that there had been delay in the delivery of some mail, but he had no evidence to produce in that regard. There were two, however, who did complain. One was R. G. Crow-ell, who has since been appointed to succeed Mr. Oimstead. He referred the investigator to one Mr. O'Brien, who also had complaints to make, particularly in regard to the young lady assistant. Mr. O'Brien referred the inspector to certain others who, he said, had complained.
I should like to observe here that these two gentlemen are reputed, on very good authority, to be the leading Liberals in Sutton. One has been appointed postmaster, and the son of the other has been appointed his assistant. So I do not think we need consider very seriously their complaints, more particularly as they referred the investigator to one Mrs. Bates, who, they both stated, had a very serious complaint to make. The investigator went to the lady who stated she did not wish to make any complaint, and before the investigator left she said:
Mr. Oimstead is a good citizen, don't you think so? I have nothing to say against him.
One of the other complainants was Henry Chat.field, whose chief cause of complaint seemed to be that the girl assistant must be in love. He noted on one occasion, while she was making distribution iof thie mail, she
stopped to read a letter, and only resumed her work after she had read the whole letter. He stated, however:
The postmaster is a good fellow, and his hoy is very nice.
Meaning the postmaster's son, who was his assistant. That is the report. There is a supplementary report emphasizing the statements made in the earlier report and concluding in these words:
As already stated, the postmaster is willing to comply with any instructions given, and any requirements advanced by the department in regard to ventilation, accommodation and adequate uninterrupted service if he is reasonably sure of keeping the office.
Every charge contained in the anonymous letter is in one place or another fully and completely answered in these reports, which I regret to say there is not time to put on Hansard in detail.
Now, with these reports before him, the Postmaster General issued a memorandum dated July 29, 1927, some months later, directed to L. J. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General, in which he states:
I have had before me the inspector's report on the administration of the Sutton post office, dated April 16, and followed by supplementary report dated April 25. After carefully considering all the circumstances reported therein,
I am convinced that in the interest of the public service there should be a change made at this office. You will therefore make arrangements for the dismissal of the.postmaster, but in the meantime hold back the order of dismissal until I am in a position to give you the name of a man to be appointed temporarily in his place. This office comes under the Civil Service Commission.
P. J. Yeniot.
Then on August 10, 1927, there is a memorandum to Mr. Gaboury as follows:
With further reference to the Sutton post office, please appoint Mr. R. G. Crowell as temporary postmaster at that place, pending the permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
P. J. Veniot.
At this stage I think it is well to mention that under the old Post Office Aot, section 92. it was .provided that the governor in council might appoint all postmasters having fixed salaries in cities and towns, and all other postmasters might be appointed by the Postmaster General. That section has been repealed, and the section which now is in force is section 19 of the Civil Service Act, which reads as follows:
Save as otherwise provided in this act or in any regulation made hereunder, neither the governor in council nor any minister, officer of the crown, board or commission, shall have power to appoint or promote any employee to a position in the civil service.
Supply-Post Office

Section 21 reads:
Every deputy head shall notify the commission of every vacancy in any position in his department immediately after the vacancy occurs, and whenever such vacancy is to be nlied, the deputy head shall request the commission to make an appointment.
The vacancy was created by dismissal on July 29, 1927. The Postmaster General stated that^ it came under the Civil Service Commission and expressly requested that the dismissal should not go into effect until he was in a position to give his deputy the name of the successor. Now, he did not report that as required by law; nor did his deputy, as required by law, report it to the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: When it has to do with a temporary appointment?


John Arthur Clark: The act is perfectly clear.
Whether it be temporary or otherwise, there is no power under the Civil Service Act, nor is there any power under the Post Office Act for the minister to make such an appointment. There are some sections under which the minister may argue that he has the right to make temporary appointments, but I shall be quite prepared to reply to him when he so contends. In the meantime I state emphatically that he has no such power; the act expressly requires him, in words which are not at all uncertain, to report to the Civil Service Commission immediately any vacancy occurs. And he did not do so.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: 
Peter John Veniot: That is not the fault of
the Postmaster General.


John Arthur Clark: I do not know; I shall be
much interested to hear the explanation of the Postmaster General as to the relationship between himself and this civil service commissioner.
Following that appears this memorandum dated November 8, 1928:
Memo, to Mr. Bland.
I think, in view of the chairman's memo, you should attach a memorandum to this file showng where and why it was held.
This is signed "W. F." I presume that means William Foran, secretary of the Civil Service Commission. A further memorandum, addressed to Mr. Bouchard, is as follows:
For report, please, as above, for the period June 30th (when D. S. report was received) - October 12 (when file was forwarded to me).
Then there is a memorandum to Mr. Bland, which I assume is the memorandum of Mr. Bouchard, dealing with the delay in submitting to the commissioners the report on the postmastership at Sutton. This is a detailed report in regard to the mannet in which the files are held in the Civil Service Commission office. I presume that this officer is in charge of those files, and he very conclusively clears himself of any suggestion that he might have had the file in his office. He concludes with these words:
I can only, therefore, conclude that whoever had the file held it until the looked-for communication of the department to suspend action
That looked-for communication from the department was dated October 10, 1928; the details have been placed1 on Hansard already. In that communication the Post Office department request that the selection of a new postmaster be deferred pending further in-


Peter John Veniot: I have no explanation to
make, because I have no relationship with him.


John Arthur Clark: I will leave it to the house to determine whether or not such relationship exists; to me the inference is pretty plain.


Peter John Veniot: Always suspicious.


John Arthur Clark: No, I hope not, but so much has occurred in this chamber in the last few weeks with regard to this department that the suspicions of any man are easily aroused, regardless of whether or not he is naturally suspicious.


Mr. POWER:: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he thinks there was anything improper in the conduct of Commissioner Tremblay?


John Arthur Clark: Decidedly yes; Commissioner Tremblay should be brought before the bar of this house to explain his conduct. In this case we not only have the provisions of the Civil Service Act disregarded and defied by the Postmaster General, but it seems that we have collusion on the part of one of the Civil Service Commissioners to defeat the terms of the very act which he is sworn to administer. I certainly think he should be brought before the bar of this house to answer for his conduct. The charges which were made against the two commissioners who were dismissed a year or two ago were serious, but in my opinion the charge against this commissioner, contained in his own writ-
Supply-Post Office

ing in which he accepted the responsibility for retaining in his office for a period of months, a file which he was bound by oath to deliver, is far more reprehensible than the conduct of the commissioners who were dismissed by the Prime Minister some time ago.


Charles Gavan Power: May I just interject that I am very glad someone on the other side of the house has come to the conclusion that all commissioners are not infallible. I arrived at that conclusion long ago.


John Arthur Clark: I am very glad my hon. friend agrees with me.


Peter John Veniot: If I made that statement it would be a crime.


John Arthur Clark: Personally there is one
feature of this case which affects me, in a sentimental way at least, more than any other which has been brought out by the documents contained in this file. That feature has to do with the records of the two applicants. Mr. Crowell, the gentleman chosen by the Postmaster General, according to this court document which I have in my hand, apparently is in the same position as an undischarged bankrupt. I have here a certificate signed by the deputy prothonotary of the superior court of the province of Quebec in and for the district of Bedford, in which he certifies that on October 15, 1914, Robert G. Crowell did make an abandonment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors. This document is dated at Sweets-burg, April 26, 1929, and is signed by J. A. Perras, D.P.S.C.


Peter John Veniot: What is the date of that abandonment?


John Arthur Clark: October 15, 1914. Since that time this gentleman has carried on business in the name of his wife, and was carrying on business in her name at the time negotiations were entered into for the leasing of his building. At the time the Postmaster General's appointee abandoned all his property for the benefit of his creditors in an action brought against him by George E. Chart, the other applicant, Robert Hill, attempted to enlist. He was turned down because of physical unfitness, and a little later he underwent an operation in order to fit himself for service. He was then accepted and served in France from June, 1916, until after the armistice, with very great credit to himself and to his country. He was awarded the meritorious service medal for his services while in the field.
These gentlemen made their applications and were reported upon by the superintendent

at Montreal, and nothing appears in the report as to the past business record of Mr. Crowell. However, I would draw the attention of the committtee to the following remarks from the report of the superintendent:
Robert G. Crowell: Educational qualifications: fair.
Robert Hill:	Educational qualifications:
good.
The residential qualifications are practically the same in each case. The report continues:
Robert C*. Crowell: Integrity: good.
Robert Hill: Integrity: very good.
The only difference is that Robert Hill has had no post office experience. He is yard manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton and assistant secretary of the Butter and Cheese Manufacturing Association of Sutton. Robert G. Crowell was postmaster at Dunkin for nine years, and acting postmaster at Sutton for the last seven months-illegally appointed, as I said before. I charge the Postmaster General with being personally responsible for the delay in this appointment. I must accept the statement which has been made by the hon. Postmaster General, but I would ask him to search his records and search his mind because I believe 'when he has done so he will find that he personally is the man who is responsible for this file having been lost in Mr. Tremblay's office for several months.
I base that thought upon a memorandum which appears in the file, signed P. J. Veniot, and dated January 17, 1929, long after this file is discovered in the office of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission. This memorandum reads as follows:
Have inspector report on whether applicant Hill, returned soldier, is reestablished. It would appear he is, as he is stated as being .vard manager of Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton since 1919 and has been in their employ for twenty years with exception of years at war.
I wonder why the Postmaster General is so much interested in hounding this poor returned soldier by asking whether he is reestablished. Why does he suggest to the investigator that it appears that he is? Why is that investigation requested unless it is for the purpose of establishing that this gentleman is not eligible? I would draw to the attention of the Postmaster General the fact that it does not matter whether or not he is re-established; he is entitled by law to the position even if he is. Did the Postmaster General say no? May I ask the Postmaster General what his interjection was?


Peter John Veniot: I did not interject.


John Arthur Clark: You did, and I would like to know what it was.

C.N.R.-Interim Supply


Peter John Veniot: I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere.


John Arthur Clark: I think there is some confusion in the minds of members of the house with regard to the preference afforded retured soldiers by the Civil Service Act. Subsection 4 of section 29 of the act states quite clearly and concisely that returned soldiers regardless of disability and regardless of whether they are re-established have preference over all civilians. I suggest that the Postmaster General was labouring under a misapprehension when he requested this last investigation. I further suggest that it is not at all consistent with his declaration made a few days ago that he is favourable to the employment of returned soldiers. In this case he has preferred a man who does not pay his debts to one who has fought for his country. He deliberately defies the act in order to see that the man is appointed, even temporarily.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we have a dismissal contrary to every principle of justice and one which ignores even the indifferent standards laid down by the Postmaster General in regard to dismissals. He stated the other evening that no postmaster had ever been dismissed without an investigation under oath. There has been no such investigation in this case, and there have been no charges made. However, there was a request by the late postmaster, Mr. Olm-stead, for an investigation, but his request was not even acknowledged by the Postmaster General and the letter does not appear on the file. We have the appointment of R. G. Crowell, for which there is no lawful authority, an appointment which defies the provisions of the Civil Service Act and defies the will of parliament. For nine months the Postmaster General has deliberately ignored the express requests of the Civil Serv.ce Commission for information which they were entitled by law to have. We have a deliberate attempt by a civil service commissioner to thwart the provisions of the act he has sworn to administer, in an effort to further the sinister ends of the Postmaster General. We have a deliberate and determineted effort by the Postmaster General illegally to maintain a political friend in an office to which he has no legal claim, and to defeat the right of a returned soldier with a distinguished record, who has qualified for the post and who under a statute of this parliament is entitled to the appointment.


Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Finance
informs me that it is necessary that he should put in a supply bill, and as it is now approaching Pleven o'clock, I suggest that he have an opportunity to do that.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND STEAMSHIPS
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $15,825,161.25, being one-fourth of the total amount to he voted by vote No. 336 for loans to the Canadian National Railway Company, vote No. 337 for a loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, Vote IN o. 338 for a loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, and votes 339 and 340 for amounts required under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account oi certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930, the sum of $15,825,161.25 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred [DOT] in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 172, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1930.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ROBB moved the secc-d reading of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We who sit to the left of the Speaker believe that this form of legislation is bad. We do not believe that money for the railway services of the country should be voted through a supply bill, because taxation is not resorted to, so far as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is concerned, to raise the money, and the money is not granted to His Majesty in the narrow and technical sense of that term. I am making this observation so that when the matter is before the house
C.N.R.-Branch Lines .

for discussion, the granting of this supply, which, as I undestand it, is necessary in the public interest, shall not prejudice our right to object to the principle of the supply bill or the details of the measure itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Quebec Oriental Railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway, at a price of approximately $3,500,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
He said:	Perhaps I might make a brief
general statement as to the method of dealing with all these financial resolutions which appear in my name.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. gentleman
has three of them and desires to advance them a stage to-night, if he intends to have the house go into committee of the whole on the bills-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, after they come
back from the railway committee. I intend to ask the house to submit all these bills to the railway committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The special committee
or the general committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: The general committee. The special committee is not enpowered to deal with such matters as these.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should be glad to
assist the hon. gentleman in advancing his legislation to that point, provided that when the bills are before the committee of the whole, we have the fullest opportunity of discussing them on their merits, which discussion, strictly speaking should take place before.
I understand it will be advancing the business of the house if the hon. member proceeds in the way he suggests.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite willing to
accede to the suggestion of the hon. member. 
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have a brief statement covering the two railways which serve the Gaspe peninsula, and it is my intention to ask that these bills be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to the end that officers of the company may give full information regarding the negotiations. The negotiations in all of the cases at present under discussion were undertaken as a result of what transpired at the last Dominion-provincial conference with reference to the acquisition of various lines of railway in different parts of Canada. The whole of the negotiations have been undertaken with the respective parties, in some cases the provinces themselves, by the management of the Canadian National Railways, who, after reaching tentative agreements with the owners, have in every case convinced the government of the merit of the proposals having regard to all the circumstances. These matters can be gone into very thoroughly before -the committee on railways and canals, and in addition I shall be pleased to encourage the fullest discussion when the bills come back from that committee to the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask a question in regard to this particular resolution, No. 20, dealing with the Quebec Oriental and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railways? Was a report made previously, about 1923, 1924 or 1925, I am not sure just when, by the management of the Canadian National Railways in regard to the purchase of this line, which report was adverse to the purchase? If so, will that report be laid before the house or before the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Numerous reports in connection with the Gaspe railways were made by the former management of the Intercolonial, and one, I believe, by the Board of Railway Commissioners, who at one stage investigated the whole matter. There is a report, not going so far back I think as my hon. friend mentions, which was adverse to the purchase of the road by the Canadian National Railway, while setting upon the road a higher value than that for which it is now proposed to acquire it. There was no question of the road not being physically worth the amount here provided, but the report was adverse viewed purely from the Canadian National traffic standpoint, and having regard to the traffic which the Canadian National was then receiving from the road.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May we have that report laid on the table?

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly. The report
will be made available to the railway committee, and if necessary I will table it also.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not a member oi that committee, so I would like the report made available here.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will see that my hon. friend sees the report.


George Reginald Geary: I would like to support the suggestion made by my hon. friend that the statement which the minister proposes to make should be placed on Hansard so that the members of the committee may be able to acquaint themselves with the information before they go into committee. I would also ask the minister to try to arrange that the sittings of the two railway committees will not clash.


Charles Avery Dunning: I certainly will. The Quebec Oriental extends from Matapedia to West Paspebiac, a distance of 100 miles, and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western extends from West Paspebiac to Gaspe, a distance of 102.5 miles. These lines traverse the north
coast of the bay of Chaleur and pass through a country whose chief activities consist of farming, fishing and lumbering. Latterly some activity has been shown in the development of lead, zinc and copper mining on the height of land of the Gaspe peninsula and about forty miles from these railroads.
The population served is 50,000 and the chief centres through which the railway passes are as follows:
Escuminac Carleton Caseapedia New Richmond New Carlisle Port Daniel
Gascons
Newport
Chandler
Perce
Douglastown
Gaspe
The tonnage handled by the Quebec Oriental last year was 175,000 tons, and by the Atlantic, Quebec and Western 140,000 tons. The principal commodities were forest products, manufactured and miscellaneous products, coal, and products of agriculture. This territory has substantial possibilities from a tourist point of view.
The purchase price is 83,500,000, which was arrived at after negotiation with the trustees, and represents the cost of reproduction new less depreciation less subsidies paid. The Gaspe railways were exploited by Alfred M. Carpenter, at one time proprietor of the Charing Cross bank which became bankrupt a great many years ago, and the property has since been operated by trustees for the bond holders. The mortgage position may be briefly outlined with respect to the Quebec Oriental railway as follows:
Matapedia section prick- lien 5 per cent bonds due January 1st, 1933, for an authorized amount of 8487,000, of which $178,242 has been issued, S60,388 being pledged with the bankers to secure an overdraft. These bonds are a first lien on the line from Matapedia to New Carlisle.
Matapedia section first mortgage 5 per cent bonds, dated July 26th, 1910, due January 1st, 1935, for an authorized amount of $974,000, all of which have been issued. These bonds are secured by a mortgage on the railway from Matapedia to New Carlisle, ranking next after the prior lien bonds.
Matapedia section second mortgage 5 per cent bonds dated June 25th, 1910, due January 1st, 1935, for an amount of $974,000, all of which have been issued. These bonds are secured by a mortgage on the same section as the two above-mentioned issues and rank after them.
With regard to the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway, there is an issue of first mortgage 5 per cent debenture bonds due July 1st, 1935, amounting to $2,548,675. This issue is secured by a first mortgage on the whole property of the railway. Cash (received as subsidy) was deposited with the trustee sufficient to meet the interest until June 30th, 1916. This issue is also secured by the deposit with the trustee of securities acquired by $994,893 of the proceeds of the sale of subsidy lands.
There is an issue of second mortgage 5 per cent debentures amounting to $2,050,000 issued at par in settlement of balances of construction account. This issue is a floating charge on all the property of the railway.
Briefly summarized, the capital structure of the two companies is as follows:-
Quebec Oriental
Authorized Issued
Capital stock	$ 500,000	$ 120,776Prior lien bonds..	..	487,000	178,2421st mortgage bonds.. .	974,000	974,0002nd mortgage bonds.. .	974,000	974,000$2,935,000	$2,247,018
Atlantic Quebec & Western
Capital stock	$ 5,000,000	$2,000,000
1st mortgage debentures. 4,590,000	2.548,675
2nd mortgage debentures. 2,050,000	2,050,000
Total.. .	. ..$11,640,000	$6,598,675Capital	stock.. .	. 5.500,000	2,120.776Bonds. .	. . .. 9,075,000	6,724,917Total. . .	. ..$14,575,000	$8,845,693
Interest on the bonds of both the Quebec Oriental and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western has been in arrears for a number of years. In the case of the Quebec Oriental, the
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 173, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the Quebec Oriental Railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC BAIL WAY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company, and the interest of His Majesty in the right of the province of New Brunswick in such undertakings and railways, for a total price of $6,000,000. inclusive of certain outstanding debenture stock secured by mortgage, and the payment at maturity of certain debentures issued by the province; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We are agreeable to this passing on the same general conditions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The St. John and Quebec Railway Company was incorporated by New Brunswick statute in 1910 for the purpose of constructing a railway from the city of St. John to a junction with the National Transcontinental railway at Grand Falls, a distance of 225 miles, but there has actually been constructed only the portion of the line between Westfield Beach and Centreville, a distance of 157.8 miles. Access to the city of St. John is obtained through running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway from Westfield Beach, a distance of 15 miles.
The railway received a guarantee from the province of New Brunswick of an issue of 4 per cent first mortgage bonds, and also received a subsidy of $1,000,592 from the Dominion government.
An agreement was entered into between the company and the Dominion government whereby the railway, when completed, was to be leased to the Dominion government at a rental equivalent to 40 per cent of the gross receipts. Financial difficulties arose in connection with the construction of the line and eventually the province of New Brunswick
* M r. Dunning. ]

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
took over the property and completed the construction as far as Centreville. The railway passes through Gagetown, Oromocto, Fredericton, and Woodstock. The population of the country served is 27,000. The territory traversed by the railway is for the most part very well adapted to agriculture, the upper portion being exceptionally well adapted to potato growing and large crops are raised annually. Other sections are especially adapted to the raising of Bheep. There are distinct possibilities of mining developments about twenty miles west of Fredericton and in the vicinity of Woodstock. The valley of the St. John is very beautiful, and presents an excellent opportunity for development as a tourist resort.
The traffic handled by the railway consists of about 140,000 tons, products of agriculture, especially potatoes, predominating.
The purchase price agreed on is $6,000,000, based upon the cost of reproduction less depreciation of the property, and less the amount of the subsidy paid by the Dominion government. The arrangement does not involve any immediate cash payment on the part of the Canadian National Railways, but involves the assumption by the company of a portion of the first mortgage 4 per cent debenture stock guaranteed by the province in the hands of the public, which amounts to $2,727,977.40, and the payment to the province of the balance of the purchase price in amounts as set out in the bill for the purpose of retiring bonds issued by the province to raise moneys in connection with this railway, and the payment by the Canadian National Railways of 5 per cent interest upon the balance outstanding from time to time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 174, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the St. John and Quebec Railway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Kent Northern Railway Company, in the province of New Brunswick, at a price of $60,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be 78594-134
issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: On the same general conditions?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The Kent Northern railway is twenty-eight miles in length, and extends from Kent Junction, New Brunswick, on the Canadian National Railway, easterly to Richibucto on the straits of Northumberland. The road is at present controlled by the Walmsley estate and administered by the National Trust Company of Toronto.
The population tributary to the Kent 'Northern railway is estimated as 8,000. The settlement is confined to the shores of Northumberland straits and of the estuary of the Richibucto river. The principal point touched is Richibucto which has a population of 1,158.
Considerable timber resources are tributary to the railway and a number of small mills are established along the line. The principal forest products consist of pulpwood, lumber and laths. The tonnage handled is 10,500 tons.
It is proposed to purchase the undertaking for the sum of $60,000. This is in accordance with the arrangement proposed under appropriation act No. 2, chapter 52, statutes of Canada 1918, which was not accepted by the owners at that time, and is about equivalent to the scrap value of the material embraced in the railway property.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 175, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the Kent Northern Railway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Inverness Railway in the province of Nova Scotia, at a price of $375,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National, .Railway
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: On the same general conditions?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The Inverness railway extends from a junction with the Intercolonial Railway at Inverness Junction and runs through Port Hood, Mabou and Inverness on the west shore of Cape Breton island. The length of the line is sixty miles.
The company was reorganized in 1902 under the present corporate title with an authorized capital of $7,500,000. It absorbed the Inverness and Richmond Collieries and Railway Company of Canada, Limited, the properties of the latter company consisting of coal mines at Inverness, Chimney Corner and Port Hood in Cape Breton, covering an area of 55,000 acres. On May 1, 1915, the company defaulted on payment due of the semi-annual interest on its first mortgage 5 per cent bonds. On July 6, 1915, the exchequer court of Nova Scotia appointed J. M. MoGillivray, Inverness, N.S., receiver of the property on application of the mortgage trustees (The National Trust Company). On July 23, 1919, Mr. Mc-Gillivray resigned as receiver and the Eastern Trust Company of Halifax was apointed his successor. The railway properties were operated under receivership until February 1, 1924, when they were leased to the Canadian National Railways for a term of three years at a rental of $25,000 per annum, with an option to purchase for $500,000. Since the expiration of the lease, January 31, 1927, the railway properties have been operated by the Canadian National Railways on a monthly rental basis.
The total estimated population tributary to the Inverness railway is 16,000.
The chief natural resources of the tributary area consist of coal. The coalfields of Inverness county include a series of narrow, low, carboniferous areas extending for over fifty miles along the western shore. The estimated probable coal reserves, to a depth of 4,000 feet, of	the known deposits in Inverness
County, are as follows:
Metric tons
Land	area... 22,000,000
Submarine area	 73,000,000
Total	 95,000,000
The known fields are as follows:-
Fort Hood
Mabou
Broad Cove (Inverness)
Chimney Corner
[Mr. Dunning.)	-
Development has taken place in these fields at Port Hood, Mabou, and Broad Cove, all of which are adjacent to the Inverness railway. The Chimney Corner field is located some 12.6 miles beyond the present terminus of the railway.
The tonnage handled by the railway is
115,000	tons.
The purchase price is $375,000, which is about $6,250 per mile, and was a compromise made with the Eastern Trust Company who had bought the railway under foreclosure proceedings to protect advances made of $475,000.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in, Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 176, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the Inverness Railway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 1, 1929