The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-04 00:00:00

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF

CANADA.

The following letter has been received from the
chairman of the Committee of Investigation of the
Great Western Railway of Canada, It commences
by stating that " charges of unscrupulousness
levelled against the committee have been made
without much consideration." This is an error and
a misrepresentation. Tlie charge of unscrupulous-
ness, such as it was, was made after careful con-
sideration, and, so far from being shaped in the
manner now attempted to be conveyed, it was
qualified by an intimation that it must be under-
stood to apply to the " hastiness" with which the
committee. are shown to have drawn their infe-
rences, and not to any supposed intention on their
part to deviate from the truth. The committee,
however, as was demonstrated on a former occa-
sion, seem so prone to ascribe to every one the
worst possible motives that they are apparently
blind to the conception that they can themselves be
treated in a more charitable manner. The next
statement is that " the committee have made no
charge against Mr. Laing," but have simply stated
facts, chiefly from the evidence of Mr. Laing him-
self. In their report they affirmed that the course
of Mr. Laing was one "from which any man with
right intentions would have instinctively recoiled,"
and that his assertion that his proceedings had been
entirely open and above board was false, while the
remarks on the affairs with which they have con-
nected his name were wound up by a denunciation
of " all parties implicated in the deception prac-
tised," as well as to their " nefarious doings" and
their gross proceedings in general, which had re-
sulted in the " misappropriation" or waste of pro-
bably about a million sterling. If this is the mode
in, which the committee confine themselves to a
simple recapitulation of evidence and " make no
charge" against an individual, there are few who
would like to trust to such chroniclers any single
word or action of their lives. The next statement
is that in the remarks yesterday on the reply of the
directors to the committee the chief witness relied
upon in favour of Mr. Laing was Mr. J. B. Smith.
This, again, is contrary to fact. The committee
had insinuated one of the worst points against Mr.
Laing—that of having improperly attended the
Board to advocate claims in which he was privately
interested—by announcing that they had been so
" informed." They did not mention the name of
'their informant, That point is now contradicted by
the evidence of Mr. Gill, the president of the com-
pany, and Mr. Wythes, as it had been previously
contradicted by that of Mr. Laing himself, whose
statements, it appears, the committee will accept
only when they think they can be turned against
him. Mr. J. B. Smith also gives similar testimony;
but, as it now appears that this testimony is con-
trary to a direct statement made by the same gen-
tleman in 1855, the committee through their chair-
man deem it creditable to assume that it is his
evidence, thus neutralised and rendered worthless,
that formed the basis of the criticism to which they
object. Mr. Smith may account at the approaching
meeting for his own inconsistency, when Mr. Kaye,
one of the members of the committee, who declared
in 1857 a certain loan to be "imperative," which
the committee have criticised with considerable
severity, will have to undertake a similar process.
The remaining paragraphs contain little but a
recapitulation of former arguments of the com-
mittee, which are fit only for reference to a Court
of Law or Equity. With regard to the final state-
ment as to the circumstances under which the
committee were nominated, it arrears from an
official communication just received, to be neither
candid nor accurate :

" Sir,—The Times city article of this day calls for some
remark on the part of the Committee of Investigation of
the Great Western Railway of Canada, not for the purpose
of noticing the charges of unscrupulousness levelled against
them without much consideration—these are matters which
the committee can afford to pass without notice—but for
the sole purpose of calling the attention of the public to the
real merits of the only part of the committee's report
which has been placed prominently forward, and which,
from the position of Mr. Laing, has claimed public atten-
tion.
" The committee have made no charge against Mr. Laing;
they have simply stated the facts as they have come before
them, chiefly in the evidence of Mr. Laing himself, and
have recommended further inquiry.
" The directors in their 'reply,' after stating that none of
their body are cognizant of the facts connected with the
earlier portion of the history of the Hamilton and Toronto
Railway,' proceed to give their own version thereof, and in
so doing make most contradictory statements. But as re-
gards the latter portion of the story, viz., the settlement
with the contractor, they say they are enabled to afford
very distinct evidence.' The witnesses they bring to dis-
prove what they call the assertion of the committee—
although upon the point in question the committee merely
say they are informed' that Mr. Laing advocated Wythes's
claims at the Board—are Mr. Robert Gill, the present
chairman of the company, and Mr. J. B. Smith, M.P, for
Stockport, both of whom were directors of the company in
1855, and Mr. Wythes himself. Mr. Gill denies that Mr.
Laing advocated Wythes's claims at the board; and Mr.
J. B. Smith, in his letter to the directors, dated the 7th of
March last, is very explicit on the point, and states distinctly
that Mr. Laing did not advocate Wythes's
" Against Mr. J. B. Smith's statement in 1861, the com-
mittee ask to be allowed to place that gentleman's statement
in 1855, the time of the transactions in question. The fol •
lowing are extracts from a letter addressed by Mr. J. B.
Smith to Mr. Brydges, in Canada, and dated the 9th of
August,. 1855.
"Mr. Laing, it appears to me, has acted most improperly.
He is a partner with Wythes in this contract, and has, at
the same time, been sitting at our board as a director, and
recommending concessions to Wythes's claims. Of course,
this will no longer be allowed.'
"' You must send us your case on all these points to be
laid before Mr. Stephenson. I had understood that, so far
as the land goes, you and Mr. Street had long ago agreed
upon 80 feet width, but it seems Mr. Wythes—and for Mr.
Wythes always read Mr. Laing—will not confirm this.'
" Wythes's contract, bearing date the 30th of November,
1852, it would appear by Mr. Smith's statement that the
partnership must have existed nearly three years. Mr.
Smith's letter, it will be observed, bears date the 9th of
August, 1855, four months after Mr. Laing had ceased to
be a direator, and six mouths after the Great Western
directors in London entered upon the consideration of
Wythes's claim.
" So that, according to Mr. Smith, Mr. Laing was in part-
nership with Wythes during the whole time he was a direc-
tor of the Great Western Company, and the directors, in.
their 'reply,' state that from the formation of the Hamil-
ton and Toronto line, there was an understanding that the
two companies should be associated, by lease or amalgama-
tion.

"Truly, the report of the committee falls gently upon
Mr. Laing
when placed beside the statement of the princi-
pal witness called by the directors.
"This same witness (Mr. J. B. Smith) also appeared be-
fore the committee, and informed them that although he
had heard of the existence of a partnership between Laing
and Wythes, Mr. Laing had always denied it.
" In his recent letter to the directors Mr. J. B. Smith
also says, They had to contend with a loosely drawn
p
agreement with Mr. Wythes.' Now, the committee must
that the agreement in question was drawn by
Messrs. Rixon and Co., as those gentlemen were solicitors
for both parties—for the Hamilton and Toronto Railway
Company and also for Mr. Wythes—and it was signed by
able and acute lawyer, who signed it pro-
fessionally,according to the document itself, as a
aadnnirdector' and trustee fdr the shareholders,'
,Alr. L
provisionala ing
being at the time, as he admits, a partner with Wythes in
the contract. The directors in their 'reply' allege that Mr.
Laing is improperly described in the agreement, and produce
the statement of an attorney's clerk to set aside a deed under
hand and seal. In describing this agreement as loosely
drawn,' can Mr. Smith, the committee ask, pronounce a
severer condemnation on all concerned ? It looks like an
accusation against some person or persons of having taken
advantage of his or their own wrong. And this Mr. J. B.
Smith, M.P., is the chef witness whose evidence, in the
opinion of the writer Qf the Times city article, proves the
statements of the committee to be almost ludicrous, if the
sense of the ludicrous were not overpowered by the stronger
feeling which the occasion merits.' _ _ _

"The committee now leave the directors and their wit-
nesses as to this matter in the hands of the shareholders,
deeming it unnecessary to weigh the value of Mr. Wythesis
statement, the directors having, in page 20 of their 'reply,'
expressed au opinion that that person's conduct in another
transaction, and that a most serious one, was indefensible.
" Mr. Laing, it is alleged, was the only person who could
with propriety take the share in the contract with Wythes,
he not being officially connected with either company ; the
fact being that Mr. Laing was not only provision al director
and trustee for the shareholders, and partner with the con-
tractor, but he also appeared in a third character, that of
one of three referees to decide whether or no any deduction
should be made from the contract price of £328,000.
" It was distinctly stated in the prospectus that the cost of
the line should not exceed that sum, so that in no event
could any further outlay be required,' and the agreement
with Wythes provided that in the event of it being found
that such sum gave him more than a fair profit a deduction
was to be made, and this matter was to be decided by three
referees, of whom Mr. Laing was one, and is so named in
the agreement. This gentleman therefore accepted the office
of referee to decide as between the company and the con-
tractor, he being at the time a partner in the contract.
" And here the committee wish to draw attention to the
real point at issue, which the remarks of the directors and
the letter of Mr. Wythes, proposing to reopen the settle-
ments upon terms specified by him, do not touch, but have
merely a tendency to put out of sight. The prospectus and
the agreement with:the contractor are both clear and dis-
tinct, and form a bargain with the shareholders that in no
event should any farther outlay be required beyond the
specified price •, and the committee consider that Mr. Laing
and Mr. Wythes having made that bargain were bound b 3
it, and are liable to repay the large amount received by Mr.
Wythes in excess of that sum. The shareholders were never
informed of the existence of the partnership ; but, now, find-
ing that Mr. Wythea had a partner in his contract, have not
the shareholders a legal right to hold both persons respon-
sible for the fulfil.aent of the terms of the agreement?
" The other points to which the directors profess to reply
are matters that interest the shareholders only, and not the
general public ; and to the shtveholders the committee will
address themselves upon the subject, merely remarking that
some very serious charges are admitted by the directors;
others are passed flippantly over; and some are denied
which the committee have no difficulty in substantiating
by documents.
' The directors commence their reply by stating they did
not approve the constitution of the committee, which was
composed of most unfit
persons, and who had on previous
occasions shown themselves hostile to the management.
" Upon this point the committee desire to state the real
facts. The resolution naraina• the committee was unani-
mously carried, and was moved byMr, A. Beattie, a former
colleague of the present chairman in the management of
the company, and who is described by the directors in page
14 of their reply as a gentleman of the highest commercial
standing and position, and the motion was seconded by Mr. t