New-York tribune., 1873-07-30
THE CANADIAN SCANDAL.
MINISTERIAL SIDE OF THE QUESTION.


NOT CONNECTED WITH THEIR CHARTER-wHY
THE GOVERNMENT PARTY TOOK THE MONEY.
lFRoM AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUSEl
TORONTO, July 26.-Though the official in
vestigaton into tins affair might be described as being
in a state of coma, much fresh and important evidence
has out in connection with it during the last few
days This for the part favorable to the Govern
ment and with the aid OF that evidence 1t needs no
prophet guess about the exact truth Of the matter
The Opposition newspapers having made out
case against the Government which ere
ated kind of political panic, reaction has
set in, and the Ministerial newspaper organs
are now possession Of pretty good defense. While
The fact remains that the members OF the Government
received large Of TO use during the cleo
tons is clear that they have been charged on wrong
indictment. But instead of anticipating conclusions,
shall put the latest phases Of the in their historical
order.
The charge against the Government substantially is
that the charter for the construction of the Canada
Pacific Railroad was given TO Sir Hugh Allan in con
sderaon of his furnishing large sum Of money to be
used In buying the constituencies at the general cleo
hons The leading evidence adduced Is, first, certain
documents proving that large sums Of money actu-
ally passed between Sir Hugh Allan and leading
members Of the Governments and, second
statement by McMullen connecting this with GER
tain mtugues Of which be was cognzant for obtain
ing that charter. The defense aims at the lnvalida-
ton of McMuens statement, and seeks to prove that
TO do with the Pacific Charter. Mr.. McMulen, in his
statement made certain positive assertions, such
that Sir Hincks received indefinite loan OF $4,000
that Aorney General Ouimet got $1,000; that the pro
prietOrs Of La Minerpe French Canadian newspaper,
was subOrned for $4,000 and that the propretors Of The
Montreal Gazette had named their price TO Sir Hugh
Allan and Mr. Abbott. These have been disposed Of
seriadm. In published statement OF Hincks, he says
al solemuy declare that never asked and never OBJ
tained either by loan or gift any sum of money from SIR
Hugh Allan from any person on his behalf from any
other person in connection with the Pacific Railway"
Attorney General Ouimet asserted publicly In the news
papers he received any money promise of
money from Sir Hugh Allan account OF the Pacific
Company or anything else The prOpretors OF La
Mnerre made affidavit before justice OF the that
they had received any money from Sir Hugh, as
also did the editors of the Messrs. White the
proprieors of The Gazette, not only denied his inuendo
as to their purchasabihty, but got Sir Hugh Allan
and Mr.. Abbott TO deny the attempt TO
purchase that paper. These contradictions, Minis
terial papers aver tend 10 invaldate McMuilen's
statement in other particulars, as it consists for the
most part Of reported assertions OF Allan. But the
main evidence for the defense is that which shows that
the money used in the elections had nothing whatever
10 do the Pacific charter This is really the point
Of the whole charge Sir Hugh, in his sworn affidavit
says: state positively that no money derived from
any fund from any OF my former American asso-
ciates was expended IN assisting my friends or the
friends Of the Government at the recent general cleo
tons that with regard 10 the construction which ap-
pears TO be placed upon the statement in the letters
ferred TO to the preliminary expenses connected
with the charter. state most positively and explicitly
that made any agreement or came to any un-
derstanding Of any kind description with the Govern
ment or any Of its members TO the payment Of any
sum OF money 70 any one in any whatever in
consideration of receiving the contract for the Canadian
Pacific Railway" SO likewise Sir Francis Hncks says.
speaking Of what he knew while he was in the Cabinet
81 further state most positively that the Government
never entered into any agreement to give the Pdelhc
Railway Charter for monetary considerations oI any
kind"
The OF the charges against the Government turns
upon the Interpretation Of letter Of the late Sir George
Cartier written 24th August 1872 That letter reads,
Dear Mr. Abbott; In the absence OF Sir Hugh Allan,
shall be obliged by your supplying the Central Montreal
Fleeton) Committee with further Of $4,000 upon
the conditions the amount written by me at the
my letter TO Sir Hugh Allan of the 3oth ultimo
In postscript, the same letter says, please aso SEND
Sir John A. Macdonald $4,000 more on the same terms
This is claimed by the Opposition press to point 10 an
agreement in reference to the Canada Pacific Railroad
charter II so the for the prosecution would
be proved, but Sir Hughs statement as given
above conflicts with that view OF the
case. As this s the vital point
shall further quote the receipt given for the $4,000
which Sir George Cartier asked for; Received from Sir
Hugh Allan, by the hands Of Mr. Abbott, $4,000 Tor
general election purposes TO be arranged hereafter
according TO the of the letter OF Sir George Car
tier OF the date SOh July and in accordance with the
request contained in his letter OF the Path inst THIS
was signed on behalf Of the Central Committee, by
Messrs Beaudry, starnes, and Murphy. From the
wording OF the receipt evident that these men knew
the conditions under which the money was granted,
80 that testimony Of some consequence IN the
matter. These gentleman have written TO the editor
Of The Montreal Gazette the following letter; "seeng
your editorial Of yesterday in which reference is made
to letter from Sir George Cartier Sir Hugh Allan,
dated sOth July which letter is referred to In tho
letter Of Sir George Cartier Of date Path August pub
nshed by McMuen we feel bound TO state that we
have seen the aforementioned letter THAT containing the
conditions or terms under which the money was hac)
and that your editorial statement that has no refer
enee whatever 70 Pacific Railway contract is per
fecty correct" Thus. If the statements of Messrs
Beaudry starnes Murphy Hincks and Allan are to be
believed the money obtained from the latter for election
purposes had nothing 10 do with the charter which
Allan afterwards obtained.
That the money was not given for nothing may be
safely promised, aud am not very wide OF the mark
when say that it was the price Of Government sup
port-not to the Allan Pacific Company, but TO rail-
road known as the North Shore Railway. You must
know that Sir George Cartier was lawyer and his firm
were solicitors for the Grand Trunk line The North
Shore Railroad was q projected line which proposed
70 tap the Canada Pacific at Lake Nplssng, and
was an enterprise immensely popular among the
Lower Canadians. Nevertheless 1t was In direct an
tagonism % the Grand Trunk, and the officials of that
line opposed 1t might and main. Sir George naturally
tookpart with the Grand Trunk, but as Sir Hugh Allan
had taken means TO control the Montreal elections and
rs Cartier was 10 be the Montreal candidates. IL Is
surnsed that opposition 20 the North Shore Road o
winch Allan had the controlling infuence) was pur-
chased by the agreement alluded 70. This is why say
the Government have been charged a wrong indlct
Inent.